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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."