Commentary on Galatians 1-3
by Dave Brown
Galatians Introduction Page
Galatians 1
1:1 Paul, an apostle (not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead),
[The assertion of Paul's apostleship comes early in the book. Then as now there was this idea that there had to be some ultimate sanction by some ecclesiastical authority for any office in the church, especially one that is so high. We see throughout the book of Acts that such is not the case. Jesus Himself chose the apostles directly, including Paul (as we shall see), and all other officers were of the local churches and were selected by the members of the local churches according to the instructions given by the Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul (see 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1). The statement in parenthesis will be dealt with in detail below so we will not elaborate on it now. The statement that God the Father raised Jesus from the dead is not limiting. Other statements to the effect that Jesus raised himself from the dead (e.g., Jn 2:19-21) show consistency in intent between the Father, and God the Son.]
2 and all the brethren that are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
[Probably written from Ephesus where Paul was accompanied by many Christians there. Written to multiple churches all seeming to have quite common characteristics.]
3 Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ,
[Paul's address to brethren commonly contained such a wish, that the grace of God would be upon them and that it would bring them peace. The implication might be that they were not at peace at this point and that they were not therefore enjoying this grace to the extent possible.]
4 who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of this present evil world, according to the will of our God and Father:
5 to whom (be) the glory for ever and ever. Amen.
[Jesus is credited with bring the grace of salvation to them through the gospel. This gospel as revealed by Jesus and the Holy Spirit that Jesus sent was not known or understood prior to His coming into the world, and it is still not understood by many who blind their eyes to its obvious simplicity (2 Cor. 11:3). Without Jesus they cannot be delivered out of this present evil world, and going back to the Old Testament for salvation defeats the entire purpose of the cross. Paul does not deny his recognition of the same "God the Father" that the Jews worshiped, and declares that the recognition of Jesus Christ is a glorification of God the Father.]
6 I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel;
[Paul's astonishment that they should be so soon removed from the pure teaching of the gospel is evident, and evidence that: (1) he could not have been away from them for long, and (2) that their errors in this regard were significant. The phrase "removing from him" is ambiguous -- it could refer to Paul, Jesus or God the Father, for in some sense all three had called them. However, the calling was not Paul's calling, and the wording "into the Grace of Christ" would infer that someone other than Jesus did the calling. Jesus said in John 6:44-45: "No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, comes unto me." This conveys that while the grace is "of Christ" and all that his blood has purchased for us, the calling is done by the Father (Romans 11:29). While we would not be dogmatic in this regard, this would seem to be quite consistent with the verse. But what is this "different gospel?" We see in the following verse.
7 which is not another (gospel) only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Verse 6 is an example of accommodative language -- quickly explained that the term "different gospel" should not be understood in its literal meaning, but in just the opposite sense -- it is a perversion of the true gospel, and those who push it are troubling you to the point that they could be jeopardizing your salvation. This is clear from the following.]
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.
[Anathema is the Greek word for accursed. Surely if the teacher is accursed, so would be those who follow and support such a teacher, so this warning extends to each and every one of us who have obeyed the (true) gospel. "We" here might refer to Paul in the editorial sense, or to the apostles -- in either case it illustrates the unity, consistency and completeness of the gospel that has already been revealed. Apostles could be corrupted ... Judas was, and we will see that Peter erred in his example (Galatians 2). But the gospel cannot err -- it is the revealed world of God. Even if an angel of heaven -- this is again accommodative language -- an angel of heave would never do such a thing. But this hyperbole carries with it that even if one thinks that the Holy Spirit is revealing something directly, it is false if it contradicts the gospel that has already been revealed.]
[Clearly the word "gospel" had a unique and clear meaning to the Galatians. What should it mean to us today? The word is defined as something that can be obeyed (2 Thes. 1:8; 1 Pet. 4:17). It is not just good news per se, but it is good news that we must respond to with obedience. This is further defined in Romans 1:16-17: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith." "Righteous of God" is not the fact that God is righteous (although that is true and without question); but "righteousness of God" in this context is the means by which humans are seen to be righteous by God. It is the righteousness of man that is obtained by the blood of Jesus. Further, it is defined by the context of Habakkuk 2:4 to be a way of life, not just a mental assent. Emphasize LIVE -- the righteous shall LIVE by faith, not just have a feeling or a thought. It will project itself in action -- we cannot have faith in Jesus without it producing love in its most intensive sense (1 Cor. 13). And it will require a new birth as given in John 3:5, which is explained in detail in Romans 6 (specifically 1-9, but the entire context of Romans 6 is quite important to this understanding). The essence of it will be explained further in the beautiful words of the Holy Spirit in the apostle in Galatians 2:20: "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me: and that (life) which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, (the faith) which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me." Note the consistency of the word "crucified" with Romans 6:6 and reflects perfectly the meaning of repentance (2 Cor. 7:0-10), i.e., to put away the old man and all sinful actions associated with the old man. See the more detailed commentary for Romans 1:16-17.]
9 As we have said before, so say I now again, if any man preaches unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema.
["Before" can hardly be verse 8. It must be that when Paul was with them he said this very same thing. Nothing can attest to the completeness of the gospel in the first century, and its total and exclusive ability to save, than these verses. Those who add to or take away from the simplicity of the gospel, will not be held unaccountable (Rev. 28:18-19). But his first statement that was made while with them, was in the abstract. "What are you talking about Paul?" would have been their question back then. Now it can be answered without any "I told you so" arrogance. The anticipation that some would preach error is not something that takes the gift of prophecy -- without doubt, based on the Old Testament alone, we can state it with certainty today. God's people will not remain without the temptation of false teachers, and it is also a certainty that some will give in to them and be led astray. This is not just something that we learn from bible prophecy and examples, it is something that we can readily observe today both as a completed fact and as being in process.]
10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? or am I striving to please men? if I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.
[The false teachers would use any accusation that would work against Paul, and so to accuse him of just catering to men might be one of them, Compare Gal. 6:12: "As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they compel you to be circumcised; only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ." Persecuted? by who? By their own countrymen who opposed Christ in any teaching whatsoever. If the Judaizing teachers could sell Christianity as a sect of Judaism (comparable to the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc.), then they could escape this persecution. Insisting upon circumcision was a first step in this direction. However, obedience to Moses, although once totally pleasing to God, fell far short of the gospel. In fact, it contradicted the gospel in proclaiming that there was an alternative to the blood of Christ, and thus His blood had been shed in vain. Note our use of the word Judaizing as those who were trying to Judaize the Christians, i.e., reject Christ in favor of circumcision and the Old Testament law.]
11 For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man.
[If we just think about it realistically, would it even have been possible for Paul to come up with something that is totally consistent with what Peter and the other apostles taught (e.g., in Acts 2)? The fact that they taught identically the same gospel shows that it came neither from Paul nor from Peter (or others). It had to have come from the same central source, that being Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit that Jesus sent (John 15:26). The atheists will believe that all religion is after man. This is not far off -- all false religion is of man. But the gospel of Jesus Christ can be attributed to no one other than the Son of God, as He worked in total consistency with God the Father.]
12 For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but (it came to me) through revelation of Jesus Christ.
[Note that it had to be something that was received and taught, and it had to come through revelation, which today we have as the written word in the New Testament. It is not a simple faith-only feeling type of thing that essentially vetoes all of the richness of the New Testament. It is something that transforms the life into an attitude that "proves what is the good and perfect will of God" as indicated in Romans 12:1-2.]
13 For ye have heard of my manner of life in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and made havoc of it:
14 and I advanced in the Jews' religion beyond many of mine own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
[These verses go together in laying the foundation for the defense of Paul's apostleship. From Acts 9 it appears that Paul started preaching within days of his conversion in the local area of Damascus. There is no indication that he was directly inspired by the Holy Spirit like the apostles who spoke on Pentecost in Acts 2 were. Since he knew the Old Testament cold, this would not be necessary. However, this does not prove that the Holy Spirit was not directly involved. It should be clear that Paul's intensive knowledge of the Old Testament coupled with what he knew that followers of Jesus were teaching at that time, would more than enable him to be "filled with the Holy Spirit" with regard to being able to preach the gospel. All that he needed was to put these two bodies of knowledge together and to see that all that he had learned about Old Testament prophesies now had their fulfillment in Christ. This was the main message that he needed in order to preach the gospel in the Synagogues. The point being made in these verses is that such a transition of thought was not something that he brought upon by himself or with the agency of other men. He went from one extreme of persecuting the church the other of preaching the gospel. This change of heart should be typical of all those who would please God in accepting His free gift of eternal life.]
15 But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, (even) from my mother's womb, and called me through his grace,
16 to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus.
[God's plan was to turn the evil that Paul had caused into good. God would have preferred Paul to obey Him from the outset of the preaching of the gospel. But given that Paul did not, it was the good pleasure of God to use his time of persecution to create the most impressive of conversions. This started on the road to Damascus and was completed when Paul was baptized into Christ (Acts 9:1-10 and 22:6-16). The implication of verse 17 above is that he started preaching in Damascus right after his conversion, went away into Arabia (generally in the proximity of his home in Tarsus), and then returned again to Damascus. This corresponds to the record in Acts 9:18-25.
Acts 9:18-25
18 And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and he arose and was baptized;
19 and he took food and was strengthened. And he was certain days with the disciples that were at Damascus.
20 And straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God.
21 And all that heard him were amazed, and said, Is not this he that in Jerusalem made havoc of them that called on this name? and he had come hither for this intent, that he might bring them bound before the chief priests.
22 But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews that dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is the Christ.
23 And when many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel together to kill him:
24 but their plot became known to Saul. And they watched the gates also day and night that they might kill him:
25 but his disciples took him by night, and let him down through the wall, lowering him in a basket.]
[Let us review this important passage verse by verse to see how it complements the current passage in Galatians:
18 -- the culmination of Paul's conversion was his baptism -- we find no one in the New Testament who is referred to as a Christian who was not baptized. In Acts 22:16 he is asked why he is tarrying in this regard and is commanded by Ananias to be baptized immediately. (An example for us all.)
19 -- the location is Damascus and he was in fellowship with the Christians there, since they clearly recognize what had happened to Paul and the fact that Paul had now assumed an entirely new life in Christ. The mention of his taking food is related to the fact that he had fasted and prayed for three days.
20 -- this confirms what we said above about Paul immediately preaching Christ in the synagogues. With his Old Testament background and scholarship, he was immediately qualified (and allowed at least initially) to do this without even further gifts of the Holy Spirit. We re-emphasize however, the fact that these gifts are not mentioned here is not definitive evidence that he did not receive them -- only that Luke did not see this as something that needed to be conveyed to us, which we believe to be significant in an of itself.
21 -- this amazement must have been part of the plan that we see in God's providential hand -- it proved the validity of what Paul was stating happened to him.
22 -- this and the next verse should not be assumed to be a matter of hours, days or even months. Considerable time may have taken place during which Saul "increased the more in strength" -- evidence is that this was a long maturing process and it did not culminate by him becoming an apostle until early in the first missionary journey recorded in Acts 13. Of course, the maturing process never ends.
23-25 -- Still at Damascus, we find the beginning of a long life of persecution for Paul. As Jesus said: "I will show him how many things he must suffer for my name's sake" (Acts 9:16). Again, there could be a long period of time in these "many days" that Luke shrinks into one verse. During this time Paul may have gone home or preached in areas around his home (Arabia) and then returned to Damascus to preach again, given the fellowship that was shown him immediately after his conversion. We see them here risking their lives to save Paul.]
Repeating verse 17 for continuity:
17 neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days.
[Paul's chronology here is not definitive. we do not know if he is measuring time from his conversion or from the previous event. But this is of little concern, the variation only been two or three years at the most. Luke reports the events of the above verse as follows:
Acts 9:25-26 "but his disciples took him by night, and let him down through the wall, lowering him in a basket. And when he was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: and they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple.]
[This validates the facts in this regard that will be covered in the next few verses. But it places a three year gap between Acts 9:25 and Acts 9:26. Familiarity with the book of Acts indicates that Luke skipping over what he or the Holy Spirit must have thought were less important if not irrelevant details is fairly typical. We feel that the mapping of the gap to the three years is consistent with both Acts and Galatians, and that other alternative interpretations have far more issues.]
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
[The period of time of the event recorded in Acts 9: 26-29 was a brief 15 days according to Gal. 1:18 above. During this time there was disbelief on the part of some that Paul had been truly converted, and hence, he must be a spy. How Barnabas learned the truth is not revealed, but the fact that he knew Paul well enough to lay his good reputation on the line is evident. It certainly would not take very long for the unconverted Jews who had heard all about Paul's past to react to him, and in this regard, 15 days is not at all unreasonable. But this is not given just to sooth our yearning for a chronology. Paul was trying to impress them with the fact that he only saw Peter and James, and that he was only there for 15 days. This is an indication that the breadth of the gospel cannot be learned in that short period of time. While the milk of the word can be learned in less than an hour, leading someone to be baptized into Christ, the depth of the gospel necessary to enable one to become an effective preacher of the gospel (and ultimately an apostle in Paul's unique case), would require far more time than that.]
20 Now touching the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
[We have found Paul seeing the necessity for taking oaths to the validity of his statements in Romans and the Corinthian letters, especially Second Corinthians. Paul was not afraid to stand before God in judgment making these claims.]
21 Then I came unto the regions of Syria and Cilicia.
22 And I was still unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
23 but they only heard say, He that once persecuted us now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc;
24 and they glorified God in me.
[Acts 9:30 indicates that Paul was once again saved by the brethren (this time in Jerusalem) and sent forth to his home in Tarsus, and we do not hear anything more of his activities until Acts 11:25-26 when he was retrieved by Barnabas who observed how many Gentiles were being saved, and he would naturally want Paul to be involved in the evangelism going on at Antioch. We have to conclude that it was during this time that the events described above took place with regard to the "regions of Syria and Cilicia.]
[While the detailed chronology put together from Acts and Galatians is not totally essential to our understanding of the critical doctrines in the letter to the Galatian churches, it does help us to understand the issues that Paul was having with the Judaizing Christians. It also helps us to see that there was not Pope or centralized church hierarchy at Rome or Jerusalem, as those of the Roman Catholic church would have us to believe. The very independence of Paul attests to the fact that it is the truth of the gospel that saves and not some human organization created a century or so later.]
Galatians 2
2:1 Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me.
[Having gone from his home in Tarsus to Antioch (Acts 11:25-26) at the request of Barnabas, and subsequently sent out on the first Missionary Journey by the church at Antioch (Acts 13-14), Paul and Barnabas return and report their progress at the end of Acts 14. (It is quite significant that Paul and Barnabas were NOT sent out to preach the gospel by the church at Jerusalem, which some claim today to be the center of first century evangelism.) Thus, it is from Antioch that Paul and Barnabas go to Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts 15. This is stated by Paul to be his first intensive discussion of doctrine with the apostles. We know from Acts 11:29-30 and 12:25 that Paul and Barnabas had been sent to deliver funds for the poor and starving Christians in the areas of Jerusalem at a previous time, but they were not there at all seeking doctrinal advice -- they were there delivering needed funds to aid in the relief effort. Recognizing how unwieldy at this point it would have been for Paul to mention this (and for that matter, who knows that he had not made other incidental trips to Jerusalem), his omission of it is understandable. While Titus is not mentioned by Luke, he did say that other Christians accompanied Paul and Barnabas from Antioch. What is said later about Titus (that he was not compelled to be circumcised -- Gal 2:3, shortly below) tends to confirm that he was one of the Christians Luke states accompanied them to Jerusalem from Antioch.]
[Paul's purpose for going to Jerusalem at this time is important to our understanding of the current passage. Consider the account of this in Acts 15:
Acts 15:1-3
15:1 And certain men came down from Judaea and taught the brethren, (saying), Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them, (the brethren) appointed that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
3 They therefore, being brought on their way by the church, passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
Several points can be established from this passage:
2 And I went up by revelation; and I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles but privately before them who were of repute, lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain.
["By revelation" indicates that Paul himself had received revelation on this issue directly for Jesus, and thus he was totally equipped to deliver it throughout the world, and in this case, if need be, to Jerusalem. Important to note here again that Paul DID NOT go to Jerusalem to learn the truth -- he went there to deliver the truth. Evidence of this is the fact that he had been practicing the baptism of Gentiles without circumcision in the first Missionary Journey, but to further confirm that this was not in error, Luke asserts (Acts 15:3): "They therefore, being brought on their way by the church, passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren." This does not sound like someone who is unsure of a doctrine and going to the apostles to determine if he "had it right." Acts 15:4 indicates that the first meeting was a limited one as compared to Acts 15:6, which further confirms the parallel accounts of Galatians 2 and Acts 15.]
3 But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
[This would further confirm the purpose of the journey. It would be extremely difficult to think that all of these things coming together were talking about anything other than Acts 15. Since the subject here in Galatians will shortly turn toward refuting this same Judaizing doctrine in the churches of Galatia, it is quite relevant for Paul to bring this up. The Judaizers were teaching the necessity for Gentiles to be circumcised before they could be baptized. This idea was already dispelled by Peter as recorded in Acts 10 and 11. Then, why did the Jews persist in pressing this false doctrine? Then and now -- it all had to do with power and perhaps the money that comes with it. If the Gentiles overwhelmed their synagogues, they felt they would lose their power; although there is no reason to believe that if they were faithful to Jesus that they would not be prime candidates to become elders in the church.]
4 and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
[This is confirmed by Acts 15:5: "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses." This happened in opposition to Paul and the others from Antioch. Here they tipped their hand. Prior to this only circumcision was mentioned -- as if there were just a technicality that they could all live with. But now they are saying that the Gentiles are subject to all of the law of Moses. We hasten to add here that circumcision itself was not trivial, and to require grown men to undergo such a painful experience would be a major deterrent to the conversion of the Gentiles -- undoubtedly a fact that did not escape the Judaizing Christians who were concerned with little more than maintaining their own personal power.]
5 to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
[It is quite clear from Luke's account in Acts 15 that this was in no way an exaggeration.]
6 But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it makes no matter to me: God accepts not man's person) — they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me:
[What did they have that Paul did not -- in both cases their knowledge of the Gospel came from Jesus. Recall it was Peter in Acts 10 who was instructed by the Holy Spirit more completely on this subject, and then acted on the conversion of the first Gentiles. They were baptized without the benefit of circumcision. So, while the doctrine of Gentile conversion was not something that originated with and was promulgated from the apostles in Jerusalem, neither was it exclusively a doctrine of Paul. Indeed it was a very special revelation of Jesus Christ, and Paul emphasized in Ephesians 3:1-7: "For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus in behalf of you Gentiles, if so be that ye have heard of the dispensation of that grace of God which was given me to you-ward; how that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery , as I wrote before in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ; which in other generation was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; (to wit), that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of that grace of God which was given me according to the working of his power." The entire book of Romans has the theme of the Jews and the Gentiles being subject to exactly the same gospel, which Paul says reveals the righteousness of God by which we are saved.]
7 but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with (the gospel) of the circumcision
8(for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles);
9 and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision;
[The general agreement reached is well documented in Acts 15 and accords totally to this passage.]
10 only (they would) that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do.
[This is not mentioned in Acts 15, but it is not at all inconsistent with what is there. Paul and Barnabas had already been faithful in delivering the collection from Antioch to the poor saints, which Luke describes in Acts 11:26-29 and Acts 12:15. It is also of significant that Luke mentions in Acts 11:25 that "the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." Luke considered it something significant to document that this new name (Isaiah 62:2) all followers of Christ are to wear was not originated in Jerusalem. It also seems from his description of the sending out of Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary Journey (Acts 13 and 14) that Antioch was the primary center of evangelistic effort, as opposed to Jerusalem. Perhaps this was of necessity due to the strong persecution of Christians by the Jews after the death of Stephen (Acts 7, and see Acts 8:1-4). This was prior to the conversion of Saul, and he is mentioned there as being part of the persecution, which is also mentioned in Galatians 1:13, discussed above.]
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.
[Commentators that put this in the first part of Acts 15 and want to indicate that the whole meeting was to resolve differences between Paul and Peter are in error and should know better. The placement of this event is more logically in the latter part of Acts 15 after the controversy over keeping the Law of Moses had been completely resolved, since these are clearly two separate issues. Had this encounter been part of the history of the Acts 15 meeting, Luke certainly would have documented it as such. Instead, we see the events that followed the Jerusalem meeting given here:
Acts 15:30-35
30 So they, when they were dismissed, came down to Antioch; and having gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle.
31 And when they had read it, they rejoiced for the consolation.
32 And Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.
33 And after they had spent some time (there), they were dismissed in peace from the brethren unto those that had sent them forth.
34 (But it seemed good unto Silas to abide there.)
35 But Paul and Barnabas tarried in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.]
[So Paul and Barnabas were now back in Antioch, and this is the reasonable time for Peter and others to come for a visit. Paul states in no certain terms that Peter "stood condemned." The solution to the once-saved-always-saved is to redefine what the word "condemned" means, because, after all, it is impossible for it to mean that he was condemned (what is says). This illustrates the extent that false teachers go to rationalize their teachings to fit their basic core false doctrines. It says what it says and we should use the normative meanings of these words unless there is justification for not doing so. Similar deceit is used in James 2 to redefine what the word "save" means in James 2:14. False teachers should be challenged by the faithful when they change the normative definitions of words to harmonize statements that are contradictory to their false teachings. Let us go on now to see just why Peter stood condemned.]
12 For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision.
[This is the statement of just why Peter (and others) stood condemned. They practiced racial discrimination. Recall Acts 10:34-35: "And Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that fears him, and works righteousness, is acceptable to him." Those who teach that there was one gospel for the Jews and another for the Gentiles obviously do not believe this or otherwise wish to defy God in this regard.. Those who practice segregation based on race obviously do not believe this, or else they just refuse to observe it. Peter stated it explicitly (see Acts 10:34 and 47-48) to a Gentile audience (with six Jews present as well). But when it came to affirming it before a large group that believed that discrimination should still be practiced, he caved to peer pressure. This was sin and it was a sin that he (and those who followed him in this sin) would need to repent of to get back into the fellowship of Christ.]
13 And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation.
[This would have been the Jews who felt perfectly comfortable (probably because of the results of the Acts 15 conference) eating with the Gentiles. Dissimulation is hypocrisy -- they knew better, and they declared what they knew. But when the hour to stand up for their beliefs came, they cowered. Let us not be too hard on them -- if you cannot recall a time when this happened to you then you are deceiving yourself. Let us realize that peer pressure is almost absolute -- 1 Cor 15:33 "Be not deceived: Evil companions corrupt good morals" and there are no exceptions. Peter should have separated himself from these evil companions at the outset instead of participating in their sin.]
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas before (them) all, If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why do you compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
[This verse and what follows is some of the most beautiful and definitive statements regarding the Christian life. We are almost indebted to Peter for the Holy Spirit having the occasion to provoke these thoughts in Paul. In this verse Paul refers to the fact that Peter was not longer keeping Moses' law himself. That is the implication, and if we look at Peter's teachings we see that this is in fact the case. For example, 1 Peter 2:7-10: "For you therefore that believe is the preciousness: but for such as disbelieve, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner; and, A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence; for they stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation , a people for (God's) own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: who in time past were no people, but now are the people of God: who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." There is no more definitive statement than this that God judges us a individuals and not on our heritage.]
15 We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
[Recognize that the context is Paul rebuking Peter for his sinful action in withdrawing himself from the Gentile Christians. Paul here referring to Gentiles in general here (generally idolaters if not converted to Christ). To a Jew the word Gentile itself was one the connoted sin. But for sure Paul is speaking accomodatively here – he certainly did not mean to include Gentile Christians in this general statement.]
16 yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
[The contrast here does not say that works are sinful, and if we obey God this excludes our having saving faith. For one thing, he is talking about the works of the Law of Moses specifically. But the "works of the law" can be generalized in this regard -- if we think that anything we do or believe actually justifies us, then we are as guilty as the Judaizers (i.e., those trying to pull the Christians back under the Law of Moses). Even faith does not justify us if it is a work of our own creation. We are justified by faith, but it must be that faith created by God, i.e., faith in Jesus, the gospel and God's righteousness. No amount of faith or works on our part actually saves us -- it is the blood of Christ that saves. All the glory goes to God. What we do is just in our self interest to meet the conditions to obtain the free gift -- analogous to signing our names on the back of an inheritance check. All of the good works we do are for our happiness and for our benefit (Mark 10:29-30). How can we even begin to think that we could earn our salvation by works? since these works are for our own benefit and to affirm our salvation to us, as we will see in the next few verses.]
17 But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ a minister of sin? Absolutely not.
18 For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor.
[These two verses need to be taken together to make any sense. First of all, we are all in a sense sinners, both before and after baptism. Baptism washes our sins away, but it is only a short time before we again fall to sin, despite our desire not to. Thus, the justification in Christ must be ongoing, the condition being that we faithfully do our best, and when we fall short we repent and ask for forgiveness (1 John 1 and 2). While this is a given, it is not what Paul is discussing. His focal point is on the sin of prejudice and discrimination that he saw in Peter, Barnabas and others. They were seeking justification in Christ at the same time that they were appealing to works of the Law of Moses. If this were permissible and right, then Christ would be a minister of sin, which we know very well that He is not. The things that Paul destroyed (in verse 18) are the obligations to keep the Law of Moses -- Paul's writings, teachings and actions clearly had been intended to destroy that obligation and free mankind in general to be saved by the blood of Christ according to the gospel. If Paul were to act to build those things up again, he would be a transgressor -- it would be sin. Please continue to recognize that Paul is preaching to Peter, Barnabas and the Judaizing Christians (and those influence by them) in this context. That is essential to its understanding the principles. But the principles apply to us and to all of mankind. Note that the keeping of the traditions of the Law of Moses by Jews after the cross was not condemned per se. It was their binding of such on either Gentiles or their fellow Jews that would produce sin (see Romans 14).]
19 For I through the law died unto the law, that I might live unto God.
[This figure is also used in Romans 7 to indicate the analogy between a person whose spouse dies no longer being obligated to that spouse and now that the law is fulfilled, Jews were no longer under the law. Death in the bible always refers to some type of separation. In this case Paul's separation from the law. He could not be subject to it and at the same time "live unto God." He had to realize that the solution were not in things that he did to justify himself, but in what Jesus did to justify him. It is not that he stopped doing good -- on the contrary, his efforts to do good were greatly multiplied because his purpose in doing them was so much more glorious. And so we come to the very famous verse -- let us parse it carefully.]
20 I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me: and that (life) which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, (the faith) which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me.
[The figure of crucifixion is used in Romans 6 to indicate the death of the old man of sin prior to that old body being buried with Christ in baptism so that it can be resurrected to walk in newness of life (born again -- John 3:5). Paul indicates that the result of this process is that no longer is Paul doing his own will, but now that the old man is dead, it is Christ who is the new man "living in me." Christians must enjoy living -- the walk -- not some intangible thought process or just some hollow words -- but every action of our new life is motivated by faith in Jesus Christ, a faith which is our reasonable service (Romans 12:1-2) because "he loved me and gave himself up for me."
21 I do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for naught.
[Why would Jesus have to die if we could be saved by obedience to the Law of Moses? Or, for us who are Gentiles, if we could be saved by our own good works. It might be asked -- are not faith, repentance, confession of Christ and baptism good works? If we think that doing any of these (including having faith) earns our salvation, then yes, these are condemned by implication here and stated that they will not bring about salvation. However, if we recognize them as works conceived by God, and do not view them as our earning our salvation, then these acts of obedience are far from the "works" that are talked about here.]
[This distinction may be difficult for some to see. Do you say and believe "I earned my salvation by being baptized?" Or do you view such a statement as that as being absurd? Could the people who circled Jericho say: "we conquered Jericho of our own strength and merit by walking around it seven times? It is hard for me to see how any of them would have the audacity to make such a statement. And for us to think that we justified ourselves by being obedient in the few easy conditions that God has placed on our salvation is equally absurd. But to those who would accuse Christians who are attempting to do all that God says to do of being guilty of "salvation by works" is absurd to an even higher degree. If that is the only objection that they can come up with to reject the Christians' efforts to be all that God wants them to be, then for sure, we are on very safe ground.]
[If our attitude is not that of Paul's, then we need to go modify it and our behavior to assure that it is. Let us review it again:
"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me: and that (life) which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, (the faith) which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me." This is not of works; it is of many great and wonderful blessings that are all, as is our lives, gifts of God. Here are some related passages:
Luke 17:10
10 Even so ye also, when ye shall have done all the things that are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which it was our duty to do.
Luke 6:37-38
37 And judge not: and you shall not be judged: and condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: release, and ye shall be released:
38 give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, shall they give into your bosom. For with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again.
John 13:15-17
15 For I have given you an example, that ye also should do as I have done to you.
16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, a servant is not greater than his lord; neither one that is sent greater than he that sent him.
17 If ye know these things, blessed are ye if ye do them.
James 1:25
25 But he that looks into the perfect law, the (law) of liberty, and (so) continues, being not a hearer that forgets but a doer that works, this man shall be blessed in his doing.
[Are we looking for opportunities to serve? Do we see them as the blessings that they are? Or, are we doing them merely to earn our way into heaven? The actions could be the same, but whether we will be blessed in our doing is all about our attitudes with regard to them. This becomes clearer as we continue.]
Galatians 3
3:1 O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified?
[Foolish and bewitched. Thinking that the one who brought them the gospel is now teaching a different gospel -- believing the accusations that are being made against Paul. Clearly they had not see Jesus Christ crucified -- could it be that they have seen the very same things in the false teachers that caused him to be crucified. Reference Hebrews 6:6 " ...seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." Or perhaps he is saying that they had ample evidence through the laying on of his hands imparting to the the Holy Spirit that Jesus Christ is the basis for our faith, and not the works of the Old Testament law. Evidence of this is given in the next verse.]
2 This only would I learn from you. Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
[A rhetorical question that had an obvious answer. It tells us that they did have spiritual gifts and that these should have been ample evidence of the validity of what Paul is writing. But, like 1 Corinthians (especially chapter 13), this indicates to us that the spiritual gifts were not the cure-all for their spiritual ills. They still needed to recognize what was right and live by it. In this case it was a simple comparison between what Paul was preaching and what the Judaizing teachers were promoting. "Hearing of faith" -- a very loaded phrase -- it states that faith is something that must be heard. Romans 10:17 "So belief (cometh) of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." Thus, no hearing, no faith. Effort is required in this hearing -- it is not something that happens without the consent of the hearer. We prefer the word "listening" to "hearing," for in essence this has to be what is meant. The one in the presence of the preaching of the gospel must listen to it and respond to it, allowing it to sink deep into his/her heart and growing to produce the fruit of the spirit (Gal. 5:22).
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now perfected in the flesh?
[Whether Jew or Gentile they were converted by obeying the very same gospel, not by keeping the Law of Moses. How sweet eternal life must have sounded to them. And now they are seeking after something other than the gospel for their growth and perfection. How very ironic.]
4 Did ye suffer so many things in vain? if it be indeed in vain.
[The implication is clear that the Galatian Christians suffered persecution for their beliefs. These things would be in vain if they do not follow through in that same truth. To leave it for anything else (even something previously approved of God) would make their efforts all in vain. "If it be indeed in vain" indicates that Paul does not feel that such suffering should be in vain, nor does he believe that all of them are turning toward false doctrine.
5 He therefore that supplies to you the Spirit, and works miracles among you, (does he fo it) by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
[A repeat of the question asked in verse 2, but now explicitly stating that the spiritual gifts that they received included the working of miracles. Also indicated here is the issue that is being contrasted with the gospel -- the works of the law. Recognize when Paul writes the word "works" that these are the works he is talking about. While it is true that we are not saved by any works of our own hands, there are conditions of salvation that false teachers like to call "works" in order to make obedience to the commands of the gospel seem evil. That is not what Paul was doing here -- he was making the works of the Old Testament law seem evil because they were taking the place of the commands of Jesus Christ, the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25; 2:12), and the law that Paul recognized he was under when he said that he was "under law to Christ (1 Cor. 9:21). But these laws and conditions of salvation were being supplanted by the Law of Moses, a law that had been nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14), as we will also see in the following verses.]
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.
[A good commentary on this is given in James 2 and Hebrews 11. We must look at the quality of Abraham's faith. What did it cause him to do? What type of faith does God expect of us? If we have this same faith as Abraham did, then it will be reckoned unto us for righteousness, but the evidence of this is not in our heads only, it is in our heart and in our soul, and in our every action. The Genesis citation is is Genesis 15:6, but we should realize that Abraham's faithfulness started way back in Genesis 12 when Abraham obeyed God and left his homeland.]
7 Know therefore that they that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham.
[So is there currently any benefit to being a Jew? Can those who were teaching going back under the Law of Moses take comfort in the fact that they were God's chosen people? Read on ...]
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, (saying,) In thee shall all the nations be blessed.
[Justified by faith and not by the works of the Law of Moses. Justification, an essential step to salvation -- for if we are not justified we cannot come into the presence of God, and the Holy Spirit will not dwell within us. So what is it that saved Abraham, the first century Jews and Gentiles, and ourselves today? It is the preaching of the gospel to those who have a mind to believe it and obey it. Abraham could not be saved by the works of the Law of Moses because that law was not even given in his time.]
9 So then they that are of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham.
["Of faith" is contrasted with "of the Law of Moses." Note that Abraham did not just have "faith only," (allowing that such a thing could exist) but he was faithful -- his faith was his walk of life. That faith is defined in Romans 1:16-17 to be a walk -- a way of life, not just some mental affirmation. We read above that they were saved by the "hearing of faith," and Jude described it as "the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints (Jude 3). Let us understand all that this word faith means in the New Testament. It is the gospel believed. Abraham believed God when he said that through him all the nations of the earth would be blessed, and he acted on that belief. Further evidence of this is given in Hebrews 11.]
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one who continues not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them.
[Are there any of us who would have the audacity to say that we have kept God's law perfectly? Surely not, and that would be true of all honest people back then. That being the case, if they respect the truth of the law, they would clearly see that they were under a curse. This is specifically given in Deuteronomy 27:26, but it is a major sub-theme of the entire Old Testament that is reiterated in nearly every book of the Old Testament.
11 Now that no man is justified by the law before God, is evident: for, The righteous shall live by faith;
12 and the law is not of faith; but, He that does them shall live in them.
[That Paul would use Old Testament scripture to prove his point is quite significant. Why not appeal to his own apostleship and the spiritual gifts that he had that were obvious to all? The answer is that once something is written in scripture there is no longer a need to keep revealing it over and over again -- else either (1) the world would be filled with libraries of nothing but the scriptures, or (2) God's word would not be written and any false teacher could claim to be getting a message directly from God. Both of these alternative lead to intolerable and confusing situations (God is not the author of confusion -- 1 Cor. 14:33). So he appeals to Habakkuk 2:4, which we have explained in conjunction with Romans 1:17. The thrust of this is a definition of what faith means in the New Testament -- that is, a way of life, not just something that is emotional or mental. The argument is one of deduction -- if God has indicated that salvation comes by our accepting a system based on faith (and it has), then that necessarily excludes salvation coming by any other means.]
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree:
[Going on with his reasoning from the Old Testament scriptures, here he quotes Deuteronomy 21:23. Much can be made by taking this figure too far. It is sufficient to realize that when Jesus died on the cross He was the perfect sacrifice that satisfied the justice of God with regard to our sins being forgiven. This could not be accessed under the Law of Moses or any other law of God or man except that given by the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is a system of faith.]
14 that upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham in Christ Jesus; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
[Going back to the comparison of our faith today and that of Abraham that was introduced in verse 9, as the "apostle to the Gentiles" Paul wants to be sure that all understand that there is now no Jew and Gentile in the eyes of God. God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34), and thus we are judged solely by our individual acceptance of His free gift through the gospel, and not because of our heritage, race or nationality. The blessing of Abraham and the promise of the Spirit are two separate things. The relevant blessing of Abraham (that is in Christ Jesus) would be that referenced in Gen. 22:18 "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. Because thou hast obeyed my voice." This is totally validated in the following verses and it it notable to see that Abraham's faith, which is also called faithfulness, was one that compelled him to be obedient. This is the saving faith that is ubiquitous throughout this passage. The promise of the Spirit is the result of this blessing. It is the Holy Spirit Himself, as we described in conjunction with Acts 2:38 and see also Acts 5:32]
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men: Though it be but a man's covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no one makes it void, or adds to it.
[Arguing from the lessor to the greater -- if this is true of a man's covenant, then most assuredly it would be true of a covenant made by God. It may have been a few years (in God's sight), but He does not forget His promises, and neither should we ... ever.]
16 Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
[This confirms that the blessing was that of Genesis 22:18, that through Abraham's seed all the nations (all people regardless of nationality) would be blessed, and that blessing would be in what Christ offers to us by his death on the cross.]
17 Now this I say: A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not dis-annul, so as to make the promise of none effect.
[The fact that some time had gone by -- even a significant among of time in the eyes of mankind -- does not change the promise of God.]
For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no more of promise: but God hath granted it to Abraham by promise.
[There can hardly be any more a definitive statement as to the fact that God now views us as individuals and no longer views us with regard to our nationality. The Law of Moses was given to the Children of Israel, and it was quite exclusive in that regard. We realize that Gentiles could be "proselyted into" this nation, but not without considerable pain and difficulty (e.g., circumcision). We must realize, however, that while this nation was chosen of God to bring us to Christ, God has never condemned those who are Gentiles for being Gentiles -- some of them had become a "law unto themselves" (Rom. 2:14-15) by which they could come to God and be justified independent of the Jewish nation. However, this law would have no more saving power than the Law of Moses once Jesus died on the cross.]
19 What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; (and it was) ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator.
[The context here shows that "the law" is the Law of Moses. The rhetorical question might better be translated: "what good then is the law?" or "why even have the law?" These questions are appropriate because Paul from the outset of this letter has made it quite clear that no one can be saved by keeping that law. So, why was it ever given? The answer is given in this verse. It was essential to God's plan to control sin until the time was right for Jesus to come. Ordained would indicate an orderly process. This is new information -- nothing in the Old Testament talks about angels performing this ordination function. The early chapters of the Hebrews letter indicates the involvement of angels in Old Testament revelation and provides an excellent commentary for those who are interested in delving further into this subject. We can be much more definitive as to who the mediator is, Jesus Christ, since Moses was never identified as a mediator. No doubt Moses performed this function at times, speaking to defend the Children of Israel against God's wrath. But his role was not that of an ongoing mediator -- something that is true of Jesus Christ for us today, and apparently in the revelation of the Old Testament laws as well.]
20 Now a mediator is not (a mediator) of one; but God is one.
[This indicates that there is no conflict between the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as the following verses will prove. Similarly, there is no conflict between God the Father and Jesus Christ -- they are one and the same in their understanding and revelation of the truth. The difference between the Law and the Gospel arises in the purpose that the Law of Moses served (see verse 19), as opposed to what the Gospel of Jesus Christ serves today. They are different, and the gospel is superior to the law. But they were both revelations of God, and the consistency between them is explained in the next few verses.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law.
[The righteousness of Christians today is called the "righteousness of God in Romans 1:16-17, and it is revealed in the gospel. We could not be saved by our own righteousness, and we cannot be saved while still in our sins. Even our satisfying the conditions of the gospel should not be viewed as earning our salvation (here "making alive"), for that function could only be served by the shedding of the blood of Christ. We should never view our meeting those conditions as actually making us alive -- they are the conditions by which we accept the free gift of salvation -- but it is the blood of Jesus that actually makes us alive, not any actions of our own. This is more than a semantic difference; indeed if we believe that we justify ourselves and earn our salvation we denigrate the blood of Jesus that was shed for us.]
22 But the scriptures shut up all things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
[The Old Testament scriptures documented the law as well as the many example of those who kept it and even more cases of those who failed to keep it. These things were "shut up" -- documented to the point that it is irrefutable that no one can possibly be saved by it. Why was this done? So that "the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." The promise is one of eternal life and it is available to us by faith in Jesus Christ, and it is a gift to those who have the same quality of faith that Abraham had. That faith is described in detail in Hebrews 11.]
23 But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
[What does it mean: "faith came?" -- the answer is given in this verse by the word "revealed." Revelation -- the gospel had to be revealed. Review Romans 1:16-17 once again to see that the faith is synonymous with the gospel. But it could not be revealed in reality until Jesus actually died on the cross. So this might be considered the point at which "faith came." Of course, the full revelation of all that it meant as well as the conditions of salvation were given shortly thereafter. But it was no more than 50 days after the cross before people were being baptized into Christ (Acts 2) and saved (see also Romans 6:1-4, and verse 27 below).]
24 So that the law is become our tutor (to bring us) unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
[So here is another purpose of the law -- to be our tutor or schoolmaster -- to school mankind, but specifically through the Children of Israel, so that they could be ready to accept the sacrifice that Christ was foreordained to make for us. We could not be justified by faith without this preparation. The New Testament standing alone makes little sense without at least some rudimentary knowledge of the Old Testament.
25 But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor.
[How much more definitively can it be said that we are no longer under the Old Testament laws? Does this mean it has no value for us today? or that it is no longer to be regarded as truth? Of course not. It needs to be regarded exactly as stated here, and it still serves to provide us with critical information for understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the New Testament.
26 For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus.
[Can anyone doubt that "all" here is referring to both Jew and Gentile? This is the entire theme of this chapter. Of course, he is speaking specifically to the Christians (both Jews and Gentiles) in the churches of Galatia -- those who had obeyed the gospel. But to the extent that we obey the same gospel as they did, he is speaking to us.]
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.
[Did any of them put on Christ who were NOT baptized into Christ? Why would anyone teach this today? This is a totally consistent teaching throughout the New Testament. Example: Acts 2:41: "They then that received his word were baptized: and there were added (unto them) in that day about three thousand souls." Why would we want to or try to explain this away? See also Romans 6. The idea of "to put on" a person is a Hebrew idiom that was applied to those who became a very close follower totally dedicated to that person.]
28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one (man) in Christ Jesus.
[And why are there those today who try to make this worldly distinction when the Holy Spirit here says that it cannot exist? Chances are their objectives are political and not religious, but they are certainly not of the teaching of Christ. This distinction no longer even exists in the eyes of God -- if it did He would tell us in what way this distinction exists in our times for which the New Testament applies. But as far as our salvation is concerned, we come to God as individuals, not as a race or a nation, or for that matter, even a church (which is an effect, not a cause). And if we make distinctions based on race, gender or nationality, we violate this clear statement.]
29 And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise.
[This is a powerful statement. Who are Jews today? Where does God now see His chosen people as opposed to the rest of the world? The answer is given here. It is not a genetic or a hereditary thing -- how do we become Christ's? If we accept by faith what the gospel teaches in this regard, then we are every whit as much a Jew as any Jew who ever lived. In meditations upon this passage, recall Romans 9:6-8: "But (it is) not as though the word of God hath come to naught. For they are not all Israel that are of Israel: neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed." What does God see when He looks at you? Are you Christ's? If so, they you are of Abraham's seed -- you are a spiritual Jew and an heir according to the promise. Those who refuse to see this truth have their own agenda. We recommend you see our commentary on Revelation 20.]
Go to Galatians 4-6
Galatians 1
1:1 Paul, an apostle (not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead),
[The assertion of Paul's apostleship comes early in the book. Then as now there was this idea that there had to be some ultimate sanction by some ecclesiastical authority for any office in the church, especially one that is so high. We see throughout the book of Acts that such is not the case. Jesus Himself chose the apostles directly, including Paul (as we shall see), and all other officers were of the local churches and were selected by the members of the local churches according to the instructions given by the Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul (see 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1). The statement in parenthesis will be dealt with in detail below so we will not elaborate on it now. The statement that God the Father raised Jesus from the dead is not limiting. Other statements to the effect that Jesus raised himself from the dead (e.g., Jn 2:19-21) show consistency in intent between the Father, and God the Son.]
2 and all the brethren that are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
[Probably written from Ephesus where Paul was accompanied by many Christians there. Written to multiple churches all seeming to have quite common characteristics.]
3 Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ,
[Paul's address to brethren commonly contained such a wish, that the grace of God would be upon them and that it would bring them peace. The implication might be that they were not at peace at this point and that they were not therefore enjoying this grace to the extent possible.]
4 who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of this present evil world, according to the will of our God and Father:
5 to whom (be) the glory for ever and ever. Amen.
[Jesus is credited with bring the grace of salvation to them through the gospel. This gospel as revealed by Jesus and the Holy Spirit that Jesus sent was not known or understood prior to His coming into the world, and it is still not understood by many who blind their eyes to its obvious simplicity (2 Cor. 11:3). Without Jesus they cannot be delivered out of this present evil world, and going back to the Old Testament for salvation defeats the entire purpose of the cross. Paul does not deny his recognition of the same "God the Father" that the Jews worshiped, and declares that the recognition of Jesus Christ is a glorification of God the Father.]
6 I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel;
[Paul's astonishment that they should be so soon removed from the pure teaching of the gospel is evident, and evidence that: (1) he could not have been away from them for long, and (2) that their errors in this regard were significant. The phrase "removing from him" is ambiguous -- it could refer to Paul, Jesus or God the Father, for in some sense all three had called them. However, the calling was not Paul's calling, and the wording "into the Grace of Christ" would infer that someone other than Jesus did the calling. Jesus said in John 6:44-45: "No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, comes unto me." This conveys that while the grace is "of Christ" and all that his blood has purchased for us, the calling is done by the Father (Romans 11:29). While we would not be dogmatic in this regard, this would seem to be quite consistent with the verse. But what is this "different gospel?" We see in the following verse.
7 which is not another (gospel) only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Verse 6 is an example of accommodative language -- quickly explained that the term "different gospel" should not be understood in its literal meaning, but in just the opposite sense -- it is a perversion of the true gospel, and those who push it are troubling you to the point that they could be jeopardizing your salvation. This is clear from the following.]
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.
[Anathema is the Greek word for accursed. Surely if the teacher is accursed, so would be those who follow and support such a teacher, so this warning extends to each and every one of us who have obeyed the (true) gospel. "We" here might refer to Paul in the editorial sense, or to the apostles -- in either case it illustrates the unity, consistency and completeness of the gospel that has already been revealed. Apostles could be corrupted ... Judas was, and we will see that Peter erred in his example (Galatians 2). But the gospel cannot err -- it is the revealed world of God. Even if an angel of heaven -- this is again accommodative language -- an angel of heave would never do such a thing. But this hyperbole carries with it that even if one thinks that the Holy Spirit is revealing something directly, it is false if it contradicts the gospel that has already been revealed.]
[Clearly the word "gospel" had a unique and clear meaning to the Galatians. What should it mean to us today? The word is defined as something that can be obeyed (2 Thes. 1:8; 1 Pet. 4:17). It is not just good news per se, but it is good news that we must respond to with obedience. This is further defined in Romans 1:16-17: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith." "Righteous of God" is not the fact that God is righteous (although that is true and without question); but "righteousness of God" in this context is the means by which humans are seen to be righteous by God. It is the righteousness of man that is obtained by the blood of Jesus. Further, it is defined by the context of Habakkuk 2:4 to be a way of life, not just a mental assent. Emphasize LIVE -- the righteous shall LIVE by faith, not just have a feeling or a thought. It will project itself in action -- we cannot have faith in Jesus without it producing love in its most intensive sense (1 Cor. 13). And it will require a new birth as given in John 3:5, which is explained in detail in Romans 6 (specifically 1-9, but the entire context of Romans 6 is quite important to this understanding). The essence of it will be explained further in the beautiful words of the Holy Spirit in the apostle in Galatians 2:20: "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me: and that (life) which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, (the faith) which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me." Note the consistency of the word "crucified" with Romans 6:6 and reflects perfectly the meaning of repentance (2 Cor. 7:0-10), i.e., to put away the old man and all sinful actions associated with the old man. See the more detailed commentary for Romans 1:16-17.]
9 As we have said before, so say I now again, if any man preaches unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema.
["Before" can hardly be verse 8. It must be that when Paul was with them he said this very same thing. Nothing can attest to the completeness of the gospel in the first century, and its total and exclusive ability to save, than these verses. Those who add to or take away from the simplicity of the gospel, will not be held unaccountable (Rev. 28:18-19). But his first statement that was made while with them, was in the abstract. "What are you talking about Paul?" would have been their question back then. Now it can be answered without any "I told you so" arrogance. The anticipation that some would preach error is not something that takes the gift of prophecy -- without doubt, based on the Old Testament alone, we can state it with certainty today. God's people will not remain without the temptation of false teachers, and it is also a certainty that some will give in to them and be led astray. This is not just something that we learn from bible prophecy and examples, it is something that we can readily observe today both as a completed fact and as being in process.]
10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? or am I striving to please men? if I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.
[The false teachers would use any accusation that would work against Paul, and so to accuse him of just catering to men might be one of them, Compare Gal. 6:12: "As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they compel you to be circumcised; only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ." Persecuted? by who? By their own countrymen who opposed Christ in any teaching whatsoever. If the Judaizing teachers could sell Christianity as a sect of Judaism (comparable to the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc.), then they could escape this persecution. Insisting upon circumcision was a first step in this direction. However, obedience to Moses, although once totally pleasing to God, fell far short of the gospel. In fact, it contradicted the gospel in proclaiming that there was an alternative to the blood of Christ, and thus His blood had been shed in vain. Note our use of the word Judaizing as those who were trying to Judaize the Christians, i.e., reject Christ in favor of circumcision and the Old Testament law.]
11 For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man.
[If we just think about it realistically, would it even have been possible for Paul to come up with something that is totally consistent with what Peter and the other apostles taught (e.g., in Acts 2)? The fact that they taught identically the same gospel shows that it came neither from Paul nor from Peter (or others). It had to have come from the same central source, that being Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit that Jesus sent (John 15:26). The atheists will believe that all religion is after man. This is not far off -- all false religion is of man. But the gospel of Jesus Christ can be attributed to no one other than the Son of God, as He worked in total consistency with God the Father.]
12 For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but (it came to me) through revelation of Jesus Christ.
[Note that it had to be something that was received and taught, and it had to come through revelation, which today we have as the written word in the New Testament. It is not a simple faith-only feeling type of thing that essentially vetoes all of the richness of the New Testament. It is something that transforms the life into an attitude that "proves what is the good and perfect will of God" as indicated in Romans 12:1-2.]
13 For ye have heard of my manner of life in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and made havoc of it:
14 and I advanced in the Jews' religion beyond many of mine own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
[These verses go together in laying the foundation for the defense of Paul's apostleship. From Acts 9 it appears that Paul started preaching within days of his conversion in the local area of Damascus. There is no indication that he was directly inspired by the Holy Spirit like the apostles who spoke on Pentecost in Acts 2 were. Since he knew the Old Testament cold, this would not be necessary. However, this does not prove that the Holy Spirit was not directly involved. It should be clear that Paul's intensive knowledge of the Old Testament coupled with what he knew that followers of Jesus were teaching at that time, would more than enable him to be "filled with the Holy Spirit" with regard to being able to preach the gospel. All that he needed was to put these two bodies of knowledge together and to see that all that he had learned about Old Testament prophesies now had their fulfillment in Christ. This was the main message that he needed in order to preach the gospel in the Synagogues. The point being made in these verses is that such a transition of thought was not something that he brought upon by himself or with the agency of other men. He went from one extreme of persecuting the church the other of preaching the gospel. This change of heart should be typical of all those who would please God in accepting His free gift of eternal life.]
15 But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, (even) from my mother's womb, and called me through his grace,
16 to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus.
[God's plan was to turn the evil that Paul had caused into good. God would have preferred Paul to obey Him from the outset of the preaching of the gospel. But given that Paul did not, it was the good pleasure of God to use his time of persecution to create the most impressive of conversions. This started on the road to Damascus and was completed when Paul was baptized into Christ (Acts 9:1-10 and 22:6-16). The implication of verse 17 above is that he started preaching in Damascus right after his conversion, went away into Arabia (generally in the proximity of his home in Tarsus), and then returned again to Damascus. This corresponds to the record in Acts 9:18-25.
Acts 9:18-25
18 And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and he arose and was baptized;
19 and he took food and was strengthened. And he was certain days with the disciples that were at Damascus.
20 And straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God.
21 And all that heard him were amazed, and said, Is not this he that in Jerusalem made havoc of them that called on this name? and he had come hither for this intent, that he might bring them bound before the chief priests.
22 But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews that dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is the Christ.
23 And when many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel together to kill him:
24 but their plot became known to Saul. And they watched the gates also day and night that they might kill him:
25 but his disciples took him by night, and let him down through the wall, lowering him in a basket.]
[Let us review this important passage verse by verse to see how it complements the current passage in Galatians:
18 -- the culmination of Paul's conversion was his baptism -- we find no one in the New Testament who is referred to as a Christian who was not baptized. In Acts 22:16 he is asked why he is tarrying in this regard and is commanded by Ananias to be baptized immediately. (An example for us all.)
19 -- the location is Damascus and he was in fellowship with the Christians there, since they clearly recognize what had happened to Paul and the fact that Paul had now assumed an entirely new life in Christ. The mention of his taking food is related to the fact that he had fasted and prayed for three days.
20 -- this confirms what we said above about Paul immediately preaching Christ in the synagogues. With his Old Testament background and scholarship, he was immediately qualified (and allowed at least initially) to do this without even further gifts of the Holy Spirit. We re-emphasize however, the fact that these gifts are not mentioned here is not definitive evidence that he did not receive them -- only that Luke did not see this as something that needed to be conveyed to us, which we believe to be significant in an of itself.
21 -- this amazement must have been part of the plan that we see in God's providential hand -- it proved the validity of what Paul was stating happened to him.
22 -- this and the next verse should not be assumed to be a matter of hours, days or even months. Considerable time may have taken place during which Saul "increased the more in strength" -- evidence is that this was a long maturing process and it did not culminate by him becoming an apostle until early in the first missionary journey recorded in Acts 13. Of course, the maturing process never ends.
23-25 -- Still at Damascus, we find the beginning of a long life of persecution for Paul. As Jesus said: "I will show him how many things he must suffer for my name's sake" (Acts 9:16). Again, there could be a long period of time in these "many days" that Luke shrinks into one verse. During this time Paul may have gone home or preached in areas around his home (Arabia) and then returned to Damascus to preach again, given the fellowship that was shown him immediately after his conversion. We see them here risking their lives to save Paul.]
Repeating verse 17 for continuity:
17 neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days.
[Paul's chronology here is not definitive. we do not know if he is measuring time from his conversion or from the previous event. But this is of little concern, the variation only been two or three years at the most. Luke reports the events of the above verse as follows:
Acts 9:25-26 "but his disciples took him by night, and let him down through the wall, lowering him in a basket. And when he was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: and they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple.]
[This validates the facts in this regard that will be covered in the next few verses. But it places a three year gap between Acts 9:25 and Acts 9:26. Familiarity with the book of Acts indicates that Luke skipping over what he or the Holy Spirit must have thought were less important if not irrelevant details is fairly typical. We feel that the mapping of the gap to the three years is consistent with both Acts and Galatians, and that other alternative interpretations have far more issues.]
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
[The period of time of the event recorded in Acts 9: 26-29 was a brief 15 days according to Gal. 1:18 above. During this time there was disbelief on the part of some that Paul had been truly converted, and hence, he must be a spy. How Barnabas learned the truth is not revealed, but the fact that he knew Paul well enough to lay his good reputation on the line is evident. It certainly would not take very long for the unconverted Jews who had heard all about Paul's past to react to him, and in this regard, 15 days is not at all unreasonable. But this is not given just to sooth our yearning for a chronology. Paul was trying to impress them with the fact that he only saw Peter and James, and that he was only there for 15 days. This is an indication that the breadth of the gospel cannot be learned in that short period of time. While the milk of the word can be learned in less than an hour, leading someone to be baptized into Christ, the depth of the gospel necessary to enable one to become an effective preacher of the gospel (and ultimately an apostle in Paul's unique case), would require far more time than that.]
20 Now touching the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
[We have found Paul seeing the necessity for taking oaths to the validity of his statements in Romans and the Corinthian letters, especially Second Corinthians. Paul was not afraid to stand before God in judgment making these claims.]
21 Then I came unto the regions of Syria and Cilicia.
22 And I was still unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
23 but they only heard say, He that once persecuted us now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc;
24 and they glorified God in me.
[Acts 9:30 indicates that Paul was once again saved by the brethren (this time in Jerusalem) and sent forth to his home in Tarsus, and we do not hear anything more of his activities until Acts 11:25-26 when he was retrieved by Barnabas who observed how many Gentiles were being saved, and he would naturally want Paul to be involved in the evangelism going on at Antioch. We have to conclude that it was during this time that the events described above took place with regard to the "regions of Syria and Cilicia.]
[While the detailed chronology put together from Acts and Galatians is not totally essential to our understanding of the critical doctrines in the letter to the Galatian churches, it does help us to understand the issues that Paul was having with the Judaizing Christians. It also helps us to see that there was not Pope or centralized church hierarchy at Rome or Jerusalem, as those of the Roman Catholic church would have us to believe. The very independence of Paul attests to the fact that it is the truth of the gospel that saves and not some human organization created a century or so later.]
Galatians 2
2:1 Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me.
[Having gone from his home in Tarsus to Antioch (Acts 11:25-26) at the request of Barnabas, and subsequently sent out on the first Missionary Journey by the church at Antioch (Acts 13-14), Paul and Barnabas return and report their progress at the end of Acts 14. (It is quite significant that Paul and Barnabas were NOT sent out to preach the gospel by the church at Jerusalem, which some claim today to be the center of first century evangelism.) Thus, it is from Antioch that Paul and Barnabas go to Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts 15. This is stated by Paul to be his first intensive discussion of doctrine with the apostles. We know from Acts 11:29-30 and 12:25 that Paul and Barnabas had been sent to deliver funds for the poor and starving Christians in the areas of Jerusalem at a previous time, but they were not there at all seeking doctrinal advice -- they were there delivering needed funds to aid in the relief effort. Recognizing how unwieldy at this point it would have been for Paul to mention this (and for that matter, who knows that he had not made other incidental trips to Jerusalem), his omission of it is understandable. While Titus is not mentioned by Luke, he did say that other Christians accompanied Paul and Barnabas from Antioch. What is said later about Titus (that he was not compelled to be circumcised -- Gal 2:3, shortly below) tends to confirm that he was one of the Christians Luke states accompanied them to Jerusalem from Antioch.]
[Paul's purpose for going to Jerusalem at this time is important to our understanding of the current passage. Consider the account of this in Acts 15:
Acts 15:1-3
15:1 And certain men came down from Judaea and taught the brethren, (saying), Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them, (the brethren) appointed that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
3 They therefore, being brought on their way by the church, passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
Several points can be established from this passage:
- The teachers "from Judaea" is talking about the geographical area they came from and NOT the fact that they were sent out from the church. Acts 15:24 clearly states that they were not sent out with the authority of the elders or the apostles. It seems that the false teachers were trying to infer this deception on the Christians at Antioch along with their other falsehoods.
- The false teachers who came to Antioch were trying to impose the doctrine of circumcision, a relatively small part of the Law of Moses. However, we see from Acts 15:5 that this was just a first step to trying to impose the entire Law of Moses upon the church.
- Paul absolutely did NOT go to Jerusalem to find out what the truth was as far as doctrine is concerned. It was certainly to determine if Jerusalem had sent out these false teachers, and perhaps to correct them if they had. Clearly Paul and Barnabas knew the truth in that (1) they had been preaching baptism of uncircumcised Gentiles all over the locations of the first missionary journey given in Acts 13 and 14, and (2) they immediately confronted the false teachers -- see Acts 15:2 above.
- Not only that, but on their way toward Jerusalem they continued to preach and proclaim this same truth -- see Acts 15:3 above.]
2 And I went up by revelation; and I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles but privately before them who were of repute, lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain.
["By revelation" indicates that Paul himself had received revelation on this issue directly for Jesus, and thus he was totally equipped to deliver it throughout the world, and in this case, if need be, to Jerusalem. Important to note here again that Paul DID NOT go to Jerusalem to learn the truth -- he went there to deliver the truth. Evidence of this is the fact that he had been practicing the baptism of Gentiles without circumcision in the first Missionary Journey, but to further confirm that this was not in error, Luke asserts (Acts 15:3): "They therefore, being brought on their way by the church, passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren." This does not sound like someone who is unsure of a doctrine and going to the apostles to determine if he "had it right." Acts 15:4 indicates that the first meeting was a limited one as compared to Acts 15:6, which further confirms the parallel accounts of Galatians 2 and Acts 15.]
3 But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
[This would further confirm the purpose of the journey. It would be extremely difficult to think that all of these things coming together were talking about anything other than Acts 15. Since the subject here in Galatians will shortly turn toward refuting this same Judaizing doctrine in the churches of Galatia, it is quite relevant for Paul to bring this up. The Judaizers were teaching the necessity for Gentiles to be circumcised before they could be baptized. This idea was already dispelled by Peter as recorded in Acts 10 and 11. Then, why did the Jews persist in pressing this false doctrine? Then and now -- it all had to do with power and perhaps the money that comes with it. If the Gentiles overwhelmed their synagogues, they felt they would lose their power; although there is no reason to believe that if they were faithful to Jesus that they would not be prime candidates to become elders in the church.]
4 and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
[This is confirmed by Acts 15:5: "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses." This happened in opposition to Paul and the others from Antioch. Here they tipped their hand. Prior to this only circumcision was mentioned -- as if there were just a technicality that they could all live with. But now they are saying that the Gentiles are subject to all of the law of Moses. We hasten to add here that circumcision itself was not trivial, and to require grown men to undergo such a painful experience would be a major deterrent to the conversion of the Gentiles -- undoubtedly a fact that did not escape the Judaizing Christians who were concerned with little more than maintaining their own personal power.]
5 to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
[It is quite clear from Luke's account in Acts 15 that this was in no way an exaggeration.]
6 But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it makes no matter to me: God accepts not man's person) — they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me:
[What did they have that Paul did not -- in both cases their knowledge of the Gospel came from Jesus. Recall it was Peter in Acts 10 who was instructed by the Holy Spirit more completely on this subject, and then acted on the conversion of the first Gentiles. They were baptized without the benefit of circumcision. So, while the doctrine of Gentile conversion was not something that originated with and was promulgated from the apostles in Jerusalem, neither was it exclusively a doctrine of Paul. Indeed it was a very special revelation of Jesus Christ, and Paul emphasized in Ephesians 3:1-7: "For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus in behalf of you Gentiles, if so be that ye have heard of the dispensation of that grace of God which was given me to you-ward; how that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery , as I wrote before in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ; which in other generation was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; (to wit), that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of that grace of God which was given me according to the working of his power." The entire book of Romans has the theme of the Jews and the Gentiles being subject to exactly the same gospel, which Paul says reveals the righteousness of God by which we are saved.]
7 but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with (the gospel) of the circumcision
8(for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles);
9 and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision;
[The general agreement reached is well documented in Acts 15 and accords totally to this passage.]
10 only (they would) that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do.
[This is not mentioned in Acts 15, but it is not at all inconsistent with what is there. Paul and Barnabas had already been faithful in delivering the collection from Antioch to the poor saints, which Luke describes in Acts 11:26-29 and Acts 12:15. It is also of significant that Luke mentions in Acts 11:25 that "the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." Luke considered it something significant to document that this new name (Isaiah 62:2) all followers of Christ are to wear was not originated in Jerusalem. It also seems from his description of the sending out of Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary Journey (Acts 13 and 14) that Antioch was the primary center of evangelistic effort, as opposed to Jerusalem. Perhaps this was of necessity due to the strong persecution of Christians by the Jews after the death of Stephen (Acts 7, and see Acts 8:1-4). This was prior to the conversion of Saul, and he is mentioned there as being part of the persecution, which is also mentioned in Galatians 1:13, discussed above.]
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.
[Commentators that put this in the first part of Acts 15 and want to indicate that the whole meeting was to resolve differences between Paul and Peter are in error and should know better. The placement of this event is more logically in the latter part of Acts 15 after the controversy over keeping the Law of Moses had been completely resolved, since these are clearly two separate issues. Had this encounter been part of the history of the Acts 15 meeting, Luke certainly would have documented it as such. Instead, we see the events that followed the Jerusalem meeting given here:
Acts 15:30-35
30 So they, when they were dismissed, came down to Antioch; and having gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle.
31 And when they had read it, they rejoiced for the consolation.
32 And Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.
33 And after they had spent some time (there), they were dismissed in peace from the brethren unto those that had sent them forth.
34 (But it seemed good unto Silas to abide there.)
35 But Paul and Barnabas tarried in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.]
[So Paul and Barnabas were now back in Antioch, and this is the reasonable time for Peter and others to come for a visit. Paul states in no certain terms that Peter "stood condemned." The solution to the once-saved-always-saved is to redefine what the word "condemned" means, because, after all, it is impossible for it to mean that he was condemned (what is says). This illustrates the extent that false teachers go to rationalize their teachings to fit their basic core false doctrines. It says what it says and we should use the normative meanings of these words unless there is justification for not doing so. Similar deceit is used in James 2 to redefine what the word "save" means in James 2:14. False teachers should be challenged by the faithful when they change the normative definitions of words to harmonize statements that are contradictory to their false teachings. Let us go on now to see just why Peter stood condemned.]
12 For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision.
[This is the statement of just why Peter (and others) stood condemned. They practiced racial discrimination. Recall Acts 10:34-35: "And Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that fears him, and works righteousness, is acceptable to him." Those who teach that there was one gospel for the Jews and another for the Gentiles obviously do not believe this or otherwise wish to defy God in this regard.. Those who practice segregation based on race obviously do not believe this, or else they just refuse to observe it. Peter stated it explicitly (see Acts 10:34 and 47-48) to a Gentile audience (with six Jews present as well). But when it came to affirming it before a large group that believed that discrimination should still be practiced, he caved to peer pressure. This was sin and it was a sin that he (and those who followed him in this sin) would need to repent of to get back into the fellowship of Christ.]
13 And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation.
[This would have been the Jews who felt perfectly comfortable (probably because of the results of the Acts 15 conference) eating with the Gentiles. Dissimulation is hypocrisy -- they knew better, and they declared what they knew. But when the hour to stand up for their beliefs came, they cowered. Let us not be too hard on them -- if you cannot recall a time when this happened to you then you are deceiving yourself. Let us realize that peer pressure is almost absolute -- 1 Cor 15:33 "Be not deceived: Evil companions corrupt good morals" and there are no exceptions. Peter should have separated himself from these evil companions at the outset instead of participating in their sin.]
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas before (them) all, If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why do you compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
[This verse and what follows is some of the most beautiful and definitive statements regarding the Christian life. We are almost indebted to Peter for the Holy Spirit having the occasion to provoke these thoughts in Paul. In this verse Paul refers to the fact that Peter was not longer keeping Moses' law himself. That is the implication, and if we look at Peter's teachings we see that this is in fact the case. For example, 1 Peter 2:7-10: "For you therefore that believe is the preciousness: but for such as disbelieve, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner; and, A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence; for they stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation , a people for (God's) own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: who in time past were no people, but now are the people of God: who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." There is no more definitive statement than this that God judges us a individuals and not on our heritage.]
15 We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
[Recognize that the context is Paul rebuking Peter for his sinful action in withdrawing himself from the Gentile Christians. Paul here referring to Gentiles in general here (generally idolaters if not converted to Christ). To a Jew the word Gentile itself was one the connoted sin. But for sure Paul is speaking accomodatively here – he certainly did not mean to include Gentile Christians in this general statement.]
16 yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
[The contrast here does not say that works are sinful, and if we obey God this excludes our having saving faith. For one thing, he is talking about the works of the Law of Moses specifically. But the "works of the law" can be generalized in this regard -- if we think that anything we do or believe actually justifies us, then we are as guilty as the Judaizers (i.e., those trying to pull the Christians back under the Law of Moses). Even faith does not justify us if it is a work of our own creation. We are justified by faith, but it must be that faith created by God, i.e., faith in Jesus, the gospel and God's righteousness. No amount of faith or works on our part actually saves us -- it is the blood of Christ that saves. All the glory goes to God. What we do is just in our self interest to meet the conditions to obtain the free gift -- analogous to signing our names on the back of an inheritance check. All of the good works we do are for our happiness and for our benefit (Mark 10:29-30). How can we even begin to think that we could earn our salvation by works? since these works are for our own benefit and to affirm our salvation to us, as we will see in the next few verses.]
17 But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ a minister of sin? Absolutely not.
18 For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor.
[These two verses need to be taken together to make any sense. First of all, we are all in a sense sinners, both before and after baptism. Baptism washes our sins away, but it is only a short time before we again fall to sin, despite our desire not to. Thus, the justification in Christ must be ongoing, the condition being that we faithfully do our best, and when we fall short we repent and ask for forgiveness (1 John 1 and 2). While this is a given, it is not what Paul is discussing. His focal point is on the sin of prejudice and discrimination that he saw in Peter, Barnabas and others. They were seeking justification in Christ at the same time that they were appealing to works of the Law of Moses. If this were permissible and right, then Christ would be a minister of sin, which we know very well that He is not. The things that Paul destroyed (in verse 18) are the obligations to keep the Law of Moses -- Paul's writings, teachings and actions clearly had been intended to destroy that obligation and free mankind in general to be saved by the blood of Christ according to the gospel. If Paul were to act to build those things up again, he would be a transgressor -- it would be sin. Please continue to recognize that Paul is preaching to Peter, Barnabas and the Judaizing Christians (and those influence by them) in this context. That is essential to its understanding the principles. But the principles apply to us and to all of mankind. Note that the keeping of the traditions of the Law of Moses by Jews after the cross was not condemned per se. It was their binding of such on either Gentiles or their fellow Jews that would produce sin (see Romans 14).]
19 For I through the law died unto the law, that I might live unto God.
[This figure is also used in Romans 7 to indicate the analogy between a person whose spouse dies no longer being obligated to that spouse and now that the law is fulfilled, Jews were no longer under the law. Death in the bible always refers to some type of separation. In this case Paul's separation from the law. He could not be subject to it and at the same time "live unto God." He had to realize that the solution were not in things that he did to justify himself, but in what Jesus did to justify him. It is not that he stopped doing good -- on the contrary, his efforts to do good were greatly multiplied because his purpose in doing them was so much more glorious. And so we come to the very famous verse -- let us parse it carefully.]
20 I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me: and that (life) which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, (the faith) which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me.
[The figure of crucifixion is used in Romans 6 to indicate the death of the old man of sin prior to that old body being buried with Christ in baptism so that it can be resurrected to walk in newness of life (born again -- John 3:5). Paul indicates that the result of this process is that no longer is Paul doing his own will, but now that the old man is dead, it is Christ who is the new man "living in me." Christians must enjoy living -- the walk -- not some intangible thought process or just some hollow words -- but every action of our new life is motivated by faith in Jesus Christ, a faith which is our reasonable service (Romans 12:1-2) because "he loved me and gave himself up for me."
21 I do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for naught.
[Why would Jesus have to die if we could be saved by obedience to the Law of Moses? Or, for us who are Gentiles, if we could be saved by our own good works. It might be asked -- are not faith, repentance, confession of Christ and baptism good works? If we think that doing any of these (including having faith) earns our salvation, then yes, these are condemned by implication here and stated that they will not bring about salvation. However, if we recognize them as works conceived by God, and do not view them as our earning our salvation, then these acts of obedience are far from the "works" that are talked about here.]
[This distinction may be difficult for some to see. Do you say and believe "I earned my salvation by being baptized?" Or do you view such a statement as that as being absurd? Could the people who circled Jericho say: "we conquered Jericho of our own strength and merit by walking around it seven times? It is hard for me to see how any of them would have the audacity to make such a statement. And for us to think that we justified ourselves by being obedient in the few easy conditions that God has placed on our salvation is equally absurd. But to those who would accuse Christians who are attempting to do all that God says to do of being guilty of "salvation by works" is absurd to an even higher degree. If that is the only objection that they can come up with to reject the Christians' efforts to be all that God wants them to be, then for sure, we are on very safe ground.]
[If our attitude is not that of Paul's, then we need to go modify it and our behavior to assure that it is. Let us review it again:
"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me: and that (life) which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, (the faith) which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me." This is not of works; it is of many great and wonderful blessings that are all, as is our lives, gifts of God. Here are some related passages:
Luke 17:10
10 Even so ye also, when ye shall have done all the things that are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which it was our duty to do.
Luke 6:37-38
37 And judge not: and you shall not be judged: and condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: release, and ye shall be released:
38 give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, shall they give into your bosom. For with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again.
John 13:15-17
15 For I have given you an example, that ye also should do as I have done to you.
16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, a servant is not greater than his lord; neither one that is sent greater than he that sent him.
17 If ye know these things, blessed are ye if ye do them.
James 1:25
25 But he that looks into the perfect law, the (law) of liberty, and (so) continues, being not a hearer that forgets but a doer that works, this man shall be blessed in his doing.
[Are we looking for opportunities to serve? Do we see them as the blessings that they are? Or, are we doing them merely to earn our way into heaven? The actions could be the same, but whether we will be blessed in our doing is all about our attitudes with regard to them. This becomes clearer as we continue.]
Galatians 3
3:1 O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified?
[Foolish and bewitched. Thinking that the one who brought them the gospel is now teaching a different gospel -- believing the accusations that are being made against Paul. Clearly they had not see Jesus Christ crucified -- could it be that they have seen the very same things in the false teachers that caused him to be crucified. Reference Hebrews 6:6 " ...seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." Or perhaps he is saying that they had ample evidence through the laying on of his hands imparting to the the Holy Spirit that Jesus Christ is the basis for our faith, and not the works of the Old Testament law. Evidence of this is given in the next verse.]
2 This only would I learn from you. Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
[A rhetorical question that had an obvious answer. It tells us that they did have spiritual gifts and that these should have been ample evidence of the validity of what Paul is writing. But, like 1 Corinthians (especially chapter 13), this indicates to us that the spiritual gifts were not the cure-all for their spiritual ills. They still needed to recognize what was right and live by it. In this case it was a simple comparison between what Paul was preaching and what the Judaizing teachers were promoting. "Hearing of faith" -- a very loaded phrase -- it states that faith is something that must be heard. Romans 10:17 "So belief (cometh) of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." Thus, no hearing, no faith. Effort is required in this hearing -- it is not something that happens without the consent of the hearer. We prefer the word "listening" to "hearing," for in essence this has to be what is meant. The one in the presence of the preaching of the gospel must listen to it and respond to it, allowing it to sink deep into his/her heart and growing to produce the fruit of the spirit (Gal. 5:22).
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now perfected in the flesh?
[Whether Jew or Gentile they were converted by obeying the very same gospel, not by keeping the Law of Moses. How sweet eternal life must have sounded to them. And now they are seeking after something other than the gospel for their growth and perfection. How very ironic.]
4 Did ye suffer so many things in vain? if it be indeed in vain.
[The implication is clear that the Galatian Christians suffered persecution for their beliefs. These things would be in vain if they do not follow through in that same truth. To leave it for anything else (even something previously approved of God) would make their efforts all in vain. "If it be indeed in vain" indicates that Paul does not feel that such suffering should be in vain, nor does he believe that all of them are turning toward false doctrine.
5 He therefore that supplies to you the Spirit, and works miracles among you, (does he fo it) by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
[A repeat of the question asked in verse 2, but now explicitly stating that the spiritual gifts that they received included the working of miracles. Also indicated here is the issue that is being contrasted with the gospel -- the works of the law. Recognize when Paul writes the word "works" that these are the works he is talking about. While it is true that we are not saved by any works of our own hands, there are conditions of salvation that false teachers like to call "works" in order to make obedience to the commands of the gospel seem evil. That is not what Paul was doing here -- he was making the works of the Old Testament law seem evil because they were taking the place of the commands of Jesus Christ, the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25; 2:12), and the law that Paul recognized he was under when he said that he was "under law to Christ (1 Cor. 9:21). But these laws and conditions of salvation were being supplanted by the Law of Moses, a law that had been nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14), as we will also see in the following verses.]
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.
[A good commentary on this is given in James 2 and Hebrews 11. We must look at the quality of Abraham's faith. What did it cause him to do? What type of faith does God expect of us? If we have this same faith as Abraham did, then it will be reckoned unto us for righteousness, but the evidence of this is not in our heads only, it is in our heart and in our soul, and in our every action. The Genesis citation is is Genesis 15:6, but we should realize that Abraham's faithfulness started way back in Genesis 12 when Abraham obeyed God and left his homeland.]
7 Know therefore that they that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham.
[So is there currently any benefit to being a Jew? Can those who were teaching going back under the Law of Moses take comfort in the fact that they were God's chosen people? Read on ...]
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, (saying,) In thee shall all the nations be blessed.
[Justified by faith and not by the works of the Law of Moses. Justification, an essential step to salvation -- for if we are not justified we cannot come into the presence of God, and the Holy Spirit will not dwell within us. So what is it that saved Abraham, the first century Jews and Gentiles, and ourselves today? It is the preaching of the gospel to those who have a mind to believe it and obey it. Abraham could not be saved by the works of the Law of Moses because that law was not even given in his time.]
9 So then they that are of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham.
["Of faith" is contrasted with "of the Law of Moses." Note that Abraham did not just have "faith only," (allowing that such a thing could exist) but he was faithful -- his faith was his walk of life. That faith is defined in Romans 1:16-17 to be a walk -- a way of life, not just some mental affirmation. We read above that they were saved by the "hearing of faith," and Jude described it as "the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints (Jude 3). Let us understand all that this word faith means in the New Testament. It is the gospel believed. Abraham believed God when he said that through him all the nations of the earth would be blessed, and he acted on that belief. Further evidence of this is given in Hebrews 11.]
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one who continues not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them.
[Are there any of us who would have the audacity to say that we have kept God's law perfectly? Surely not, and that would be true of all honest people back then. That being the case, if they respect the truth of the law, they would clearly see that they were under a curse. This is specifically given in Deuteronomy 27:26, but it is a major sub-theme of the entire Old Testament that is reiterated in nearly every book of the Old Testament.
11 Now that no man is justified by the law before God, is evident: for, The righteous shall live by faith;
12 and the law is not of faith; but, He that does them shall live in them.
[That Paul would use Old Testament scripture to prove his point is quite significant. Why not appeal to his own apostleship and the spiritual gifts that he had that were obvious to all? The answer is that once something is written in scripture there is no longer a need to keep revealing it over and over again -- else either (1) the world would be filled with libraries of nothing but the scriptures, or (2) God's word would not be written and any false teacher could claim to be getting a message directly from God. Both of these alternative lead to intolerable and confusing situations (God is not the author of confusion -- 1 Cor. 14:33). So he appeals to Habakkuk 2:4, which we have explained in conjunction with Romans 1:17. The thrust of this is a definition of what faith means in the New Testament -- that is, a way of life, not just something that is emotional or mental. The argument is one of deduction -- if God has indicated that salvation comes by our accepting a system based on faith (and it has), then that necessarily excludes salvation coming by any other means.]
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree:
[Going on with his reasoning from the Old Testament scriptures, here he quotes Deuteronomy 21:23. Much can be made by taking this figure too far. It is sufficient to realize that when Jesus died on the cross He was the perfect sacrifice that satisfied the justice of God with regard to our sins being forgiven. This could not be accessed under the Law of Moses or any other law of God or man except that given by the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is a system of faith.]
14 that upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham in Christ Jesus; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
[Going back to the comparison of our faith today and that of Abraham that was introduced in verse 9, as the "apostle to the Gentiles" Paul wants to be sure that all understand that there is now no Jew and Gentile in the eyes of God. God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34), and thus we are judged solely by our individual acceptance of His free gift through the gospel, and not because of our heritage, race or nationality. The blessing of Abraham and the promise of the Spirit are two separate things. The relevant blessing of Abraham (that is in Christ Jesus) would be that referenced in Gen. 22:18 "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. Because thou hast obeyed my voice." This is totally validated in the following verses and it it notable to see that Abraham's faith, which is also called faithfulness, was one that compelled him to be obedient. This is the saving faith that is ubiquitous throughout this passage. The promise of the Spirit is the result of this blessing. It is the Holy Spirit Himself, as we described in conjunction with Acts 2:38 and see also Acts 5:32]
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men: Though it be but a man's covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no one makes it void, or adds to it.
[Arguing from the lessor to the greater -- if this is true of a man's covenant, then most assuredly it would be true of a covenant made by God. It may have been a few years (in God's sight), but He does not forget His promises, and neither should we ... ever.]
16 Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
[This confirms that the blessing was that of Genesis 22:18, that through Abraham's seed all the nations (all people regardless of nationality) would be blessed, and that blessing would be in what Christ offers to us by his death on the cross.]
17 Now this I say: A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not dis-annul, so as to make the promise of none effect.
[The fact that some time had gone by -- even a significant among of time in the eyes of mankind -- does not change the promise of God.]
For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no more of promise: but God hath granted it to Abraham by promise.
[There can hardly be any more a definitive statement as to the fact that God now views us as individuals and no longer views us with regard to our nationality. The Law of Moses was given to the Children of Israel, and it was quite exclusive in that regard. We realize that Gentiles could be "proselyted into" this nation, but not without considerable pain and difficulty (e.g., circumcision). We must realize, however, that while this nation was chosen of God to bring us to Christ, God has never condemned those who are Gentiles for being Gentiles -- some of them had become a "law unto themselves" (Rom. 2:14-15) by which they could come to God and be justified independent of the Jewish nation. However, this law would have no more saving power than the Law of Moses once Jesus died on the cross.]
19 What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; (and it was) ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator.
[The context here shows that "the law" is the Law of Moses. The rhetorical question might better be translated: "what good then is the law?" or "why even have the law?" These questions are appropriate because Paul from the outset of this letter has made it quite clear that no one can be saved by keeping that law. So, why was it ever given? The answer is given in this verse. It was essential to God's plan to control sin until the time was right for Jesus to come. Ordained would indicate an orderly process. This is new information -- nothing in the Old Testament talks about angels performing this ordination function. The early chapters of the Hebrews letter indicates the involvement of angels in Old Testament revelation and provides an excellent commentary for those who are interested in delving further into this subject. We can be much more definitive as to who the mediator is, Jesus Christ, since Moses was never identified as a mediator. No doubt Moses performed this function at times, speaking to defend the Children of Israel against God's wrath. But his role was not that of an ongoing mediator -- something that is true of Jesus Christ for us today, and apparently in the revelation of the Old Testament laws as well.]
20 Now a mediator is not (a mediator) of one; but God is one.
[This indicates that there is no conflict between the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as the following verses will prove. Similarly, there is no conflict between God the Father and Jesus Christ -- they are one and the same in their understanding and revelation of the truth. The difference between the Law and the Gospel arises in the purpose that the Law of Moses served (see verse 19), as opposed to what the Gospel of Jesus Christ serves today. They are different, and the gospel is superior to the law. But they were both revelations of God, and the consistency between them is explained in the next few verses.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law.
[The righteousness of Christians today is called the "righteousness of God in Romans 1:16-17, and it is revealed in the gospel. We could not be saved by our own righteousness, and we cannot be saved while still in our sins. Even our satisfying the conditions of the gospel should not be viewed as earning our salvation (here "making alive"), for that function could only be served by the shedding of the blood of Christ. We should never view our meeting those conditions as actually making us alive -- they are the conditions by which we accept the free gift of salvation -- but it is the blood of Jesus that actually makes us alive, not any actions of our own. This is more than a semantic difference; indeed if we believe that we justify ourselves and earn our salvation we denigrate the blood of Jesus that was shed for us.]
22 But the scriptures shut up all things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
[The Old Testament scriptures documented the law as well as the many example of those who kept it and even more cases of those who failed to keep it. These things were "shut up" -- documented to the point that it is irrefutable that no one can possibly be saved by it. Why was this done? So that "the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." The promise is one of eternal life and it is available to us by faith in Jesus Christ, and it is a gift to those who have the same quality of faith that Abraham had. That faith is described in detail in Hebrews 11.]
23 But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
[What does it mean: "faith came?" -- the answer is given in this verse by the word "revealed." Revelation -- the gospel had to be revealed. Review Romans 1:16-17 once again to see that the faith is synonymous with the gospel. But it could not be revealed in reality until Jesus actually died on the cross. So this might be considered the point at which "faith came." Of course, the full revelation of all that it meant as well as the conditions of salvation were given shortly thereafter. But it was no more than 50 days after the cross before people were being baptized into Christ (Acts 2) and saved (see also Romans 6:1-4, and verse 27 below).]
24 So that the law is become our tutor (to bring us) unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
[So here is another purpose of the law -- to be our tutor or schoolmaster -- to school mankind, but specifically through the Children of Israel, so that they could be ready to accept the sacrifice that Christ was foreordained to make for us. We could not be justified by faith without this preparation. The New Testament standing alone makes little sense without at least some rudimentary knowledge of the Old Testament.
25 But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor.
[How much more definitively can it be said that we are no longer under the Old Testament laws? Does this mean it has no value for us today? or that it is no longer to be regarded as truth? Of course not. It needs to be regarded exactly as stated here, and it still serves to provide us with critical information for understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the New Testament.
26 For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus.
[Can anyone doubt that "all" here is referring to both Jew and Gentile? This is the entire theme of this chapter. Of course, he is speaking specifically to the Christians (both Jews and Gentiles) in the churches of Galatia -- those who had obeyed the gospel. But to the extent that we obey the same gospel as they did, he is speaking to us.]
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.
[Did any of them put on Christ who were NOT baptized into Christ? Why would anyone teach this today? This is a totally consistent teaching throughout the New Testament. Example: Acts 2:41: "They then that received his word were baptized: and there were added (unto them) in that day about three thousand souls." Why would we want to or try to explain this away? See also Romans 6. The idea of "to put on" a person is a Hebrew idiom that was applied to those who became a very close follower totally dedicated to that person.]
28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one (man) in Christ Jesus.
[And why are there those today who try to make this worldly distinction when the Holy Spirit here says that it cannot exist? Chances are their objectives are political and not religious, but they are certainly not of the teaching of Christ. This distinction no longer even exists in the eyes of God -- if it did He would tell us in what way this distinction exists in our times for which the New Testament applies. But as far as our salvation is concerned, we come to God as individuals, not as a race or a nation, or for that matter, even a church (which is an effect, not a cause). And if we make distinctions based on race, gender or nationality, we violate this clear statement.]
29 And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise.
[This is a powerful statement. Who are Jews today? Where does God now see His chosen people as opposed to the rest of the world? The answer is given here. It is not a genetic or a hereditary thing -- how do we become Christ's? If we accept by faith what the gospel teaches in this regard, then we are every whit as much a Jew as any Jew who ever lived. In meditations upon this passage, recall Romans 9:6-8: "But (it is) not as though the word of God hath come to naught. For they are not all Israel that are of Israel: neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed." What does God see when He looks at you? Are you Christ's? If so, they you are of Abraham's seed -- you are a spiritual Jew and an heir according to the promise. Those who refuse to see this truth have their own agenda. We recommend you see our commentary on Revelation 20.]
Go to Galatians 4-6