J. W. McGarvey's Original Commentary on ActsActs 3
III. 1-10. Thus far, the labors of the apostles had met with uninterrupted
and most astonishing success. Luke is now about to
introduce us to a series of conflicts, in which success and temporary
defeat alternate in the history of the Jerusalem church.
(1) "Now Peter and John were going up together into the temple at
the hour of prayer, the ninth hour.
(2) And a certain man, lame from
his birth, was carried thither, whom they laid daily at the gate of
the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of those entering into
(3) who, seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple,
(4) And Peter, earnestly looking on him, with John, said,
Look on us.
(5) And he gave heed to them, expecting to receive something
(6) But Peter said, Silver and gold I have not; but
what I have, this I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,
rise up and walk.
(7) And seizing him by the right hand, he
lifted him up, and immediately his feet and ankles received strength;
(8) and leaping forth, he stood and walked, and entered with them into
the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.
(9) And all the
people saw him walking and praising God,
(10) and recognized him,
that it was he who had sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple. And
they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened
This is by no means the first miracle which had been wrought by
the apostles since the day of Pentecost; for we have seen, in
that many signs and wonders had been wrought, by which
the people were filled with awe. But the circumstances attending
this miracle were calculated to awaken, as it did, an unusual excitement.
The Beautiful gate of the temple, so called because of its
magnificent folding doors, fifty feet high and forty feet wide, covered with
gold and Corinthian brass, was the favorite pass-way into the temple.
The subject of this cure, being laid every day at this gate to beg,
was well known to all who frequented the temple.
From the natural
curiosity of the benevolent in reference to the afflictions of those
to whom they minister, it was probably known to all that he had
been a cripple from his birth. Besides this, the time of the cure was
when a multitude of pious people were entering the temple for evening
prayer; and their attention was unexpectedly arrested by the leaping
and shouting of the man who was healed. As they witnessed
his ecstasy and saw him clinging to Peter and John, no one asked
the meaning of the scene, for all saw at once that the cripple had
been healed by the apostles, and they stood gazing in amazement
upon Peter and John.
The apostles took a position in one of the open colonnades
which faced the inner side of the temple wall, called Solomon's Portico.
(11) "And while the lame man who was healed was holding fast
Peter and John, all the people ran together to them on the portico called
Solomon's, greatly wondering."
The admiration of the multitude was
directed toward Peter and John; and was understood by Peter to
indicate that they attributed the cure rather to the singular holiness
of himself and John, than to the power of their master. He determined
to take advantage of the circumstances, by turning their excited
thoughts into the proper channel.
(12) "Then Peter, seeing this,
answered to the people, Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or
why do you look earnestly on us, as though by our own power or
piety we have caused this man to walk?
(13) The God of Abraham,
and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his
son Jesus, whom ye delivered up, and rejected in the presence of Pilate,
when he had determined to let him go.
(14) But you rejected the holy
and just, and desired a murderer to be granted to you;
(15) and you
killed the author of life, whom God has raised from the dead, of which
we are witnesses."
In this passage the apostle makes the same statement, in substance,
with which he introduced the main theme of his former discourse.
The antithetical style adopted on this occasion gave to it a force
scarcely excelled by his former discourse, while it was even more
penetrating to the consciences of his hearers. The fact that the God
of their fathers had glorified
Jesus, is contrasted with the fact that they
had delivered him up to die; their refusal to let him be released, with
the cruel Pilate's determination to let him go; their rejection of one
holy and just, with their demand that a murder should be released
and their murder of him, with his authorship of all life.
These four points of antithesis form the four steps of a grand climax.
Whom the God of our fathers glorified, you have delivered up to
die. Your criminality is heightened by the fact, that when even a
heathen judge declared him innocent, and desired to release him to
you, you rejected him. Even this does not express the enormity of
your guilt, for you yourselves knew him whom you rejected to be
holy and just, and preferred the release of one whom you knew to
be a murderer. But above all, in murdering him, you put to death
the author of life, who has
arisen from the dead. We might challenge
the pages of all the classics for a climax more thrilling in its
effect upon the audience, or for a happier combination of climax and
antithesis. The effect upon the multitude was
overwhelming. [See below, on verse 17.]
facts declared were undeniable, except the resurrection, and of this
the men who had just healed the cripple were the witnesses.
But Peter does not stop short with this climax, terminating in the
resurrection from the dead. He proceeds to prove his present power
and glory by the facts which were then filling them with amazement.
(16) "And his name, through faith in his name, has made this man
strong, whom ye see and know. Even the faith which is through him,
has given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all."
In this verse, there is one of those repetitions common with extemporaneous
speakers, and designed to express more guardedly a thought
already uttered. Perhaps the formula employed by Peter in the act
of healing, "In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise up and walk,"
suggested to him the phraseology, "his name, through faith in his
name, has made this man strong." But lest the superstitious audience
might imagine that there was some charm in the mere
Jesus, a mistake which was afterwards made by certain Jews in
Ephesus, [Acts 19:13.]
he adds, "The faith
which is through him has given him this
perfect soundness." The faith was not that of the cripple; for it is
clear, from the description, that he had no faith. When Peter said
to him, "Look on us," the man looked up, expecting to receive alms.
And even when Peter told him, in the name of Jesus, to rise up and
walk, he did not attempt to move till Peter "took him by the right hand,
and lifted him up."
He exhibited no faith, either in Jesus, or
in Peter's healing power, till after he found himself able to stand and
walk. We must locate the faith, therefore, in the apostles; and in
this we are sustained by the fact that the exercise of miraculous
power, by those in possession of spiritual gifts, was always dependent
upon their faith; Peter was empowered to walk upon water; but,
when his faith wavered, he began to sink, and Jesus said, "O thou
of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?"
Nine of the apostles,
once, having failed to cast out a demon, asked Jesus, "Why could
we not cast him out?" He replied, "Because of your
unbelief." [Matthew 17:19,20.]
answer to their prayers, also, many miracles were wrought, but it
was only "the prayer of faith" which could heal the
sick. [James 5:15.]
It must be here observed that faith was necessary to the exercise
of spiritual gifts, already imparted, and that no faith, however strong,
ever enabled the uninspired to work miracles. The notion, therefore,
which has existed in some minds, from time to time, ever since the
apostolic period, that if our faith were strong enough, we, too, could
work miracles, has as little foundation in scripture as it has in
Verses 17, 18
At this point in the discourse there is a marked change
in Peter's tone and manner, which we can attribute to nothing else
than some visible indication of the intense pain produced by what
he had already said. He had made a most terrific onslaught upon
them, and exposed their criminality in unsparing terms; but now,
induced by some perceptible change in their countenances, he softens
his style, and extenuates their fault.
(17) "And now, brethren, I know
that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers.
(18) But those
things which God had before announced through the mouth of all his
prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath thus fulfilled."
they acted in ignorance of the real character of Jesus was an extenuation
of their crime, but it did not render them innocent; for the
preceding remarks were intended to convict them of crime, and in his
preceding discourse he charged that with wicked hands they had crucified
and slain him. Peter assumes, what none of them could honestly
deny, that it was by wicked motives they were impelled to the
In connection, with this assertion of their criminality, he states
another fact hard to be reconciled with it in the philosophy of man,
that, in the commission of this crime, God was fulfilling what he had
declared through his prophets should be done. Once before, in speaking
of this same event, Peter had brought these two apparently conflicting
facts, the sovereignty of God, and the free agency of man,
into juxtaposition, when he said, "Him, being delivered by the determined
foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and with
wicked hands have crucified and slain."
That God had predetermined
the death of Jesus can not be denied without contradicting both
the prophets and the apostles; and that they acted wickedly in doing
what God had determined should be done, Peter affirms, and three
thousand of them on Pentecost, with many more on this occasion,
admitted it. If any man can frame a theory by which to philosophically
reconcile these two facts, we will assent to it, if we can
understand it; but unless both facts, unaltered have a place in the
theory, we must reject it. We reject every man who denies either of
the facts; but while he admits them both, we will not dispute with him
about the theory upon which he attempts to reconcile them.
This much, fidelity to the word of God on the one hand, and brotherly
kindness on the other hand, demand of us. In the mean time, it is
better to follow Peter's example. He lays the two facts side by side,
appealing to the prophets for the proof of one, and to the consciences
of men for the proof of the other, and there he leaves them, seeming
not to realize that he had involved himself in the slightest difficulty.
It is folly to attempt to climb where we are certain of a fall.
Having now fully demonstrated the Messiahship of Jesus,
and exposed the criminality of those of who had condemned him, the
apostle next presents to his hearers the conditions of pardon.
"Repent, therefore, and turn, that your sins may be blotted out, and that
seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,
he may send Jesus Christ, who has before preached to you,
heaven must retain [Receive (common version) is the literal meaning of the originaldekasthai, but it is certainly used here in the sense of retain. Heaven had already received him; it was yet toretain him.]
until the time of the restoration of all things which
God has spoken, through the mouth of all his holy prophets, since the
Here, as in his former statement of the conditions of pardon, the
apostle makes no mention of faith. But, having labored, from the
beginning of his discourse, to convince his hearers, they necessarily
understood that his command, based as it was, upon what he had
said, implied the assumption that they believed it. A command
based upon an argument, or upon testimony, always implies the sufficiency
of the proof, and assume that the hearer is convinced. Moreover,
Peter knew very well that none would repent at his command
who did not believe what he had said; hence, in every view of the
case, he proceeded, naturally and safely, in omitting mention of faith.
In the command, "Repent and turn," the word "turn" expresses
something to be done subsequent to repentance. There is no way
to avoid this conclusion, unless we suppose that turn is
repent; but this is inadmissible, because there could be no propriety
in adding the command turn, if what it means had been already expressed
in the command repent. We may observe, that the term
reform, which some critics would employ instead of
repent, would involve
the passage in a repetition not less objectionable. To reform
and to turn to the Lord are equivalent expressions, hence it would be
a useless repetition to command men, Reform, and turn.
In order to a proper understanding of this passage, it is necessary
to determine the exact scriptural import of the term repent. The
most popular conception of its meaning is "godly sorrow for sin."
But, according to Paul, "godly sorrow works repentance in order to
salvation." [2 Corinthians 7:10.]
Instead of being identical with repentance, therefore, it
is the immediate case which leads to repentance. Paul says to the
Corinthians, in the same connection, "Now I rejoice, not that you
were made sorry, but that you sorrowed to repentance." This remark
shows that it is sorrow which brings men to repentance, is also
implies that there may be sorrow for sin without repentance. That
there is a distinction between these two states of mind, and that sorrow
for sin may exist without repentance, is also implied in commanding
those on Pentecost who were already pierced to the heart,
to repent. It is also evident from the case of Judas, who experienced
the most intense sorrow for sin, but was not brought to repentance.
His feeling is expressed by a different term in the original, which is
never used to express the change which the gospel requires, and is
equivalent to regret, though sometimes, as in his case, it expresses
the idea of remorse.
In thus tracing the distinction between "godly sorrow" and "repentance,"
we have ascertained the fact that repentance is produced by sorrow
for sin, and this must constitute one element in the definition
of the term. Whatever it is, it is produced by sorrow for sin. Is it
not, then, reformation? Reformation is certainly produced by sorrow
for sin; but, as we have already observed, turning, which is equivalent
to reforming, is distinguished, in the text before us, from
The same distinction is elsewhere apparent. John the Immerser, in
requiring the people to "bring forth fruits meet for repentance,"
clearly distinguishes between repentance and those deeds of a reformed
life which he styles fruits meet for repentance. With him,
reformation is the fruit of repentance, not its equivalent. The
is that between fruit and the tree which bears it. When
Jesus speaks of repenting seven times a
day, [Luke 17:4.]
he certainly means
something different from reformation; for that would require more
time. Likewise, when Peter required those on Pentecost to repent
and be immersed, if by the term repent he had meant reform, he
would certainly have given them time to reform before they were
immersed, instead of immersing them immediately. Finally, the
original term is sometimes used in connection with such prepositions
as are not suitable to the idea of reformation. As a general rule it
is followed by apo, or
ek, which are suitable to either idea; but in
2 Corinthians 12:21,
it is followed by epi with the dative: "Many have not
repented, epi, of the uncleanness, and fornication, and
which they have committed." Now men do not reform of their evil
deeds, neither will the preposition, in this case, bear a rendering
which would suit the term
reform. [For the suggestion of this criticism, I am indebted to my friend andbrother, H. T. Anderson.]
Reform, then, does not express
the same idea as repent, but, as we have seen above, reformation is
the fruit or
result of repentance.
Seeing now that repentance is produced by sorrow for sin, and results
in reformation, we can have no further difficulty in ascertaining
exactly what it is; for the only result of sorrow for sin which leads
to reformation, is a change of the will in reference to sin. The
meaning of metanoia is a
change of mind; but the particular
element of the mind which undergoes this change is the will. Strictly
defined, therefore, repentance is a change of the will, produced by sorrow
for sin, and leading to reformation. If the change of will is not
produced by sorrow for sin, it is not repentance, in the religious sense,
though it may be metanoia, in the classic sense. Thus, Esau "found
no place for metanoias,
a change of mind, though he sought it carefully
with tears." [Hebrews 12:17.]
Here the word designates a change in the mind of
Isaac in reference to the blessing which he had already given to
Jacob; but this change did not depend upon sorrow for sin, hence
it was not repentance, and should not be so translated. Again, if the
change of will, though produced by sorrow for sin, is one which does
not lead to reformation, it is not repentance; for there was a change
in the will of Judas, produced by sorrow for sin, yet Judas did not
repent. The change in his case led to
suicide, not to
it is, therefore, not expressed by metanoeo, but by
definition, therefore, is complete, without
redundancy. [In perfecting this definition, I am indebted to Prof. W. K. Pendleton, of Bethany College, for valuable suggestions.]
We can now perceive, still more clearly than before, that in the
command, "Repent and turn," the terms repent, and
two distinct changes, which take place in the order of the words.
Their relative meaning is well expressed by Dr. Bloomfield, who says
that the former denotes "a change of mind," the latter "a change
of conduct." Mr. Barnes also well and truly remarks: "This expression
('be converted,') conveys an idea not at all to be found in the
original. It conveys the idea of passivity--BE
converted, as if they
were to yield to some foreign influence that they were now resisting.
But the idea of being passive in this is not conveyed by the original
word. The word properly means to turn--to return to a path from
which one has gone astray; and then to turn away from sins, or to
forsake them." That turn, rather than
be converted, is the correct rendering
of the term, is not disputed by any competent authority; we
shall assume, therefore, that it is correct, and proceed to inquire what
Peter intended to designate by this term.
As already observed, it designates a change in the conduct. A
change of conduct, however, must, from the very necessity of the case,
have a beginning; and that beginning consists in the first act of the
better life. The command to turn
is obeyed when this first act is performed.
Previous to that, the man has not turned; subsequent to it
he has turned; and the act itself is the
turning act. If, in turning
to the Lord, any one of a number of actions might be the first that
the penitent performed, the command to turn would not specially designate
any of these, but might be obeyed by the performance
of either. But the fact is that one single act was uniformly enjoined
upon the penitent, as the first overt act of obedience to Christ, and
that was to be immersed. This Peter's present hearers understood.
They had heard him say to parties like themselves, "Repent and
be immersed;" and the first act they saw performed by those who
signified their repentance, was to be immersed. When, now, he
commands them to repent and turn, they could but understand that
they were to turn as their predecessors had done, by being immersed.
The commands turn, and
be immersed, are equivalent, not because the
words have the same meaning, but because the command, "Turn to
the Lord" was uniformly obeyed by the specific act of being immersed.
Previous to immersion, men repented, but did not
turn; after immersion,
they had turned, and immersion was the
We may reach the same conclusion by another course of reasoning.
The command Turn occupies the same position between repentance
and the remission of sins, in this discourse, that the command Be
had occupied in Peter's former discourse. He then said,
"Repent and be immersed for the remission of sins;" now he says,
"Repent and turn that your sins may be blotted out." Now, when
his present hearers heard him command them to turn in order to the
same blessing for which he had formerly commanded them to be
immersed, they could but understand that the generic word turn was
used with specific reference to immersion, and the the substitution
is founded on the fact that a penitent sinner turns to God by
This interpretation was first advanced, in modern times, by Alexander
Campbell, about thirty years ago, and it excited against him
then an opposition which still rages. The real ground of this opposition
is not the interpretation itself, but a perversion of it. The word
conversion being used in popular terminology in the sense of a
of heart, when Mr. Campbell announced that the word incorrectly
rendered in this passage, be converted, means to
turn to the Lord by
immersion, the conclusion was seized by his opponents that he rejected
all change of heart, and substituted immersion in its stead. He has
reiterated, again and again, the sense in which he employed the term
convert, and that the heart must be changed by faith and repentance
previous to the
turning here commanded by Peter; yet
those who are determined upon doing him injustice still keep up the
wicked and senseless clamor of thirty years ago. The odium theologicum,
like the scent of musk, is not soon nor easily dissipated.
There are always those to whose nostrils the odor is grateful.
There are several facts connected with the use of the original term,
epistrepho, in the New Testament, worthy of notice. It occurs
times, in eighteen of which it is used for the mere physical act
of turning or
returning. Nineteen times it expresses a change from
evil to good, and
twice [Galatians 4:9,2Pe+2:21.]
from good to evil. The term convert, therefore,
were retained as the rendering, a man could, in the scriptural sense,
be converted to Satan as well as to
be converted can
never truly represent the original, though it is so rendered six times
in the common version. The original is invariably in the active
voice, and it is making a false and pernicious impression on the English
reader to render it by the passive voice. If we render it truthfully
by the term convert, we would have such readings as these:
"Repent and convert;" "lest they should see with their eyes, and hear
with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and should convert,
and I should heal them," &c.
In a correct version of the
New Testament, the expression be converted could not possibly occur;
for there is nothing in the original to justify it.
Not less worthy of observation is the fact, that while the change
called conversion is popularly attributed to a divine power, as the only
power capable of effecting it, and it is considered scarcely less than
blasphemy to speak of a man converting another, or converting himself,
yet the original word never does refer either to God, or Christ,
or the Holy Spirit, as its agent. On the contrary, in five of its
occurrences in the sense of a change from evil to good, it is
employed of a human agent, as of John the Immerser, Paul, or some
brother in the
Church; [Luke 1:16,17; Acts 26:18; James 5:19,20.]
and in the remaining fourteen instances, the
agent is the person who is the subject of the change. Thus, men may
be properly said to turn their fellows, yet the subjects of this act are
never said to be turned, but to
turn to the Lord. The term invariably
expresses something that the sinner is to do. These observations
show how immeasurably the term convert has departed, in popular
usage, from the sense of the original which it so falsely represents,
and how imperious the necessity for displacing it from our English
Bibles. The word turn corresponds to the original in meaning, in
usage, in inflections, and translates it unambiguously in every
instance. [It is gratifying to observe that the incipient version of the AmericanBible Union corresponds to the views here expressed.]
Peter commands his hearers to repent and turn, in order to three
distinct objects: first, "That your sins may be blotted out;"
"That seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the
Lord;" third, "That he may send Jesus Christ who was before
preached to you."
It is supposed, by the commentators generally,
that the last two events are contemplated by Peter as cotemporaneous,
so that the "seasons of refreshing" spoken of are those which
will take place at the second coming of Christ. That there will be
seasons of refreshing then, is true; but there are others more immediately
dependent upon the obedience here enjoined by Peter, to which
the reference is more natural. The pardon of sins and the gift of
the Holy Spirit, which were immediately consequent upon repentance
and immersion, certainly bring "seasons of refreshing," which might
well be made the subject of promise to hearers supposed to be trembling
with guilty apprehension. The reference of these words is,
doubtless, to the gift of the Spirit; for they occupy the same place
here that the gift of the Spirit did in the former discourse. Then,
after repentance, immersion, and the remission of sins, came the
promise of the Holy Spirit; now, after the same three, somewhat
differently expressed--i. e., repentance, turning to the Lord, and blotting
out of sins--comes the promise of "seasons of refreshing from
the presence of the Lord." They are, then, the fresh and cheering
enjoyments of him whose sins are forgiven, and who is taught to
believe that the presence of the approving Spirit of God is with him.
The third promise, that God would send Jesus Christ, who was
before preached to them, was dependent upon their obedience, only
in so far as they would thus contribute to the object for which he
will come, to raise from the dead, and receive into glory, all who are
his. It is qualified by the remark, "whom heaven must retain until
the times of the restoration of all things of which God has spoken
by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began."
is difficult to determine the exact force of the term restoration in this
connection. It is commonly referred to a state of primeval order,
purity, and happiness, which, it is supposed, will exist just previous
to the second coming of
But the apostle speaks of a restoration
of all things of which God has spoken by the mouth of all
his holy prophets. Now, there are many things spoken of by the
prophets beside those which refer to the final triumphs of the truth,
and all these are included in the expression. Some of these things
will not consist, individually considered, in restoration, but in
Still, the prevailing object of all the things of which the prophets
have spoken, even the destruction of wicked nations and apostate
Churches, is to finally restore that moral saw which God originally
exercised over the whole earth. It is doubtless this thought which
suggested the term restoration,
though reference is had to the fulfillment
of all the prophesies which are to be fulfilled on earth. Not
till all are fulfilled will Christ come again.
Verses 22, 23
For the twofold purpose of giving confirmation to the claims
of Jesus, and warning his hearers as to the consequences of rejecting
him, the apostle next introduces a well-known prophesy of
Moses. [Deuteronomy 18:15-19.]
(22) "For Moses, indeed, said to the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord
your God raise up for you, from among your brethren, like me: him
shall ye hear in all things, whatever he shall say to you.
(23) And it
shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that prophet shall
be destroyed from among the people."
Whether Peter was right in
applying this prophesy to Christ depends upon the likeness between
him and Moses. This likeness may be traced in many subordinate
incidents of his history, but lies chiefly in that which distinguishes
both Moses and Christ from all other prophets. Moses as a deliverer
of his people, and an original lawgiver. No prophet had been
like him in these two particulars. The chief mission of the other
prophets, so far as their cotemporaries were concerned, was to enforce
the law of Moses. But Christ had now come, speaking by his
our authority, offering a more glorious deliverance to the people than
that from Egypt, and issuing new laws for the government of men.
This proved that he, and he alone, was the prophet spoken of by
Moses, and Peter's hearers now perceive that the authority of Moses
himself binds them to the authority of Jesus, and that they must
hear him, on the penalty of destruction if they refuse.
Not content with bringing to bear the testimony of Moses,
Peter adds to it the combined voices of all the prophets:
indeed, all the prophets, from Samuel, and those following in order, as
many as have spoken, have also foretold these days."
is to be understood only of those prophets whose predictions are recorded
in the Old Testament, for to those alone could Peter appeal in
proof of his proposition. It was conceded by the Jews, that all the
prophets had spoken of the days of the Messiah, and it was already
proved, by Peter's preceding remarks, that Jesus was the Messiah;
hence the argument is now complete.
Verses 25, 26
Having completed his argument, in which the Messiahship
of Jesus was demonstrated by the miraculous cure they had witnessed,
and by the testimony of all the prophets, from Moses and Samuel
down to Malachi, Peter next makes a powerful appeal to his hearers,
based upon their veneration for the fathers of their nation, and for the
covenant which God had made with them.
(25) "You are the sons of
the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying
to Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kingdoms of the earth be
(26) Unto you first, God, having raised up his son Jesus, has
sent him to bless you, in turning away each one of you from his
This was a tender appeal to their national sympathies, made
more effective by the statement that to them first because of their
relation to the prophets and to Abraham, God had sent his risen Son
to bless them, before visiting the rest of the world.
The use here made of the promise to Abraham shows the true interpretation
of it. It is to be fulfilled, according to Peter, in turning
living men away from their iniquities. Those only, therefore, who,
under the influence of the gospel, turn away from their iniquities,
can lay claim to the blessings contemplated in this promise. That
all the kindreds of the earth were to be blessed does not affect this
conclusion, except to extend its application to those of all nations
who should, at any period of time, turn from their iniquities. The
Universalian view of this promise is contradicted by all the apostolic
comments upon it; for they all unite in denying the blessing to any
but those who in this life believe and turn to the
Lord. [See Galatians 3:7-9, et al.) ]