Calvinism and Orthodoxy

[folk_rocker_4jc]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[nooff]

 

[Photini]

Oh, I'm sure you'll enlighten me on why Mr. Crysostom pulled all of that out of deep, probing exegesis of the Greek- instead of out of his rear which is more likely. I can't wait! *chuckle*

No I'm saying nothing further to you. I hope the others will not either.

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

No I'm saying nothing further to you. I hope the others will not either.

Ok, great...! Then y'all can just deal with Clarke & Gill on the matter!

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

Gal 2:1 Fourteen years after that first visit, Barnabas and I went up to Jerusalem and took Titus with us.

Gal 2:2 I went to clarify with them what had been revealed to me. At that time I placed before them exactly what I was preaching to the non-Jews. I did this in private with the leaders, those held in esteem by the church, so that our concern would not become a controversial public issue, marred by ethnic tensions, exposing my years of work to denigration and endangering my present ministry.

Gal 2:3 Significantly, Titus, non-Jewish though he was, was not required to be circumcised.

Gal 2:4 While we were in conference we were infiltrated by spies pretending to be Christians, who slipped in to find out just how free true Christians are. Their ulterior motive was to reduce us to their brand of servitude.

Gal 2:5 We didn't give them the time of day. We were determined to preserve the truth of the Message for you.

Gal 2:6 As for those who were considered important in the church, their reputation doesn't concern me. God isn't impressed with mere appearances, and neither am I. And of course these leaders were able to add nothing to the message I had been preaching.

Gal 2:7-8 It was soon evident that God had entrusted me with the same message to the non-Jews as Peter had been preaching to the Jews.

Gal 2:9 Recognizing that my calling had been given by God, James, Peter, and John--the pillars of the church--shook hands with me and Barnabas, assigning us to a ministry to the non-Jews, while they continued to be responsible for reaching out to the Jews.

Gal 2:10 The only additional thing they asked was that we remember the poor, and I was already eager to do that.

Gal 2:11 Later, when Peter came to Antioch, I had a face-to-face confrontation with him because he was clearly out of line.

Gal 2:12 Here's the situation. Earlier, before certain persons had come from James, Peter regularly ate with the non-Jews. But when that conservative group came from Jerusalem, he cautiously pulled back and put as much distance as he could manage between himself and his non-Jewish friends. That's how fearful he was of the conservative Jewish clique that's been pushing the old system of circumcision.

Gal 2:13 Unfortunately, the rest of the Jews in the Antioch church joined in that hypocrisy so that even Barnabas was swept along in the charade.

Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they were not maintaining a steady, straight course according to the Message, I spoke up to Peter in front of them all: "If you, a Jew, live like a non-Jew when you're not being observed by the watchdogs from Jerusalem, what right do you have to require non-Jews to conform to Jewish customs just to make a favorable impression on your old Jerusalem cronies?"

Gal 2:15 We Jews know that we have no advantage of birth over "non-Jewish sinners."

Gal 2:16 We know very well that we are not set right with God by rule-keeping but only through personal faith in Jesus Christ. How do we know? We tried it--and we had the best system of rules the world has ever seen! Convinced that no human being can please God by self-improvement, we believed in Jesus as the Messiah so that we might be set right before God by trusting in the Messiah, not by trying to be good.

Gal 2:17 Have some of you noticed that we are not yet perfect? (No great surprise, right?) And are you ready to make the accusation that since people like me, who go through Christ in order to get things right with God, aren't perfectly virtuous, Christ must therefore be an accessory to sin? The accusation is frivolous.

Gal 2:18 If I was "trying to be good," I would be rebuilding the same old barn that I tore down. I would be acting as a charlatan.

Gal 2:19 What actually took place is this: I tried keeping rules and working my head off to please God, and it didn't work. So I quit being a "law man" so that I could be God's man.

Gal 2:20 Christ's life showed me how, and enabled me to do it. I identified myself completely with him. Indeed, I have been crucified with Christ. My ego is no longer central. It is no longer important that I appear righteous before you or have your good opinion, and I am no longer driven to impress God. Christ lives in me. The life you see me living is not "mine," but it is lived by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Gal 2:21 I am not going to go back on that. Is it not clear to you that to go back to that old rule-keeping, peer-pleasing religion would be an abandonment of everything personal and free in my relationship with God? I refuse to do that, to repudiate God's grace. If a living relationship with God could come by rule-keeping, then Christ died unnecessarily.

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Matthew Henry Complete Commentary
on the Whole Bible[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica]Galatians Chapter 2 [/font]



[font=Arial, Helvetica]Verses 11-21 From the account which Paul gives of what passed between him and the other apostles at Jerusalem, the Galatians might easily discern both the falseness of what his enemies had insinuated against him and their own folly and weakness in departing from that gospel which he had preached to them. But to give the greater weight to what he had already said, and more fully to fortify them against the insinuations of the judaizing teachers, he acquaints them with another interview which he had with the apostle Peter at Antioch, and what passed between them there, v. 11–14. Antioch was one of the chief churches of the Gentile Christians, as Jerusalem was of those Christians who turned from Judaism to the faith of Christ. There is no colour of reason for the supposition that Peter was bishop of Antioch. If he had, surely Paul would not have withstood him in his own church, as we here find he did; but, on the contrary, it is here spoken of as an occasional visit which he made thither. In their other meeting, there had been good harmony and agreement. Peter and the other apostles had both acknowledged Paul’s commission and approved his doctrine, and they parted very good friends. But in this Paul finds himself obliged to appose Peter, for he was to be blamed, a plain evidence that he was not inferior to him, and consequently of the weakness of the pope’s pretence to supremacy and infallibility, as the successor of Peter. Here we may observe, 1. Peter’s fault. When he came among the Gentile churches, he complied with them, and did eat with them, though they were not circumcised, agreeably to the instructions which were given in particular to him (Acts 10), when he was warned by the heavenly vision to call nothing common or unclean. But, when there came some Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, he grew more shy of the Gentiles, only to humour those of the circumcision and for fear of giving them offence, which doubtless was to the great grief and discouragement of the Gentile churches. Then he withdrew, and separated himself. His fault herein had a bad influence upon others, for the other Jews also dissembled with him; though before they might be better disposed, yet now, from his example, they took on them to scruple eating with the Gentiles, and pretended they could not in conscience do it, because they were not circumcised. And (would you think it?) Barnabas himself, one of the apostles of the Gentiles, and one who had been instrumental in planting and watering the churches of the Gentiles, was carried away with their dissimulation. Here note, (1.) The weakness and inconstancy of the best of men, when left to themselves, and how apt they are to falter in their duty to God, out of an undue regard to the pleasing of men. And, (2.) The great force of bad examples, especially the examples of great men and good men, such as are in reputation for wisdom and honour. 2. The rebuke which Paul gave him for his fault. Notwithstanding Peter’s character, yet, when he observes him thus behaving himself to the great prejudice both of the truth of the gospel and the peace of the church, he is not afraid to reprove him for it. Paul adhered resolutely to his principles, when others faltered in theirs; he was as good a Jew as any of them (for he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews), but he would magnify his office as the apostle of the Gentiles, and therefore would not see them discouraged and trampled upon. When he saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel —that they did not live up to that principle which the gospel taught, and which they had professed to own and embrace, namely, that by the death of Christ the partition-wall between Jew and Gentile was taken down, and the observance of the law of Moses was no longer in force-when he observed this, as Peter’s offence was public, so he publicly reproved him for it: He said unto him before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? Herein one part of his conduct was a contradiction to the other; for if he, who was a Jew, could himself sometimes dispense with the use of the ceremonial law, and live after the manner of the Gentiles, this showed that he did not look upon the observance of it as still necessary, even for the Jews themselves; and therefore that he could not, consistently with his own practice, impose it upon the Gentile Christians. And yet Paul charges him with this, yea, represents him as compelling the Gentiles to live as did the Jews-not by open force and violence, but this was the tendency of what he did; for it was in effect to signify this, that the Gentiles must comply with the Jews, or else not be admitted into Christian communion. II. Paul having thus established his character and office, and sufficiently shown that he was not inferior to any of the apostles, no, not to Peter himself, from the account of the reproof he gave him he takes occasion to speak of that great fundamental doctrine of the gospel—That justification is only by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law (though some think that all he says to the end of the chapter is what he said to Peter at Antioch), which doctrine condemned Peter for his symbolizing with the Jews. For, if it was the principle of his religion that the gospel is the instrument of our justification and not the law, then he did very ill in countenancing those who kept up the law, and were for mixing it with faith in the business of our justification. This was the doctrine which Paul had preached among the Galatians, to which he still adhered, and which it is his great business in this epistle to mention and confirm. Now concerning this Paul acquaints us, 1. With the practice of the Jewish Christians themselves: "We,’’ says he, "who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles (even we who have been born and bred in the Jewish religion, and not among the impure Gentiles), knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we ourselves have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law. And, if we have thought it necessary to seek justification by the faith of Christ, why then should we hamper ourselves with the law? What did we believe in Christ for? Was it not that we might be justified by the faith of Christ? And, if so, is it not folly to go back to the law, and to expect to be justified either by the merit of moral works or the influence of any ceremonial sacrifices or purifications? And if it would be wrong in us who are Jews by nature to return to the law, and expect justification by it, would it not be much more so to require this of the Gentiles, who were never subject to it, since by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified?’’ To give the greater weight to this he adds (v. 17), "But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ the minister of sin? If, while we seek justification by Christ alone, and teach others to do so, we ourselves are found giving countenance or indulgence to sin, or rather are accounted sinners of the Gentiles, and such as it is not fit to have communion with, unless we also observe the law of Moses, is Christ the minister of sin? Will it not follow that he is so, if he engage us to receive a doctrine that gives liberty to sin, or by which we are so far from being justified that we remain impure sinners, and unfit to be conversed with?’’ This, he intimates, would be the consequence, but he rejects it with abhorrence: "God forbid,’’ says he, "that we should entertain such a thought of Christ, or of his doctrine, that thereby he should direct us into a way of justification that is defective and ineffectual, and leave those who embrace it still unjustified, or that would give the least encouragement to sin and sinners.’’ This would be very dishonourable to Christ, and it would be very injurious to them also. "For,’’ says he (v. 18), "if I build again the things which I destroyed —if I (or any other), who have taught that the observance of the Mosaic law is not necessary to justification, should now, by word or practice, teach or intimate that it is necessary— I make myself a transgressor; I own myself to be still an impure sinner, and to remain under the guilt of sin, notwithstanding my faith in Christ; or I shall be liable to be charged with deceit and prevarication, and acting inconsistently with myself.’’ Thus does the apostle argue for the great doctrine of justification by faith without the works of the law from the principles and practice of the Jewish Christians themselves, and from the consequences that would attend their departure from it, whence it appeared that Peter and the other Jews were much in the wrong in refusing to communicate with the Gentile Christians, and endeavouring to bring them under the bondage of the law. 2. He acquaints us what his own judgment and practice were. (1.) That he was dead to the law. Whatever account others might make of it, yet, for his part, he was dead to it. He knew that the moral law denounced a curse against all that continue not in all things written therein, to do them; and therefore he was dead to it, as to all hope of justification and salvation that way. And as for the ceremonial law, he also knew that it was now antiquated and superseded by the coming of Christ, and therefore, the substance having come, he had no longer any regard to the shadow. He was thus dead to the law, through the law itself; it discovered itself to be at an end. By considering the law itself, he saw that justification was not to be expected by the works of it (since none could perform a perfect obedience to it) and that there was now no further need of the sacrifices and purifications of it, since they were done away in Christ, and a period was put to them by his offering up himself a sacrifice for us; and therefore, the more he looked into it the more he saw that there was no occasion for keeping up that regard to it which the Jews pleaded for. But, though he was thus dead to the law, yet he did not look upon himself as with law. He had renounced all hopes of justification by the works of it, and was unwilling any longer to continue under the bondage of it; but he was far from thinking himself discharged from his duty to God; on the contrary, he was dead to the law, that he might live unto God. The doctrine of the gospel, which he had embraced, instead of weakening the bond of duty upon him, did but the more strengthen and confirm it; and therefore, though he was dead to the law, yet it was only in order to his living a new and better life to God (as Rom. 7:4, 6), such a life as would be more agreeable and acceptable to God than his observance of the Mosaic law could now be, that is, a life of faith in Christ, and, under the influence thereof, of holiness and righteousness towards God. Agreeably hereunto he acquaints us, (2.) That, as he was dead to the law, so he was alive unto God through Jesus Christ (v. 20): I am crucified with Christ, etc. And here in his own person he gives us an excellent description of the mysterious life of a believer. [1.] He is crucified, and yet he lives; the old man is crucified (Rom. 6:6), but the new man is living; he is dead to the world, and dead to the law, and yet alive to God and Christ; sin is mortified, and grace quickened. [2.] He lives, and yet not he. This is strange: I live, and yet not I; he lives in the exercise of grace; he has the comforts and the triumphs of grace; and yet that grace is not from himself, but from another. Believers see themselves living in a state of dependence. [3.] He is crucified with Christ, and yet Christ lives in him; this results from his mystical union with Christ, by means of which he is interested in the death of Christ, so as by virtue of that to die unto sin; and yet interested in the life of Christ, so as by virtue of that to live unto God. [4.] He lives in the flesh, and yet lives by faith; to outward appearance he lives as other people do, his natural life is supported as others are; yet he has a higher and nobler principle that supports and actuates him, that of faith in Christ, and especially as eyeing the wonders of his love in giving himself for him. Hence it is that, though he lives in the flesh, yet he does not live after the flesh. Note, Those who have true faith live by that faith; and the great thing which faith fastens upon is Christ’s loving us and giving himself for us. The great evidence of Christ’s loving us is his giving himself for us; and this is that which we are chiefly concerned to mix faith with, in order to our living to him. Lastly, The apostle concludes this discourse with acquainting us that by the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, without the works of the law (which he asserted, and others opposed), he avoided two great difficulties, which the contrary opinion was loaded with:—1. That he did not frustrate the grace of God, which the doctrine of the justification by the works of the law did; for, as he argues (Rom. 11:6), If it be of works, it is no more of grace. 2. That he did not frustrate the death of Christ; whereas, if righteousness come by the law, then it must follow that Christ has died in vain; for, if we look for salvation by the law of Moses, then we render the death of Christ needless: for to what purpose should he be appointed to die, if we might have been saved without it? [/font]

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

David Guzik Study Guide
for Galatians Chapter 2


B. The controversy with Peter over the acceptance of the Gentiles


1. (11-13) The reason for Paul's public rebuke of Peter

a. Peter had approved of Paul's gospel and ministry when Paul came to Jerusalem (2:9); and Peter himself had been used by God to welcome Gentiles into Christianity without the precondition of becoming Jews (Acts 11:1-18)

b. Yet, when Peter came to Antioch (Paul's home church), he refused to fellowship with Gentile Christians once certain Jewish believers from Jerusalem (who would be "offended" at such fellowship with uncircumcised Gentiles) came

i. The issue wasn't that these Jewish Christians wanted to keep the Mosaic law for themselves; it was that they put their keeping of the Mosaic law above their respect for the unity of the body of Christ, and the implicit demand their actions made on the Gentile Christians

ii. Peter was essentially saying to the Gentiles, "if you want to fellowship with Jewish Christians, you must come under the law."

c. Peter acted against what he knew was right out of fear; and the desire to cater to these legalistic Jewish Christians was so strong that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy

i. "The defection of Barnabas was of a far more serious nature with regard to Gentile freedom than the vacillation of Peter. . . . Barnabas, the foremost champion of Gentile liberty next to Paul, had become a turncoat." (Wuest)

d. We might be surprised that Peter, who did know better, did this; but we are only surprised if we don't believe what God says about the weakness and corruption of our flesh

2. (14-21) Paul's rebuke of Peter and defense of the gospel of grace

a. Paul first pointed out the essential hypocrisy in Peter's actions; apparently, Peter himself had stopped a rigorous observance of the Mosaic law; why then does he imply with his actions that the Gentiles should keep the law when he himself does not?

b. Paul then goes on to emphasize that the Jews themselves are not saved by their observance of the law (for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified)

c. Paul will also acknowledge that Christians - both Jews and Gentiles - are not sinlessly perfect; yet that does not mean that the work of Jesus is a minister of sin; we can still rely on His work instead of trusting in our own works through the law

d. But Paul protests that for the Christian to take up the law, he makes himself a transgressor - the believer has died to the law, but now lives in and through Jesus Christ, because of the great love Jesus has shown for him

e. Paul concludes strongly: to embrace the law as a principle of living is to set aside the grace of God (the very thing Paul does not do); because if we can be made righteous through the law, then Jesus died in vain - because we would then have at least the potential for satisfying God's righteous requirements in our own efforts

i. Remember that Jesus' prayer in the garden (Matthew 26:39-42) asked that if there be any other way to accomplish what Jesus did not the cross, that Jesus would be spared the cross; He was not spared because there is no other way

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

Jon Courson
The Epistle to the Galatians

Galatians 2:11
. . . I withstood him to the face . . .

Notice that Paul didn't go storming down to Jerusalem, saying, `Have a sausage, Peter. I dare you.' No, Peter was in Paul's arena, and because Peter was trying to get the people to whom Paul was ministering to go in a different direction, Paul was justified in saying to Peter, `This is hypocrisy.'

So too, there have been occasions when, as a shepherd, I have had to physically remove those who came in, wanting to take this flock in a direction contrary to the Gospel of Grace. But I will not go into another church and pronounce judgment or give correction. When Paul was in Peter's face, he was on his own turf — in Antioch, not Jerusalem.

_______________
​

Galatians 2:11

. . . because he was to be blamed.

This phrase indicates very simply and clearly that traditions which claim Peter was the first pope, — and that popes are infallible in matters of doctrine and church practice — are not true. If Peter was the first pope, he was far from infallible here.

_______________
​

Galatians 2:12

For before that certain came from James, he did eat . . .

The early Church had agape feasts wherein believers would get together and share a huge meal. Many of them being poor, everyone would pool his resources, and contribute to a big pot-luck dinner.

_______________
​

Galatians 2:12

. . . with the Gentiles . . .

Jewish tradition held that with whomever one shared a meal, there was a special linkage. The Jews, therefore were forbidden to eat with Gentiles. Thus, Peter broke tradition not only in eating the food of Gentiles, but in eating with Gentiles.

_______________
​

Galatians 2:12

. . . but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

When the guys from James — Jerusalem, Jewish Headquarters — came, suddenly Peter distanced himself from the Gentile believers.

_______________
​

Galatians 2:13-14

And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

`You ate right alongside of us, Peter,' said Paul. `Therefore, if you, a Jew, are unable to keep the rules and regulations of Judaism, how can you expect Gentiles to keep them? It makes no sense!'

That's what hypocrisy always does: It tries to make other people do what we ourselves can't.

_______________
​

Galatians 2:15-16

We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

`Peter, why are you advocating the rebirth of religion?' asked Paul. `We Jews couldn't even keep the rules. Thus, we know that a man is justified only by faith in Christ — not by works, but simply by believing.'

Are you trying to earn God's favor through morning devotions, or Wednesday night Bible study attendance, through memorizing verses, or witnessing, through not going here and not doing that? It's a big mistake. You are justified by faith and faith alone — not only when you were born again, not only when you were saved ten years ago — but today, right now. God's blessing will be upon the life of any man, woman, teenager, or older person who simply says, `I'm not going to try and earn Your blessing, Lord. I can't. But I hear You declaring, Father, that You want to bless me by Your grace through my belief in Your Son. And I welcome such blessing.'

Dear brother, precious sister — the blessings of God are not based upon what you do or don't do. It's not, `OK, God, I didn't see that movie. Aren't You proud of me? And because I didn't, here's what I'm expecting You to do for me . . .'

No. The blessings of God are based upon one thing singularly: faith in His grace.

We can receive His blessing for one reason: The sin which cut His blessing off, and separated us from the Father, has been washed away by the blood of Jesus Christ. Therefore, if I choose to sin, it's not that God will withhold His blessing in order to punish me. No, the blood of Jesus Christ has cleansed me from all sin — past, present, and future (I John 1:7,9). If I choose to sin, I destroy myself.

Balak, king of the Moabites, hired Balaam the prophet to curse the people of Israel (Numbers 22). But no matter how Balaam tried, he could only pronounce blessing upon them. `I'm paying you good money to curse these people,' Balak said. `Let's build another altar, and you can try again.' So again Balaam opened his mouth, but only blessing came out. After a third altar, a third try, and a third failure, Balak was desperate.

`I can't help it,' explained Balaam. `I'm trying to curse them, but they're God's people. They deserve to be cursed, but God's for them.' Seeing his fee slip through his fingers, however, Balaam came up with a new plan. `I can't curse them,' he told Balak, `but they can curse themselves. Here's what you do: Get your foxiest ladies and send them into the Israelite camp. As they bat their eyelashes and swish their skirts, have them invite the Israelite guys into their tents, then have them pull out their little idols — their Ashtaroths — and say, `This is the way we worship in this country. Don't you want to worship with us?'

`Good plan,' Balak said. So he got his girls and sent them into the camp of Israel. They enticed the guys into their tents, and, just as planned, the Moabite women pulled out their idols. Sure enough, the Israelites took the bait — and ended up cursing themselves, the end result being a plague which wiped out twenty-four thousand of them (Numbers 25:9).

So too today. God says `Blessings upon you. You're justified by the hearing of faith because you believe in the work of My Son.' As far as God is concerned, the sin which would bar me from `the spout where the blessings come out,' was taken away by the blood of Jesus Christ. I cannot be cursed.

But I can curse myself and so can you. Watch your step, young person. Listen up, 45-year-old man. `Oh, it's OK to see that film,' you say. `It's only got a few scenes that are slightly compromising,' or `It's OK to hear that music. There are only a few questionable words.' Watch out. You're cursing yourself.

We live in a culture where the advice of Balaam is being worked out unlike any other time in human history. Be very careful. You'll get drawn into tents you never thought you would enter, and you'll be wiped out in the process.

_______________
​

Galatians 2:17

But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

`Peter, if we eat with Gentiles, are we then sinners?' asked Paul. `Is Christ a sinner? Of course not! It's not what goes into a man that defiles him, it's what comes out.' (Mark 7:18-23). It's not what you eat, it's what you say and do. It's how you live.

_______________
​

Galatians 2:18

For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

You who are discipling men, you who are ministering to women, you who are teachers, servants, mature saints — understand this verse. Do not erect another set of rules and regulations. You were saved by grace when you simply came to God as a sinner. Now, you are to remain in the realization that to come to the Lord, you must come just as you are — not because of what you do, or what you promise to be.

Do not erect another set of barriers. The veil was rent when Jesus cried, `It is finished,' (Matthew 27:50-51). Don't sew it up again by saying to those to whom you minister, `You have to attend six meetings a week, listen to Christian radio every afternoon, read eight chapters in the Word every night, vote Republican, and have three hours of morning devotions every day if you want to grow in Christ.'

`But I thought we should have morning devotions,' you say.

Listen — you don't have to have morning devotions — you get to! You get to start your day talking to God. That's a tremendous privilege — not an obligation. Anyone who doesn't start his day with the Lord is missing so much. Therefore, we don't do it because we have to. We do it because we get to — big difference!

_______________
​

Galatians 2:19

For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

`The Law is no longer a factor in my life,' said Paul. `I tried to keep it for years, but finally it just did me in.'

_______________
​

Galatians 2:20

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

`The Law served its purpose when it showed me I couldn't keep it,' continued Paul. `It did me in, and wiped me out. Now I'm dead to the external rules of the Law, but alive to the internal rule of Jesus Christ in my heart.'

_______________
​

Galatians 2:21

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

If you tried to rob a bank, but were shot and killed in the attempt, no one would drag your corpse into the courtroom. Even though you broke the law, even though you did something terrible, you wouldn't go to court.

So too, because when Christ died, you died with Him (Romans 7), you are dead to the rules and regulations of the Law. But if you choose to live again to the Law, then, for you, the death of Christ was in vain.

How I thank the Lord that Paul stood his ground and spoke so boldly to Peter. And how I pray that where there is a Peter tendency within our own hearts, that Paul might speak to us tonight — that we might not frustrate grace or try to add to the Work of the Cross. May we thrive and blossom and love the Father all the more because of the great grace He has shown us in the name of His Son.

Amen.

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]John Wesley's Explanatory Notes
on the Whole Bible[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica][font=Arial, Helvetica]The Book of Galatians
Chapter 2 [font=Arial, Helvetica]2:11[/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica]But - The argument here comes to the height. Paul reproves Peter himself. So far was he from receiving his doctrine from man, or from being inferior to the chief of the apostles. When Peter - Afterwards, Came to Antioch - Then the chief of all the Gentile churches. I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed - For fear of man, Galatians 2:12; for dissimulation, Gal 2:13; and for not walkinguprightly. Galatians 2:14.[/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica]2:13[/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica]And the other believing Jews - Who were at Antioch. Dissembled with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation - Was borne away, as with a torrent, into the same ill practice. [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica]2:14[/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica]I said to Cephas before them all - See Paul single against Peter and all the Jews! If thou being a Jew, yet livest, in thy ordinary conversation, after the manner of the gentiles - Not observing the ceremonial law, which thou knowest to be now abolished. Why compellest thou the gentiles - By withdrawing thyself and all the ministers from them; either to judaize, to keep the ceremonial law, or to be excluded from church communion ? [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica]2:15[/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica]We - St. Paul, to spare St. Peter, drops the first person singular, and speaks in the plural number. Galatians 2:18, he speaks in the first person singular again by a figure; and without a figure, Galatians 2:19, &c.Who are Jews by nature - By birth, not proselytes only. And not sinners of the gentiles - That is, not sinful Gentiles; not such gross, enormous, abandoned sinners, as the heathens generally were. [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica]2:16[/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica]Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law - Not even of the moral, much less the ceremonial, law. But by the faith of Jesus Christ - That is, by faith in him. The name Jesus was first known by the gentiles; the name Christ by the Jews. And they are not always placed promiscuously; but generally in a more solemn way of speaking, the Apostle says, Christ Jesus; in a more familiar, Jesus Christ. Even we - And how much more must the Gentiles, who have still less pretence to depend on their own works! Have believed - Knowing there is no other way. Because - Considering the demands of the law, and the fate of human nature, it is evident, that by the works of the law - By such an obedience as it requires. Shall no flesh living - No human creature, Jew or Gentile, be justified. Hitherto St. Paul had been considering that single question, "Are Christians obliged to observe the ceremonial law? But he here insensibly goes farther, and, by citing this scripture, shows that what he spoke directly of the ceremonial, included also the moral, law. For David undoubtedly did so, when he said, 143:2, the place here referred to, "In thy sight shall no man living be justified;" which the Apostle likewise explains, Romans 3:19,20, in such a manner as can agree to none but the moral law.[/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica]2:17[/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica]But if while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves are still found sinners - If we continue in sin, will it therefore follow, that Christ is the minister or countenancer of sin? [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica]2:18[/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica]By no means. For if I build again - By my sinful practice. The things which I destroyed - By my preaching, I only make myself - Or show myself, not Christ, to be a transgressor; the whole blame lies on me, not him or his gospel. As if he had said, The objection were just, if the gospel promised justification to men continuing in sin. But it does not. Therefore if any who profess the gospel do not live according to it, they are sinners, it is certain, but not justified, and so the gospel is clear. [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica]2:19[/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica]For I through the law - Applied by the Spirit to my heart, and deeply convincing me of my utter sinfulness and helplessness. Am dead to the law - To all hope of justification from it. That I may live to God - Not continue in sin. For this very end am I, in this sense, freed from the law, that I may be freed from sin. [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica]2:20[/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica]The Apostle goes on to describe how he is freed from sin; how far he is from continuing therein. I am crucified with Christ - Made conformable to his death; "the body of sin is destroyed." Romans 6:6.And I - As to my corrupt nature. Live no longer - Being dead to sin. But Christ liveth in me - Is a fountain of life in my inmost soul, from which all my tempers, words, and actions flow. And the life that I now live in the flesh - Even in this mortal body, I live by faith in the Son of God - I derive every moment from that supernatural principle; from a divine evidence and conviction, that "he loved me, and delivered up himself for me." [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica]2:21[/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica]Meantime I do not make void - In seeking to be justified by my own works. The grace of God - The free love of God in Christ Jesus. But they do, who seek justification by the law. For if righteousness is by the law - If men might be justified by their obedience to the law, moral or ceremonial. Then Christ died in vain - Without any necessity for it, since men might have been saved without his death; might by their own obedience have been both discharged from condemnation, and entitled to eternal life. [/font][/font][/font]

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Baker's Evangelical Dictionary
of Biblical Theology[/font]

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Galatians, Theology of More than any other book in the New Testament, including perhaps even Romans, Paul's letter to the Galatians has been the source of theological teaching for the church in the midst of its deepest crises. Already in the original context of the letter, the Judaizing heresy threatened to undermine the work of the gospel among the Gentile churches and thus destroy the unity of God's people. In the second century, as the Christian church struggled with the Marcionite heresy, Galatians played a central role in the controversy. Much later, at the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the Protestant leaders identified in this letter the key to the fundamental theological problems facing them. Just what is the teaching of Paul's letter to the Galatians?

If we wish to answer that question accurately, we must not dissociate the theology of the letter from the historical setting in which it was written. All of Paul's letters were written to deal with specific problems, but in the case of Galatians the situation was especially urgent. The crisis was so great that Paul begins the letter, not with the kind of thanksgiving he normally used, but with an expression of amazement that the churches of Galatia had been persuaded by certain teachers to follow a false gospel (1:6). These teachers argued that Gentile Christians, if they wanted to share in Abraham's blessing, must be circumcised and submit themselves to the Old Testament Law. Because this requirement contradicted the message Paul preached, the false teachers also claimed that Paul did not have proper authority.

Traditionally, interpreters have divided the letter into three sections. The first section (chaps. 1-2), in which Paul defends his authority, is historical in character; the second is theological (chap. 3-4); and the final two chapters are practical or hortatory. While this division is useful, it may give the wrong impression, as though chapters 1-2 and 5-6 were not theological (or as though the first four chapters were not practical!). In fact this epistle is forcefully theological from beginning to end. Already in the salutation, which is longer than usual, Paul addresses the major issues, such as the divine origin of his apostleship and the redeeming character of Christ's work. The rest of chapters 1 and 2, true, are written in the form of a narrative, but even this section is fundamentally concerened with "the truth of the gospel" (2:5): the reason Paul must defend his apostleship is that the integrity of the Christian message is at stake. Moreover, the practical or ethical thrust of chapters 5-6 cannot be dissociated from the theological questions in view. In the past, scholars have tended to view Paul's exhortations in this letter as more or less "tacked on, " but recent studies have demonstrated that such a perspective is inadequate.

The thesis of chapters 1-2—but in a general sense also of the letter as a whole—is stated in 1:11-12: the message the Galatians heard from Paul has a divine, not a human, origin. This point is set forth very emphatically in verses 15-16. Just as God had chosen Jeremiah even before his birth (Jer 1:5), so Paul's ministry and message were the result of divine initiative and grace. Neither Paul's pre-Christian experience (vv. 13-14) nor his first years as a Christian (vv. 17-24) can explain the origin of his gospel. Moreover, it was not true—as his opponents probably claimed—that the integrity of his preaching had been compromised on two specific occasions—his consultation with the leaders of the Jerusalem church (2:1-10) and his confrontation with Peter in Antioch (2:11-14).

This last incident is of special significance, because it leads Paul to address the theological issue in a very explicit way (2:15-21). The moment Peter decided to stop having meal-fellowship with the Gentile Christians, he was in fact suggesting that they could not be fully accepted into God's people without first becoming Jewish. But such a view would contradict the very faith that Peter himself proclaimed. When Peter put his faith in Christ, he was acknowledging that even Jewish people (who were not considered "sinners" in the same way the Gentiles were) could not expect to be justified by fulfilling the requirements of the Mosaic Law. In other words, by seeking salvation in Christ, Peter was recognizing that he was as needy a sinner as the Gentiles were. Therfore, it was quite proper to break down the barriers of Jewish ceremonies and to eat with the Gentiles.

But now, afraid of what some Jews might think, Peter had decided to go back to his earlier and stricter Jewish conduct (2:12). By breaking meal-fellowship with the Gentiles, Paul charged, Peter was in effect building up what he had already torn down, and that made him a transgressor of the law (2:18; Paul says "I" perhaps to be polite, but Peter clearly is in view). How can Paul make such a claim? Because the Law itself, he says, leads people to die to the Law (2:19)—a remarkable and powerful statement that he develops in 3:19-24. This death, however, results in true life through Jesus Christ. The concluding statement (2:21) reveals Paul's true motivation: if our actions indicate that justification can be reached by the observance of the Law, then Christ's death must have been unnecessary and the doctrine of grace is subverted.

We get a new insight into the nature of the Galatian problem in the first few verses of chapter 3. There Paul describes the change in behavior among the Christians of Galatia by suggesting that, although they had begun in the power of the Spirit are now seeking to complete their salvation by means of the flesh. This contrast between Spirit and flesh is very important for Paul, especially in this letter. The word "flesh" is appropriate because of the Judaizers' emphasis on circumcision ( 6:12-13), but it also suggests the weakness of human nature and thus our inability to please God (cf. Rom 8:7). At the end of chapter 4 Paul uses the same two terms to contrast the birth of Ishmael (by natural human abilities) with that of Isaac (by the supernatural power of the spirit in fulfillment of the promise). Accordingly, the term "flesh" becomes shorthand to describe the character of the present evil world (a phrase used in 1:4), that is, everything that is opposite the world to come, which in turn is represented by the Spirit.

The world of the Spirit, however, is a world of faith, not of works of the law. If the Galatians really want to share in the Abrahamic inheritance—if they really want to be regarded as Abraham's children—they must live by faith as Abraham did (3:6-7, 29). Perhaps the Judaizers claimed that Paul created a contradition between the Abrahamic promise and the Mosic Law. In fact, says the apostle, it is the Judaizers who oppose these two principles. When God gave the Law four centuries after Abraham, he could not have intended that Law to alter the promise. But if the Judiazers were right, that is, if the inheritance could be received by the works of the Law, then the Law would be against the promise, which can only be had by faith (3:12-21).

No, the real purpose of the Law was temporary: to function as a guardian or jailor, condemning the sin of the Israelites, and thus preparing the way for Christ. Once Christ comes, the new age of faith breaks in and we do not need a guardian. It is union with Christ by faith that makes us not merely children of Abraham, but also children of God. All of this means that, so far as our standing with God is concerened, there are no differences among God's children: we are all one in Christ (3:22-28; 4:4-7).

In the course of his argument, Paul sets up a sharp distinction between two modes of existence, represented by various concepts. Reflecting on these contrasts provides significant insights into Paul's theology.

FleshSpiritWorks of the law

Faith, promise

Curse

Blessing, inheritance

Slavery

Freedom, sonship

Sin and death

Justification and life

Hagar the slave woman

[Sarah] the free woman

Sinai and present Jerusalem

Jerusalem from above

Ishmael

Isaac

Persecutor

Persecuted

Cast away

Heir

Being under law

Being led by the Spirit

Works of the flesh

Fruit of the Spirit

The last two sets of items occur in the hortatory section, particularly in 5:13-26. As already suggested, the practical concerns of the epistle are woven into its theological message. Paul's concern with the behavior of the Galatian Christians, that is, must not be viewed as an ethical question more or less unrelated to the doctrinal conflict they were facing. It may be that the emphasis on Law-keeping, which focused on ceremonial regulations, ironically made them insensitive to serious moral issues. Or perhaps they were simply confused about proper guidelines for godly conduct and the means to sanctification.

[/font]

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

Whatever the precise circumstances behind the Galatians' problem, Paul's answer suggests that the Law does indeed represent accurately God's will for them (5:14); however, the Law gives no power to fulfill the divine will (as suggested by 5:18; cf. 3:21; and Rom 8:3; elsewhere Paul points out that the Law actually abets sin, Rom 7:7-13; 1 Col 15:56). The only way to conquer the impulses of the flesh is to "walk" in the Spirit, to be led by the Spirit, to bear the fruit of the Spirit, to "keep in step" with the Spirit (5:16, 18, 22, 25). This emphasis on the power of the Spirit for sanctification raises the possibility that back in 3:3 Paul was already thinking about the ethical conduct of the Galatians. Their moral lives as much as their submission to ceremonial rules indicated a serious lapse in their relationship with God.

Central in this discussion is 5:6, one of the most important statements in all of Paul's letters: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." The phrase "expressing itself" translates the Greek verb energeo, "to work, be effective." It is evident that in opposing faith to the works of the law, the apostle does not view faith as a passive idea. On the contrary, true faith is at work through love. A comparison of this verse with 6:15 and 1co 7:19 suggests that, in Paul's theology, the principle of a working faith corresponds to the concept of the "new creation" and to the responsibility of "keeping the commadments of God." Because the leading of the Spirit produces conduct that the Law does not condemn (5:23), by implication those who live by the Spirit are the ones who truly fulfill the Law (cf. also 6:2; and Rom 8:4).

For some scholars, such an emphasis in this part of Galatians does not cohere with Paul's negative statements about the Law in the earlier sections of the letter. What needs to be recognized, however, is that the discussion in chapter 3 was not intended to provide a comprehensive essay on "the Pauline theology of the Law" (several aspects of that theology, not covered at all in Galatians, do surface in some of the other letters). The controversy that motivated Paul to write Galatians focused specifically on the relationship between the Law and justification. While Paul affirms that the believer is justified apart from the Law, he nowhere suggests that we are therefore free to break that Law. If anything, the gospel confirms the Law (cf. Gal 3:21; with Rom 3:31).

An additional question has been raised by recent scholarship. During the second half of the twentieth century, researchers have gained a fresh understanding of the positive qualities in Jewish theology at the time of the New Testament. It is clear, for example, that much rabbinic teaching appreciated the biblical emphasis on divine grace and that the Pharisees did not necessarily have a crass view of "works righteousness." On that basis, some theologians have argued that Protestant theology was misguided by Luther's own conversion experience. The medieval doctrine of human merit, we are told, was read into ancient Judaism and that affected our interpretation of Paul. According to this new approach, Paul did not really oppose the concepts of faith and Law-obedience. What he argued against in Galatians and elsewhere was the tendency to take the distinguishing marks of Judaism (circumcision, food laws, etc.) and use them to exclude Gentiles from God's purposes.

Undoubtedly, the Jewish-Gentile question was the fundamental issue facing early Christianity, and it may well be that the sixteenth-century Reformers did not sufficiently appreciate that factor as they sought to interpret Galatians. On the other hand, it would be a grave mistake to assume that the insights of the Protestant Reformation are incompatible with a recognition of such a factor. To say that Paul was concerened with nationalistic pride and not with personal self-righteousness is to fall into a false dichotomy (as Php 3:3-9; plainly indicates ). The Judaizers who were troubling the Galatian churches indeed focused on Jewish ethnic-religious identity as the means of enjoying the divine blessings. But because such an identity is something that can be achieved by personal effort (the "flesh"), the attempt to gain it reflects not confidence in God (faith) but confidence in one's own righteousness.

Today, no less than in the first century, Paul's letter to the Galatians reminds believers about the inseparability of theology and life. By setting forth in clearest terms what is "the truth of the gospel, " the apostle was able, under divine direction, to preserve the glorious doctrine of salvation by grace.

Moisé Silva
​

Bibliography. F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Galations; J.D.G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law; D. Guthrie, Galatians; W. Neil, The Letter of Paul to the Galatians; J. R. W. Stott, The Message of Galatians.

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

Hey thanks, guys...I needed to get up to 100 posts, and I'm roughly 3/4 away to my goal!

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

This thread is temporarily closed pending review from TAW Mods.

Thank You,
JeffreyLloyd
CF Moderator: One Bread, One Body - Catholic Discussions
Team Faithfulness

 

[Philip]

This thread is temporarily closed pending review from TAW Mods.

You may safely ignore the word temporarily. This thread has outlived its usefulness.