Galatians Discussion

[thebattleforideas]

Hello, you can call me Kor. I wanted to start a discussion on Galatians. I’m reading through it, thinking different things over, and want to put some thoughts down to begin.
There is one part I’d like to mention. 2:14-21. The book was written to the Galatian Christians who happened to be gentiles. The problem, which Paul saw first hand, and confronted Peter about in front of the other Jewish believers, was about their hypocrisy. The trouble wasn’t Peter or the other Jews with him believing justification by works. They already knew justification was through faith in Jesus Christ, and not by works of the law. In v.16 the word “knowing” connects “We who are Jews” speaking of Paul, Peter and those playing hypocrites with Peter are all Jews who are “knowing”. What do they know? “…that a person is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus”. I’m gathering from this text, that it’s not a problem of a wrong belief about works meriting God’s favor. Rather, these Jews acting hypocritical by separating themselves from the Galatian gentile believers because they aren’t circumcised, are following Torah in that moment, separated from their gentile brethren as if they’re not their brethren. A table fellowship problem, who can sit and eat with who, circumcised people separated from uncircumcised people, not eating together, is contrary with the Gospel, and perverts the Gospel in its intent, not so much it’s content. The intent being both Jew and Gentile joined together as one people of God and all being Abrahams children according to God’s Covenantal promise in Genesis 15.
I’ll begin there.

 

[p_rehbein]

Hello, you can call me Kor. I wanted to start a discussion on Galatians. I’m reading through it, thinking different things over, and want to put some thoughts down to begin.

There is one part I’d like to mention. 2:14-21. The book was written to the Galatian Christians who happened to be gentiles. The problem, which Paul saw first hand, and confronted Peter about in front of the other Jewish believers, was about their hypocrisy.

The trouble wasn’t Peter or the other Jews with him believing justification by works. They already knew justification was through faith in Jesus Christ, and not by works of the law. In v.16 the word “knowing” connects “We who are Jews” speaking of Paul, Peter and those playing hypocrites with Peter are all Jews who are “knowing”.

What do they know? “…that a person is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus”. I’m gathering from this text, that it’s not a problem of a wrong belief about works meriting God’s favor. Rather, these Jews acting hypocritical by separating themselves from the Galatian gentile believers because they aren’t circumcised, are following Torah in that moment, separated from their gentile brethren as if they’re not their brethren.

A table fellowship problem, who can sit and eat with who, circumcised people separated from uncircumcised people, not eating together, is contrary with the Gospel, and perverts the Gospel in its intent, not so much it’s content. The intent being both Jew and Gentile joined together as one people of God and all being Abrahams children according to God’s Covenantal promise in Genesis 15.
I’ll begin there.

There, fixed it for ya..........

 

[Blik]

Hello, you can call me Kor. I wanted to start a discussion on Galatians. I’m reading through it, thinking different things over, and want to put some thoughts down to begin.
There is one part I’d like to mention. 2:14-21. The book was written to the Galatian Christians who happened to be gentiles. The problem, which Paul saw first hand, and confronted Peter about in front of the other Jewish believers, was about their hypocrisy. The trouble wasn’t Peter or the other Jews with him believing justification by works. They already knew justification was through faith in Jesus Christ, and not by works of the law. In v.16 the word “knowing” connects “We who are Jews” speaking of Paul, Peter and those playing hypocrites with Peter are all Jews who are “knowing”. What do they know? “…that a person is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus”. I’m gathering from this text, that it’s not a problem of a wrong belief about works meriting God’s favor. Rather, these Jews acting hypocritical by separating themselves from the Galatian gentile believers because they aren’t circumcised, are following Torah in that moment, separated from their gentile brethren as if they’re not their brethren. A table fellowship problem, who can sit and eat with who, circumcised people separated from uncircumcised people, not eating together, is contrary with the Gospel, and perverts the Gospel in its intent, not so much it’s content. The intent being both Jew and Gentile joined together as one people of God and all being Abrahams children according to God’s Covenantal promise in Genesis 15.
I’ll begin there.

Lets discuss this by putting the problem into what they saw. The Jews wanted the people to obeyed the earthly commands like cutting flesh to signify circumcision.

Christ had changed those commands put in stone, to be obeyed by the letter of the law to the spirit of the law. Christ explained the difference at the sermon of the mount. They were no required to obey those commands, and all law was given in the heart now, not by the letter of the law.

If Christ had been the one who taught this to the Galatians it would have come off a bit differently, but the same teaching. The way Paul expresses this makes it easy to believe that the Lord does not want us to follow Christ and let Christ lead us, but that it is OK to follow sin for we will be forgiven. It is true, our sins will be forgiven but Jesus asks us not to want to sin, to repent of our sins.

 

[thebattleforideas]

The primary problem that took place, and was seen and then confronted by Paul was Peter and the other Jews hypocrisy of separation from the gentiles. “But when I SAW that they were not…” (2:14). Their actions of separation was “not straightforward about the truth of the Gospel”. Not the content of the Gospel, but it’s implications. The implications being that they (Gentiles) were by faith in Jesus sons of Abraham (3:7), and therefore belonged at the table, that both Jew and Gentiles were both one family and could eat together, and that works of the law didn’t justify them (making the Abraham’s children). Rather, it was through faith in Christ that a person was justified, made Abraham’s children and had the right to share in table fellowship.

 

[justbyfaith]

According to scripture, we are not under the law (Romans 6:14) are dead to the law (Romans 7:4, Galatians 2:19) and have been delivered from the law (Romans 7:6) as concerning condemnation; if we are in Christ.

For we have been forgiven through the blood of Christ; and therefore when the Father looks down on us, He sees, not our sins, but the blood and righteousness of His Son Jesus Christ.

And therefore, in the Father's sight, the law does not any longer point the finger at us and call us sinners.

While from the perspective of the Holy Ghost, whose job it is to convict of sin and also to sanctify the believer, He has a relationship with us where He deals with us according to our sins according to the law (1 Corinthians 9:21, Romans 3:20).

As concerning obedience, we are under the law to Christ (again, 1 Corinthians 9:21).

The law is written on our hearts and minds through the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:8-10, Hebrews 10:16, Romans 8:7, Romans 8:4, 1 John 5:3, 2 John 1:6, Romans 13:8-10; Romans 5:5).

And again, we are not under the law (Romans 6:14), are dead to the law (Romans 7:4, Galatians 2:19) and are delivered from the law (Romans 7:6) as concerning condemnation;

while as concerning obedience we become obedient to the moral tenets of the law;

Not through attempting to obey a set of do's and don'ts (the letter); but through walking not after the flesh but after the Spirit (the spirit of what is written, Romans 7:6, 8:4).

As we bear the fruit of the Spirit, there is no law that will condemn us in our behaviour (Galatians 5:22-23). Thus, when we bear the fruit of the Spirit, we become law-abiding citizens of the kingdom of heaven (see Ezekiel 36:25-27).

This is a righteousness apart from the law that is nevertheless attested to be the law and the prophets (Romans 3:21) that it is indeed righteousness.

Because, this righteousness is not obtained by attempting to obey a set of do's and don'ts.

Rather, we obtain the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:14, Ephesians 1:13-14); and as we walk according to the Spirit, the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us (Romans 8:4, Galatians 5:22-23).

That being said, it is written that if anyone turns his ear away from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be an abomination (Proverbs 28:9).

It is indeed faithful and true that those who are of the law are under a curse (Galatians 3:10, James 2:10, Matthew 5:48). However, this is as concerning those who are attempting to be justified by the law (Galatians 5:1-4).

For those who know that they are justified by the blood of Jesus Christ and not by their obedience / works / law-keeping, it becomes a blessing to look into the perfect law of liberty and to walk according to it (James 1:22-25).

 

[thebattleforideas]

Was Paul’s words in (v.15-21) to Peter and in front of those Jews with Peter, about being justified by faith and not works of the law, to correct their hypocrisy over who are the children of Abraham and therefore can sit at the same table? Or about how to get saved? Which fits with the context of Galatians?

 

[justbyfaith]

Was Paul’s words in (v.15-21) to Peter and in front of those Jews with Peter, about being justified by faith and not works of the law, to correct their hypocrisy over who are the children of Abraham and therefore can sit at the same table? Or about how to get saved? Which fits with the context of Galatians?

I believe that Galatians was written as a contention against Judaizers who had come on the scene teaching that "You must be circumcised and keep the law" in order to be saved. Paul fought hard against this false teaching.

Those who were truly Jewish and who knew the gospel understood that justification was by faith alone; but there were some coming into the fray who were teaching differently. This is why Galatians 2:16 is a key verse in the epistle.

 

[thebattleforideas]

Interesting. They separated because the gentiles were not circumcised. And circumcision was being encouraged. So, their separation, not eating together insinuated they weren’t the people of God. Hence, Paul’s bringing in Abraham to his discourse and pointing out Jew and gentile were now through faith in Christ children of Abraham and God’s people.
How to be saved idea can include talking about justification by faith and not works of the law. But does it have to mean that every time? Can it instead, depend on context?

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

I think the last verse in chapter 2 speaks of what Paul was talking about

Gal 2: 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain

then when we get into chapter 3. Paul continues to expound on the fact there were jews within the galation church who were attempting to institute law into the gospel of grace.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

The trouble wasn’t Peter or the other Jews with him believing justification by works. They already knew justification was through faith in Jesus Christ, and not by works of the law.

Acts 15 gives some insight into what was going on ...

Acts 15:

1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.

4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

 

[thebattleforideas]

Yes true. Let me throw a wrench into this. 2:14-21 was Paul speaking to Peter in front of those Jews with Peter. Peter knew faith alone in Christ justified. V.15 “We are Jews…” (Paul speaking to Peter), “We are Jews… knowing”, knowing what? That a person isn’t justified by works. Peter, Barnabas, and the Jews, acted hypocritical, separating from the believing Gentiles. There was two tables of believing Jews and another table of believing gentiles. This seems to be the problem that brought about Paul’s confrontation. What I don’t see is the problem of someone denying justification by faith alone and that being the point of contention. Rather, I see a separation of Jews and Gentiles as the problem, and the circumcision demands as driving the separation, but it’s almost as if they hadn’t thought about their hypocritical actions and ideas that align with those action (which Paul addresses). I just don’t want to assume everyone is believing justification by works, and force it in here leading to different conclusions then the text mentions.

 

[Charlie24]

Yes true. Let me throw a wrench into this. 2:14-21 was Paul speaking to Peter in front of those Jews with Peter. Peter knew faith alone in Christ justified. V.15 “We are Jews…” (Paul speaking to Peter), “We are Jews… knowing”, knowing what? That a person isn’t justified by works. Peter, Barnabas, and the Jews, acted hypocritical, separating from the believing Gentiles. There was two tables of believing Jews and another table of believing gentiles. This seems to be the problem that brought about Paul’s confrontation. What I don’t see is the problem of someone denying justification by faith alone and that being the point of contention. Rather, I see a separation of Jews and Gentiles as the problem, and the circumcision demands as driving the separation, but it’s almost as if they hadn’t thought about their hypocritical actions and ideas that align with those action (which Paul addresses). I just don’t want to assume everyone is believing justification by works, and force it in here leading to different conclusions then the text mentions.

Paul was an outcast in the minds of the circumcision (the Jews), personally I blame this on James as he was the head pastor of the Jerusalem church. He could have taken this burden off of Paul, but he didn't.

Peter was caught in the middle, understanding the saved Gentiles were not held to the Law. My problem with James is that when he declared the Gentiles were not to be held to the Law, he did not include the Jews. He had the power and the position to stand with Paul on the grace/law issue and chose not to do so. If he had, Paul's persecution by the Jews would not have been as severe.

Peter being caught in the middle, so to speak, feared the Jews, that was his problem. I somewhat put him in the same boat with James. if the truth be told, Paul stood alone in the standing of grace through faith without the deeds of the Law, and stood that ground boldly while Peter and James feared the Jews and played middle ground between the Jews and Paul.

When Peter played the hypocrite when the Jews came, he was abandoning the Cross (grace) with his company to the Law of circumcision in fear.

 

[loveme1]

We the Children of GOD are part of the New Covenant... We drink the New wine and eat the New leavened bread. The Lord's Testament His word is our works.

The Lord Himself tells us that we should be perfect like Heavenly Father... He will judge our works...

We Labour in love through faith in our Lord.

The two Great Commandments are to love our GOD and each other..

Is our right to the tree of life through circumcision of the flesh? No... Is it in what food we eat? No.

The Old Testament was of much works and highlighted our corrupted bodies... We need to be born again through Faith.

Those that Believe on the Son of GOD will be guided.. strengthened through Faith. The Law of love.

At the time Paul and Peter were Sharing the New Testament they would face much resistance..many believing the Old wine was better.. they knew the law of Moses was fulfilled In Christ... John 3:16

The 10 Commandments is loving GOD and our neighbour.. the penalty of death for breaking a Commandment is removed through our Lamb's Victory.

We worship GOD in spirit and Truth.. our offering is our Lord and Saviour. No other way into the Kingdom...unto eternal life.

Love, Truth and everlasting life is a gift.

 

[Charlie24]

Paul was an outcast in the minds of the circumcision (the Jews), personally I blame this on James as he was the head pastor of the Jerusalem church. He could have taken this burden off of Paul, but he didn't.

Peter was caught in the middle, understanding the saved Gentiles were not held to the Law. My problem with James is that when he declared the Gentiles were not to be held to the Law, he did not include the Jews. He had the power and the position to stand with Paul on the grace/law issue and chose not to do so. If he had, Paul's persecution by the Jews would not have been as severe.

Peter being caught in the middle, so to speak, feared the Jews, that was his problem. I somewhat put him in the same boat with James. if the truth be told, Paul stood alone in the standing of grace through faith without the deeds of the Law, and stood that ground boldly while Peter and James feared the Jews and played middle ground between the Jews and Paul.

When Peter played the hypocrite when the Jews came, he was abandoning the Cross (grace) with his company to the Law of circumcision in fear.

I would add to this that Paul was light years ahead of James and Peter in the knowledge of the New Covenant.

James and Peter knew the Gentiles had been granted salvation, but they had not been given the entire meaning of the New Covenant as Paul had received in his revelation from Christ.

I still say that the Apostles learned the meaning of the New Covenant from Paul, in personal conversations and reading his epistles.

Many will disagree but I will stand my ground that Paul had knowledge of the New Covenant that was given to no other, and He gave it to us!

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Yes true. Let me throw a wrench into this. 2:14-21 was Paul speaking to Peter in front of those Jews with Peter. Peter knew faith alone in Christ justified. V.15 “We are Jews…” (Paul speaking to Peter), “We are Jews… knowing”, knowing what? That a person isn’t justified by works. Peter, Barnabas, and the Jews, acted hypocritical, separating from the believing Gentiles. There was two tables of believing Jews and another table of believing gentiles. This seems to be the problem that brought about Paul’s confrontation. What I don’t see is the problem of someone denying justification by faith alone and that being the point of contention. Rather, I see a separation of Jews and Gentiles as the problem, and the circumcision demands as driving the separation, but it’s almost as if they hadn’t thought about their hypocritical actions and ideas that align with those action (which Paul addresses). I just don’t want to assume everyone is believing justification by works, and force it in here leading to different conclusions then the text mentions.

you need to remember, Pauls comments about this was in referencing not returning to the law.

You question is answered in the last verse and in chapter 3.

While your correct. Pauls conversation with peter was not concerning salvation. Paul context to the Galatian church is..

 

[Aaron56]

Was Paul’s words in (v.15-21) to Peter and in front of those Jews with Peter, about being justified by faith and not works of the law, to correct their hypocrisy over who are the children of Abraham and therefore can sit at the same table? Or about how to get saved? Which fits with the context of Galatians?

More than a place at the table: a place within the covenant. Correction was needed for any Jew who preferred fellowship with their Jewish kin over that of Gentiles. The main issue was abject racism whereby Gentile believers were treated as lower caste.

Paul pulled no punches when he wrote: "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God..." The law governed the living within a certain sphere. Having died with Christ, the authority of the Law was cancelled for him even though he was once under it. He established equal footing, according to God, for all believers, whether Jew or Gentile.

He really gets going in the subsequent chapters when he equates the covenant of Sinai with slavery, compared to the gospel.

 

[Dino246]

Interesting. They separated because the gentiles were not circumcised. And circumcision was being encouraged. So, their separation, not eating together insinuated they weren’t the people of God. Hence, Paul’s bringing in Abraham to his discourse and pointing out Jew and gentile were now through faith in Christ children of Abraham and God’s people.
How to be saved idea can include talking about justification by faith and not works of the law. But does it have to mean that every time? Can it instead, depend on context?

It's helpful to use the REPLY function (lower right of a post) so that everyone can see to whom you are responding. Plus, that person receives a notification that you have responded.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

Lets discuss this by putting the problem into what they saw. The Jews wanted the people to obeyed the earthly commands like cutting flesh to signify circumcision.

Christ had changed those commands put in stone, to be obeyed by the letter of the law to the spirit of the law. Christ explained the difference at the sermon of the mount. They were no required to obey those commands, and all law was given in the heart now, not by the letter of the law.

If Christ had been the one who taught this to the Galatians it would have come off a bit differently, but the same teaching. The way Paul expresses this makes it easy to believe that the Lord does not want us to follow Christ and let Christ lead us, but that it is OK to follow sin for we will be forgiven. It is true, our sins will be forgiven but Jesus asks us not to want to sin, to repent of our sins.

yes the thing is Paul absolutely makes that clear later in the Galatians letter people just don’t want to read that chapter and reconcile it to the earlier ones

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
‭‭John‬ ‭6:63‬ ‭KJV‬‬


“This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like:

of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.


But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭5:16-25‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Paul spoke more about the necessity of repentance and obedience to the gospel more than any other apostle. It’s easy to mistake what Paul is actually teaching unless we take in big sections of his letters

 

[Blik]

According to scripture, we are not under the law (Romans 6:14) are dead to the law (Romans 7:4, Galatians 2:19) and have been delivered from the law (Romans 7:6) as concerning condemnation; if we are in Christ. .

If scripture tells us not to be guided by the law as Christ explained the law to us, then scripture does not agree with scripture. God never tells us that God is wrong. Got does not argue with God.

Here are just a few of the many scriptures telling us to do our best to keep the law:

Proverbs 4:4
Then he taught me and said to me,
“Let your heart hold fast my words;
Keep my commandments and live;

Matthew 19:17
And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

Romans 7:12
So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

Christ changed the letter of the law written in stone with earthly commandments to guide people to the law. This is often called the law of Moses. The law as Christ gave it to us ("but I tell you") is the true law.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

If scripture tells us not to be guided by the law as Christ explained the law to us, then scripture does not agree with scripture. God never tells us that God is wrong. Got does not argue with God.

Here are just a few of the many scriptures telling us to do our best to keep the law:

Proverbs 4:4
Then he taught me and said to me,
“Let your heart hold fast my words;
Keep my commandments and live;

Matthew 19:17
And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

Romans 7:12
So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

Christ changed the letter of the law written in stone with earthly commandments to guide people to the law. This is often called the law of Moses. The law as Christ gave it to us ("but I tell you") is the true law.

“The law as Christ gave it to us ("but I tell you") is the true law.”

amen Moses law is a blinder because it was for the earthly unspiritual wicked people

“Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;”
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭1:9-10‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Christ isn’t leading us to that law he gave us The New Testament which is as different as can be contrary to different ooonts and purposes for different people

Christs word is for the born again who have had their sins remitted nt hey no
Longer belong to The law for sinners it concluded and now they have heard the truth meant to give life rather than condemn and put to death