What is the meaning of Galatians 6:7?

[Trillian]

"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap."

I get the second bit. It means that whatever you put out there (hate, love, kindness, etcetera), will be what comes back into your life. But I never really thought about the first bit much until I came across a scary email that opened with this verse. The email implies that several famous people died horribly because they made remarks that were less than respectful about God. For example, it stated that because John Lennon said that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus, Mr. Lennon getting shot to death was the punishment for that statement. (which brings me to another question: isn't there another verse or series of verses that says that once you have given your life to God, "not one of these will be snatched from my hands"?)

[El Viejo]

Well, my friend, here's a link to Bible Gateway where one may search numerous translations of The Bible in numerous languages:

http://www.biblegateway.com/

It would be an ideal place to find those 'snatched from my hands' verses. Good luck.

[bouquin]

I'm no expert on the Bible but anyway, here's my 2 cents' worth.... (I have 2 possible explanations, so make that a penny each!!)

Firstly, perhaps what the beginning sentence of Gal. 6:7 wants to say is that we mortals need not deceive ourselves into thinking that we can sway God with our lame excuses and hypocritical justifications, or twist Him around our little fingers. God sees our hearts and true intentions. Those who are wicked can pretend to do good, to be kind; they can fool other people (and sometimes even themselves) with their false front. But God cannot be hookwinked.

Secondly, (and this here is more or less related to my first reasononing) the man who commits foul deeds cannot expect to go on in impunity. For God knows and sees everything that this man does (the meaning, in my opinion of the phrase "God is not mocked") and will punish him.

As for John Lennon .... I do not have the arrogance to make a judgment on the metaphysics of his death. If he did die because he was disrespectful towards God, then how about John the Baptist? The guy had his head cut off and put on a platter, didn't he? (I think that would fall within the category of a horrible death). Was it because he too was guilty of cheeky behavior towards the Almighty??

[desopny]

Along the same lines as what has been said, consider this: God knows a man's true motives. One cannot fool God like one can fool people. Sin lies in more than just actions: thoughts and words can also be sin. The Pharisees were good about looking correct in their actions, but God knows the heart.

[togre]

The Bible does not teach that wicked people will get their reward in this life. Read Luke 13:1-5. Jesus himself speaks against the idea that those who died horribly died that way because their sins were so great or so heinous.

How is it true then that the wicked will be repaid? It's after death. The person whose life is one painful day after another, who trusts in the Jesus goes to heaven after death. The successful, happy, care-free person who does not believe in Jesus but lives just for him/herself, goes to hell.

I'm going to try to study the Galatians passage a little more thoroughly are respond again, but I can say with certainty, the email you received was hog-wash and trying to look into God's mind to discern why certain, specific things happen (ie terrible deaths of notable unbelievers).

[Trillian]

Thanks so much for your responses! Bouquin, I had the same thought exactly, about John the Baptist, and the many other saints that were martyred. Not to mention the fact that I read that John Lennon actually became a christian in the late seventies, before Yoko led him astray again, hence the question about the other verse.

I just refuse to believe that the "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 1 John 4:8" God would off someone for their ignorance.


Togre, thanks for those verses! I believe that proves the point I was attempting to make to myself. God lets us go our own way, and our reward or punishment will come in the after life. He is just not fooled by anything. He knows the thoughts that accompany our deeds. Perhaps that also means that he knows a thoughtless comment as harmless when it is harmless. Does that make sense?

[Pendragon]

Well, let's back up a few verses:

[3] For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.
[4] But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.
[5] For every man shall bear his own burden.
[6] Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.
[7] Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.


We see that a warning is given for a man to prove his work, and to teach and be taught. In other words, even a Pastor is not above learning something from someone else. So don't think yourself so high and mighty that you are above correction. That is a mockery of God. If you sow this seed, you will reap the whirlwind.

I could give you instances you would recognize of this happening to people in the Bible, and in the world out there, where high ranking Christians have pushed the envelope and come crashing down in ruins. Some repented and recovered their walk with God. Others never did.

God Bless

Pen

[Aluno49]

Paul, raised as an observant Jew, understood God as the all-powerful Creator and Lord: "I am the Lord thy God..." There was a covenant between God and his chosen people (whom Paul sees as expanding to gentiles who will follow Messiah). As does any covenant, this one placed burdens on both parties and was a solemn commitment on both parties to execute responsibilities so long as the terms were kept. One who would mock God (by breaking the terms of the covenant in actions or words) voids God's commitments to protection and grace. Hence the second clause.

Aluno

[Whifflingpin]

"One who would mock God (by breaking the terms of the covenant in actions or words) voids God's commitments to protection and grace. Hence the second clause."

I think that's an OT view, and that the Christian view is that humans are incapable of keeping their side of any bargain but God's protection and grace are not withdrawn.

[Aluno49]

The OT view is all that Paul could have known, as there was no NT when he acted and wrote. But even if one wished to take a modern Christian view, the concept of Covenant is still central. God's protection and grace are available to us, however we may stumble, but the outcome is not guaranteed. Just as did Lucifer, we may reject God, including his protection and grace, but if we do, then we will suffer the consequences. God, not we, will judge.

The notion that God's grace is always ours by virtue of our "comitment", by simply calling ourselves Christians, is what Bonhoeffer called "cheap grace". We may be "justified" by faith, but we must be faithful in our duties "to seek justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly in the presence of our God."

Aluno

[Whifflingpin]

'The OT view is all that Paul could have known, as there was no NT when he acted and wrote.'

Not quite. Paul had the OT and the testimony of those who were Jesus' disciples and had known him personally, and the revelation outside Damascus. But you may well be right about what he, Paul, meant in the passage under discussion.

'The notion that God's grace is always ours by virtue of our "comitment", by simply calling ourselves Christians,' is certainly not what I was thinking of. God's grace is just that - grace. Given to those who cannot claim in any way to deserve it. Our response to it should be to 'be faithful in our duties "to seek justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly in the presence of our God." ' Not because we hope or expect by that to gain God's favour, but because, through no merit of ours, He shows His favour.

[goodmanbrown]

In your original post you said you believed that the end of that quote meant what man does here will come back to him during this lifetime. Not very religious but interested in theology I have a different take. If that is what it meant then that would mean that Christianity embraces Karma which it does not. According to the Bible there is only one day when you can reap what you did in life and that is on the judgement day. Either the day you die or that of the rapture (return of Christ).

Personally I dig the Karma approach for a more peaceful earth. Because humans like immediate gratification and do not fear future consequences. Example: smoking, fast-food, the enviroment.

I mean look at those Buddhist dudes all chill'n and zen'n out under the trees.

[Trillian]

I will have to respectfully disagree with that. The concept is, I believe "The law of Reciprocity" in Christianity. It mirrors the concepts of "sowing and reaping" in many other religions. For example:
Mt 5:7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.”
Mt 7:1-2 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
And finally Luke 6:38 "Give, and it will be given to you. They will pour into your lap a good measure-- pressed down, shaken together, and running over. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return."

All of these speak not of an eventual reward, but a reward that comes back to you in your lifetime. There are dozens of examples of God rewarding his people throughout the bible for doing the right thing, I just don't have the space to fit it all in. Regardless of what you call it, the concept exists in many different religions, and it is a good one. :)

[goodmanbrown]

Thank you Trillian for your reply.

But are Guilt is our own, are conscience is the ruler of our fate on earth, to do wrong, as long as you are God fearing individual, is your personal hell upon Earth. To believe that it is only God that can punish you is selling the human mind short, for according to the Bible, God created us and gave us the ability to control our own ends. This includes our minds. If we do not give the humankind credit for its ability to choose, then we can not only thank God for love, we must also credit Him for nuclear bombs.

Tis a good conversation.