Bible Commentaries
Galatians 5

VI

THE TWO COVENANTS

Galatians 4:21-5:12.

This discussion commences at Galatians 4:21, and we note first the distinct paragraphs in what remains in this letter. From Galatians 4:21, where we commence, to Galatians 5:1 is a distinct paragraph. That chapter division is very unfortunate. Galatians 5 should commence at Galatians 5:2. The next paragraph is from Galatians 5:2-6. There the most of the argument of the book ends, though he takes up an argument after that. The next paragraph Isaiah 5:7-12. The next paragraph Isaiah 5:13-26. The next paragraph Isaiah 6:1-10. Then we have the closing paragraph. It would be well if, instead of chapters and verses, the book had been divided on the paragraph plan as I have suggested, and as we would find if we were studying it in the Greek.

I call attention to some textual matters: Galatians 4:31; Galatians 5:1 ought to be really just one verse, and it is an exceedingly difficult matter, according to the manuscripts, to tell just how that verse should stand as to its parts. The oldest manuscripts are followed in the American Standard Revision. Lightfoot insists that we should read those two verses this way: "Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid [or bond woman] but of a freewoman in the liberty with which Christ has made us free; therefore stand and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage." That is the way Lightfoot would read it. It is just a question of the manuscript about the position of the words. The Revised Standard Version follows the best manuscripts, making it read just as we have it here, only it is not all one verse: "Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid but of the freewoman. For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage." I would call attention to a great many others of that kind if we were studying the Greek. In the Standard Revision Galatians 4:25 reads: "Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children." Some manuscripts make that read: "Sinai is a mountain in Arabia." I don’t agree with those manuscripts at all. Everybody knows that Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, and the Revised Version follows the best texts in that.

We will now take up the exposition of Galatians 4:21: "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?" I call attention to the fact that what the law here says does not occur in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy, but it occurs in Genesis, and the point about it is this, that the New Testament as well as the Old Testament, calls the history in the Pentateuch law, as well as the legislation itself. The history is the background of the statutes – the whole of it. History and legislation is called the law. If we get that clear in our minds it will save us from the mistakes of the radical critics. Whether it be history in Genesis or legislation on Mount Sinai, it is called the law.

Galatians 4:22: "It is written that Abraham had two sons." He says the law (which is in Genesis) tells us that there was one by a handmaid and one by a freewoman. The next verse shows us the distinction between the births of those children. The son of the handmaid ’is born after the flesh – a perfectly natural birth. The son of the freewoman is born through promise. The birth of Isaac was just as supernatural as any miracle can be. There were no powers of nature in either Abraham or Sarah to bring about the birth of Isaac. It was supernatural. Now that is what the scripture says. Paul expounds that scripture in order to show that the Old Testament history is itself prophetic – that it has more than a literal, historical sense. It has that, but it has more. He says, "Which things contain an allegory." That part of the history of Genesis, besides its literal meaning, contains an allegory. Here the radical critics object to what they say is a strained interpretation that Paul puts upon plain history, and they say that he gets his allegory from Philo, an Alexandrian Jew, or he follows the rabbis in allegorizing the history of the Jewish people. Did Paul get the idea of the allegorical significance in that history from Philo the Jew, or from the rabbis, and if from neither, where did he get it? It is true that Philo did allegorize, but his allegories and Paul’s are poles apart as we see if we put them down and read them together as I have done many times. In the second place, Paul did not get the idea from what the rabbis had said, but he got it from the Old Testament, and particularly, from the book of Isaiah. The book of Isaiah consists of two parts. Isaiah 1-39 relate to one thing, and the rest of it relates to spiritual Israel, and it is called the Old Testament Book of Comfort. And whenever Isaiah from Isaiah 40 on, speaks of Israel, he is referring to spiritual Israel. For instance, in Isaiah 51 he refers to Abraham and Sarah, and then in Isaiah 54 he uses the language that Paul cites here in the context, showing that Sarah occupied a representative and allegorical position in his mind, and the quotation is specified here: "Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife." That is Isaiah’s use of it in which he is addressing Sarah as representing the motherhood of spiritual Israel, and she that hath been barren is called desolate; because no children have been born to her, she is called more desolate than Hagar. So Paul gets his theory from the inspired people; he simply follows the history when he says, "that scripture contains an allegory."

Let us now see what the allegory contained. These women are two covenants. As, in the dream of Pharaoh, the seven lean kine are seven years of famine. Pharaoh uses the verb, "are" in the sense of "represent," is., the seven lean kine represent seven years of famine. And, as where our Saviour says, "this is my body," that is, "this unleavened bread represents my body." He is showing what the allegory represents – that those two women represent two covenants – one from Mount Sinai bearing children into bondage which is Hagar. The Hagar woman represents, allegorically, the Mount Sinai covenant. He goes on to say in the next verse that Hagar, that is, this allegorical Hagar that he is speaking about, is Mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is and is in bondage with her children. Sarah represents the Jerusalem, not the Jerusalem that now is, but the Jerusalem which is above that is our mother. We, the children of the freewoman, represent the Jerusalem which is above. It is necessary to make clear the meaning of Jerusalem above as contradistinct from the Jerusalem on earth. In Hebrews 12:18 ff., distinguishing between the two covenants the two regimes, this language is used: "For ye are not come unto a mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, and into blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard entreated that no word more should be spoken unto them; . . . and so fearful was the appearance, that Moses said, "I exceedingly fear and quake." In other words, "Ye Christians are not under the Mount Sinai regime, but ye are come unto Mount Zion, . . . the heavenly Jerusalem." That is the Jerusalem above, or in the place of "heavenly" we may use "spiritual." We are not come to the literal mountain in Arabia, nor are we come to the literal Jerusalem situated over yonder in the Holy Land, but to the spiritual Jerusalem. How many of our hymns are written with that ideal In Revelation that thought is elaborated about the spiritual Israel, the spiritual city, Revelation 3:12: "He that overcometh I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out hence DO more, etc.," and in the closing part of Revelation, "I saw the New Jerusalem come down out of heaven." In view of this, I point out the folly of the crusades, preached by Peter the Hermit and encouraged by subsequent popes. The object of the crusades was to rescue the Holy Jerusalem from infidels – that Jerusalem which has lost ’its value. They were to rescue the empty tomb of Jesus. The crusades did an immense amount of good, but there never wag a more profound piece of folly than to think it was necessary to rescue the city under the curse of God, with an empty tomb in it, as a religious duty.

We will go on with our allegory: "For it was written." Here he quotes that passage in Isaiah 54, and here is his conclusion from the allegory in Galatians 4:28: "Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise" – i.e., supernaturally born, regenerated – "but as then he that was born after the flesh [Ishmael] persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now." The literal Jerusalem and the Judaizing spirit will persecute the spiritual Israel. Just as Ishmael did, so will the Jews do now. Galatians 4:30: "Howbeit what saith the scripture?" Notice then that the scripture is again personified. The words, ta hiera grammata refer to the whole collection of scriptures; every one of those scriptures is God-inspired. So Paul takes a part of the history in Genesis and says, "The scripture saith."

I am giving this to show the folly of the people who say, "The book contains the word of God, but not all of it is the word of God." Well, what did the scripture say? "Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman." Sarah used these words to Abraham: "This bond-slave child should not inherit with my child; cast her out and her son." It grieved Abraham until God spoke to him and endorsed what Sarah said, God having in mind not only what was best for them at that time, but having in mind the allegorical meaning of those two women.

Here is an important matter: The ablest debater that I ever read after was the great Presbyterian, N. L. Rice, and here let the reader note just what Rice said about the covenant and how the covenant puts the infants in the church. A certain man was once quoting Rice to me on that and he said, "The Old Testament put the children in with the parents; and now if it put them in, how are you going to put them out?" I said, "Here is the passage, ’Cast out the bondwoman and her son.’ " That casts the covenant out and infant membership. It is true that the children come in the new covenant; it is true that we baptize every child in the new covenant, but he is a regenerated child – a spiritual child – and nobody in the world can answer that. And yet I never heard a pedobaptist make an argument that he did not bring in the relation that the children bore to the old covenant, viz.: that they were in the covenant. That is their first and, indeed, their only respectable argument.

A certain Baptist wrote a book with this title: Baptists the only Pedo baptists, i.e., the Baptists are the only denomination that really baptize children. They baptize every spiritual child if he is only converted, and if his spiritual childhood is only an hour old. The Baptists baptize him, and others don’t do that; they baptize the goats – those that are not children. He makes a very fine argument, and if we just understand him, he is hitting the nail on the head. The Baptists don’t baptize anything but children, but they belong to spiritual Israel, and they often baptize them the very day they are new born. They don’t wait eight days.

Let us now consider those joined verses of Galatians 4:31: "Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the freewoman. For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage." Where does Christ himself discuss that just as Paul does? It is very important to see that Christ and Paul are in agreement in that very matter. John 8:31: "Jesus therefore said to those Jews that had believed him, if ye abide in my word, then are ye truly-my disciples; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered unto him, We are Abraham’s seed, and have never yet been in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Every one that committeth sin is the bondservant of sin. And the bondservant abideth not in the house forever; the Son abideth forever. If therefore the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye are Abraham’s seed [that Is, the fleshly seed]; yet ye seek to kill me, because my word hath not free course in you." John 8:39: "They answered and said unto him, Our father is Abraham. Jesus sayeth unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I heard from God; this did not Abraham. Ye do the works of your father. They said unto him, We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God." John 8:44: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do." Paul says, "For freedom did Christ set us free." I am showing that Christ taught precisely on the line that Paul did here in this letter to the Galatians.

I now commence Galatians 5:2. This paragraph consists of the following thoughts (in Galatians 5:2-6 he discusses circumcision): First, he says, "If you insist on circumcision Christ will profit you nothing. Second, if you insist on being circumcised, then you are a debtor to do the whole law. Third, if you insist on being circumcised and being a Jew in order to salvation, then you are severed from Christ; you are fallen away from grace."

A man once said to me, "Does the Bible teach falling from grace?" I said, "Yes." "Well," he says, "I thought you didn’t believe in apostasy." I said, "I don’t; we mean by apostasy, (1) that a man has to be regenerated and (2), that this regenerated man is finally lost. This falling from grace here does not mean that; it simply means that a man who will turn from salvation by grace to being a Jew in order to be saved, that that man is fallen from grace. The Bible does not teach that he severs himself from Christ."

The next thought presented here is that "Christians through the Spirit by faith wait for the hope of righteousness." What is the hope of righteousness for which the Christian waits? He is speaking of the doctrine of justification by faith, and that doctrine by faith had a certain hope in it. And what is the hope? The hope includes everything that is involved in the final coming of the Lord to give the crowning glories to those that are justified by faith; it has a hope that refers to the future. That hope is, If my name is written in the Lamb’s book of life, it not only stands secure, but it will bring everything else that it has promised, as "whom he justified, them he also glorified."

The next thought is, that "in Christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth anything." We don’t get into Christ because we are circumcised, and we don’t get into Christ because we are not circumcised. We get in on an entirely different term, as the next thought shows, "faith working by love." The Roman Catholics teach certain doctrines based on this verse, "Faith worketh by love," that is, they say that "worketh" should be translated "wrought." Therefore, the Catholics have a doctrine that they call fides caritate formosa, "Faith made by love," that is their special doctrine based on that verse. But the verb is not in the passive voice. It isn’t "being worked;" it is the doing, the working. And this leads me to another observation that when Paul talks about faith working by love he bridges an apparent chasm between him and James. James, in his letter, says that the faith that is apart from energy, or work, is dead. Paul says that the faith that justifies is the faith with energy; it works by love. As that passage bridges the apparent chasm, there is no discrepancy between Paul and James. Practically the argument closes here, but he brings up some argument later.

The next paragraph is Galatians 5:7-12: "Ye were running well; who hindered you?" Let us consider that as it is in the Greek’ the idea is that of a foot race. The foot race is along a prescribed or prepared track. Here is a man running on that prepared track, and suddenly he comes to a place where the track is all broken up. The word "hindered" means a broken-up track. "You were running well? Who broke up the track? He who started you would not break up the track ahead of you; if that track is broken up, the enemy did it." The next thought in this paragraph is that they seemed to have said that if they had gone astray it was a small matter, and he is answering that when he said "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." "You think the wedge ’is little, but that wedge will split the whole log. It is a vital and fundamental thing."

The next thought is the distinction which Paul makes between the Galatians and the one that side tracked them. He says, "Now, brethren, I am confident that you will come to my way of thinking about this. I don’t think that about the one that is misleading you." There he mentions him in the singular for the first time. "Whoever broke up that road will have to bear his penalty and will have to pay the penalty of what he has done."

The next thought is that he seems to reply again to an accusation that they had made saying, "Why does he object to our views of circumcision? I am told that he circumcised Timothy and preached circumcision himself." He answers that: "If indeed I preach circumcision as you are preaching it, i.e., if I am on a line with them, why am I persecuted?" Then he said, "If I presented it to you as they do I would take away the stumbling block of the cross and there would be no issue between me and these men who are misleading you." "The Jews find the cross a stumbling block," says Paul in his letter to the Corinthians. He says here, "I would that they that unsettle you would even go beyond circumcision." What does he mean by that? The thought is this: "You are insisting upon the physical mutilation of the body; now why not go to the whole length like the idolaters that were among you?" They mutilated themselves, cut their bodies with knives. "If you are going to insist on this use of the knife, why not take it to that extreme?"

QUESTIONS

1. What does the law of Galatians 4:21 say, where is it found, and what bearing has this on the meaning of the word "law," as used in the Old and New Testaments?

2. Explain the allegory in Galatians 4:21-5:1 from these standpoints: (1) Where did Paul get the idea of this allegory, and what the evidence? (2) Ishmael and Isaac. (3) Hagar and Sarah. (4) Jerusalem that now is and the Jerusalem above. (5) Show the parallel in the two covenants. (6) Give the distinctions as expressed in Hebrews. (7) What the folly of the crusades? (8) What the attitude of the children of the flesh toward the children of the Spirit? (9) What argument is sometimes made for infant church-membership, and what the answer? (10) Then who the children of the handmaid and who the children of the free woman?

3. What is the exhortation based upon this allegory, and where does Christ discuss this same idea?

4. What four things does Paul show are the result of their insistence on being circumcised? Explain particularly the last clause of Galatians 5:4.

5. What is the hope of righteousness for which the Christian waits?

6. Expound "but faith working through love." What the Catholic interpretation of it, and how does the true interpretation bridge the apparent chasm between Paul and James?

7. Explain Galatians 5:7: "Ye were running well; who hindered you, etc.?"

8. What is the force of "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump"?

9. What distinction does Paul make between the Galatians and the one who side tracked them?

10. What accusation does Paul seem to reply to in Galatians 5:11, what the stumbling block of the cross, and what does he mean by "beyond circumcision" in Galatians 5:12?

Verses 13-18

8

VII

SPECIAL WARNINGS AND TEACHINGS

Galatians 5:13-6:18.

This discussion commences with Galatians 5:13. Throughout the rest of this chapter there are warnings against false conclusions from the doctrines of justification by faith apart from works. The first warning is that our liberty is not to be construed or used as a license to do any kind of evil. The liberty referred to is freedom from the law, which does not mean freedom from the law as a standard, but it is freedom from the law as a way of life. This same subject comes up again for discussion in the letter to the Romans where Paul avows that he has liberty to eat meat offered to idols since these idols are no gods to him; that personally it would not hurt him, but he said that we would refrain from it if it was harmful to other people.

One of the most infamous propositions ever made was that made by a Baptist preacher who said that when a man and a woman were engaged they could commit a sin for which they would not be held responsible. This is exactly what Paul warns against: "Ye were called for freedom; only use not your freedom for an occasion to the flesh." The Arminians and Romanists unite in denying the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith and not of works, because they say it is demoralizing in its tendencies; that a man will draw false conclusions from it; that he will use the liberty wherewith Christ made him free as a license to do evil. Just at this point Paul raises his first warning cry in the letter to the Romans. He puts it in the form of an answer to a supposititious question. He had affirmed that grace abounded above sin, then the questioner says, "Shall we sin the more that grace may abound still more? And in reply to that he said, "God forbid," or as he very strongly presented it in the letter to Titus (Titus 2:12; Titus 3:4-8).

I once heard an Antinomian (that means, anti, "against," noma, "the law" – against the law) preach. He was one who believed that a Christian is free from all law – that is he is not even under the law to Christ. I had to follow him that afternoon. He took as a text Titus 3:4-7: "But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared, not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that, being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." His theme was the grace of God that bringeth salvation. That afternoon I took my text from Titus 2:11-12: "For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world." He presented the grace of God, but he presented a conclusion that the grace of God does not teach. I showed that that very grace of God that he commended so highly taught that right here in this present evil world we should live soberly and righteously and godly. He stopped at Titus 3:7, and I read on a little: "Faithful is the saying, and concerning these things I desire that thou affirm confidently, to the end that they who have believed God may be careful to maintain good works." So I preceded his text with Titus 2:11 ff., and followed it with the next verse and caught him between the upper and nether millstones and ground him to powder. Finding that he was irreformable, I never did rest satisfied until that Baptist preacher was out of the ministry.

I would not make the impression for one moment that we are not saved by grace through faith and that not of ourselves; it is the gift of God, and our works must not be associated with grace in order to our justification in God’s sight but I would teach that this doctrine of salvation by faith has this end in view, that the justified man should perform good works; that we are created unto good works. So those are the first warnings. I might select another scripture: "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation." There was an old man that he derived through Adam. In Christ there was a new man. Having shown that by the creative power of God’s Spirit, we pass from the old man to the new man, he immediately adds, "put on therefore the new man in righteousness and holiness." It is easy to see as a conclusion from this salvation by grace, that we should render loving service to each other. We are children of God by faith. What then? Shall we fight? Shall we devour each other, or shall we render to each other the service of love? Those Galatian churches were as much noted for fighting each other as the Irishmen at a wake are said to be – a regular "Kilkenny cat" fight. Paul says that that is a false deduction from the doctrine he had been teaching. While on that point he used this expression, "The whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." What is meant there by "fulfilled"? Does it mean that if I love my neighbor that I have obeyed the commandment, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart"? If it doesn’t mean that, what does it mean? The whole law is filled up, filled full in this, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" that is, this is the last part of the summary that Moses gives. The first part is, "Love the Lord thy God, etc.," that is, we fill it full if we love our neighbor as ourselves. It is the commonest thing to hear people that want to evade duty to God say that religion consists of being honest, paying our debts, etc. But that is not the sense of this "fulfill." It completes, fills full the other half of it that had been filled before. For instance, if it takes four pecks to make a bushel, the fourth peck fills the measure, if the other three have been put in. There is a remarkable passage misinterpreted by Alexander Campbell, viz.: 1 Timothy 1:5 (King James Version): "But the end of the commandment is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and faith unfeigned." What is meant by "the end of the commandment"? When we say the end we are not denying that there is a beginning. The end of a commandment is love out of a pure heart, out of a good conscience, out of faith unfeigned. There we get the other element that shows the idea of filling up, filling full. The love that the outsider talks about is unknown in the Bible. Here it is – a love that springs from faith; faith brings a good conscience and that good conscience leads to a pure heart and a pure heart leads to love. So the end of the commandment is love out of a pure heart, out of a good conscience, out of faith unfeigned.

The third warning that he gives is that being justified by faith our walk must be in the Spirit not in the flesh. We are not justified by faith if we walk after what is fleshly and not the spiritual, and if we have drawn from the doctrine of justification by faith any such conclusion as that, then we have misinterpreted the doctrine.

He presents two kinds of fruit, as follows: "Walk in the Spirit but not in the flesh." What is it to walk in the Spirit? "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness) goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control; against such there is no law." What is the fruit of the flesh? "The works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraiths, factions, divisions, parties, envies, drunkenness, revels, and such like." And to cap the climax he says that the man that does these things shall never enter the kingdom of heaven. He is saying to them, "You must not make the mistake that by mere intellectual perception of doc trial truth you have therefore exercised the faith of the gospel."

We may put it down as settled that no religion is worth a cent that does not make a man better than he was before; a son a better son, a father a better father, a mother a better mother, a daughter a better daughter.

If it doesn’t produce good fruits, John the Baptist tells us that "every tree that bringeth forth not good fruit shall be hewn down and cast into the fire."

We now come to Galatians 6, which is divided into two paragraphs. The first paragraph is Galatians 6:1-10, and presents a case of discipline, or a case where the man, though a Christian, has committed an offense: "Brethren, even if a man be overtaken in any trespass, ye who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; looking to thyself, lest thou also be tempted." We must not draw the conclusion that because Paul said just before, "I forewarn you that they that practice these things shall not inherit the kingdom of God," he means that to step aside once is fatal. As proof that he doesn’t mean that, he supposes a case of a man that has been overtaken by a fault.

I was at a church conference once and three cases were presented, all of which claimed to be cases "overtaken in a fault." They asked my opinion and I said, "Brethren, there is such a thing as being overtaken by a fault, and there is such a thing as a man overtaking a fault; when he sees it plainly and follows it until he overtakes it then he is not overtaken in a fault. One of your cases is a case of ’overtaken by a fault,’ another case the fellow overtakes the fault, and your third case is a mixture. It reminds me of a McClelland saddle. We don’t know when we see it whether we are meeting it or overtaking it. It is the same in the rear as in the front."

The second thing is to harmonize Galatians 6:2 with Galatians 6:5: "Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ . . . For each man shall bear his own burden." Is there any contradiction in the meaning? One case is evidently different in the meaning from the other case. What is the difference in the meaning?

The third point that he presents is this – Galatians 6:6: "But let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things." Or I will put it in plainer language: "Let the church member who is spiritually instructed contribute in money or kindness, to the one that instructs him." There are some people who are so afraid of being misunderstood – that what they preach will be assigned to a motive that they do not have, they leave it out of their preaching.

I heard a man say once, "I just simply can’t preach on the money question; I will be misunderstood. If the brethren want to help me they can do it; if they don’t want to help me, then it can go." Paul was Just as sensitive a man as we are, and he knew that they that preached the gospel should live of the gospel. One of the principal things that the Galatians were trying to do was to stop this collection. He says, "See that ye abound in that grace as well as those other graces." I have seen Christians that could shout, "Fly abroad, thou mighty gospel," and when the contribution box was passed around they shut their eyes for fear they would see the wings with which it is to fly.

A man is sent with a message for God and the responsibility on him is not to vary one jot or tittle on that message. He ought to be able, as Paul said he was, to be free from the blood of all men because he had not shunned to declare the whole counsel of God.

They accused him of manipulating a big collection; while he did not do it himself, they said he did it through Titus. He knew these questions would arise because those who are evil-minded do suspect. They would suspect the Lord or the angels from heaven.

We cannot evade being suspected of evil. We are to take pains to live right, and so live that we may appear to live right, but that will not exempt us from being criticized.

I have oftentimes wondered at the goodness of this man, that he could say upon that subject what he did concerning the crowd that hated him, even the church at Ephesus. See 1 Timothy 6:17: "Charge them that are rich in this present world, that they be not high-minded nor have their hope set on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy." And he charges them, "that they be ready to distribute, that they be willing to contribute." It took pluck to preach that to these people, for they were high-minded, because they were rich, but he was to present that to them as if putting them on their oath: “O rich man, in the name of Christ, I put you on your oath before God, be not high-minded but rich in good works as well as in money. Be ready to distribute as well as to make the money." Plucky man!

The next thought is in Galatians 6:7-8: "Be not deceived." A point upon which we might be deceived is what follows that doctrine. "Be not deceived; God is not mocked." He is not fooled. "For whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap." We can’t reverse the natural law, and we can’t reverse the spiritual law. In both the spiritual and the natural realm there is a crop between the sowing and the harvest. If we sow weeds we cannot look for a barley crop. The crop is going to be according to the seed that we put in the ground, and let us not be deceived; we can’t fool God. He applies that: "He that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; he that soweth unto the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap eternal life." The harvest is going to correspond with what we sow.

He advances to another thought of incalculable importance. We are justified by faith, and in view of that justification by the grace of God which teaches us not only to live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world, but also to do well, he exhorts; "Be not weary in well doing, for in due season we shall reap if we faint not."

I remember once preaching from that text on an important occasion. We had just had a great meeting; hundreds of people had sturdily commenced to do right from a motive of love to God. Then they began to drop off; they got tired. "Let us not weary in well doing."

It is that great persistence that wins, notwithstanding that it is an uphill path; notwithstanding that we have wind and tide against us. Anybody can float down stream, a dead fish can do that, but it takes a live fish to go up stream. "Let us not be weary in well doing." He gives the reasons: first, we shall reap; second, we shall reap in due season. We may not reap tomorrow, or next week or next year, but at the appointed season (and every seed has its season), in due season we shall reap.

Having expounded that section I associate it with 1 Corinthians 15:58: "Wherefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not vain in the Lord." Then with that I put the psalm which says, "They that sow in tears shall reap in joy. He that goeth forth and weepeth bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him." I comment on that passage in Psalms. First, there is activity; the people go forth; we must venture out. Second, they went bearing precious seed; we must go out with the word of God, which is the seed – "he that goeth forth bearing precious seed and weeping." We must go in earnest. Some people think tears are unmanly, and some tears are, but not all. "Jesus wept." Did Christ o’er sinner weep, And shall our cheeks be dry? It was one of the most glorious testimonies of Henry of Navarre by Macaulay: He looked upon the foeman and his glance was stern and high; He looked upon his comrades and a tear was in his eye.

That is his exhortation against weariness in well-doing, because the labor is not in vain. We may fail in other things, but if we take the gospel, if we take it earnestly, if we sow in tears, the heavens may fall, but our harvest will come without a shadow of a doubt. "Doubtless he shall return, bringing his sheaves with him." It is that harvest home, when the laborer comes bringing his sheaves with him, to which the mind of the preacher should be often turned.

Paul says to the Thessalonians, "Ye are my crown of rejoicing in the time of Jesus Christ" – "bringing his sheaves with him," not coming up to heaven empty-handed. Coming up he says, "Lord, this man in yonder world I led to thee; Lord, this broken heart I healed; Lord, this orphan I comforted, bringing his sheaves with him." His association with him of every rightful tear that is shed, every good deed that he has accomplished, is one of the most precious things in connection with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Then he says, "As we have opportunity, let us work that which is good toward all men, and especially toward them that are of the household of the faith." "As we have opportunity." Opportunity! Dr. Richard Fuller, in a great sermon before the Southern Baptist Convention, gave a picture of opportunity as with swift wing, no bird of the air flying so fast, passing by and never coming back. "Wherefore as we have opportunity" means that we must be wide-awake.

We come now to the last paragraph, and what is the meaning of it? "See with how large letters I write unto you with mine own hand." The King James version says, "You see how large a letter I have written, etc." Galatians isn’t a big letter, but what Paul says is, "See with how large letters I write you with mine own hand."

I have been very much amused in contrasting the views of Farrar and Lightfoot. Generally, Lightfoot is much better than Farrar, but Farrar gets the best of him on the meaning of that passage. Lightfoot says the meaning is "I am writing to you about weighty matters, and I wrote you a great big letter." He had to force that into it. It isn’t there. Paul’s acute eye trouble is evident from a previous expression. He says, "You would have taken your eyes and given them to me, if you could." He was writing with his own hand, and a man that is nearly blind has to make big sprawling letters, and there is a touching thought in it. "Do you remember why I have to write with large letters? Don’t you remember when I was groping in my blindness, and your sympathy was so tender you would have given me your eyes? Now you see with what large letters I am writing." I think Farrar’s explanation much more reasonable. Quickly Paul takes up his argument! He would take up an argument in the midst of his "amen" if he thought of something that he should have said that he had not said. He is giving a contrast between himself and these that insist on being circumcised. He says, (1) that they do this to avoid Jewish persecution, (2) that they do it that they may glory in the flesh, and (3) that they don’t do it from love of the law, for they know that they don’t keep the law; that circumcision obligates one to keep the whole law.

Then he represents his glory in contrast with theirs: "But far be it from me to glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world hath been crucified unto me, and I unto the world. For neither is circumcision anything nor uncircumcision." Then he adds, that they should so walk according to this canon (canon means rule) and as they should walk by this rule, circumcision or uncircumcision would avail nothing, but a new creature, everything.

"Henceforth [that is, having presented this attack on me in 2 Corinthians, and in Galatians, and having made this reply 1 let no man trouble me," as if to say, "I don’t want to go into this matter any more." "Now why ought not ye trouble me?" "Because," he says, "I bear branded on my body the marks of Jesus." In other words, "I am covered all over with scars; the Roman lictors have smitten me with rods; the Jews have scourged me and left me for dead; once I fought with wild beasts in the arena, and I count these marks of Jesus as Christ’s brand of ownership." It is a very beautiful thought.

QUESTIONS

1. What warning does Paul give against false conclusions from the doctrine of justification by faith?

2. What is antinomianism?

3. Give several scriptures which disprove it.

4. What is meant by "fulfilled" in "The law is fulfilled in ’Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself "?

5. Explain "end of the commandment" in "The end of the commandment is love."

6. Contrast the fruits of the flesh and the fruits of the Spirit.

7. Explain "overtaken in a fault."

8. Harmonize "Bear ye one another’s burdens" and "Each man shall bear his own burden."

9. What is the teaching here on ministerial support?

10. Give the law of sowing and reaping.

11. Take Galatians 6:9; 1 Corinthians 15:58; Psalms 126:5-6 and give a brief outline of an evangelistic address.

12. What is opportunity? Illustrate it.

13. What is the meaning of "large letters" in Galatians 6:11?

14. Give three reasons for circumcision on the part of those who were troubling the Galatians.

15. Contrast Paul’s glory with theirs.

16. What the meaning of "henceforth let no man trouble me"?