BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: GALATIANS CHAPTER TWO

GALATIANS CHAPTER TWO

I) [Gal 2:1]:

(v. 1) "Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also."

A) CHAPTER TWO CONTINUES FOURTEEN YEARS AFTER WHAT OCCURRED IN VV. 1:18-24

1) [Ref. Gal 1:18-24]:

(v. 1:18) '''Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.

(v. 1:19) I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.

(v. 1:20) I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

(v. 1:21) Later I went to Syria and Cilicia.

(v. 1:22) I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ.

(v. 1:23) They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy."

(v. 1:24) And they praised God because of me.'''

B) CHAPTER TWO CONTINUES PAUL'S DEFENSE OF HIS APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY & THE GOSPEL OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE

[Bible Knowledge Commentary, Walvoord and Zuck, Eds, Victor Books, USA, 1988, p. 589]:

"While chapter 2 continues Paul's defense of his aposotlic authority and the gospel he preached, he focused not on the source of his message but on its content. Further, whereas in chapter 1 he emphasized his independence from the other apostles, he now demonstrated that there was a basic unity between himself and them.

C) PAUL'S TRIP TO JERUSALEM TO SETTLE THE ISSUE ON HIS MINISTRY AND THE GOSPEL

I cont.) [Gal 2:1 cont.]:

(v. 1) "Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also."

[BKC, p. 593]:

"Much debate has centered on the question of the identification of this trip which Paul took to Jerusalem with Barnabas, a Jewish believer, and Titus, a Gentile believer. The Book of Acts mentions five Jerusalem visits made by Paul after his conversion:

(1) The visit after he left Damascus (Acts 9:26-30; Gal 1:18-20);

(2) The famine visit (Acts 11:27-30);

(3) The visit to attend the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-30);

(4) The visit at the end of the second missionary journey (Acts 18:22);

(5) The final visit which resulted in Paul's Caesarean imprisonment (Acts 21:15-23:35).

Scholars are divided primarily over whether Galatians 2:1 refers to the famine visit or to the Jerusalem Council visit. But in the context in which he is listing all contacts with human authorities, why would Paul omit reference to his second trip to Jerusalem? And if the reference is to the Council of Acts 15, why did not the apostle allude to its decrees? It seems this passage has the famine visit in view.

II) [Gal 2:2]:

"I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain."

A) PAUL RECEIVED A REVELATION FROM GOD WHICH PROMPTED HIM TO GO TO JERUSALEM AND PRESENT THE GOSPEL HE PREACHED TO THE GENTILES

"I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles." =

[BKC, cont.]:

"Paul went to Jesusalem on his second visit in response to a revelation. That is, he went because God directed him to, not because the Jerusalem leaders had summoned him or called him 'on the carpet' for preaching to the Gentiles. The reference may well be to Agabus' prophecy of a famine which prompted Paul and Barnabas to go to Jerusalem on a relief mission (cf. Acts 11:27-30)."

B) PAUL MET PRIVATELY WITH THE OTHER APOSTLES WHO SEEMED TO BE LEADERS OF THE JERUSALEM CHURCH

"I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders" =

Note that Paul met privately with 'those who seemed to be leaders' of the Jerusalem church. This rules out an established hierarchy with Peter as Pope.

C) PAUL'S PURPOSE WAS TO VERIFY THAT HIS EFFORTS WERE NOT IN VAIN

[BKC, cont.]:

"Paul seized this opportunity to consult with the other apostles privately concerning the message he was preaching to the Gentiles. This does not mean Paul sought their approval of its truth and accuracy, for he had received the gospel from God by revelation. Rather, he wanted them to consider its relationship to the gospel they were proclaiming. But if the Jerusalem leaders insisted on circumcision and other requirements of the Law for Gentile converts, Paul's labor (running) among the Gentiles was in vain. It was not that the apostle had any doubts or misgivings about the gospel he had preached for 14 years (Gal 2:1), but that he feared that his past and present ministry might be hindered or rendered of no effect by the Judaizers."

III) [Gal 2:3-5]:

(v. 3) "Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek.

(v. 4) This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.

(v. 5) We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you."

A) PAUL BROUGHT TITUS ALONG AS A TEST

[BKC, cont.]:

"It now becomes apparent why Paul brought Titus along on this Jerusalem trip. He was a test case. Would the Jerusalem apostles force the rite of circumcision on a Gentile believer? Paul knew that both Jews and Gentiles are accepted by God through faith in Jesus Christ without any distinction and that the church should do the same. The apostle declared that this truth was affirmed in Jerusalem because Titus was not...compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. But this victory did not come easily. Pressure to have Titus circumcised was brought to bear by certain false brothers (cf. 2 Peter 2:1). No doubt these were Judaizers, whose chief slogan is found in Acts 15:1:

[Acts 15:1]:

"Unless you are circumcised according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved."

These 'false brothers' ('sham Christian,' NEB) were like spies or fifth-column agents who penetrated to search out weak areas of enemy positions. In this case they infiltrated (parEiselthon; lit., 'sneaked in alongside,' used only here and in Rom 5:20) the ranks, that is, they intruded without invitation into the apostles' private conference. Their goals were two fold: first, to spy on (kataskopesai, used only here in the NT) the freedom we have in Christ. With hostile intent they purposed to observe the apostles' freedom from the Mosaic Law and from the legalism it engenders. Second, they intended to make Christians slaves. They wanted to bring believers back into bondage, to enslave them to the Law's rules and ceremonise. Specifically they strongly insisted that Titus be circumcised. But Paul stood absolutely firm because the truth of the gospel was at stake for the Galatians, and the entire Christian church. To impose circumcision on Titus would be to deny that salvation was by faith alone and to affirm that in addition to faith there must be obedience to the Law for acceptance before God. Thus the basic issue of the gospel was involved and Paul would not deviate or yield for a moment."

[The Expositors Bible Commentary,Vol 10, Frank E Gaebelien Editor, Galatians, by James Montgomery Boice, Zondervan Publishing, Grand Rapids, Mi, 1976, p. 439]:

"In the context of relating his contacts with the apostolic leaders at Jerusalem Paul now introduces an instance in which he claims to have defended the purity of the gospel from the encroachments of those who would have mixed aspects of the Mosaic law with grace as the way of salvation. This incident was the attempt of the Jewish legalists to force the rite of circumcision on Titus. The outcome of the struggle, as Paul said, was a successful defense of the gospel."

B) THE JUDAIZERS WERE UNBELIEVERS WHO INFILTRATED THE RANKS OF THE BELIEVERS TO PUSH THEIR LEGALIST AGENDA

"This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves." =

[Expositors, cont.]:

"Paul's references to the false brothers in v. 4 entail a military metaphor, used to indicate the subversive and militant nature of the evil that Paul was fighting.

[Recall that the Judiazers pursued Paul relentlessly, often putting him in mortal danger, once even stoning him to death, (Ac 14:19-20)]

The term 'false brothers' (pseudadelphous) is used only twice in the NT (here and in 2 Cor 11:26). In each case Paul uses the term of those who are not in fact Christians, though pretending to be so. The overtone is that of a traitor or spy. 'Infiltrated' (pareisaktous) is used in the same way, as in 2 Peter 2:1, where we are told of those who will 'secretly introduce' destructive heresies to weaken and ruin the church. In the LXX reading of 2 Samuel 10:3, 'spy' (kataskopEw) is used of the servants of David who, according to his enemies, had come 'to search the city, and to spy it out, and to overthrow it,' Similarly, Paul speaks of the desire of the legalizers 'to make us slaves' (katadoulwsousin), in the manner of those who would take a city by stealth or force in order to place the inhabitants in chains."

III cont.) [Gal 2:3-5 cont.]:

(v. 3) "Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek.

(v. 4) This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.

(v. 5) We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you."

C) THE PURPOSE OF PAUL'S DEFENSE OF THE GOSPEL HE WAS PREACHING TO THE GENTILES WAS SO THAT THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL MIGHT REMAIN

"We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you" =

[Expositors, cont.]:

"Paul's defense of the gospel he had received from God was not made for any personal or selfish reasons, but 'so that the truth of the gospel might remain' with believers (v. 5). The word 'truth' has a decided emphasis in contrast to the falseness mentioned in teh preceding verse. Therefore, it cannot mean only 'the truths' of the gospel or even 'the true message' of the gospel; it must mean 'the true gospel' as opposed to 'the false gospel' being taught by the false brothers."

[Compare Gal 1:6-7a]:

(v. 6) "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--

(v. 7) which is really no gospel at all."

IV) [Gal 2:6-10]:

(v. 6) As for those who seemed to be important--whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance--those men added nothing to my message.

[Notice that this message refutes that Peter is the Pope at this time]

(v. 7 ) On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.

(v. 8) For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.

[Here too, Peter is portrayed as an Apostle, but not the Pope]

(v. 9) James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

[Finally, notice that James is mentioned first in this group of Apostles, refuting the idea that Peter was Pope]

(v. 10) All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do."

V) [Gal 2:11-14]:

(v. 11) '''When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

(v. 12) Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

(v. 13) The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

(v. 14) When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?" '''

A) SUMMARY

[BKC, op. cit., p. 594]:

"In this final historical incident Paul related how he found it necessary to oppose even Peter, the reputed chief of the apostles, for conduct which threatened to compromise the gospel The contrast with the previous section is dramatic."

[Expositors, op. cit., p. 445-6]:

"The account of the Jerusalem Council is followed by another historical incident, the last in Paul's series, in which he dramatically supports his claim to possess an authority equal to and independent of that of the other apostles. In the opening part of this chapter, Paul has demonstrated his essential unity with those who were apostles before him. Now he shows that he stood so firmly grounded in the gospel that he opposed even Peter, contradicting him publicly when Peter's conduct at Antioch threatened to compromise that gospel.

For some reason, Peter had left the Jewish community at Jerusalem and had gone to the Gentile city of Antioch in Syria. If this event took place after the council, the visit may have originated in Peter's desire to see what Paul had reported concerning the work of God there, but it is impossible to be certain. Whatever the reason, at Antioch Peter discovered a community of Jewish and Gentile Christians living together and, in particular, eathing together in apparent disregard of Jewish dietary customs. This was probably against the practice then prevailing in Jerusalem even after the council."

B) THE JEW AS WELL AS THE GENTILE WAS FREE FROM MOSAIC LEGISLATION

[Expositors, op. cit., p. 445-6]:

"But God had already shown Peter what he was to do in such situations. God had told Peter in the vision of the great sheet."

1) [Compare Acts 10:9-29]:

(v. 9) '''About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray.

(v. 10) He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance.

(v. 11) He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners.

(v. 12) It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air.

(v. 13) Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

(v. 14) "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

(v. 15) The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

(v. 16) This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

(v. 17) While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon's house was and stopped at the gate.

(v. 18) They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there.

(v. 19) While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Simon, three men are looking for you.

(v. 20) So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them."

(v. 21) Peter went down and said to the men, "I'm the one you're looking for. Why have you come?"

(v. 22) The men replied, "We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to have you come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say."

(v. 23) Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests. The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the brothers from Joppa went along.

(v. 24) The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends.

(v. 25) As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence.

(v. 26) But Peter made him get up. "Stand up," he said, "I am only a man myself."

(v. 27) Talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people.

(v. 28) He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.

(v. 29) So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?'''

[Expositors, p. 446]:

"So Peter, no doubt remembering this and being impressed with the example of Jewish/Gentile harmony, joined with other Jews in eating with his Gentile brothers. According to Paul, Peter did this for some time, because the imperfect tense of the verb implies that he ate with the Gentiles not once, on a single occasion, but on a regular basis, habitually. In this decision, Peter went beyond the letter of the decrees of the council, for though the council had acknowledged the right of freedom from the law for Gentiles, it had nevertheless reatined the observance of the law for Jews. Now Peter was declaring that the Jew as well as the Gentile was free from Mosaic legislation.

After a time, some influential Jews arrived in Antioch from Jerusalem, giving out that they were representatives of James. They were the legalists or, at the very least, strict Jews. Peter's practice shocked them. Not only was his conduct not required by the Jerusalem agreement, they might have argued, it was actually contrary to it; for Peter was encouraging a disregard of the Mosaic law by Jewish believers. These persons brought such pressure to bear on Peter that though he was unconvinced by their views, he nevertheless gradually detached himself from the Gentile fellowship and began to eat with Jews only. Moreover, his conduct drew others away with him so that when Paul returned (it is hard to understand how he could have been present during these events and have let them go as far as they did without protest), he found a church divided and the Gentiles under an unwarranted pressure either to accept the division or to conform to the legalistic standards of Judaism as the means of avoiding it.

What did Paul do? Since the schism was public, Paul confronted Peter publicly, charging him with inconsistency and stating once again that the works of the law have no place in God's plan of salvation through the death of Christ. From this response, the Galatians were to realize that Paul was not a self-appoointed apostel, nor even a worker appointed and approved by the Twelve. He was rather a full apostle in his own right, who could therefore speak with full authority even, if necessary, in opposition to another apostle.'''

V cont.) [Gal 2:11-14 cont.]:

(v. 11) '''When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

(v. 13) The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

C) PAUL CONFRONTS PETER IN AN HISTORICAL INCIDENT BECAUSE PETER DID NOT LIVE UP TO HIS CONVICTIONS - TO THE GOSPEL THAT THEY BOTH AGREED UPON

(v. 11) "When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.' =

[BKC, op. cit., p. 594]:

"When Paul visited Jerusalem, Peter (and others) gave him 'the right hand of fellowship'; but when Peter visited Antioch, Paul opposed him to his face. The time of Peter's trip to Antioch is not known. There is no reference to it in the Book of Acts, but perhaps the visit occurred soon after Paul, Barnabas, and Titus returned to Antioch from Jerusalem. At any rate Peter's conduct in Antioch produced a tense face-to-face confrontation between two Christian leaders.

[Note that there is no reference to Peter being Pope here. As a matter of fact, it appears that Peter and Paul are of equal authority as Apostles in the church, each with his own area of ministry.]

Paul felt complelled to rebuke and condemn Peter for his actions, thus defending the gospel and demonstrating again his own independence and equality as an apostle."

[Expositors, pp. 446-7]:

"This section of the letter has always been the basis of dispute for historical and doctrinal reasons, though the events themselves should be clear.... The point of the passage is not that there was an antithesis between the two great apostles. They were actually one. The point is that Peter did not live up to his convictions and, therefore, needed to be straightened out by Paul."

D) PAUL LIKEWISE DELIBERATELY DISOBEYED THE GOSPEL IN ORDER TO CURRY FAVOR WITH FELLOW JEWS

[Acts 21:17-33]:

(v. 17) "When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly.

(v. 18) The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present.

(v. 19) Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

(v. 20) When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the Law.

(v. 21) They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.

(v. 22) What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come,

(v. 23) so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow.

(v. 24) Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.

(v. 25) As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."

(v. 26) The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

(v. 27) When the seven days were nearly over, some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him,

(v. 28) shouting, "Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place."

(v. 29) (They had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with Paul and assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple area.)

(v. 30) The whole city was aroused, and the people came running from all directions. Seizing Paul, they dragged him from the temple, and immediately the gates were shut.

(v. 31) While they were trying to kill him, news reached the commander of the Roman troops that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar.

(v. 32) He at once took some officers and soldiers and ran down to the crowd. When the rioters saw the commander and his soldiers, they stopped beating Paul."

E) CONCLUSION ON PETER'S DISOBEDIENCE

The sovereignty of God prevailed over Peter's disobedience and moved Paul to confront Peter which served to also confront all those who would add something more to the gospel of faith alone, especially the Judaizers.

F) PAUL'S CONFRONTATION OF PETER OCCURRED AFTER THE COUNCIL IN JERUSALEM NOT BEFORE

[Expositors, pp. 446-7]:

"It is not known exactly when Peter came to Antioch, but the flow of events suggests that it was after the council. It is true that the verb 'had come' allows the view that Paul is here reverting to an earlier incident; if this is so, then Peter's defense of Paul at Jerusalem in Acts 15 naturally reflects their earlier confrontation and conversation at Antioch. Some have defended this view on the basis that Peter could not have acted as he did following the council. But this overlooks both the reality of human inconsistency (even among the best people) and the fact that the Antioch incident reflects an entirely new situation. There was (1) a new issue - foods rather than circumcision; (2) a new area of the faith - Christian living rather than the basis of salvation; and (3) a new subject - Jewish liberty rather than the liberty of Gentile Christians. This dispute could have followed naturally upon the compromise reached at the council."

V cont.) [Gal 2:11-14 cont.]:

(v. 11) '''When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

(v. 13) The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

G) AT FIRST, PETER'S LIFESTYLE REFLECTED THE FREE GRACE GOSPEL FOR JEW AND GENTILE ALIKE BUT THEN HE DREW BACK UNDER PRESSURE FROM THE CIRCUMCISION GROUP

(v. 12) "Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group." =

[BKC, cont.]

"On arrival at Antioch, Peter found Jewish and Gentile Christians fellowshipping together at mealtimes.... Because of the vision Peter had received at the house of Simon the tanner (Acts 10:9-15, 28), he felt free to eat with the Gentiles, and did so on a regular basis. While it lasted, this was a beautiful demonstration of the unity of Jew and Gentile in Christ. But a breach occurred when some arrived from Jerusalem who were shocked at Peter's conduct. These emissaries came from James and belonged to the circumcision party, but it is doubtful that they had James' endorsement. Nonetheless Peter was influenced by their presence and slowly but surely began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles. The verb tenses (imperf.) indicate a gradual withdrawal, perhaps from one joint meal a day, and then two; or it may be that he began a meal with Gentiles but finished it with only Jewish Christians. By such actions Peter in effect was teaching that there were tow bodies of Christ, Jewish and Gentile. And that was heresy. But why did Peter create this breach? Not because of any change in theology, but simply out of fear. Once, after preaching to Gentile Cornelius, Peter courageously defended himself before the Jerusalem leaders (cf. Acts 11:18); but this time he capitulated to some Jewish friends."

H) PETER'S WRONG DOING WAS DELIBERATE, NOT AN HONEST MISTAKE OR FORCE OF HABIT

[Expositors, cont.]:

"Here is the reason why Peter was in the wrong or stood condemned. It was not, it must be noted, a case of Peter's simply making an honest mistake. The Peter who had received the vision prior to going to the house or Cornelius and who had defended Paul at the council was not fooled by the arguments of the legalizers. The difficulty was that he gradually gave in to pressure exerted by the legalizers, even though he knew what was right. In other words, Peter played the hypocrite. 'The same Peter who had denied his Lord for fear of a maid-servant now denied Him again for fear of the circumcision party' (Stott, in loc.)."

V cont.) [Gal 2:11-14 cont.]:

(v. 11) '''When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

(v. 13) The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

I) PETER A PILLAR APOSTLE LED EVERYONE ASTRAY

(v. 13) "The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray." =

[BKC, cont.]

"Like falling dominoes the defection of Peter brought the defection of the other Jews and finally even Barnabas. The pressure must have been great for Barnabas to succumb because he was from Cyprus, a Gentile center, and was involved in a missionary program with Paul to reach Gentiles with the gospel. All of them - Peter, the other Jewish Christians, and Barnabas - were guilty of hypocrisy because while confessing and teaching that they were one in Christ with Gentiles, they were denying this truth by their conduct."

[Expositors, cont.]:

"Unfortunately, conduct such as Peter's is not inconsequential, neither in his day nor now. So one is not surprised to read that other Jews, including Barnabas, were led away by his dissimulation. If Peter had been a lesser man or less prominent, the defection might have been less serious. But this was Peter, the pillar apostle, the companion of the Lord during his earthly ministry!

What Peter did moved others. It is obvious that any Christian must give heed to his actions and the greater the position or responsibility, the more important those actions become."

V cont.) [Gal 2:11-14 cont.]:

(v. 11) '''When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

(v. 13) The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

J) PAUL THEN CONFRONTS PETER IN FRONT OF THEM ALL

(v. 14) '''When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?''' =

[BKC, cont.]

"The response of Paul was electric. What Peter had initiated created a public scandal and therefore deserved a public rebuke. Further, the defectors were not acting according to the truth of the gospel, that is, they were denying by their actions the truth that on th ebasis of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection Jews and Gentiles who believe are accepted equally by God. Paul therefore asked Peter before them all, 'If you, who are a Jew, do not live like a Jew but like a Gentile, why on earth do you try to make Gentiles live like Jews?' It was a stinging rebuke. Peter's response is not recorded. He stood condemned. He was acting contrary to his own convictions, was betraying Christian liberty, and was casting a slur on fellow believers. Such behavior needed this severe reprimand."

K) PAUL HAD NO PERSONAL AGENDA IN HIS CONFRONTATION OF PETER

[Expositors, cont.]:

"Paul has already shown that he opposed Peter to his face because he was wrong (v. 11), but we are not to think that he did this because he loved exposing error or, even less, because he loved an argument or wanted to enhance his own prestige. Paul's reasl concern was for the truth of the gospel. It was not a matter of personalities. To the Corinthians he wrote, 'What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul (1 Cor 3:5). It is not a matter of trivial forms or ceremonies. What was at stake was the gospel itself. Hence, Paul acted out of the very concern that Peter lacked.

This is the second time that Paul has spoken of 'the truth of the gospel' (vv. 5, 14) - the good news that men and women do not become accepted with God because of anything they have done or can do but solely on the basis of God's grace shown in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Moreover, on the basis of this death all who believe become fully accepted by God and are accepted equally. Peter's conduct compromised this principle, for it implied that there could be a superiority in some Christians based on race or traditions.

It is not enough merely to understand and accept the gospel, as Peter did, nor even to defend it, as he did at Jerusalem. A Christian must also practice the gospel consistently, allowing it to regulate all areas of his conduct."

VI) [Gal 2:14-16]:

(v. 15) "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners'

(v. 16) know that a man is not justified by observing law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing law, because by observing law no one will be justified." '''

A) PAUL MOVES FROM HIS CONFRONTATION WITH PETER TO DEFINING THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE

[Expositors, p. 448]:

"The verses that conclude this chapter [vv. 15-21] contain capsule statements of some of the most significant truths of Christianity. In particular, Paul clearly states the doctrine of justification by grace through faith and defends it over against the traditional objection that justification by faith leads to lawlessness. The words 'justify' and 'justification' occur in these verses for the first time - the verb, three times in v. 16 and once in v. 17; the noun in v. 21 - as Paul now begins to develop the message that is central to the letter, to his gospel, and indeed to Christianity generally. This statement flows out of the situation at Antioch and anticipates the fuller argument of the same doctrine occurring in chapters 3 and 4....

It is impossible to say precisely where Paul's remarks to Peter on the occasion of Peter's hypocrisy at Antioch leave off and Paul's direct remarks to the Christians of Galatia begin. In trying to answer that question, one is faced with the same kind of problem faced by interpreters of some parts of John's Gospel. Some commentators end the direct quotation at v. 14. Others, like the NIV, carry it to the end of the chapter. Most likely, the truth lies in Paul's gradually moving away from the situation at Antioch but doing it so naturally that he himself was unconcerned with and perhaps even unaware of the transition. At the beginning, he speaks of 'you' (meaning Peter) and 'we' (meaning himself, Peter, and other Jews), undoubtedly with the situation at Antioch in mind. Later he is probably thinking of the broader situation that faced the Gentile churches.

The argument is addressed to Jews at this point, and the words 'who are' must be supplied - 'we who are Jews by nature.' Paul is speaking of natural-born Jews; that is, those who possessed the advantages of a privileged birth and a revealed religion. These are great advantages as Paul admits elsewhere (cf. Rom 3:1, 2; 9:4, 5). But even so great advantages as these are inadequate for achieving a state of righteousness before God. Even Jews must be saved through faith. It is folly, therefore, to attempt to reestablish Judaism as a base for Christianity.

In Jewish speech the phrase 'Gentile sinners' was used seriously as an opposite concept to all that being Jewish implied. In Paul's mouth, the phrase has an ironic ring."

[BKC, cont.]:

"But how far did the rebuke extend? Considerable discussion has cenetered on the question as to whether Paul's direct remarks to Peter were limited to verse 14 or whether, as in the NIV, they continued to the end of the chapter. While it is impossible to determine, it would seem that Paul uttered more than one sentence in reproving Peter. The remaining verses of the chapter develop, then, the inconsistency between Peter's behavior and his beliefs. At the same time they form a superb transition and introduction to chapters 3 and 4 in which Paul defended the key doctrine of justification by faith.

Paul's argument was addressed to those who were Jews by birth, including Peter and himself, who in spite of their superior advantages were saved by faith. Why then bind the Law on Gentile sinners (said in irony because of Peter's actions), who likewise were saved by faith in Christ?"

VI cont.) [Gal 2:14-16 cont.]:

(v. 15) "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners'

B) JUSTIFICATION DEFINED

"know that a man is not justified by observing law, but by faith in Jesus Christ." =

1) THE BELIEVER IS JUSTIFIED, I.E., DECLARED ABSOLUTELY RIGHTEOUS IN GOD'S SIGHT, HAVING BEEN ACCOUNTED BY GOD AS HAVING THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF JESUS CHRIST WHEN THAT INDIVIDUAL TRUSTED IN GOD'S PLAN OF SALVATION: THROUGH FAITH ALONE IN HIS SON JESUS CHRIST ALONE

a) [Ro 3:21-22]:

(v. 21) "But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, [(no article) = rules of conduct, i.e., works] has been made known, to which the Law and Prophets testify.

(v. 22) This righteousness from God [= an absolutely perfect righteousness] comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe."

b) [Compare Phil 3:8-9]:

(v. 8) "What is more, I [Paul, (v. 8) & all believers, (v. 3)] consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for Whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ

(v. 9) and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from law [(no article) = rules of conduct, i.e., works] - but that which is through faith in Christ - the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith."

[Expositors, p. 448]:

" 'Justify' (dikaioO; noun, kikaiOsukne; adjective, dikaios) is a forensic term borrowed from the law courts. It means 'to declare righteous or innocent.' The opposite of 'to justify' is 'to condemn' or 'to pronounce guilty.' Such a term involves an objective standard, and since righteousness is understood to be the unique characteristic of God, that standard must be the divine standard. [i.e., absolutely perfect righteousness]. In themselves, all persons fall short of this sttandard -

[Compare Ro 3:23]:

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

But in Christ, God declares all righteous who believe, imputing divine righteousness to them. In this sense, justification does not express an ethical change or influence... rather, it expresses the judicial action of God apart from human merit according to which the guilty are pardoned, acquitted..."

2) ONE IS JUSTIFIED ON THE BASIS OF A MOMENT OF FAITH ALONE IN GOD'S PLAN OF SALVATION ALONE: THROUGH JESUS CHRIST

a) [Ro 4:2]:

"For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God."

"For if Abraham was justified by works..." = "justified" = declared righteous. Later on in verse 5 of Romans chapter 4 to be justified is defined as being declared, ("reckoned to him as"), righteousness:

b) [Compare Ro 4:5]:

"But to the one who does not work [for justification, (v. 2)] but believes in Him Who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness."

So according to Ro 3:21-22; 4:2, 5 and Phil 3:8-9 this justification - this absolute righteousness "which comes from God" is received "on the basis of faith" alone in Christ alone and not through anything of value within ones actions or oneself.

3) BEING JUSTIFIED IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS BEING SAVED UNTO ETERNAL LIFE

And being justified is to be considered according to Scripture as being saved unto eternal life:

a) [Ro 5:8-9]:

(v. 8) "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

(v. 9) Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him."

[BKC, cont.]:

"In this verse, one of the most important in the epistle, the word justified occurs for the first time. It is a legal term, borrowed from the law courts and means 'to declare righteous.' Its opposite is 'to condemn.' "

VI cont.) [Gal 2:14-16 cont.]:

(v. 15) "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners'

C) A MAN IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY OBSERVING LAW, I.E., ANY RULES OF HUMAN DOING - NOT JUST THE MOSAIC LAW

"know that a man is not justified by observing the law" =

Note that the definite article rendered 'the' is NOT in the original and thus is not to be limited to observing the Mosaic Law, but refers to any rules of human doing:

eidotes ...hoti ou .dikaioutai anthrOpos ex ergOn nomou ean mE

knowing that not is justified a man ........by works of law ..if ...not

dia .........pisteOs IEsou ...Christou

through faith .....of Jesus Christ

The other two phrases rendered 'works of the law' do not have the definite article either; and refer to any rules of human doing. Neither is not limited to 'not by works of the Mosaic Law':

"kai ouk ex ergOn nomou"

"and not by works of law"

D) A MAN IS JUSTIFIED BY FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST

"know that a man is not justified by observing law, but by faith in Jesus Christ" =

1) JUSTIFICATION COMES SOLELY BY FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST

[BKC, p. 595]:

"But since people are condemned sinners and God is holy, how can people be justified? In answer, the apostle made a general declaration that negatively man is not justified by observing law, but positively, justification is by faith in Jesus Christ. This is a strong affirmation of Paul, Peter, and the rest - introduced by We...know."

2) SAVING FAITH A BIBLICAL POINT OF VIEW

a) INTRODUCTION

i) [Eph 2:8]:

(v. 8) "For it is by grace you have been saved through faith.."

"Through faith" = An objector might say, 'Well faith is something a believer contributes to his salvation.'

But Scripture defines faith as:

ii) [Heb 11:1]:

"...Being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see"

Does that sound like one is doing something - contributing something? Or does it sound like one is relying on God to do it all? Faith according to Scripture is simply a sure hope - a simple, complete trust in Christ as Savior:

="elpizomenon" = "[things] hoped for" = refers to the sure hope of eternal life:

iii) [Compare 1 Pet 1:3-4]:

(v. 3) "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In His great mercy He has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

(v. 4) and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade - kept in heaven for you"

2) FAITH BELIEVE TRUST DEFINED

i) ENGLISH DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF FAITH

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:

ftp://ftp.uga.edu/pub/misc/webster/

faith \Faith\, n.

1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony. 2. The assent of the mind to the statement or proposition of another, on the ground of the manifest truth of what he utters; firm and earnest belief, on probable evidence of any kind, especially in regard to important moral truth. Faith, that is, fidelity, -- the fealty of the finite will and understanding to the reason.

believe \Be*lieve

v. t. [imp. & p. p. Believed; p. pr. & vb. n. Believing.]

To exercise belief in; to credit upon the authority or testimony of another; to be persuaded of the truth of, upon evidence furnished by reasons, arguments, and deductions of the mind, or by circumstances other than personal knowledge; to regard or accept as true; to place confidence in; to think; to consider; as, to believe a person, a statement, or a doctrine. "

trust \Trust\, v. t.

1. To place confidence in; to rely on, to confide, or repose faith, in; as, we can not trust those who have deceived us. I will never trust his word after. --Shak. He that trusts every one without reserve will at last be deceived. --Johnson. 2. To give credence to; to believe; to credit. Trust me, you look well. --Shak. 3. To hope confidently; to believe; -- usually with a phrase or infinitive clause as the object. I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face. --2 John 12. We trust we have a good conscience. --Heb. xiii. 18. 4. to show confidence in a person by intrusting (him) with something.

Syn: Confidence; belief; faith; hope; expectation"

ii) NT GREEK DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF FAITH

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon which is a dictionary of the koine Greek language of the Bible, (Wesley J. Perschbacher, Editor, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Ma; 1992, p. 329), states as the meaning of the word pisteuo which is translated believe in the English Bible translations as follows:

"(4100)... [pisteuo] 1 pers. sg. pres. act. indic., fut... [pisteuso] ...to believe, give credit to, Mark 1:15; 16:13; Luke 24:25; intrns. to believe, have a mental persuasion, Matt. 8:13; 9:28; James 2:19; to believe, be of opinion, Rom. 14:2; in N.T. [pisteuein en, eis] to believe in or on, Matt. 18:6; 27:42; John 3:15, 16, 18; absol. to believe, be a believer in the religion of Christ, Acts 2:44; 4:4, 32; 13:48; trans. to intrust, commit to the charge or power of, Luke 16:11; John 2:24; pass. to be intrusted with, Rom. 3:2; 1 Cor. 9:17"

Note that the Greek word used in the Bible which is translated into forms of the verb 'to believe' is also defined according to the Greek dictionary to mean a trust in the information presented, i.e., a mental assent - devoid of additional actions on the part of an individual other than the mental agreement.

3) BIBLICAL DEFINITION OF FAITH UNTO ETERNAL LIFE

a) SAVING FAITH = ACCEPTING THE TESTIMONY OF GOD ABOUT HIS SON PROVIDING ETERNAL LIFE FOR YOU

The Word of God confirms that forms of the verb to believe when used in passages concerning how an individual receives eternal life is defined as an acceptance - a mere mental assent - of the testimony of God:

i) [1 John 5:9-13]:

(v. 9) "We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which He has given about His Son.

[Accepting the testimony of God about His Son is presented here as an agreement that what God is saying about His Son is true - mere mental assent. The next verse then defines accepting the testimony of God as believing:

(v. 10) Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart..........

["has this testimony in his heart" = in his mind. Anyone who believes that the Son will provide eternal life for him has this testimony in his heart such that it is a part of his mental understanding that he is now saved unto eternal life]

(v. 10 cont.) .....Anyone who does not believe God has made Him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about His Son.

[So to be saved one must believe in the testimony of God about His Son. The verb believe is herein defined relative to salvation unto eternal life as a mental assent, an acceptance, that what God says about His Son is true. Nothing else is required here in order to receive eternal life such as demonstrating this faith by some kind of action]

(v. 11) And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.

[i.e., if you want eternal life: trust in God's Son to provide it for you]:

(v. 12) He who has the Son has life..........

[He who believes in God's testimony about His Son - that the Son will provide eternal life for him if he merely believes in the Son doing this has eternal life, (v.10)]....

(v. 12 cont.) ...he who does not have the Son of God does not have life."

[To have the Son means to believe that He will provide eternal life for you. To not have the Son is to not take God at His Word that the Son alone will provide eternal life for you. So if you believe what God testifies to, then you will therefore have eternal life because God says so. God being Who He is, He will deliver.

And then John writes further that an individual can know that he is saved unto eternal life at the very moment of his mental assent]:

(v. 13) I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you many know that you have eternal life."

So, taking God at His Word about eternal life through His Son provides assurance that you do now possess the gift of life everlasting in heaven never to lose it.

So nothing in the word 'believe' relative to securing eternal life implies that any action is required beyond the simple trust - the simple mental assent stated in Jn 3:16 and numerous other passages in the Bible.

Just as one would simply believe that a door is green via a simple mental assent; or that an individual who is physically incapable of vigorous movement, can still believe that exercise is good for his health, i.e., a simple mental assent, without actually performing the exercise itself; so in the same way one can trust alone in Christ alone as one's Personal Savior unto eternal life - without doing anything beyond the simple mental assent. Consider that this is true especially since God has completed all that is necessary for any individual's salvation, (Eph 1:3-2:9). And consider this in the light that all men are totally depraved and incapable of contributing a single acceptable thing toward anyone's salvation, (Ro 3:23; 8:8; Isa 64:6; Ps 14:1-3; 58:3; Jer 17:9).

VI cont.) [Gal 2:14-16 cont.]:

(v. 15) "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners'

E) PAUL CONFIRMS THAT HE AND HIS FELLOW BELIEVERS TOO HAD PUT THEIR FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS SO THAT THEY MAY BE JUSTIFIED

"So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing law, because by observing law no one will be justified." =

[BKC, p. 594]:

"It is followed by a statement in which Paul explained that he had put this doctrine to the test and validated it in his own experience (v. 16b). Finally, in verse 16c the apostle reaffirmed that justification is by faith and not by works (cf. Gen 15:6)."

VII) [Gal 2:17-18]:

(v. 17) "If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not!

(v. 18) If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker."

A) IS JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE IN CHRIST A LICENSE TO SIN? ABSOLUTELY NOT! FURTHERMORE, GOING BACK TO JUSTIFICATION BY LAW ONLY PROVES ONE IS A LAWBREAKER

Objectors to justification by faith alone in Christ say that if this is true, then one has a license to sin since faithful living is not required in order to be saved. Thus they conclude that Christ Himself promotes sin. Paul's answer begins with a emphatic negative: 'Absolutely not'. Then he states the reason why: if one rebuilds the Law, or any rules of human behavior as a means to be justified, he only proves that he is a lawbreaker because no one can perfectly keep any law and thus justifiy himself before God. So the Mosaic Law or any law is not going to be effective in justifying anyone, it only proves that one is a sinner.

[BKC, cont.]:

"Paul's opponents argued, however, that since justification by faith eliminated the Law, it encouraged sinful living. A person could believe in Christ for salvation and then do as he pleased, having no need to do good works. Paul hotly denied the charge, especially noting that this made Christ the Promoter of sin. On the contrary, if a believer could return to the Law after trusting Christ alone for salvation, that Law would only demonstrate that he was a sinner, a lawbreaker."

VIII) [Gal 2:19]:

(v. 19) "For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.

A) NO ONE CAN KEEP THE LAW, SO ATTEMPTING THIS LEADS TO CONDEMNATION UNTO ETERNAL DEATH WHICH LEADS ONE THEN TO TRUST ALONE IN CHRIST TO BE JUSTIFIED SO THAT ONE MIGHT THEN LIVE FOR GOD

"For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. =

Attempting to live by law, i.e., rules of human doing, convicts one of being a lawbreaker, leading to the conclusion that one's destiny is eternal death. Then ones only recourse leads one to trust alone in Christ alone to provide justification for one so that one might now have the capacity to live for God.

[BKC, cont.]:

"Paul described the transformation in a person who has come to God by faith in Christ in terms of a death.... Paul stated that through the Law he died to the Law. The Law demanded death for those who broke it, but Christ paid that death penalty for all sinners. Thus the Law killed Him and those joined to Him by faith, freeing them to be joined to another, to live for God."

1) [Compare Ro 7:4-6]:

(v. 4) "So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.

(v. 5) For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.

(v. 6) But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."

IX) [Gal 2:20]:

"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."

A) THE BELIEVER HAS BEEN CRUCIFIED WITH CHRIST AND NO LONGER LIVES A SELF-CENTERED LIFE, BUT CHRIST LIVES IN HIM, I.E., THE BELIEVER'S LIFE IS CHRIST CENTERED

"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me." =

So a believer has been crucified with Christ in the sense that all that Christ has done has been done for him, i.e., all the sins have been paid and forgiven the believer. He is justified with the righteousness of God:

[Compare Ro 3:21-24]:

(v. 21) "But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

(v. 22) This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,

(v. 23) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

(v. 24) and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."

Futhermore, Paul is not saying that he is no longer physically alive but that the focus of his life is no longer self-centered; but it is Christ Who directs his thoughts, words and deeds.

[BKC, cont.]:

"In Galatians 2:20 Paul enlarged on the meaning of verse 19. He 'died to the Law' because he was crucified with Christ; he was able 'to live for God' because Christ lived in him. Basic to an understanding of this verse is the meaing of union with Christ. This doctrine is based on such passages as Romans 6:1-6 and 1 Corinthians 12:13, which explain that believers have been baptized by the Holy Spirit into Christ and into the church, the body of all true believers. Having been thus united to Christ, believers share in His death, burial, and resurrection. Paul could therefore write, I have been 'crucified with Christ'; (lit., 'I have been and am now crucified with Christ'). This brought death to the Law. It also brought a change in regard to one's self: and no longer live. The self-righteous, self-centered Saul died. Further, death with Christ ended Paul's enthronement of self; he yielded the throne of his life to Another, to Christ. But it was not in his own strength that Paul was able to live the Christian life; the living Christ Himself took up His abode in Paul's heart: Christ lives in me. Yet Christ does not operate automatically in a believer's life; it is a matter of living the new life by faith in the Son of God. It is then faith and not works or legal obedience that releases divine power to live a Christian life. This faith, stated Paul, builds on the sacrifice of Christ Who loved us and gave Himself for us. In essence Paul affirmed, 'If He loved me enough to give Himself for me, then He loves me enough to live out His life in me.' "

X) [Gal 2:21]:

"I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, [i.e., through works of any kind] Christ died for nothing!"

A) CHRIST DIED FOR NOTHING IF RIGHTEOUSNESS COULD BE GAINED THROUGH HUMAN DOING SETTING ASIDE THE GRACE OF GOD

Note that the phrase "through the law" does not have the definite article, thus we have any rules of human doing in view.

[BKC, cont.]:

"Summing up his case against Peter, Paul declared, I do not set aside the grace of God. The clear implication is that Peter and the others who followed him were setting aside God's grace. The essence of grace is for God to give people what they have not worked for...

1) [Compare Ro 4:4-5; 11:6]:

(v. 4:4) Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation.

(v. 4:5) However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

(v. 11:6) And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace."

[BKC, cont.]:

"To insist on justification or sanctification by works is to nullify the grace of God. Further, such insistence on legal obedience also means Christ died for nothing. If righeousness comes by keeping the Law, [or any rules of human doing] the Cross was a futile gesture, the biggest mistake in the universe."