Galatians Chapter 2

Overview of Chapter Two:

Paul continues in the defense of his authority and the authenticity of his message. We see his confirmation by the Jerusalem apostles in their acceptance of Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile, and their approval of Paul and his ministry to the Gentiles. The claim of the Judaiazers was not to directly nullify belief in Messiah, but to add man's works to Jesus' righteousness; a chief claim being the Mosaic Law requirement of circumcision[1] for the Gentile in order to be saved (cf. Acts 15:1). Adding man's imperfect work to Jesus' finished work is an error which is prevalent today. We have seen that those who teach this false gospel of faith-plus-works for eternal salvation are, along with other serious outcomes, bringing God's judgment upon themselves (Gal. 1:6-10).

He mentions his encounter with false brethren who propagated their error for the intended purpose of bringing the Galatian believers into bondage and Paul's immediate and authoritative response to them.

He recounts Peter's hypocrisy displayed when the "big boys" from Jerusalem arrived. Peter's compromise threatened to undermine the dissemination of the true gospel. Paul's public rebuke of Peter's actions defended the truth of the gospel and also demonstrated his approval by the Jerusalem apostles.

He then summarizes a clear stand for both salvation by faith without the deeds of the law and embarks on some principals of the "grace" Christian life which continues into chapter three.

Chapter Two Text

2:1. Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

2. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

3. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:

4. And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

5. To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

2:1. Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

These verses deal with the defense of the gospel of grace in Jerusalem. Paul had previously spent some time there in his zeal for persecuting believers. He likely was reminded of the damage that he had done there both to individual believers and to the cause of Christ. He also knew that the grace of Christ had completely settled the debt for all his sin and that he was forgiven. To any who think that they have sinned too much to be saved or to be forgiven as a believer; remember that no one has "out-sinned" the grace of God yet (1 John 2:2).

Fourteen years after what? Was this referring to his conversion in Gal. 1:15-17, or his visit with Peter and James in verses 18 and 19, or the famine relief trip in Acts 11 and 12, or the Jerusalem council recorded in Acts 15?[2] Commentators are divided on the initiating event but agree that there was some time lapse spoken of here. Christian growth and maturity came with time and obedience in his life as is with us. Though there is some likelihood that the fourteen years began with his conversion, what I believe to be crucial here is not the precise timing, but what happened when he went up to Jerusalem.

Barnabas was the one who first introduced Paul to the other apostles in Jerusalem and kind of "broke the ice" for him as the apostles initially feared him (Acts 9:26, 27). He was Paul's companion on his first missionary journey (Acts 13 & 14). In fact, "Barnabas" was not even his original given name. He was called Barnabas (son of consolation^{^[3]}) apparently due to his pattern of life that had been exhibited over time (Acts 4:36).

If you have someone in your life who draws along side of you when you need encouragement; be thankful for that person. Let us reverse that reasoning and ask ourselves if we are an "encourager"[4] to others (Gal, 6:2). So many believers are negative and self-centered at times.[5] We all need encouragement because there are obstacles and difficulties along the way (1 Pet. 4:12). There is a time for loving and Biblical reproof but we all need encouragement. Sometimes this does not even involve sharing an appropriate Bible verse or "giving good advice." It could consist of just being a loving listener. As we are faithful in this area God can use us to be a "turn-point" in someone else's life.

We will see more about Titus in verse 3.

Paul went up to Jerusalem by, or according to (κατά - kat-ah') revelation. The details of the revelation are not stated but Paul probably included this fact in order to establish that he had independent but equal authority as the other apostles. He had not been summoned by the apostles nor sent by the church. God had sent him and his mission there had to do with the gospel.

What did he do in Jerusalem? He "communicated[6] unto them that gospel which [he preached] among the Gentiles." He privately presented the message that God had given to him and that he had been proclaiming for at least 14 years in order to obtain their assessment of it.

Who are the "them" which were of reputation" in Jerusalem? They are alluded to in verse 6 and named in verse 9: "...James, Cephas[7] (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars," i.e. some of the other apostles.

This desired assessment was not for the purpose of Paul seeking to find out if his message was correct. He knew that he was right because he had received it directly from Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:12). If the apostles endorsed Paul's message it would work together to further the spread of the good news.

The other apostles could add nothing to the revelation that Paul received. In actuality, the other apostles could learn some things from Paul. To Paul was given the mystery of the dispensation of grace; the church age (Eph. 3:2-6; 5:32). The original twelve initially had received a message intended only for the Jews (Matt. 10:5, 6) which had to do with the offer of the earthly kingdom (v. 7). The Jews as a nation wanted the kingdom but they had rejected the King. Thus, God's promises to Israel were postponed and the "church" age was initiated. The "church" was unknown in the OT but it was not a surprise to the all-knowing God. He left a space for it in the prophecy timeline as evidenced by the cryptic gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel, chapter nine, as in other places.

The Matthew 10 passage is evidence that there is such a doctrine in the Bible as "dispensations."^{^[8]} We see in Matt. 10:5 and following, that the original twelve apostles were initially sent, not to the Gentiles, but only to the house of Israel (Matt. 10:5, 6, also Matt.10:9, 10 early in His ministry, cf. Luke 22:35, 36, the night before His crucifixion). After the Jewish leaders repeatedly rejected the King and He is crucified and resurrected, there is then a significant change in the big program; The promised earthly Kingdom is postponed for a while. His charge then to the apostles is, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15) and "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matt. 28:19, 20).

We believe that this is also Jesus' charge to us today. As we consider how we spend our time and resources we need to evaluate how much of this effort has eternal value. I suggest that even many churches are majoring in minor things[9] with some of the goals and programs that they enthusiastically pursue. People are dying and going into a Christless eternity without hearing the clear and true Good News of eternal life through belief in Jesus while some are playing games at Sunday School picnics.

I find it ironic that when Jesus came the first time that He asked to be King. We see in Revelation that when He returns the second time to rule as King, that He isn't going to bother to ask anyone.

"...Among the Gentiles," What gospel did Paul preach to the Gentiles? He preached the same gospel to the Gentiles that he preached to the Jews. During Paul's first missionary journey he preached "justification by faith" to the Jews in the synagogue in Antioch Pisisdia which was located in the Galatian province. (Acts 13:14, 38, 39. See map on page 3). After many of the Jews rejected the message, he then spoke this same message to the Gentiles (vs. 42-49).

Paul was not intimidated for someone to examine his gospel message; Neither am I and neither should you be (Acts 17:11). If it's true to the Word of God, examine it all that you want. If it is not true to the Word of God, we need to correct it.

"... But privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run,[10] or had run, in vain."

In consulting with the Christian leaders at Jerusalem Paul had principally in view their formal endorsement of his work. Their official declaration that he had not been running in vain would materially aid him in his mission. It seems that Paul knew that his efforts thus far had not been in vain but that they could be more productive if the leaders were all of one mind concerning the gospel message. This is true today in the Christian ministry.

3. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:

Titus likely was saved under Paul's ministry (Titus 1:4). He later was an elder in the early church of Crete. His responsibilities in the churches there were the occasion of Paul's epistle to Titus (Titus 1:5). He also played a significant role in this instance of the Jerusalem visit to the other apostles. Titus was an uncircumcised Gentile; a test-case for the non-Jew not being required to be circumcised, or to become a Jew order to be eternally saved.

What about Timothy, who accompanied Paul during his second missionary journey, which included the same areas in Galatia as did his first missionary journey? (See map on page 3). Paul circumcised him. Why was circumcision prohibited here but endorsed with Timothy?

Timothy's situation was different. He was Jewish and in this case it would have been a stumbling-block for the Jews if he had not been circumcised. His mother was Jewish but his father was not (Acts 16:1, 3), which implied that Timothy had not been circumcised either. See this principle in Paul's ministry explained in 1 Cor. 9:19-23.

4. And that[11] because of false brethren unawares brought in,[12] who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

These detractors from the grace gospel were unsaved (false brethren).They were religious but lost. In contrast to these corrupters of truth, it is a mistake to think that believers cannot willfully fulfill this same role as enemies of the truth (of which we are warned in Gal. 1:7-9). We see here and elsewhere (5:12; 6:12) that more than one person was involved as he spoke of them in the plural. We also see here that their goals were neither innocent nor unintentional. The last phrase, "... that they might bring us into bondage" is a "purpose" clause. The word "that" in Greek is ἵνα (hin’-ah) which means "so that," "in order to," or "for the purpose of," These false brethren were using their treachery purposely and with the motive and goal to enslave the believers. We would be naive to think that this does not occur today. This action not only occurs today, it proliferates.

5. To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour;[13] that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

It is evident from Paul's decisive action in this matter that we are to contend for the Gospel of Grace without compromise. "...The truth of the gospel" is paramount. He did not adopt the ecumenical spirit that is so prevalent today in "Christian" circles that in order to maintain peace at any price, we should all just hold hands, sing Kum-ba-yah, and forget about our doctrinal differences." Endorsing fundamental doctrinal error is not loving nor is it obeying God's commands (Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Thess. 2:4).

Any group of diligent Bible students will legitimately differ with one another on some peripheral doctrines and should do so in a loving and honest spirit, but the "truth of the gospel" is one doctrine in which we must "draw a line in the sand." Please see comments about Jude 3 on page 1 of this study. This is the main thrust of the whole epistle to the Galatians.

It is imperative to maintain not only the truth of the gospel, but also its clear and understandable presentation. Accurate verbal communication is important but sometimes difficult.[14] Several factors come into play here: 1. What is meant by the speaker, 2. What is said by the speaker, 3. What is heard by the listener, 4. What is understood by the listener; which is all filtered by his culture, attitudes, degree of interest, education, etc..

Many married folks will testify that they sometimes have great difficulty understanding what their mate means when they say certain things. Just a sample of this would be if my wife asked me, "What do you think about the kitchen sink faucet dripping?" I might answer the question and reply, "I don't think that it's much of a big deal." I answered the question that was asked, not realizing that she actually was not seeking my expert knowledge of leaking faucets. What she was thinking was, "Get up and fix the faucet." There was a lack in effective communication somewhere. I submit to you that this might be the beginning of a bigger problem than just the leaky faucet.

We see that there are some obstacles to overcome. When sharing the good news of eternal life through belief in Jesus with others, sometimes the meaning of the words need to be clarified. For example, when speaking with a Jehovah's Witness, he may agree with you completely that Jesus is God. Further discussion would reveal that he means by that, that Jesus is a god[15] but Jehovah is separate and is the Almighty God. Many of the cults use the same terminology as do we but they use a different dictionary.

A good way to clarify something is to also state what it is not. If I were to address a hundred evangelical pastors and emphatically proclaim that what the world needs is to believe in Jesus for everlasting life per John 3:16, I would probably receive a hundred "Amens." If I then stated that what I mean by believe in Jesus is that I don't need to promise to turn from sin, reform my life, give my heart to Jesus, make Jesus Lord of my life, etc. to receive eternal life, it is likely that I would then only receive a couple of "Amens." We are in the enemy's territory and the message that Satan dislikes is also unpopular in his present domain (2 Cor. 4:3, 4: Eph. 6:10-19). This principle is demonstrated later in this chapter in verse 16 where Paul emphasizes both how we are not justified and how we are justified.

Along this line, a hint that has helped me greatly in sharing the good news is to deliberately misread a verse in order to emphasize what is really true. For instance, when showing 1 John 5:13 to someone I might say, "These things have I written unto you that (turn from their sin, try real hard, join a church) believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know (hope, guess, maybe) that ye have (life until you sin again or mess up real bad) eternal life, ..."

Even terms that are Biblical and dear to us need to be clarified or explained. What in the world does an unsaved person think that we mean if we tell him that he must be "born again?" When Jesus used this terminology, he explained it (John 3:3; 3:16). It is true that we must be born again in order to "see the kingdom of God" but we cannot "born" ourselves. Only God does that and only if we believe in Jesus for everlasting life as per John 3:16, et al.

Furthermore, we certainly should not use expressions that are unbiblical or in error, such as "give your heart to Jesus," "turn from your sins to be saved," make Jesus Lord of your life," "commit your life to Jesus, etc. in order to have eternal life," If we in any way make our good works or law-keeping a requirement to receive eternal life then we do not believe in Jesus for our eternal life. There would be no reason for Christ to die to pay for our sins if we could do it. See Gal. 3:21.

We will see that the phrase, "the truth of the gospel" mentioned here in reference to the message of salvation by faith without works, is also referred to in verse 14 where it has to do also with liberty in the Christian life.

Text

2:6. But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

7. But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8. (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

9. And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

10. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

6. But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

The other apostles were reputed as persons of some consequence, but that is not of importance to Paul. Their high position in the church did not alter the facts. They not only could not add to Paul's message, they endorsed it as well.

7. But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

The "gospel of the uncircumcision" and "the gospel of the circumcision" are not two different gospels. They are the same message directed to two different cultures or groups of people; the Gentiles and the Jews.[16] It is the same message for all (Mark 16:16).[17]

8. (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

Even though Peter was the mechanism which God used to open up the gospel to the Gentiles in Acts 10, his charge, his mission, his focus, was to the Jews. In contrast, Paul, in his early travels frequently went first to the Jew, then to the Gentiles (Acts 13:5; 14; 17:2, 3; et al). This practice apparently was somewhat modified after his encounter with the blaspheming Jews in Antioch, Pisidia, but in this context, he taught both groups the same grace gospel (Acts 13:42-47). He was "the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles" (Rom. 15:16; Acts 22:21;[18] 26:16, 17).

Paul is saying here that the same God Who gave Peter the wisdom, knowledge and power needful to establish the church among the Jews, had also fully endowed Paul for a similar work among the Gentiles (cf. 1 Cor. 12:6; Phil. 2:13; Col. 1:29).

9. And when James,[19] Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars,[20] perceived the grace that was given unto me,[21] they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

"... Who seemed to be pillars" could be translated, "who were reputed to be pillars." Paul was not questioning their position or authority.

"... They gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision." This was not just a polite social gesture. This incident was an official endorsement. The apostles formally approved both of Paul's apostleship and his message; including his calling to the Gentiles.

10. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

"Forward to do" means that this was an action that Paul was "diligent to do." This was Paul's pattern (Acts 24:17; Rom. 15:26, 27; 1 Cor.16:3).

Text

2:11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14. 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?

Chapter two can be broken down into two parts; the following chart showing its comparison and contrast:[22]

The defense of the gospel of grace in Jerusalem: 2:1-10	The defense of the gospel of grace in Antioch: 2:11-ff
The gospel of grace is defended principally	The gospel of grace is defended practically
The gospel of grace is defended because of false brethren	The gospel of grace is defended because of a hypocritical brother
The Apostle Peter recognizes Paul's gospel ministry and extends to him the right hand of fellowship	The Apostle Paul rebukes Peter for not walking straight according to the gospel
The meeting was a private gathering	The meeting was a public gathering
The gospel was defended in its proclamation	The gospel was defended in its application

11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

This verse begins a paragraph which continues through the end of this chapter. Food and fellowship frequently go together in the Bible.[23] Why would Paul cause this much commotion among the church assembly? Peter was in error and "was to be blamed," but what is at stake here? There is a higher degree of risk here than may seem on the surface. Peter was a Jew and therefore was not obliged to live after the manner of the Gentiles as he had been doing earlier in this account. But now having gone that far and then broken off, he was now logically compelling the Gentile believers to live as Jews; That is, to adopt the requirement of circumcision, the dietary laws of the Jews, etc. and to deny the earlier teaching of Peter himself. But if the Gentile believers did this they would also sacrifice the truth of the gospel which Paul had proclaimed. This liberty either recently had been,[24] or would soon be affirmed at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15). The church had decided that no such burden of legal compliance was to be imposed upon the Gentile believers. This council determined how the early church was to handle the erroneous message of faith-plus-works for eternal life and the imposition of the Mosaic law on the believing Gentile.

The whole principle of grace was at stake. The logical outcome of Peter's conduct would be to make Jews out of Gentile Christians or else force the creation of two churches; i.e. to create a Gentile church along side of the Jewish church which would break the union of the Body of Christ. The future of the church was at issue here.

As a side note; if Peter was the first pope as the Roman Church claims, he was poor example here. He needed and heeded Paul's rebuke, accepting it as being correct. Peter later endorsed Paul's writings as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15, 16, and even maintained that some of what Paul wrote was "hard to be understood." Peter never claimed papal authority to interpret what Paul had written for those in the church. (P.S. Peter was also married - Matt. 8:14).

12. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

" ...He did eat...[25]" is in the imperfect tense meaning that "he had been eating" or that this was his pattern. When God sent Peter to the Gentile, Cornelius, He taught him that table-fellowship with Gentiles was no longer forbidden (Acts 10:9-29). Therefore it was not unexpected that he would be eating with them in Antioch.

Peter had not changed his doctrinal views; his action of withdrawing and separating[26] from them was motivated by fear. Prov. 29:25 tells us, "The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe." (cf. Acts 11:2).

13. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.[27]

When the other Jews saw Peter's hypocrisy, some of them and even Barnabas followed right in with him.

Several applications to consider that might be relevant here to us are: 1. That we all are vulnerable to peer pressure and fear of being socially ostracized. 2. That we do not sin in a vacuum. When we sin, not only do we suffer, but it causes damage to the cause of Christ, and usually also damages others who had not sinned in this area. 3. That each of us are being an example, good or bad, to someone, and sometimes with eternal ramifications (2 Cor. 3:2). It has been said that you are the best Christian that someone knows.

14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly[28] 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,[29] and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

This was a sin performed in public by a public leader which needed to be admonished in public. This was not a private quarrel but a matter of public policy which affected the future of the church. Peter was essentially supporting the erroneous doctrine of the Judaizers by compelling the "Gentiles to live as do the Jews." His lifestyle was inconsistent with what he believed about justification by faith, thereby frustrating (nullifying) God's grace (cf. v. 21).[30]

Peter's hypocritical action here was effectively endorsing the compelling of the Gentiles to live like Jews, to Judaize the Gentile Christians; the very point at issue in the Jerusalem Conference where Peter so loyally supported Paul (Acts 15). Legalism[31] adversely affects, "the truth of the gospel" both in reference to justification (2:5) and to sanctification (2:14).

"... They walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel." Can we infer from this that compliance with the truth of the gospel will result in a correct walk for the believer? It is likely that simply knowing the truth will not accomplish that goal. On the other hand, I do believe it to be a Biblical principle that we cannot have right living without knowing right doctrine[32] (2 Tim. 2:15).

It is not clear whether Paul's remarks to Peter before the church ended here or in verse 21. However, the entire section is in response to Peter's inappropriate action.

Text

2:15. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

16. 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.

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.

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

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

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.

These verses are a continuation of Paul's admonition concerning Peter's hypocritical actions mentioned in verses 11-13 when he was eating with the Gentiles and then withdrew himself due to his fear of the Judaiazers upon their arrival (v. 12).

15. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

The " who " supplied by the translators is not necessary here. " We" is emphatic in the Greek. We, including Paul, Peter, Barnabas, and the other believing Jews in attendance, were born Jews (who had knowledge of the Scripture - Rom. 3:1, 2), and not sinners of the Gentiles (who did not have God's Word), therefore the Jews knew something and were accountable for it; i.e. verse 16. Both ethnic groups are justified by the same Gospel. We also know something and are also accountable for it.

This verse, while completing the thought of verse 15, mentions 3 times in varied wording that we are not justified by works and 3 times that we are justified^{^[33]} by belief in Jesus Christ. This is a good example of making communication clear and simple[34] as has been previously endorsed. If a reader of this verse does not realize and accept the fact that we are justified by faith in Jesus and not by the works of the law, it is not because of interpretation difficulties; it is because of willful unbelief! One reason that we cannot be justified by the works of the law is because no one (except Jesus) could ever keep the law. (Rom. 3:10, 23, 28).

Please notice also that the text does not say that we are justified simply by faith or by believing. It says that "we have believed in Jesus Christ." It is belief in Jesus that saves the believer. There is a well-known Bible teacher^{^[35]}who is known for his enthusiastic stand for Lordship salvation,^{^[36]}who also makes a big deal about the quality of our faith; that it must be the right type of faith in order for us to be really justified. What he means by this is that if we do not have a certain amount of good works along with our faith that we are not truly justified. In accordance with the warning of God in Gal. 1:6-9, I would not like to be in his shoes^{^[37]} when I stand before my Savior at the Judgment Seat of Christ (the Bema - βῆμα - bay'-ma - 2 Cor. 5:10, 11; 1 Cor. 3:11-17).[38]

Though the Bible does speak of little faith and great faith[39] ("...O ye of little faith." Matt. 6:30; "...so great faith." Matt. 8:10), in reference to receiving eternal life, the Bible says nothing about the quantity of faith nor the quality of faith; it clearly emphasizes the object of our faith; Jesus (John 3:16, et al).

17. But if,[40] while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

Paul, Peter, and the other Jewish believers were already justified. Is this speaking about the fact that they had accepted this message for themselves and now endorsed it for others? One commentator[41] suggests that "present participles (in this case ζητουντες) can be quite flexible in Greek and can refer to present or past time. Thus if after Paul and Peter sought and gained justification, they were "found [to be] sinners, is therefore Christ the minister[42] of sin?"

It seems that he is saying here that when we are justified by Christ, that we recognize that we are sinners, and if we recognize that we are a sinners, is Christ causing us to be a sinner? Paul's forceful answer is "...God forbid." This is not a literal translation of the phrase but is an idiomatic expression which carries much the same meaning.[43] Paul is emphatic that neither Jesus nor Paul's grace teaching are the cause of sin.

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

Paul now shifts from 1st person plural to 1st person singular ("we" to "I"). All the Jews did not contribute to destroying the Church. Paul personally admits his guilt in that regard. (e.g. Acts 8:3). This is true but he likely is saying more. What else did he destroy? He destroyed the whole concept of justification by the Law that was so prevalent among many of the self-righteous Jews. If he put himself back under law and sanctioned the requirement for the Gentiles to be under the law for salvation, he would show himself to be a transgressor. One purpose of the law is to show that we are sinners (Rom. 3:19). By endorsing the legalistic teaching which he had been opposing he would also harm the Church, likely more than his earlier persecution had done.

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

We are now beginning to approach some important principles for successfully living the Christian life. What does it mean that Paul was dead to the law? It is important to realize that this verse does not say that the law is dead, but that we are dead to the law. The law will not die. We are told that the law will outlast the earth according to Matt. 5:17, 18.^{^[44]}"...Am dead..." in this verse is literally the verb, "died."

Although we as believers are eternally saved by what God has already done for us regardless of our past or future lifestyle, this verse most certainly does not imply that a believer now has the freedom to live in a reckless or lawless manner (cf. Titus 3:5, 8; Eph. 2:10). The purpose clause here indicates something; you guessed it, the purpose of us being dead to the law; "that [we] might live unto God." The positive side of this principle will be covered in more detail in the following chapters. Hint: It has to do, not with a rigid list of do's and don'ts, but with the law (or principle) of Christ, (Gal. 6:2). Jesus answered the Pharisees who asked Him about the law, that the law commanded to love the Lord with all their heart... and to love their neighbor as themselves (Matt. 22:36-40); "...Love is the fulfilling of the law." (Rom. 13:8, 10.). The law of liberty (James 1:25; 2:12.cf. Gal. 5:1) also factors into this. All this cannot be achieved without yieldedness to the Holy Spirit; the source of the enabling power, which is essential for effective Christian living (Gal. 5:16; Rom. 8). The next verse condenses this into one phrase, "... the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God" (cf. Col. 2:6). It does not say that we live by "obedience to the Mosaic law."

What about being " dead to the law?" The law cannot try a dead man. Furthermore, the law cannot try a person twice for the same crime. Our sin-debt has already been paid! If a man was on trial for a capital offense and during the trial he has a heart attack and dies, the case would then be dismissed, as he is now beyond the authority of the law. The defendant was dead to the law; but in this case it was because he cheated the law.

Paul's case was different. He was dead to the law "through the law." It was as if he was tried, convicted, sentenced, and legally executed. The case was closed. He was not only dead to the law but he, "through the law [was] dead to the law." The law was satisfied as it had put him to death. But then, what about when he was later seen alive, walking the streets of the city?

The law can then do no more. It has no provision for resurrection after the death of the executed. The law's dominion stops at the grave. The next verse tells the reason that Paul became dead to the law "that [he] might live unto God." Again, the word "that" here introduces a purpose clause. We too have become dead to the law and been resurrected to newness of life for a purpose; "that [we] might live unto God." (See also Rom. 6:4, "...so we also should walk in newness of life." and Rom. 7:6 "...that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter").

Law and grace are not complementary, they are antithetical. They contrast with each other. Under law, if you picked up sticks for a fire on the Sabbath day, what was the result? Death![45] (Num. 15:32-36). Under the law, what was the result of being a stubborn and rebellious son? Death! (Deut. 21:18-21). It is little wonder that Paul calls the law the "ministration of death" in 2 Cor. 3:7. The law requires perfect obedience. (Rom. 2:14; cf. Rom. 3:10, 23; Gal. 3:10; James 2:10). Our Savior is the only One who accomplished that humanly impossible feat (1 Pet. 2:21, 22). He did this for us (v. 23). "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." (John 1:17).

Jesus came to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17). Even His gracious response to the woman taken in adultery as recorded in John 8, shows His respect for the law. The accusers hypocritically demanded that she be stoned per the law's requirement (v. 5). Their demand was an attempt to tempt and accuse Jesus; (v. 6) probably to see if He would reject the law by hindering her stoning and tacitly endorsing sin, thereby leaving Him open to judgment from the Jewish leaders, or that He would reject His own teaching of love and sanction her being stoned, which would reveal hypocrisy.

Jesus masterfully invalidated both of these objectives. He requested witnesses as per the law (Deut. 17:6; 19:15). When no witnesses were forthcoming, He handled the matter with love and grace without endorsing her sin; "...go, and sin no more." (vs. 10, 11; cf. John 1:17).

Let us now turn to Romans 7:1-6 for some more background on what is meant by being "dead to the law." We will first look at verses 1 through 3.

Romans 7:1-3

1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

This is where many Bible teachers stop reading in order to promote their erroneous doctrine that the Bible does not, in any situation, allow divorce and remarriage.[46] That important and timely topic is not directly related to the purpose of this Galatians study but we hope to show that this passage does not teach that error, but does teach something else of importance to all of us.

Besides the fact that it is practically a hermeneutical truism that it is unwise to build a doctrine solely upon analogy and illustration, please note also that this passage nowhere mentions divorce and remarriage or whether or not divorce is allowed. This passage is not a treatise on divorce and remarriage. That is not the issue which is approached. The matter discussed is that of being married to two people at the same time; i.e. bigamy,[47] which here is labeled as adultery. The next verses explain why the marriage/bigamy metaphor is used here; If a believer is married to the law, he cannot be married the same time to Christ (i.e. as the bride of Christ). Someone has to die first to permit a second marriage.

4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

We see in verse 4 again the phrase, "dead to the law." We see also the means by which we become dead to the law; "by the body of Christ."

In summary, this passage seems to be saying that if a wife wishes to be married to another without becoming an adulteress that she is presented with a dilemma;[48] the husband has to die first. If she were to die, a second wedding could legitimately take place, but that would be of no benefit to her.

In the parallel of verses 1-3 explained in verses 4-6, we see the spiritual application; Before a marriage can legitimately could occur, one of the married parties must die. God's Law will not die as mentioned earlier. If the believer dies then that party will be unable to get remarried due to their own demise.

What is God's ingenious solution to this perplexing quandary? Instead of the believer's death, a Substitute emerges to die in our place. Jesus took the Law's sin-penalty of death upon Himself. We die in Him (We are members of His body - Eph. 1:22, 23; 1 Cor. 12-27). Thus, since we technically die in Him, we have fulfilled the requirement and are no longer bound to the old husband, the Law. And since Christ not only takes us with Him in death but also in the resurrection from the dead, we are alive to be subsequently joined to Him as His bride.

Two stated purposes of this new relationships are "that we should bring forth fruit unto God." (v. 4) and "that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." (v. 6). The "faith" life is intended to be anything but a disobedient and fruitless life.

We hope that this explanation will be a helpful introduction to the meaning of the next verse.

This verse is a continuation from verse 19, "For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God" and even further back to the thought of verses 15, and 16. Note the opening words in verses 17, 18, and 19; "But if...," "For if...," and "For I...." It is also part of the admonition to Peter concerning his hypocrisy and compromise of the truth of the gospel.

I am crucified..." is in the perfect tense. Another Greek past tense, the aorist tense, simply indicates that something occurred in the past at a point in time. The perfect tense indicates that the event occurred in the past but that the results remain though to the present time.[49] Some translations have it, "I have been crucified...," which is also accurate.

"I am crucified with Christ:" The law has done its job. The death penalty has been paid (Rom. 6:23; Ezek. 18:20a). The law was never meant to save (Gal. 3:21), but to expose sin in order to convict of the need of a Savior (Rom. 3:19-25) and to lead the unbeliever to the Savior in order that we might be justified (Gal. 3:24).

"...Nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me:" We were powerless to live righteously under law (Rom. 7:7-25), but now since we "through the law [are] dead to the law," we are free to "live unto God"(v. 19) because " Christ liveth in me" (v. 20).

How is this accomplished? "... and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God,^{^[50]} who loved me, and gave himself for me.

The life that Paul now lives is not by the law but, "by the faith of the Son of God." We are saved through faith (Eph. 2:8, 9) and we are also intended to live by faith. Col. 2:6 exhorts us, "As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:"

Please also see; 2 Cor. 5:7 "(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)" Heb. 11:6, "But without faith it is impossible to please him:" Romans 14 is an insightful discourse on the proper use of liberty that we have in our Christian walk. The last verse sums up these principles with: "...whatsoever is not of faith is sin." (v. 23).

Many of us are familiar with Hebrews, chapter 11, which is frequently called the "faith" chapter. This is due to its repeated accounts of Old Testament believers who "by faith" accomplished great feats for God's glory and victoriously endured various trials. An important fact to remember when interpreting this passage is that the "faith" spoken of here is not the faith by which they were eternally saved. That was already a one-time" done deal;" which was also by faith. This is speaking of the faith which they displayed in their daily spiritual life. They had already been saved by faith (as in Eph. 2:8, 9) but they also chose to live day-by-day by faith; just as we are admonished to do. In chapter 3 we will discuss further the OT quote found in verse 11,"...The just shall live by faith."

At the end of this list of victorious saints we are reminded of their ministry to us: "Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses,..." [51] (Heb. 12:1a). The example of these faithful servants of God are a testimony and encouragement for us to be faithful throughout our trials and service to our God. The word "witness" here does not carry the emphasis of viewing something, but of testifying or being a testimony to something which they had experienced. Many believe that this verse supports the thought that our dear departed Aunt Millie can see us today in our daily living. If that is so, due to the meaning of the word and to the context, I do not believe that this is the verse to use to establish that view.

The passage then goes on to exhort us to lay aside both weights and sin in order for us to run the race that is set before us. It then admonishes us to be "looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith...."

"Christ liveth in me:" We as believers both have Christ in us ("...Christ in you the hope of glory." Col. 1:27), and we are in Him ("There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,..." Rom. 8:1).

Paul sometimes begins his epistles with several chapters establishing correct doctrine, then launches into a discourse on how to apply this correct doctrine in our Christian lives. For example, the first 3 chapters of Ephesians contain the phrases, "in Christ," "In Him," and "in Whom" about 19 times; i.e. what we have and are in Christ. The 4th chapter begins with an admonition of what the believer's walk should then be in light of what we are and have in Christ. The balance of the epistle is largely practical in nature.

Where do we go to obtain this correct doctrine, and to be more specific, where do we go to obtain the faith that we need? We go to God's Word for correct doctrine. ("Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Tim. 2:15), and we also go to God's Word for faith ("So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word[52] of God." Rom. 10:17). We cannot grow without being fed. (Matt. 4:4, "But he [Jesus] answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

It seems from other Scripture^{^[53]} that at least the last two references to "live:" "...and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God," appear to be something which Paul made a willful decision to achieve, i.e. he chose to have faith in the Son of God in his daily walk as a believer.

Please notice that Paul is not telling us that either he or we need to be crucified with Christ. He says that he already is crucified with Christ.[54] It appears that this is not a command for the believer to obey, but a positional truth which is applied to us when we believe in Jesus. This is how he became dead to the law. In contrast, living by faith is a choice and an ongoing process.

We have seen that believers are dead to the law due to Jesus dying in our place. When He was crucified we were positionally crucified with Him. He took our place to pay the law's penalty for our sin. We not only died with Him, but we were resurrected to walk in newness of life.

"Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." (Rom 6:4).

Furthermore, in God's eyes, we are already seated in the heavenly places.

"And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places (Lit. in the heavenlies) in Christ Jesus:" (Eph. 2:6).

Rom. 6:6 also mentions our crucifixion with Him. A very brief 3 point synopsis of the Christian life which is detailed in Romans 6 is:

Knowing v.6

"Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." (Our old man is crucified in Jesus, we should reckon it so as per v. 11, i.e. Act upon it as a settled fact).

Reckon, v. 11 (NASB, "consider")

"Likewise reckon[55] ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." (We do not have to yield to our old nature. It does not have to have power over us now).

Yield, v. 16 (NASB, "present yourselves")

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" ("Yielding" ourselves goes against our prideful nature. We will examine this principle in more detail in chapter 5 where we are told to "walk in the Spirit").

Romans, chapter 7 explains how we need to have died to the law in order to be married to another. This is so that we "should bring forth fruit unto God" (v. 4) and so that we "should serve in newness of the spirit" (v. 6). Chapter 7 also details the failure of both the law and of our sinful nature to produce righteousness in our life. Romans, Chapter 8 explains the necessity for the power of the Holy Spirit in our Christian life.[56]

The truths of Romans 6 through 8[57] seem to present a synopsis of the effective and productive Christian life. What Paul is telling us in Galatians 2:20 is a summary or an abbreviated version of Romans, chapter 6. It is almost like Paul decided to later write an expanded and more detailed chapter on the theme of this verse.

"...I live by the faith of the Son of God..." The Christian life is not rules, it's relationship. So if we want to grow, we do not grow in the law, but we "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

2 Pet. 3:18 "But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen."

Gal 5:24 "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."

Gal 6:14 "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world."

Rom 6:8 "Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:"

Col. 2:12 "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

Col 2:20 "Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances."

Col 3:1-3 "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." ("If" in verse one is 1st class conditional and could be translated as "since").

"...The Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." John 3:16, which is probably the best known Bible verse tells us, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

It never ceases to amaze me that someone loved me that much; especially a holy, sinless God. Though I fail many times, I wish to respond to Him also in a loving manner. He has bought and paid for us, therefore, we should glorify Him in our lives. "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." (1 Cor. 6:19, 20).

Being born again (cf. John 3:3, 16) does not mean getting a renovated old nature, it is a new birth by the Holy Spirit. We can now "walk in newness of life." (Rom. 6:4).

In summary, before we were saved, the law showed us that we were sinners and needed the Savior. When we believed in Jesus we were born again. We were positionally crucified with Christ and rose with Him from the dead. We are now not married to the law but as the bride of Christ, we have liberty to serve our Savior in love, by faith and not by the Mosaic law (Gal. 5:13, 16).

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

" I do not frustrate the grace of God:..." "Frustrate"[58] here means to nullify or to make void. "... for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Paul adamantly refused to nullify or detract from God's grace by adding the false concept of law righteousness to the Gospel message. If we could receive the righteousness that is needed for eternal life by keeping the law, then Christ died a needless death.

Paul says in the next chapter, "... for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Gal. 3:21).

Rom. 8:3 "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:"

The law is just and cannot show mercy. The law is holy (Rom. 7:12), therefore it condemns sinful man. The law demands 100% obedience (Gal. 3:10; James 2:10), a feat which we cannot achieve (Rom. 3:10, 23). Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the law in our place so that we might have His righteousness imputed to us (2 Cor. 5:21).

"And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:" (Phil. 3:9).

[1] Circumcision; περιτομή - per-it-om-ay'- literally, to cut around. It was initially commanded to Abraham and his household as a sign of God's covenant to him and was commanded for every male child on the eighth day after birth (Gen.15-17; Acts 7:8; Rom. 4:11; Phil. 3:5). [Continued on next page]

It was codified by Moses to Israel during the Exodus (Lev. 12:2, 3; John 7:22, 23) and is still practiced in Judaism today. It had become a symbol of pride for the Jews and the lack of such, a corresponding symbol of contempt for the Gentiles or the uncircumcised.

In the Bible the term could refer to the physical act of circumcision (Phil. 3:5), the Jews as a nation (Gal. 2:9), implying the keeping of the Mosaic Law ( 1 Cor. 7:19), or figuratively as a symbol of purity of heart (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Rom. 2:2).

A humorous riddle brings to mind a question about Jewish circumcision: What do they call a Jewish baby who has not been circumcised? Answer: a little girl. The unanswered question is: if the Judaizers claimed circumcision was a requirement for eternal salvation, where do the females fit in? I don't know.

^{^[2]}Some commentators place the Jerusalem council before this time. Paul did not mention this important meeting and the apostles' conclusion in Galatians. If it had occurred prior to the penning of Galatians, he could have saved some ink by referring to it.

^{^[3]}"Consolation" here is from παράκλητος - par-ak'-lay-tos; the same Greek word that is used to describe the Holy Spirit in John 14:16; 26; 15:26; 16:7 and for Jesus Christ in 1 John 2:1 (advocate). The word means an "intercessor," "consoler," "advocate" or "comforter." Its root is from two words meaning to call near or along side. The verb form also contains the sense of "exhortation." In this sense the Holy Spirit is also not just a "comforter" as stated John 14:16, but He is also a "discomforter" in the sense that He convicts of the sin of unbelief (John 16:8-11).

[4] A humorous illustration of someone who is not an encourager: A few months after the Katrina debacle two men were sitting next to each other while on an airplane flight. One noticed that the other man seemed to be quite agitated. He asked him if there was a problem. The other man replied that his company had just transferred him to New Orleans and that he was terrified about the crime problems, drug wars, race riots, etc. that were occurring there. The other man answered him and said that he lived in New Orleans and these things just are not a problem. He advised that it was important to choose the right neighborhood in which to live, choose good schools for the children, don't go to certain areas at night, and so on.

The worried man was greatly relieved and thanked him profusely. He then said, "Oh by the way, what do you do for a living? The other man replied, "Oh, I'm a tail-gunner on a Budweiser truck."

[5] The story is told about the self-centered lady who proudly proclaimed, "I've come to the realization that Galileo was wrong. The world doesn't revolve around the sun; it revolves around ME." We sometimes see this spirit manifested when we drive in rush-hour traffic.

[6] "Communicated" ἀνατίθεμαι (an-at-ith'-em-ahee) to place or set forth for consideration or discourse. This word is used only in one other place in the NT: Acts 25:14, "...Festus declared Paul’s cause unto the king...." This is not usual word that is translated "communicate," e.g. in Gal. 6:6," Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. This word, "κοινωνέω" (koy-no-neh'-o) means more to "share" or to "be a partaker with."

[7] "Cephas" Κηφᾶς (kay-fas') Aramaic name of Peter; means "a stone" (John 1:42). Note the play on words in Matt. 16:18, where Jesus said, "...thou art Peter (Πέτρος - pet'-ros; a piece of rock; a stone), and upon this rock (πέτρα - pet'-ra, rock or rock mass, i.e. Himself) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Peter was not the foundation of the Church; Jesus was and is.

[8] "Dispensation" as in Eph. 3:2. (οἰκονομία - oy-kon-om-ee’-ah) The management of a household or of household affairs, specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of another’s property; The office of a manager or overseer, stewardship, administration, dispensation.

In Biblical theology a dispensation is a period of time during which God deals with man in a particular way in respect to sin and judgment. Dispensational theologians generally accept seven dispensations: Innocence, Conscience, Human Government, Promise, Law, Grace or the Church age (the present dispensation), and Kingdom (also known as the Millennium). Mankind has always been justified by faith (e.g. Gen. 15:6 with Abraham; cf. Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6; James 2:23).

[9] Some have likened this frequently seen pattern to "putting up new window curtains on the Titanic as it was sinking." The passengers on the Titanic needed lifeboats, not new curtains. There are lost people all around us who have not heard the clear Gospel. We have a God-given responsibility to share the truth in love (Eph. 4:15; I Thess. 2:4).

Amy Carmicheal was a missionary to India in the early 1900's. For a convicting message along the same line, please read the brief account of a dream that she had about believers' priority of putting the making of daisy chains above the welfare of lost mankind. http://www.thetravelingteam.org/articles/amy-carmichaels-dream

[10] The term "run" (τρέχω - trekh'-o) is a favorite metaphor with Paul. See also Rom. 9:16; 1 Cor. 9:24, 1 Cor. 9:26; Gal. 5:7; Phil. 2:16; Phil. 3:13, Phil. 3:14.

[11] Is "that" referring back to the issue with the circumcision issue with Titus, or is referring to the content of verse 4; "...because of false brethren..."? The phrase "that because of" is from διά (dee-ah') in the original and means, "through," "because of," or "on account of." It is referring to the same verse and following. The verse could be accurately translated, "But because of the false brethren privately brought in who came in privily (or stealthily) to spy out (or make a treacherous investigation of) our liberty for the purpose that they might bring us into bondage (or slavery)."

^{^[12]} "Unawares brought in," lit. smuggled in. "Privily," lit. stealthily. "Spy out" lit. inspect insidiously. These are not "nice" guys. They are Satan's ministers (2 Cor. 11:13-15).

[13] "Hour" (ὥρα - ho'-rah) not necessarily sixty minutes but a definite point of time, a moment.

[14] A humorous illustration which demonstrates the need for clarity of communication: There is a story told of a homeless man who knocked on the door of a Palm Beach mansion seeking employment in exchange for something to eat. The lady of the house was eager to help and advised the man that there was a 5 gallon can of paint and a paint brush in the garage and that he could paint the porch for a meal. A while later the man came back to the lady with a satisfied smile on his face. She asked if he had completed painting the porch. He eagerly replied, "Yes ma'am, I painted the Porsche and I also painted the Rolls Royce.

[15] This reply has been offered to me several times in reply to John 1:1; that Jesus was just a god. They also are correctly adamant that there is only one God (Deut. 6:4 - יהוה). I don't know how they reconcile these two contradictory statements.

[16] Peter preached the same eternal salvation message to the Gentile, Cornelius, (Acts 10:43) as he did to the Jews (Acts 15:7-9). Paul preached the same eternal salvation message to the Jews and he did to the Gentiles (Acts 13:38, 39, 42, 47, 48). The decision of the Jerusalem council was in agreement with Peter's declaration; that the Jews and Gentiles are to be saved the same way (Acts 15:11).

[17] There is a doctrine accepted by some which is frequently called, "hyper-dispensationalism" or ultra-dispensationalism, which among other things propounds, that the Church began not at Pentecost, but sometime after the conversion of Saul/Paul and that only his epistles relate to the church today. This verse is offered in support that the gospel of Paul to the Gentiles superseded Peter's gospel to the Jews. It should be noted that Paul himself states not only that those who teach another gospel have God's anathema upon them (Gal. 1:6-10) but also that he persecuted the "church of God" and therefore it had to exist before the time of his conversion mentioned in Acts 9. (Acts 8:3; Gal. 1:13).

2 Tim. 3:16 tells us, "All scripture [not just Paul's epistles] is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" One Bible teacher's comments on this verse include: "doctrine - what is right; reproof - what is wrong; correction - how to get right; instruction in righteousness - how to stay right."

[18] The context of this verse shows that the Jews were not any too happy with this fact. See Acts 13:46 where Paul and Barnabas declare that it was necessary that they proclaim God's Word first to the Jews (as per Rom. 1:16) and due to their rejection of it that they then turn to the Gentiles. The Jews did not like that God was, for a period of time, shifting his emphasis from them to the Gentiles and the building of the Church (which included both believing Jews and believing Gentiles). Since the Jews as a nation had rejected their Messiah, God's promises to Israel had been postponed but not canceled (See Rom. 9-11).

[19] This is likely James, the half-brother of Jesus as James, the brother of John was martyred earlier (Acts 12:2).

[20] "Pillar" A post; figuratively a "support." A humorous quip: "Are a pillar in your church, or are you a caterpillar; just crawling in and out occasionally?

[21] Paul speaks frequently of the grace that was given to him. (Rom. 1:5; Rom. 12:3; Rom. 15:15; 1Cor. 3:10; Gal. 2:9; Eph. 3:8).

Aren't you glad that grace is given to us also? (Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 1:4; 2 Cor. 6:1; Eph. 4:7; Jas. 4:6; 1 Pet. 5:5).

[22] This comparison and contrast insight was gleaned from MP3 message 8 on Galatians, by Pastor Dennis Rokser; www.DuluthBible.org.

[23] Some have humorously noted that in some of today's church pot-luck suppers that this practice has evolved more into "food and bellyship."

[24] A number of commentators maintain that this council had already occurred. I know of no way to be dogmatic but think it more likely that it occurred shortly after the writing of this epistle due to the fact that the council's decision is not mentioned here.

[25] Some commentators consider it likely that this was referring to the Lord's Supper because of the NT passages that suggest that the Lord's Supper included a complete meal (e.g. Matt. 26:26-30; Acts 2:42, 46; 1 Cor. 11:17-34). The result of Peter and the other Jews removing themselves from this event would result in causing the Lord's Supper to become segregated; thereby defeating one of the purposes of the church (Eph. 2:14, 15).

[26] Separation - There are Biblical instances in which we are to separate ourselves from other people or groups of people (e.g. Rom. 16:17; 2 Cor. 6:17; et al). Invalid reasons for separation might be for our own personal legalistic anomalies of which a partial list might include: woman wearing slacks or make-up, long hair on men, preferences in types of Christian music, some of the KJV-only idiosyncrasies, and areas of Christian liberty (cf. Gal. 5:1; Rom. 14), et al.

[27] "Dissimulation" ὑπόκρισις - (hoop-ok'-ri-sis), acting under a feigned or false part; deceit. This word is translated "hypocrisy" in most other instances in the NT.

"Dissembled likewise with him" is from the verb form of the same word with the prefix σύν (soon) meaning "with" or "together with." Literally, they were "hypocritical together with" Peter.

[28] "They walked [not] uprightly" (ὀρθοποδέω - or-thop-od-eh'-o) Literally, "straight-footed,"

[29] The main purpose of the vision of the sheet containing the unclean beasts was that Peter was to bring God's truth to the Gentiles (Acts 10:34; 15:7). Commentators are divided as to whether or not that this action also included Peter eating non-kosher (common or unclean) food. I don't see at this time how we could be dogmatic either way.

[30] Related to this type of hypocrisy is my belief that the 3rd commandment (Ex. 20:7) "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain;" is likely referring not so much to the vocabulary of the Israelites, but to their ambassadorship. I believe that Yahweh is telling them that if they claim His name or are to be known by His name, that they should maintain the public testimony worthy of His name. There certainly is a NT application to us also today (2 Cor. 5:20).

[31] One of many definitions of legalism is the excessive or improper use of the law or rules as a requirement for eternal life or for right standing before God. This is frequently manifested in improper judging of other people's actions and spirituality by looking at peripherals instead of the heart; where God looks (1 Sam. 16:7).

[32] Some Scripture addresses in reference to the importance of sound doctrine in our lives: Matt. 16:12; Rom. 16:17; Eph. 4:14; 1 Tim. 1:3; 1:10; 4:16; 2 Tim. 4:2, 3; Titus 1:9; 2:7; 2 John 2:9, 10.

[33] This is the first of 8 references to "justify/justified" (δικαιόω - dik-ah-yo'-o) in Galatians. (Gal. 2:16, 2x; 2:17; 3:8; 11, 24). It does not mean to make righteous as the Roman Church proclaims. It means to be declared or regarded as righteous or innocent. It is a forensic or legal term.

[34] A humorous illustration about blondes and simplicity: (For the sake of humor we employ the blonde stereotype. I actually believe that they are much smarter because my wife, who was quite blonde when she was younger, chose to marry me.)

There is story told of two blondes walking through the woods when they came upon a set of tracks. One blonde stated, "Oh look, some deer tracks." The other blonde disagreed, insisting that they were moose tracks. While they were standing there arguing, a train came by and struck them both.

[35] As a side note: Some years ago I listened to a 30 hour cassette tape study by this same teacher on the epistle to the Romans. Among much that was said which was profitable, he mentioned at least twice that it was sometimes good and healthy for believers to doubt their salvation because it helped to keep them serving God. In the same context of that great assurance verse, 1 John 5:13, which tells us that we can know that we have eternal life if we believe on His name, we are told in verse 10 that if we do not believe God that we make God a liar. This "Bible teacher" is essentially telling people that it is healthy to call God a liar. I don't think that is a good idea.

[36] "Lordship salvation," sometimes called "discipleship salvation" is the widespread but erroneous teaching that a person must make Jesus the Lord or Master of his life before he can be eternally saved. It usually also includes the requirement for some pattern of obedience after believing; the lack of which would show that the person really did not believe in Jesus. This is not the message of John 3:16.

The best in-depth study that I have seen concerning what the Bible says about Lordship Salvation can be read online or hard-copy purchased at http://www.gracelife.org/resources/dissertation.asp.

[37] It has been humorously said that we should not judge a person until we have walked a mile in his shoes. That way we are a mile away and we have his shoes.

[38] Some Lordship salvation teachers have chosen to teach that one must turn from sin or turn over the control of their life to Jesus in order to be saved, due to the abysmal lifestyle that many believers are seen to live. The solution to error is not more error. The Bible doctrines of God's loving discipline in our lives (Heb. 12:5-11), the doctrine of the Judgment Seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5:10, 11; 1 Cor. 3:11-17), and the love of Christ which constrains us, (2 Cor. 5:14) all are powerful and Biblical motivators for service and obedience.

[39] Little or great faith may be referring to faith in little or in great things, not necessarily the amount of faith that the person displays.

[40] "If" here is 1st class conditional in Greek; meaning that the speaker assumes that the condition is true. It could be translated "since."

[41] Bob Wilkin, Galatians, The Grace New Testament Commentary.

[42] "Minister" διάκονος - (dee-ak'-on-os) also translated in KJV as "servant" or "deacon."

[43] Other English translations have μη γενοιτο (may genoi'to) as "in no way," "far be the thought," "let it not be," "far from it," "certainly not," "heaven forbid," and the NASB which is closest to a literal translation, "may it never be." It is used a total of 14 times by Paul (Rom. 3:4, 6: 3:31; 6:2, 15; 7:7, 13; 9:14; 11:1, 11; 1 Cor. 6:15; Gal. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14) and only one other time in the NT (Luke 20:16).

[44] We are aware of Eph. 2:13-15, where we are told that "...Jesus...abolished in his flesh...the law of commandments..." This passage will be discussed when we get further into chapter 3.

[45] This exemplifies to me an apparent inconsistency with those who rigidly require Shabbat worship as being a legal requirement for the believers in this age. I have stated to others that if I were to found a new Christian assembly that I would likely prefer to meet on the Sabbath. We have liberty in this and other areas (Rom. 14:5). The reason that I presently fellowship on Sunday is not because the early pagan pseudo-Christian church decreed it, but because that is the day on which our assembly meets together.

The Law is not a smorgasbord where we get to choose only the items that we want. The inconsistency as I see it is that if we put ourselves under the law, then we should take on the whole law (James 2:10). Can you imagine the stir that would be caused if you read in this week's church bulletin, "Don't miss the gala special event next week. 15 believers will be publically stoned due to their breaking the Sabbath?"

[46] To any who are suffering the results of both divorce and the unbiblical treatment that they receive from the church who should be loving and Biblical in their attitudes and actions, we recommend two books to the serious student of Scripture, "“Divorce and Remarriage, Recovering the Biblical View” by William Luck, which is available for free download at http://www.freegraceresources.org/divrem.html (This book has an excellent and more detailed explanation of this passage at the end of chapter 9) and also a shorter book that is available for sale on the internet, at Bible book stores, or on loan from this writer, "Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible,” by Jay Adams.

[47] There is a story told about a little boy who asked his disgruntled father, "What is bigamy? Is bigamy when you have one too many wives? The disgruntled father replied, "Not necessarily."

[48] The Scriptural exceptions for divorce are not mentioned in the text as they are not germane to the purpose of the of the illustration and would only confuse the issue if included.

[49] Another example of the commonly used perfect tense is found in well-known verse, Eph. 2:8: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:" "...Are ye saved..." is the verb in the perfect tense. Some translations have it as "are ye saved," and some have it as "you have been saved." Both are correct; you were saved in the past and you still are saved.

[50] "...The faith of the Son of God," According to Robertson's Word Pictures, this is an objective genitive. It is not referring to the faith which the Son of God has, but to our faith in Him.

[51] "Witness" Noun, μάρτυς (mar'-toos) from the verb μαρτυρέω - (mar-too-reh'-o) which has the primary emphasis, not of viewing something, but of testifying to that which one has seen or experienced.

The verb "witness" in modern English has come to mean one who views something or is a spectator. The noun has come to mean one who views or experiences something and then gives evidence of it or testifies of it. In early Greek the emphasis was on the testifying part of the process.

This word is transliterated into English as "martyr," and has evolved into a somewhat different meaning than it originally was. Bible teachers often refer to Stephen as being the first Christian martyr due to the fact that he was executed for the cause of Christ (Acts 8). He was killed for a cause; which fits today's definition of "martyr." The Greek word μάρτυς was used of those who testified against Stephen (Acts 7:58). I could find nowhere that μάρτυς was used of Stephen in the Bible, but he does fit the Biblical definition in that he testified of his Messiah. The fact that he was killed for that public testimony is probably not originally related to the definition of the word.

[52] "Word" here is ῥῆμα (hray'-mah) meaning "utterance." It is used 70 times in the NT and almost always is contextually the spoken word or words of someone, including Jesus or God the Father.

This is a different word than λόγος (log'-os), which is found 330 times in the NT and usually translated as "word." It has a broader meaning than ῥῆμα. It is also translated as "cause," "communication," "sayings," et al. This is the Greek word that is used in John 1:1 and 14 referring to the Word which is God in verse one and to Whom was made flesh (Jesus) in verse 14. (Cf. Isa. 9:6, "a child is born" but "a son is given.")

[53] E.g. Col. 2:6 et al. Heb. 11 gives record of some who have lived by faith. It is implicit in this record that some also do not live by faith. The four instances of the verb "live" (ζάω - dzah'-o) found in verse 20 are in the present tense (present active indicative) in contrast to the perfect tense of "I am crucified with" and the aorist tense of "loved" and "gave."

[54] For the technical minded only, "I am crucified with" is one word in the Greek: "συνεσταυρωμαι." Grammatically it is 1st person, singular, perfect indicative passive. Explanation: 1st person - I, not you or he; singular - I, not we; Perfect tense - past action with results occurring to the present; indicative mood - to make a factual statement, in contrast to a command or a wish or doubt; passive voice - the action is being done to the speaker, not by the speaker.

[55] "Reckon" (λογίζομαι - log-id'-zom-ahee) "calculate," "consider," "to take into account," The word was also used in secular Greek as an accounting term; dealing with facts, not suppositions.

[56] "Spirit" is mentioned 29 times in 22 verses in Romans and most of the time is referring to the Holy Spirit. It is noteworthy that 21 of these times it is found in chapter 8. Chapter 8 is the closing portion of Romans 6-8 which shows us how to live the Christian life. We cannot accomplish this feat by keeping rules, but only by the power of the Holy Spirit.

[57] We encourage all to pursue a more in-depth study on these passages in Romans and the whole epistle. We would suggest these two commentaries. "Romans Unlocked, Power to Deliver," by René Lopez; Available on loan from this writer or to purchase: http://www.faithalone.org/bookstore/ru.html and "Romans, Deliverance from Wrath," by Zane Hodges, to purchase: http://www.faithalone.org/bookstore/romans.html

[58] "Frustrate" (ἀθετέω - ath-et-eh'-o) means to "nullify," or "abrogate." Other translations have it as "set aside," "reject," "nullify," "make void."