That was not their argument. Their argument was that you must be circumcised to keep the Torah. Did you read the OP?
Men arrived in Antioch from Judea and started teaching, "Gentiles must obey the law to be saved". Paul and Barnabas were in sharp dispute with them - i.e they disagreed.
Have you read Acts of the Apostles 15?
I was responding to your statement about obedience being the fruit of faith - in which you appeared to be saying that if people obey the law it shows they have faith.
I said that in that case, the council should have been urging Gentiles to be circumcised as it shows they had faith. But they didn't - the letter that the Council of Jerusalem wrote to Gentile believers had NO mention of circumcision.
Galatians 5:12.
This is a general opening to this letter. The whole letter is not about circumcision.
So Paul's "general opening" to his letter is to criticise them for listening to "another gospel"??
He would have no need to do that if they were not considering following another Gospel. Look at the other "openings" in Paul's letters - he thanks God for them and commends them for their faith, Romans 1:8-17; 1 Corinthians 1:4-9; Philippians 1:3-11; Colossians 1:3-13; I Thessalonians 1:2-10 etc. Paul begins his letters to his churches by thanking God for them, praying for them and commending them. That is his "general greeting". Except in Galatians - because the Gospel is so important to him and he is so horrified at the thought that they are abandoning it that he gets straight to the point. He is angry and worried.
It's a walk though, step by step of how this chapter pertains to YHWH's perfect Torah.
Have you actually read Galatians?
Paul starts off by saying that he is horrified that they have started to believe "another Gospel", rather than the one that he preached to them. He says that anyone who preaches "another Gospel" should be eternally condemned - if he'd been there he might have said "go to hell".
He discusses the matter of faith v obedience to the law, says that anyone who obeys the law is under a curse, Galatians 3:10 and calls the Galatians foolish for believing false teaching.
Let's look at this chapter in context.
Really?
Yet when I wrote about the context of Acts of the Apostles 15, you weren't interested but when off on some tangent about faith and works.
Galatians 5 (CLV)
1 For freedom Christ frees us! Stand firm, then, and be not again enthralled with the yoke of slavery."
What is Messiah freeing us from? Is it YHWH's Law?
Looking at something in context means also looking at what comes before it. There were no chapter divisions in the Greek; Gal 5:1 follows on immediately from Gal 4.
What was Paul saying in Galatians 4?
The latter half of that chapter is about Abraham's 2 sons - Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was the son of a SLAVE woman, born in the usual way; Isaac was Sarah's child, the son of a FREE woman, a child of the promise. Sarah was far too old to have had a son; she had Isaac only because God intervened and performed a miracle.
Paul says that, figuratively, these two women represent two covenants; one is from Mt Sinai and produces children who are SLAVES, Galatians 4:24, the other is Jerusalem and corresponds to the free woman - Sarah. They are all descendants of Sarah, not of Ishmael.
He says that the Galatians, to whom he is writing, are also like Isaac - children of promise. It was the child of promise who received Abraham's inheritance, not the child of the slave woman.
THEN we have Galatians 5:1 - "it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened by the yoke of slavery". Followed by teaching that if they allow themselves to be circumcised, Christ is of no use to them at all.
Where in scripture can we find that YHWH's law is slavery?
It certainly never set them free and gave them salvation.
Peter called it a yoke, Acts of the Apostles 15:10.
Paul said that believers died to the law through Christ, Romans 7:4. He compares it to a married woman - if she marries a man while her husband is alive she commits adultery, but if her husband dies, she is free to marry who she likes. The law has authority over someone only as long as that person is alive - and we have died with Christ.
The writer of Hebrews said that the Covenant was old and obsolete, which is why a new one was made. God made a NEW covenant because people were incapable of keeping the one made at Sinai - the law was how they showed that they accepted and obeyed the covenant. Christ is the mediator of the new covenant. Hebrews 7 says that Christ was "from the order of Melchizedek", who was from Judah, not Levi, and that where there is a change of priest there is a change of law, Hebrews 7:12.
The message of the NT is that Christ has come, fulfilled the law, reconciled us to God, given us life, peace, the Holy Spirit, every blessing and a future inheritance.
Nothing says that people need to accept Christ and then go and put themselves under the Jewish law in order to be saved. That was a false teaching then, and it is a false teaching now.
(CLV) Ja 1:25
Now he who peers into the perfect law, that of freedom, and abides, not becoming a forgetful listener, but a doer of the work, this one will be happy in his doing.
That doesn't sound like slavery.
Why are you assuming that the word "law" here refers to the law given at Sinai?
CONTEXT.
James 1:19-21 - James says that they should listen and be slow to become angry, for anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. They should get rid of all anger, moral filth and evil and
accept the word which was planted in them which can save them.
James 5:22 - they should not just listen to the word and fail to do what it says; that would be like a man looking in the mirror who then walks away and forgets what he looks like. (In the sermon on the mount, Jesus said the same thing; "happy are those who hear my words and put them into practice".)
What was the word that was planted in these believers which had saved them; Moses' law or the Gospel? In chapter 2 v 8 James talks about keeping the royal law - love your neighbour as yourself; something which was taught by both Jesus and Paul.
What does Paul say about the law?
(CLV) Ro 7:12
So that the law, indeed, is holy, and the precept holy and just and good.
I thought you believed in context?
Let's look at this letter in context. After all, it was written to be read as a letter, not a sound byte.
That's true of all Scripture, yet you keep quoting verses out of context - while telling me to remember context.
If you're looking at the WHOLE letter, not just "sound bytes", you need to start from chapter 1.
Paul was astonished that the Galatians had been, or were being, led astray by people who were preaching "another Gospel". He says that there is NO "other Gospel" - only the one that he preached to them - and anyone who tried to preach anything else should be condemned.
He said that the Gospel he preached was not his own invention, it was revealed to him by God, Galatians 1:11. He pointed out that he was a Jew who had previously persecuted the church, but that God revealed his Son to him and called him to preach to the Gentiles.
CLV) Ga 2:4
Yet, it was because of the false brethren who were smuggled in, whoa came in by the way to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they shall be enslaving us-
Yes, false teachers who were saying that they had to be circumcised and obey the law to be saved. Christians are free in Christ, these FALSE teachers wanted to ENSLAVE them again - i.e tell them to obey the law.
FALSE. Paul says that's not true - just as he did in Acts 15.
Ahh! I see. We're back to the Pharisees, and the traditions of men.
Pharisees and the traditions of men are mentioned - where?
(CLV) Ga 4:3
Thus we also, when we were minors, were enslaved under the elements of the world.Paul on the Law: Galatians 4
I thought you wanted to look at the whole letter and not just "soundbytes"?
What happened to chapter 3?
Clearly again, Paul did not abolish YHWH's Law.
Even Jesus didn't ABOLISH the law; he fulfilled it.
And Paul taught, again and again, that believers are in Christ. Jesus said the same thing; "remain IN ME and I will remain in you" John 15:4.
The law did not save and was powerless to save - Jesus saves and brings freedom.
2 Lo! I, Paul, am saying to you that if you should be circumcising, Christ will benefit you nothing." 3 Now I am attesting again to every man who is circumcising, that he is a debtor to do the whole law."
Again, in context to the Pharisees. Paul is reminding the Galatians that if you are to be saved by the law; you must keep all of the law perfectly.
Which is clearly impossible to do - no one had ever managed it, except Jesus.
Paul was not talking to, or about, Pharisees.
4 Exempted from Christ were you who are being justified in law. You fall out of grace.
Is Paul saying that by keeping YHWH's law through faith that we fall from grace? Of course not!
He was saying that if they believed the law saved, they had to keep the whole law perfectly - they couldn't be saved if they were a law breaker - and if they believed that, it meant that Christ died for nothing, since he died to save us, Matthew 26:28, Mark 10:45, Romans 5:1, Romans 5:8, Romans 5:11, Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 1:19-22.
(CLV) Jn 14:24
He who is not loving Me, is not keeping My words. And the word which you are hearing is not Mine, but the Father's Who sends Me.
And Jesus' words were NOT; Gentiles need to keep the Jewish law in order to be saved.
Which law do you suppose you are not under, when led by the Ruach HaKodesh?
I'm not under the law of sin and death, nor the law given to the Jews.
I keep the Royal law - Love your neighbour as yourself; James 2:8, Galatians 5:14, Matthew 19:19. Royal law = law made, or given, by the King.
Because he was still teaching circumcision.
Paul was teaching AGAINST circumcision for salvation.
Why did he circumcise Timothy?
I've answered this at least twice before - either you haven't read my answer or you don't believe it.
Why don't you ask him. The side who said that you must be circumcised to keep the law, won this debate, when James settled it.
You have clearly completely misunderstood Acts 15.
Those who were arguing that Gentiles should be circumcised to be saved did NOT win - Paul, Peter and Barnabas spoke against them and told how God had accepted the Gentile converts when he filled them with his Spirit - same as he had done for the Jewish converts.
The letter that James wrote did NOT state that they needed to be circumcised.
If we believe in Yahshua; we will follow his example.
But that example does not include circumcision. He was brought up as a Jewish boy - I wasn't.
I cannot be circumcised - looks like I'll have to trust in Christ alone, then.
Do you follow Jesus' example by wearing robes and speaking Aramaic?
(CLV) Ro 2:13
For not the listeners to law are just with God, but the doers of law shall be justified.
I'm justified through Christ, Romans 5:1.
