Galatians 5:13-15 – “Worse Sins”

Once again, here’s my fairly literal translation of these verses:

¹³For brothers you were called upon freedom. Only [do] not [use] that freedom into an opportunity to the flesh, but be serving one another through the love; ¹⁴for all the law is fulfilled in one word, in this: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” ¹⁵But beware, if you are biting and devouring each other, lest you are consumed by one another.

I have a few thoughts I want to record before I move on from these three verses.

Interesting, in the phrase “opportunity to the flesh,” the word translated “opportunity” can be a martial word used for the place from which an attack is made, the “base of operation,” or meaning a “springboard” or “starting point.” Clearly, Paul wishes to make the assertion that freedom in Christ should never be somehow perverted into a place from which to launch our evil nature. The whole point of the Spirit’s indwelling, of that very freedom itself, is to free us from our flesh! I guess it just goes to show how much we need the Lord. Even when He offers us freedom, we’ll find a way to turn that into a new form of sin and its slavery. Our adversary, the devil, certainly does “prowl around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.” His ministers still “masquerade as angels of light.” Eadie quotes an Irishman of his day who said, “If the devil cannot stop the coach, he mounts the box and drives it.” How much more perverted can we be than to use the very freedom Jesus purchased with His blood as the military base of operation for our flesh? It’s a good thing His name is Jesus – “for He shall save His people from their sins.” He’d better!

The other thing I’d like to note – and I’m not sure exactly how to put this together or where to go with it: It is interesting to me that in verse 13 he warns us not to use our freedom as an opportunity to the flesh, then in verse 15 he specifically applies that to “biting and devouring each other.” What I mean is, and I’ve done it myself, almost universally everyone applies “opportunity to the flesh” to immorality, going “wild;” yet Paul’s very first application is to this “biting and devouring one another.” I wonder if anyone else finds that noteworthy? When we hear “opportunity to the flesh” our minds all go directly to immorality. Yet Paul’s immediate application is to “biting and devouring each other.” Is it possible we don’t see our world through God’s eyes? Is it possible that we’re seeing immorality as a “bad thing” but “biting and devouring each other” is so typical it isn’t even on our radar screen? Here’s a reckless thought: Is it possible that “biting and devouring each other” is actually more evil than immorality?

Hmmmmmm. My heart feels like I’m seeing the tip of an iceberg. Of course one sin is not “worse” than another, but I suspect it is true that we have in fact chosen to call immorality a “bad” sin while conveniently failing to see discord as something to even be concerned about. My reckless thought above is, at first glance, offensive even to me. The second I think the suggestion that one sin is “more evil” than another, my mind starts to run with theological arguments against such an absurdity. But what if I turned the sentence around and wrote, “Immorality is more evil than ‘biting and devouring’ each other”. Can anyone else hear their heart basically agreeing? “Yeah, that’s true in a way …” Hmmmmmmm. Why is that? Why is it I can write the sentence one way and it’s theologically offensive, then say exactly the same thing only in reverse and it seems perhaps reasonable? Is it not because I do in fact see immorality as a “worse” sin? Is it not because discord really doesn’t strike me as “that bad”? That somehow I even need to defend it as not “that bad?”

Yikes! Can I point out again that “biting and devouring” each other is the sin Paul first applies the text to – not immorality? When I would fear my flesh, do I first fear the possibility that I might be unloving to the people around me, that I might be impatient, unkind, sharp, disrespectful, that I might fail to genuinely treasure the people in my life? Here are some honest thoughts from my heart: Immorality is certainly a constant, even painful temptation to me. I live in a world awash with beautiful girls. It is a constant battle to keep my heart and my eyes in the right place. Yet, by God’s grace, I can say I have been faithful to my wife for 30 years. Although immorality is a bad sin and it is a temptation that feels like a monster, and I’m very aware that Jesus said even to look is to already have committed it, yet the actual act hasn’t ensnared me for 30 years. Is it possible that it is to me a “safe” sin – bad, yes, alluring, yes, but one that’s “over there”, one I can point to and condemn from a distance? On the other hand, have I been impatient? Unkind? Have I said hurtful things to people? About people?

I probably need to wrap up this post but I can’t help bemoaning the fact that the church has never been known for its love for each other. While churches have their fellowship dinners and “greet” each other during the service and congratulate themselves for how loving they are, the rest of the world sees them as a group consumed with their own in-fighting. As I’ve pointed out before, the Reformation had barely even started and Protestants were already martyring Protestants. Luther hated Calvin and Calvin hated Luther. Church fights and church splits are basically “par for the course.” … and all of this after Jesus said they would know we were His disciples if we loved each other.

Hmmmmm. God help me, as I would learn what it means to be free in Christ, to “walk in the Spirit,” that I would not conveniently leave some sins “off the radar.” And perhaps, even in particular, may I learn to  see my flesh even in the minute to minute interactions I have with other people … and perhaps particularly in those interactions with other professing believers.

Wow. A lot to think about.

Galatians 5:13-15 – Ditches, Ditches, Everywhere

Once again, here’s my fairly literal translation of these verses:

¹³For brothers you were called upon freedom. Only [do not use] that freedom into an opportunity to the flesh, but be serving one another through the love; ¹⁴for all the law is fulfilled in one word, in this: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” ¹⁵But beware, if you are biting and devouring each other, lest you are consumed by one another.

As I went back and read my first post on this passage, I think I kind of got off my point. “Freed to what?” I asked and I was enjoying the realization it is “freed to love.” However, as I mull it all over, that wasn’t exactly the question that was lurking behind the scenes. I figured out earlier in the book that our “freedom” is a freedom to love. That is actually already clear to me. What I couldn’t put my finger on is this whole problem of antinomianism. How do I say very clearly that I am freed from law to live a life of grace, without the danger of falling into the other ditch of antinomianism? On the right side of the royal road we have the ditch of legalism. I now feel I see that ditch very clearly. But, it would seem, as soon as we try to extricate ourselves from that ditch, if we aren’t careful, we end up driving off the left side of the road into the ditch of antinomianism.

Obviously it would be true today, as all down through history, that some will take emphatic teaching of grace to mean they can literally “go wild.” I suspect our natural response to that excess is to quickly assert, “But we are still under law,” perhaps saying things (like I used to) that Christ’s death freed us from the “ceremonial” law, but we’re still under the “moral” law. That sounds very comforting to our incorrigibly legalistic hearts, but is, in effect, putting us back under law. It is no wonder that most churches go on in their legalism by teaching vast arrays of rules, “standards” they call them, in spite of on the other hand supposedly teaching grace. They like grace but then fear that their people need some system of rules to keep them (especially the youth group) from “going wild.” So then, they can go on teaching grace while very comfortably living in legalism and never realizing they are missing the whole point of it all.

But then again, how do we say it? How can we really assert grace without on the one hand freeing people to “go wild,” while on the other hand not slyly adding back in some form of law to prevent that? Grace is grace. It needs to be taught for that. It is freedom from law. To say otherwise is to teach the very error Paul is so passionately arguing against.

I found it interesting that Martin Luther himself struggled at exactly this same point. I’ll quote him at length: “Satan likes to turn this liberty which Christ has gotten for us into licentiousness. Already the Apostle Jude complained in his day: ‘There are certain men crept in unawares … turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness’ (Jude 4). The flesh reasons, ‘If we are without the law, we may as well indulge ourselves. Why do good … when there is no law to force us to do so?”

He goes on to say that in spite of that wrong antinomian response, “… we are obliged to preach the Gospel which offers to all men liberty from the law, sin, death, and God’s wrath. We have no right to conceal or revoke this liberty proclaimed by the Gospel.”

He concludes, “It is not an easy matter to teach faith without works … Both the doctrine of faith and the doctrine of good works must be diligently taught, and yet in such a way that both doctrines stay within their God-given sphere.”

Obviously Luther had to wrestle with these very same issues. Obviously too, we like him, need to let the Scriptures be our guide. To that end, once again, I think verses 13 and 14 are a giant mental hinge pin for the whole book and I believe in a nutshell they answer our question. The whole book from 1:1 to 5:12 has asserted the doctrine of grace which he summarizes in the opening words, ^“For brothers you were called to freedom”. This is what could be misconstrued as the left ditch of antinomianism. Paul cautions against that ditch saying, “Only [do not use] that freedom into an opportunity to the flesh,…” Clearly he is painfully aware of the two ditches and would have us avoid both. And so what is his prescription? “…but be serving one another through the love; ¹⁴for all the law is fulfilled in one word, in this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

I would suggest that our problem is thinking we must choose between the two ditches. We are in effect thinking, “I must either be a legalist or an antinomian. I either totally embrace grace and go wild or, to guard against that, I resort back to some form of legalism (grace with an asterisk), and that keeps me being ‘good.’” I believe Paul’s prescription would tell us that neither of the above solutions is our answer. Our answer, “serving one another through love” is something totally different from either.

And let me insert here that I think the problem of pondering these two ditches is that we still haven’t repented of our legalism. The basic question is still about law. “Am I under law or not?” The antinomian says, “There is no law,” while the legalist (even if he denies it) is saying we are still under law. But they’re still both thinking the big issue is law. Therein is the problem, I would suggest. They’re both missing the point of it all. What they’re saying is that the only alternative to legalism is license (hence grace with an asterisk) or the only alternative to license is legalism (If I give up my “freedom” [to do as I please] that makes me a legalist).

What they’re both missing is walking in the Spirit. They’re both missing, in a sense, one of the greatest gifts Jesus’ death and resurrection purchased for us – the indwelling Holy Spirit, the Spirit of love, and the very possibility that He can be my spirit, the very dynamo of my human existence. As I have said before, Jesus did not die to give us better rules (more legalism) but to free us from them. But what He freed us to is not a life of “doing as I please” (antinomianism) but rather a life of embracing the very heart of God, seeing the world (and our “neighbors”) through His eyes – and Paul sums up that world with the concept of “serving one another through love.”

I guess let me be specific. Why shouldn’t I get shame-faced drunk and run off with the neighbor’s wife? One could say, “Because that’s wrong.” True. It is wrong. Drunkenness is sin and obviously running off with the neighbor’s wife is adultery. If the fact those things are wrong is the best defense I can offer, it certainly beats falling into sin and wrecking one’s life. It is always better not to sin, no matter what kept me from it. However, what I believe grace offers us is something far better, far higher than the simple legalism of “that’s wrong.” Walking in the Spirit gives me the opportunity to see how unloving those choices would be to God and to my neighbor and to actually make my choice based on that love, not on “what are the rules?”. As Martin Luther stated above, the legalist, offered the freedom of grace, thinks he’ll reason, “Why do good … when there is no law to force us to do so?”  He (the legalist) isn’t realizing there is an entirely different alternative – that I could actually do good, not because I have to, but because I want to. The indwelling Holy Spirit does not just help me do good, He helps me be good. He is the new heart in me.

Let me say again, if the only thing that stops me from falling into sin is the recognition it is wrong, I would say, “Hallelujah. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” That’s great. Your wife will be glad. Your kids will be glad. You’ll save yourself untold heartache, but … the fear of the Lord is only the beginning of wisdom. The end, the goal, of wisdom is to love the Lord your God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. Anything is good if it helps me do right, but what God is offering us in grace (without the asterisk) is the very, very best – a genuinely changed heart, a heart yielded to the Spirit, a heart that loves.

I believe this is what we see in verses 13 and 14, this very vacillation between legalism and antinomianism solved not by picking one or the other but rather by embracing something far better than either – real grace.

This feels very familiar to me. It seems as if my whole life studying the Bible has been like this. It seems everyone is shooting at each other from the ditches on either side. When I finally figure out what God thinks, it turns out to be neither. It turns out to be a royal road, far better than I could have dreamed. Hmmmm. That’s just Him – immeasurably more than we could ask or think.

Galatians 5:13-15 – Hinge Pin

Once again, here’s my fairly literal translation of these verses:

¹³For brothers you were called upon freedom. Only [do not use] that freedom into an opportunity to the flesh, but be serving one another through the love; ¹⁴for all the law is fulfilled in one word, in this: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” ¹⁵But beware, if you are biting and devouring each other, lest you are consumed by one another.

Verse 13, I would suggest is a hinge pin of the whole book of Galatians. Paul has spent the entire book to this point establishing the fact of our freedom in Christ, that grace transcends law, that law-keeping is a miserable and beggarly alternative to the glorious Cross-won, Spirit-given sonship of the Gospel.

As I have written earlier, this book to me has been an explosion of truth. I feel for the first time in my life I really understand the freedom I have in Christ. Words fail to express the wonder, the dignity that I feel, freed from “rules” to actually know the heart of God and live out His image in me. I have thoroughly enjoyed learning these things and writing them down to help me organize my thoughts and perhaps to bless someone else.

But … all the while, something has been eating at me. I have been very aware that something “else” needed to be said. I couldn’t put my finger on it, but I knew it was there.

To me, in these three verses, Paul hits the nail on the head. Freed, freed, freed … to what? To what? That is precisely the matter that needs to be addressed head on, that needs to be addressed very, very clearly. In verse 13, I believe Paul turns from establishing the fact of our freedom and like a giant mental hinge pin he turns to paint a picture of what that freedom is, what it looks like, how it expresses itself in the reality of our daily lives. I believe that in these three little verses and then (as I look ahead) in the discussion which follows, he leaves no uncertainly whatsoever in understanding what life is like for people who understand and wish to live out the reality of grace.

I foresee this taking a few posts. There is so much to think about and ponder.

Interestingly, he first of all assaults one of the most likely misunderstandings. “Only [do not use] that freedom into an opportunity to the flesh…”  The purpose of law, as we learned earlier, is to restrain our flesh. Fallen human beings need the rule of law to set before them “good” and to threaten them if they should choose the bad. It doesn’t work very well but it at least keeps them from being as bad as they could be. If you tell them, you no longer live under law, what is their most likely response? To throw off restraint, of course.

This is exactly the something “else” that needs to be said, the issue that needs to be addressed clearly and head on. Freed to what?

We of course are at exactly the point where this whole discussion has always culminated: What about antinomianism?” “Isn’t all of this teaching leading to a bunch of believers gone wild?” If I really cast off legalism and embrace grace, does that mean I’m going to rush out, get shame-faced drunk, and run off with the neighbor’s wife?

The same objection was raised from the very beginning. “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” (Rom 6:1). Paul answered it then, and the same answer applies now: “God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer in it?” (v2).

I would suggest the very act of using freedom as an opportunity for the flesh proves we don’t understand the freedom at all. I even wonder if that response doesn’t betray a heart that has never really been redeemed.

Here’s what I mean: since I have been redeemed, although sins (and certain ones in particular) still very powerfully allure my heart, and I would in a sense very much love to indulge them, yet that is patently NOT the freedom my heart desires. My heart would be free of the very temptations themselves. I long to live “above” all of that. To tell me that freedom in Christ meant I was somehow free to “go wild” would be no freedom at all to me. My heart longs to be free of sin, to be free to love God and love people unhindered by this evil, selfish, conniving, manipulating heart of mine, to be free of doing and saying things that have again and again only caused me misery in the long run. As a young man, I thought freedom was to cast off restraint and indulge my every passion; but in time I found it wasn’t freedom at all but instead a miserable slavery that wrecked my life and left me knowing I somehow could not escape.

What Paul says in this passage is literally music to my redeemed ears: “… but be serving one another through the love; for all the law is fulfilled in one word, in this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” Love. Real relationships. Good relationships. Now that sounds like living!

And I love Paul’s choice of words: “be serving one another in love.” The word translated “serving” is the same root word that he used back in 5:1, ^“Christ freed us to the freedom, therefore be standing firm and do not be being bound again to a yoke of slavery”.  Don’t be bound again to a yoke of slavery. A yoke of slavery. Yet I could translate v13, “be enslaved to one another in love.” It’s the same root word. Don’t be bound to a slavery of rule-keeping, but enslave yourself to loving others! Love to others doesn’t cast off restraint and “go wild.” As Paul says in Romans 13:9, 10: “The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not covet,’ and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.”

I would suggest again that a redeemed heart understands this and joyfully embraces it. A redeemed heart gladly yields to the “yoke of slavery to love.” Somehow my heart has always known the beggarly rule-keeping didn’t “cut it,” that there was something much grander that my faith was all about. Here we see it – the freedom to love, the freedom to rise above myself, my selfishness, my pride and my fears, and actually know and live a Christ-like love for other people.

Now that’s freedom! What a hinge pin! Free to love. I think I have a lot more I want to record regarding this passage, but for now I just want to say I can’t thank the Lord enough for the indescribable gift of His freedom, of His indwelling Spirit, of the Christ-love that made it all possible.

Awesome.

Galatians 5:7-12 – Scandal

Once again, here’s my fairly literal translation of these verses:

⁷You were running well. Who cut in [on] you to not be obeying the truth? ⁸This persuasion [is] not out of the One calling you. ⁹‘A little leaven leavens the whole lump’. ¹⁰I am persuaded concerning you in the Lord that you will think nothing differently but the one troubling you, whoever he is, will bear the judgment. ¹¹But, brethren, if I am yet preaching circumcision, why am I yet being persecuted? Consequently the scandal of the Cross is negated. ¹²O that the ones opposing you would castrate themselves!

In my last three posts I looked at verses 7-10. I have one last thought I’d like to record before moving on.

In verse 11, Paul says, ^“But, brethren, if I am yet preaching circumcision, why am I yet being persecuted? Consequently the scandal of the Cross is negated.”  First of all, the question that crosses my mind is, “Who said you were?” Nowhere in the book has there been any intimation that Paul preaches circumcision. In fact, I would have assumed the opposite situation, that the Judaizers were demeaning Paul to the Galatians precisely because he did not preach circumcision. I think this is one of those cases where we simply have to remember we are reading someone else’s mail. The Scriptures were written “for our admonition” but, on the other hand, they were written by people to people in another time and place and sometimes we simply are not privy to everything that was going on. Not a biggee to me, just something that occasionally has to be acknowledged by serious exegetes – that there are a few places where we simply don’t know what was going on.

But what interests me here is the idea of the “scandal of the Cross.”

In I Cor 1:23, Paul says the Cross is “to the Jews a stumbling block.” Matthew Henry comments, “That which they were most offended at in Christianity was, that thereby circumcision, and the whole frame of the legal administration, were set aside, as no longer in force. This raised their greatest outcries against it, and stirred them up to oppose and persecute the professors of it.”

The scandal of the Cross is, in one sense its exclusivity. It brokes no competition. Whatever else one may propose, “It cannot be both.” The Jews could have probably born the preaching of grace if only they could bring along their works; but when someone (Paul) makes it clear that the Cross – grace – means that all their beloved and precious rites and traditions are worthless, their anger knows no limit – they’ll even crucify their Messiah over it!

People today are no different. I remember hearing once about a creationist and evolutionist who got to debating in a group. As the creationist calmly presented the scientific facts, the evolutionist, who had no defensible answers, grew more and more angry. Finally one of the evolutionsist’s friends commented to him, “Seems to me he’s messing with your religion.”

So it is. People, religious or not, get very angry if you “mess with their religion.” And again, I think that is what creates the “scandal of the Cross,” its exclusivity. Jesus said, “I am the way … no one comes to the Father but by Me.”  The way. No one.

It is the whole theme of this book but worth pointing out again that legalism is a case in point. The Judaizers would apparently say, “It is okay to believe in this Jesus thing and all of that … as long as you keep our rules.” But when the response is, “No, Jesus means your rules are worthless,” then the fangs and claws come out. It’s “messing with their religion.” And I would suggest therein we see the problem – their rules are their religion!

Only a sincere and complete acceptance of grace can deliver us from this dread business of someone “messing with our religion.” Grace strips away all of the externals and leaves me with nothing but a real relationship with God (or not). I would suggest that only from the platform of grace can we really live a life of unconditional love to our neighbors, a life where their offenses, their practices, even their “religion,” doesn’t “threaten” us.

I have said for years if Jesus were to have waited and come today, it is the fundamentalist church in America that would crucify Him. It is a sad reality that, while they supposedly “preach Christ” and think they are the champions of the Scriptures, yet, like the Pharisees of old, the practice of their religion is their vast array of rules, and as a result, they will ostracize and castigate anyone who would claim Christ yet not keep those precious rules. Rest assured they would even crucify their Messiah!

I sincerely hope that the “scandal of the Cross” is not a scandal in my heart. I hope I have sincerely put away all the competitors my evil heart endears, that my “religion” (if you can even call it that) is truly Christ and Him alone. I guess God help me to see where things are otherwise. May real grace in my heart help someone else to see past the “scandal” and may I bear it patiently when the scandal brings out the fangs and claws in others.

God help us.

Galatians 5:7-12 – Bleeding Jesus

Once again, here’s my fairly literal translation of these verses:

⁷You were running well. Who cut in [on] you to not be obeying the truth? ⁸This persuasion [is] not out of the One calling you. ⁹‘A little leaven leavens the whole lump’. ¹⁰I am persuaded concerning you in the Lord that you will think nothing differently but the one troubling you, whoever he is, will bear the judgment. ¹¹But, brethren, if I am yet preaching circumcision, why am I yet being persecuted? Consequently the scandal of the Cross is negated. ¹²O that the ones opposing you would castrate themselves!

In my last two posts I looked at verses 7-9 and observed that Paul is at this point not necessarily writing in a smooth logical manner. He appears rather to be in an emotional froth over the Galatians’ devolvement into legalism. As a result, the sentences seem to be individual outbursts of his frenzied mind. But what I want to observe today is that even though he is in an emotional frenzy, yet every outburst is in itself a pearl of wisdom.

To begin with, in verse 10, he injects something few of us would express or even think at this point: ^“I am persuaded concerning you in the Lord that you will think nothing differently…”   Matthew Henry observes: “Herein he teaches us that we ought to hope the best even of those concerning whom we have cause to fear the worst.”  Once again, Paul is living out what he told us in II Timothy 2:24-26: “The servant of the Lord must not argue; but be gentle with everyone, able to teach, and patient; in humility instructing those who oppose them; that perhaps the Lord may grant them repentance, to the acknowledging of the truth.”  Calvin comments, “It gives us courage to learn that good hopes are entertained about us; for we reckon it shameful to disappoint those whose feelings toward us are kind and friendly.”    

I think we all know personally the truth of what all these guys are saying. Most of the time if someone is “displeased” with us, they let us know in no uncertain terms. Their abrasive, negative, demeaning, threatening demeanor only stirs in us defensiveness. On the other hand, in the (maybe) three or four times in our life that someone honestly offered us loving, gentle, encouraging correction, we are all keenly aware how much easier it was to hear them. It may still have wounded our evil pride to be corrected at all, but at least they communicated it in a way that gave us the hope we could change.

The key is to, like Paul here, turn that around and ask myself, “Can I see others’ faults through the eyes of love?” If I ever do need to “say something,” can I, will I deliberately say it in words that “minister grace to the hearer?” I believe, if we will just walk in the Spirit, the answer is “Yes, we can.” Out of the abundance of my heart, my mouth will speak kindly if that heart is living in Ephesians 4:29-32:

^“Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

On the other hand, if I am walking in the flesh, I’ll never pull it off. Interesting, back in our verse 10, Paul injects the “in the Lord.” I’m not sure if he is referring to himself, that as long as his mind is “in the Lord” he entertains these hopes, or if he is referring to them, that his hope for them is not in them but in the Lord who “begun a good work in them.” Perhaps it makes no difference. Either way our hope springs from the Lord and His presence, His power, His involvement in the details of our lives. The key to their success or ours is to be walking “in the Lord,” “in the Spirit.”

And what is the hope that Paul entertains concerning these people? “… that you will think nothing differently.”  Here I would like to inject that the reason Paul can hope this hope is because he is convinced there is truth. He can hope this hope, that they will think like him, because truth is objective. The truth is the truth. The more anyone grasps the truth, the more we’ll all think alike. This is precisely why it is so important to be in the Word, reading it, studying it, attending to its teaching, and trying to live it out. The Word is the truth. It is the great Touchstone of Reality. We are all bombarded constantly with other ideas, thoughts, and paradigms of “truth,” which invariably appeal to us to one degree or another. Only an attentive consideration of God’s words can help us see through the maze of it all and make the many, many mid-course corrections it takes to arrive safely at our destination.

It just comes down to the fact that “truth is truth.” If people are genuinely born again and seriously seek the mind of the Lord, in the long run we will agree on what is the “truth.” The Word is our hope and should be our constant diet. The closer we all get to the Lord, the closer we’ll be to each other.

One last thought: in the last half of verse 10, Paul refers to “the one troubling you.” Some suggest based on this that there was really only one person causing all the trouble. However, I would suggest this is just a collective singular. Nearly all the other references are clearly plural: 1:7; 4:17; 5:12; and 6:12,13.  Regardless, it is interesting how Paul shifts the threat of judgment from the Galatians to those who are promulgating the errors: “…but the one troubling you, whoever he is, will bear the judgment.”  

From this, I would suggest there is another pearl of wisdom lurking in the heart of Paul. Matthew Henry made the comment, “…we should always distinguish between the leaders and the led …” My observation from life is that most people, if left alone, will actually live fairly quiet lives. What most people want is just to be left alone, to go to work, make a living, and come home every night to their family. There are actually very few people in this world who will go around and stir up everyone else. Every time I see a large protest, I always wonder who’s really behind it. Sometime notice how on many of the signs they hold the print is strangely similar. Someone else put it in their hands. The fact is all of those people would be somewhere else minding their own business if someone hadn’t stirred them up. At any rate, my point is that I think we waste way too much time fighting the “led,” when in fact the real problem (as Paul is here intimating) is the leaders. I think the bottom line is, if you want to stop a movement, figure out who the leaders are and somehow stop their influence. The whole thing will then probably die away. Obviously the “led” themselves are still responsible for the choices they are making and, in fact, the whole book of Galatians is being addressed to the “led,” but still, it is the leaders who need to be dealt with most severely. The whole world, it seems to me, would save a lot of time and trouble, if they just observed this simple fact.

My, my. How the mind of a godly man bursts with wisdom. Cut him, it would seem, and he only bleeds Jesus.