BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: GALATIANS CHAPTER TWO

GALATIANS CHAPTER TWO

OBSERVATIONS

The purpose of the observation stage is to maintain focus on the text at hand in accordance with the framework in which it was written: a framework which is defined by the normative rules of language, context and logic - rules which do not impose undue, unintended meanings to the text , and which largely limit the observer to the content offered by Paul's epistle to the Galatians and his other writings. In order for any passage from elsewhere to be considered, it must have a relationship with the context at hand, such as a Scriptural quotation or a specific cross reference in the passage at hand by the author. This will serve to avoid going on unnecessary tangents elsewhere; and more importantly, it will provide the framework for a proper and objective comparison with passages located elsewhere in Scripture. Remember that something elsewhere may be true, but in the text at hand it may not be in view.

****** EXCERPT FROM GAL 1 ******

OR SKIP TO NEXT SECTION

(Gal 1:11-12; 15-16; 16b-17; 17-20) Paul Carefully And Repeatedly Made The Point That He Had Not Received His Training From Flesh And Blood, I.E., From Mortal Man

(Gal 1:11 NKJV) "[For] I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. (Gal 1:12 NASB) For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ, (Gal 1:15 YLT) But when God was ... pleased - having separated me from the womb of my mother, and having called me through His grace - (Gal 1:16 NASB) to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him [His Son] among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, (Gal 1:17 NASB) nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus. (Gal 1:18 NASB) then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. (Gal 1:19 NASB) But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother. Gal 1:20 NASB) (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying)." =

In Gal 1:20, Paul remarked that while he was in Jerusalem, he did not see, in the sense of visit with, any other of the apostles except Peter and James, the Lord's brother - in the sense that James was an apostle like Peter; and a familial / flesh and blood brother, born of the same mother as Jesus was - and not just a brother in the faith, as some contend. So there is no indication here relative to Paul's stay in Jerusalem that he received any formal training in the doctrines of the faith from the apostles in Jerusalem. Paul carefully and repeatedly made the point that he had not received his training from any man with his statement, "I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus," (Gal 1:16b-17).

After repeatedly declaring that Paul received his instruction through no man as follows:

"For I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man," (Gal 1:11) =

[Notice that the gospel Paul preached was not something man made up]

"For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ," (Gal 1:12) =

[Furthermore, Paul proclaimed that he was not taught the gospel he preached by any man, but received it by revelation from Jesus Christ Himself]

"But when God was ... pleased - having separated me from the womb of my mother, and having called me through His grace - to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him [His Son] among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood," (Gal 1:15-16) =

[Paul went on to say that God set him apart and called Him to preach the Son among the Gentiles the information of which, Paul repeats was not made available by consulting with any man, (cf. vv. 11, 12). Notice that he had just stipulated in verses 11 & 12 that the information he received re: the gospel was by direct revelation from Jesus Christ Himself and not by or through any man]

"nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus," (Gal 1:17) =

[Relative to how Paul received the information of the message about the Son he was preaching among the Gentiles, Paul testified that he did not go directly to Jerusalem after his conversion implying that none of those in Jerusalem provided the information re: the gospel he was preaching. But instead, he went immediately into Arabia and then returned to Damascus]

"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days, But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother." (Gal 1:18-19) =

[It is emphatically implied here that Paul was trained in the gospel during the three year period he spent in Arabia and Damascus immediately after his conversion by revelation from Jesus Christ. Then Paul went to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter, staying with him fifteen days and James the brother of Jesus thereafter. All of this after he had received his training in the doctrines of the faith]

Whereupon in Gal 1:20, Paul goes on to say, "Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying."

[Gal 1:21-24]:

(Gal 1:21 NASB) Then I [Paul] went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.

(Gal 1:22 NKJV) [But] I was unknown [lit., being unknown] by face to the churches of Judea which [are] in Christ.

(Gal 1:23 YLT) [But] only they were hearing that 'he who is persecuting us then, [does] now [preach], the faith that then he was [destroying]

(Gal 1:24 NASB) And they were glorifying God because of me."

(Gal 1:21-24) After Paul's Travel To Jerusalem, He Went Into The Regions Of Syria And Cilicia. Although He Was Unknown By Face To The Churches Of Judea Which Are In Christ, They Were Hearing That 'He Who Is Persecuting Us Then, Does Now Preach, The Faith That Then He Was Destroying' So The Churches In Syria And Cilicia Were Glorifying God Because Of The Preaching Of Paul

(Gal 1:21 NASB) "Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. (Gal 1:22 NKJV) [But] I was unknown [lit., being unknown] by face to the churches of Judea which [are] in Christ. (Gal 1:23 YLT) [But] only they were hearing that 'he who is persecuting us then, [does] now [preach], the faith that then he was [destroying]. (Gal 1:24 NASB) And they were glorifying God because of me." =

After Paul's travel to Jerusalem, he went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Although he was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which are in Christ, they were hearing that 'He who is persecuting us then, does now preach, the faith that then he was destroying.' So the churches in Syria and Cilicia were glorifying God because of the preaching of Paul.

****** END OF EXCERPT FROM GAL 1 ******

I) [Gal 2:1-10]:

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

(Gal 2:2 NASB) It was because of a revelation that I went up [to Jerusalem]; and I submitted to them to the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation [i.e., who were leaders], for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.

(Gal 2:3 NASB) But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised,

(Gal 2:4 YLT) and that because of the false brethren brought in [secretly], who did come in [secretly] to spy out our liberty that we have in Christ Jesus, that us they might bring under bondage,

(Gal 2:5 NASB) But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain in you.

(Gal 2:6 NASB) But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) - well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.

(Gal 2:7 NKJV) But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter

(Gal 2:7 YLT) but, on the contrary, having seen that I have been entrusted with the [gospel] of the uncircumcision, as Peter with that of the circumcision,

(Gal 2:8 NASB) (For He Who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles),

(Gal 2:9 YLT) and having known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were esteemed to be pillars, a right hand of fellowship they did give to me, and to Barnabas, that we to the [Gentiles], and they to the circumcision may go'

(Gal 2:10 NASB) They only asked us to remember the poor - the very thing I also was eager to do.

A) (Gal 2:1-2) After 14 Years In Syria And Cilicia, Paul Went Up Again To Jerusalem Because Of A Revelation From God. He Took Barnabas And Titus, A Greek Believer With Him. Paul Presented To The Church Leaders The Gospel Which He Preached Among The Gentiles - In Private Because Of The Fear That He Might Be Running In Vain - In The Sense That His Work Might Continue To Be Undermined To The Extent Of It Being In Vain - It's Value In The Minds Of Gentile Believers Destroyed By The Judaizers Who Demanded Circumcision And Obedience To The Law Of Moses

Galatians chapter one emphasized Paul's independence from the other apostles relative to the source of his instruction in the gospel he preached. Chapter two emphasizes the unity between himself and the other apostles relative to the content of the message of the gospel that they all were preaching.

Fourteen years after Paul had first visited with Peter and James at the church in Jerusalem - 14 years spent in Syria and Cilicia - Paul went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and he also took Titus, a Greek believer, with him.

There is contention over whether Galatians 2:1 refers to the famine visit or to the Jerusalem Council visit, or any of the other three visits. There has been raised the question as to why would Paul would omit reference to his second trip to Jerusalem, (the famine visit of Acts 11:19-30), if the Jerusalem Council visit - the third visit in view in Acts 15 - is in view in Galatians chapter 2. Note that the Greek words "EpEita" rendered "then" and "palin" rendered "again" in Gal 2:1 do not have to imply a second visit to Jerusalem - the famine visit of Acts 11, as some contend. The words in the context of Galatians 2:1 signify no more than a general particle of chronological succession, indicating in the context of Galatians chapter two that the events happened after those of chapter one. Hence one may conclude that the famine visit to Jerusalem as depicted in Acts chapter 11 actually intruded between the two visits mentioned in Galatians chapters one and two.

In view of Paul's trouble with one or more individuals having come to where ever Paul was preaching in order to undermine his message to the Gentiles by insisting upon circumcision and keeping the Mosaic Law for salvation, there was a revelation from God, (Gal 1:2), for Paul to go up again to Jerusalem for the purpose of corroborating with the leaders of the Jerusalem Assembly that what Paul was teaching was not a false gospel.

Furthermore, Paul's visit to Jerusalem was to insure that his work was not in vain in the sense that opposition by the apostles at the Jerusalem Church to what Paul preached, and/or continued lack of those apostles in opposing what the Judaizers were doing might undermine the work that Paul had already accomplished and would accomplish in the future.

The interlopers - the Judaizers - were fellow believers in the Jerusalem Assembly, (cf Acts 15:1, 4-5), albeit "false brethren," (Gal 2:4). They contended that Paul was perverting the gospel, excluding circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic Law in order to be saved. It was circumcision and keeping the Mosaic Law in order to be saved which Paul adamently preached against:

1) [Compare Gal 1:6-7]:

(Gal 1:6 NKJV) "I [Paul] am amazed [in the sense astonished] that you are so quickly deserting Him Who called you by [the] grace [of Christ] [unto] a different gospel;

(Gal 1:7 NKJV) which is really not another [gospel] but [lit. since] there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

(Gal 1:8 NASB) But even if we, or an angel from heaven, [should] preach to you a gospel [contrary to] what we [did] preach to you, let him be accursed.

(Gal 1:9 NKJV) As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone [of you] preaches any other gospel to you than what you [did receive], let him be accursed."

Note that Paul met privately with the leaders of the Jerusalem Assembly, literally, "with those that seemed to be leaders" implying that he was not under their authority, dispelling the idea of an established hierarchy in the Church such as one with Peter as Pope.

B) (Gal 2:1-2) The Book Of Acts Has Five Jerusalem Visits Made By Paul. The Visit In View In Galatians Two Is The Jerusalem Council Visit In Acts 15

[Bible Knowledge Commentary, 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)."

And secondly, if the context of Galatians 2 is the context of the Council of Acts chapter 15, there are those who ask why Paul did not refer to what the Jerusalem Assembly defined as essential - their recommendations which Paul was were to bring back to the Gentile believers. The Jerusalem Council's recommended "essentials," in Acts chapter 15 were as follows:

******

1) [Compare Acts 15:16-20; 28-29]:

(Acts 15:16 NASB) ''' " 'After these things I [the LORD] will rebuild the Tabernacle of David which has fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it,

(Acts 15:17 NASB) So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name,'

(Acts 15:18 NASB) Says the Lord, Who makes these things known from along ago." [Amos 9:11-12].

(Acts 15:19 NASB) Therefore it is My [the Lord's] judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,

(Acts 15:20 NASB) but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

(Acts 15:28 NASB) "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:

(Acts 15:29 NASB) that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.'''

On the other hand, the fact that Paul did not stipulate the recommendations of the Jerusalem Assembly to the Gentile believers in his account in Galatians chapter 2 does not mean that the Galatians chapter 2 account is of a different event, nor does it alter, weaken or negate the key point that Paul was making in his account, ie., that his gospel was the gospel of Jesus Christ, the gospel of the church for Jew and Gentile alike.

Furthermore, the question has been posed by some contenders as to why Luke in Acts chapter 15 left out any mention of Titus on this trip to Jerusalem if it is supposed to be the visit in view in Galatians chapter two. But Acts 15:2 did stipulate, "Paul and Barnabas and others" which would account for Titus and others as well.

And since the key subject of Galatians chapter two is Paul's defense of the content of the gospel that he preached to the Gentiles in Galatia, and since this is the same subject in the Jerusalem Council visit, and since it is unlikely that this subject would have to be resolved twice between Paul's ministry to the Gentiles and the Jerusalem Assembly's ministry to the Jews, then it is likely that Acts 15:1-30 is Luke's more detailed account of the event Paul wrote of in Galatians chapter two.

Finally, the omission of certain things in the account of Paul's visit to Jerusalem in Galatians chapter two that are not essential to convey his key point of defending the validity and the content of his gospel; and the omission of Titus' presence in what Luke reported in the Council visit in Acts chapter 15; and other differences between the two accounts do not warrant the conclusion that Acts chapter 15 and Galatians chapter 2 do not have the same event in view. For Paul fully proved out his case in Galatians chapter two without a number of details from Luke's account; and Luke's account did not stipulate specific information about Titus being there with Paul and Barnabas which did not prevent Luke from accomplishing his stated purpose of Paul's visit to the Jerusalem Assembly: confirming Paul's ministry as true to the gospel that the Jerusalem Assembly preached.

Scripture is limited in its volume. It is neither logical nor feasible for every passage to provide every detail. For the sake of the clarity and comprehension of the message, and due to the lack of resources, i.e., money, paper, ink, time and publishers, each passage can and need only provide a brief and accurate account in a manner which is short and to the point so that the Scriptures can be made available to spread throughout the world - book by book, letter by letter, word by word.

******

2) [Compare Luke's Account In Acts 15:1-30 with Paul's account from Gal chapter two]:

(Acts 15:1 NASB) "Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.'

[Notice that the Judaizers came from Judea - evidently believers - teaching the brethren that they had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses in order to be saved]

(Acts 15:2 NASB) And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.

[Although Paul's account in Gal 2:2 indicated that there was a revelation from God which directed Him to visit Jerusalem, this does not conflict with the phrase rendered, "the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue." It was both! The key issue in both passages was having to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses in order to be saved]

(Acts 15:3 NASB) Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren.

(Acts 15:4 NASB) When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them.

(Acts 15:5 NASB) But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, 'It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.'

[Note that here in Luke's account of the Jerusalem Assembly Council meeting, it is stipulated that some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed who were part of the Assembly in Jerusalem, albeit they had reverted to legalism, stood up and openly declared, "It is necessary to circumcize [the Gentiles] and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses." They were evidently part of the cause of the trouble in Paul's ministry to the Gentiles and part of the impetus behind Paul being called by God, (Gal 2:2), and appointed by the brethren in Galatia, (Acts 15:2), to visit with the leaders of the Jerusalem Assembly to resolve the issue of the Judaizers' secret infiltration]

(Acts 15:6 NASB) The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter.

[The absence of any mention in Paul's or Luke's account of the leaders of the Jerusalem Church intervening on behalf of Paul and against the "false brethren" - which would have been notable - implies that the leadership most likely did not raise an objection to the demand that Titus be circumcized or even that they urged that Titus be circumcized for the sake of an outward "harmony" - not taking a stand for the gospel of Christ which they and Paul had received from God and were preaching, (cf. Gal 2:7-9)]

(Acts 15:7 NASB) After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, 'Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

[After considerable debate amongst Paul and his people and the leaders of the Jerusalem Assembly about the gospel Paul and his group was preaching to the Gentiles, Peter stood up and announced that he too was chosen by God to preach the gospel to the Gentiles so that they would hear it and believe, (cf. Acts 10:1ff) - the very same gospel that Paul was preaching. Notice the confirmation of the message which Paul preached was the same as the message that Peter gave to the Gentiles as well: hearing the gospel and believing in it - in Jesus Christ alone, (Acts 10:43) + nothing else]

(Acts 15:8 NASB) And God, Who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us;

(Acts 15:9 NASB) and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.

[Notice that cleansing of the heart, i.e., forgiveness of sins is by a moment of faith alone in the Lord Jesus alone (Acts 15:11)]

(Acts 15:10 NASB) Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

(Acts 15:11 NASB) But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.'

(Acts 15:12 NASB) All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

(Acts 15:13 NASB) After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, 'Brethren, listen to me.

(Acts 15:14 NASB) Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name.

(Acts 15:15 NASB) With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written,

(Acts 15:16 NASB) 'After these things I will return, And I will rebuild the Tabernacle of David which has fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it,

(Acts 15:17 NASB) So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name,

(Acts 15:18 NASB) Says the Lord, Who makes these things known from long ago.' [Amos 9:11-12]

(Acts 15:19 NASB) Therefore it is My judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,

[Notice that this implies that the Judaizers were not authorized to minister to the Gentiles in Galatia by the Jerusalem Assembly - especially to dissent with what Paul was teaching]

(Acts 15:20 NASB) but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

(Acts 15:21 NASB) For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach Him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath, [i.e., the Pentateuch in the Torah].

(Acts 15:22 NASB) Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas - Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren,

(Acts 15:23 NASB) and they sent this letter by them, 'The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings.

(Acts 15:24 NASB) Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no intruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls,

[Notice that the leaders of the Jerusalem Assembly gave no instruction to the interlopers, the Judaizers to undermine what Paul was preaching, nor did they admonish them to cease their interference with Paul's ministry]

(Acts 15:25 NASB) it seemed good to us, having become one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

[Notice that the Jewish believers are declared to be of one mind with the Gentile believers relative to the content of the gospel]

(Acts 15:26 NASB) men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

(Acts 15:27 NASB) Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth.

(Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:

[And it was the Holy Spirit Who led the Jewish believers to send emissaries to the church in Antioch to welcome them with open arms]

(Acts 15:30 So when they were sent away, they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter."

[Antioch was the third largest city in the Roman Empire, after Rome and Alexandria. It was located in Syria, along the eastern coastline of the Mediterranean Sea opposite the Island of Cyprus. Barnabas, who was sent to minister to the church at Antioch, was born in Cyprus. His ministry there was richly blessed. He went to Tarsus to persuade Saul (Paul) to join him (Acts 4:36; 9:27; 11:19-26).

According to Gal 2:1-2, Paul, Barnabas, and Titus were sent to Jerusalem. They discussed the gospel privately with Peter, John, and James as the leaders of the church at Jerusalem to make sure that they preached the same gospel, namely, that salvation is by faith alone by grace alone in Christ Jesus alone for both Jew and Gentile alike, (cf. Acts 15:7-11). They did this, Paul wrote, "lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain," in the sense of what Paul preached being undermined by the "false brethren" from the Jerusalem Church, or opposed by the Jerusalem Church congregation and leaders.

C) (Gal 2:1-2) Luke Says That Paul And Barnabas Went Up To Jerusalem As The Result Of A Decision By The Brothers At Antioch, Paul Stipulates That He Was Sent By Revelation. There Is No Conflict / Contradicton Because Both Worked Together In Accordance With The Sovereign Will Of God

Luke says that Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem as the result of a decision by the "brothers" at Antioch. Paul indicated in Galatians 2:2 that he went as a result of a revelation. Yet there is no contradiction between Luke's account in Acts 15:2 and Paul's statement in Gal 2:2. Both are true - the one not being mutually exclusive with the other, both working together in harmony in accordance with the sovereign will of God. For either the church at Antioch itself prayed about what should be done and then commissioned Paul and Barnabas in response to what God revealed to them what they should do, or else it was God's revelation to Paul which was confirmed by the congregation's decision to go to Jerusalem. The key to Paul's visit in Jerusalem relative to the content of the gospel is that Paul's account in Galatians chapters one and two establishes that at no time was he under the authority of the other apostles. He had arrived at the information of the gospel independently from the apostles in Jerusalem, yet the content of the gospel of both ministries was the same, (cf. Acts 15:7-11). So Paul's movements as well as the gospel he preached are attributed directly to the revealed will of God.

D) (Gal 2:1-2) Paul Spoke Privately To The Leaders Of The Jerusalem Church "For Fear That He Might Be Running, Or Had Run, In Vain" - In This Sense: That Everyone He Preached To Might Be Convinced By Others Such As The Leaders Of The Jerusalem Church That What He Taught Was Wrong As A Result Of The Interference Of The Judaizers Who Were Attacking His Ministry. Such A Decision By The Leaders Might Have Terrible Consequences For Paul's Missionary Outreach - Should The Doctrine Of Grace Not Be Boldly And Clearly And Publically Upheld By All Parties

Paul spoke privately to those who were the leaders of the Jerusalem Church "for fear that he might be running, or had run, in vain."

Although Paul did not go to the church in Jerusalem to stand corrected relative to the gospel he had been preaching; for he had already and repeatedly insisted that he had received the gospel he was preaching directly from the risen Jesus Christ Himself; and he already had declared that he received it from no man, (Gal 1:11-19); the phrase in Gal 2:2d, rendered "for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain" cannot be interpreted to mean that Paul might have been mistaken about the truth of the gospel that he had been preaching all this time - in vain. On the other hand, all the work that Paul had done in preaching his gospel could still be in vain in the sense that everyone he preached to might be convinced by others such as the leaders - the apostles - of the Jerusalem Church that what he taught was wrong as a result of the interference of the Judaizers who were attacking his ministry, (Acts 15:5). Such a decision by the leaders might have terrible consequences for Paul's missionary outreach should the doctrine of grace not be boldly and clearly and publically upheld by all parties; and the apostles' clearly stated opposition to the Judaizers as well.

And all that Paul preached was indeed upheld by all parties at the Jerusalem Council meeting; for the present tense of the verb "to preach" in the phrase in Gal 2:2b rendered, "It was because of a revelation that I went up [to Jerusalem]; and I submitted to them to the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles," shows that the gospel preached by Paul from the beginning; and it was still being preached by him years later when and long after he wrote his epistle to the Galatians.

1) [Compare Gal 2:9-10]:

(Gal 2:9 YLT) "and having known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were esteemed to be pillars, a right hand of fellowship they did give to me, and to Barnabas, that we to the [Gentiles], and they to the circumcision may go

(Gal 2:10 NASB) They only asked us to remember the poor - the very thing I also was eager to do.' "

******

2) [Compare Acts 15:4, 7-11]:

(Acts 15:4 NASB) When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them.

[Notice that there was much debate implying that the apostles of the Jerusalem Assembly did not agree at first, which in turn indicates that they were hesitant to take a hard stand against the Judaizers about circumcision and keeping of the Law. Nevertheless at the end of the debate, having seen the results of Paul's and Barnabas' ministries, the apostles from Jerusalem confirmed the message which apostle Paul and Barnabas and their group preached was the same as the message that Peter gave to the Gentiles as well: hearing the gospel and believing in it + nothing else]

(Acts 15:8 NASB) And God, Who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us;

(Acts 15:9 NASB) and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.

[Notice that cleansing of the heart, i.e., forgiveness of sins is by a moment of faith alone in the Lord Jesus alone (Acts 15:11)]

(Acts 15:10 NASB) Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

(Acts 15:11 NASB) But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.' "

E) (Gal 2:3-5) But Not Even Titus, Who Was With Paul - A Greek - Was Compelled To Be Circumcised, And That Because Of The False Brethren Brought In Secretly, Who Did Come In Secretly To Spy Out Our Liberty That We Have In Christ Jesus, That They Might Bring Us Under Bondage. But We Did Not Yield In Subjection To Them For Even An Hour, So That The Truth Of The Gospel Would Remain In You

(Gal 2:1 NKJV) "Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. (Gal 2:2 NASB) It was because of a revelation that I went up [to Jerusalem]; and I submitted to them to the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation [i.e., who were leaders], for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain. (Gal 2:3 NASB) But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised, (Gal 2:4 YLT) and [that] because of the false brethren brought in [secretly], who did come in [secretly] to spy out our liberty that we have in Christ Jesus, that us they might bring under bondage, (Gal 2:5 YLT) to whom not even for an hour we gave place by subjection, that the truth of the good news might remain [with] you" =

1) Manuscript Evidence For Gal 2:4

(Gal 2:4 YLT) "and that because of the false brethren brought in [secretly], who did come in [secretly] to spy out our liberty that we have in Christ Jesus, that us they might bring under bondage," =

WH, Sinaiticus, A, B-org, C, D, Lach, Treg, Alf, Word, Tisc, Weis, Sod, UBS, Var modern editions have "katadoulOsousin" rendered "they will enslave."

K, L, byz have "katadoulOsOntai" rendered "they might bring into slavery."

The WH rendering is better attested, but there is no significant difference in the meaning between the two words - both are in effect saying the same things.

2) Manuscript Evidence For Gal 2:5

(Gal 2:5 NASB) "But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain in you." =

TR WH NU p46, Sinaiticus, A, B, C, D-corr, 1739 and all versions have "to whom we did not yield in subjection for even an hour"

Marcion, but no versions have "we did not in yield in subjection for an hour." Marcion's variant attempted to show that Paul never subjected himself to anyone - not to the other apostles nor to the false brothers, whom Marcion might have thought were one and the same

D, it(b), Tertullian, Ambrosiaster MSS(according to Jerome), have "to whom we did yield for a moment"

This variant, "to whom we did yield for a moment" evidently arose as an error and then was perpetuated because it coincided with the false view that some held that Paul was willing to accommodate others for the sake of the gospel, even to the extent - they contended - of violating the grace of God which is the very core of the gospel. But the passage cited by contenders to corroborate their false point of view, 1 Cor 9:20-23, actually does not permit such a violation of God's grace at all. It was been misinterpreted by them to support the false conclusion that Paul allowed Titus to be circumcised, yet without manuscript support. Furthermore, another passage in Acts 16:1-3 in which Timothy was circumcized, is not applicable as some contend, because Timothy's mother was Jewish, his father who forbade him to be circumcised when Timothy was born, was Greek. So Timothy's later circumcision had nothing to do with his salvation, but of the act of a legitimate Jewish custom because Timothy was Jewish. Finally, in the case of Gal chapter two, Paul would not have permitted Titus to be circumcised for the sake of the gospel because it would have violated the grace basis of the gospel, the very thing the Jews were trying to destroy. To have Titus circumcised would run contrary to Paul's entire argument. Paul would not yield to the demands of the legalists and have Titus circumcised because it would contradict Paul's defence of the gospel which is based on grace, not on works. Finally, Paul wrote that these interlopers were traitors, "false brothers," and that they had sneaked into the Christian camp to "spy on" the liberty of Christians. There intention was to bring the Galatians into slavery to the Law of Moses. To yield to them for even one moment would not have served Paul's purpose of the gospel that he preached. Note that the phrase rendered "false brethren" in the YLT indicates that these interlopers, although part of the congregation of the Jerusalem Church, were not actually brothers in Christ - in faith alone in Christ Jesus alone unto eternal life - at all.

3) (Gal 2:3-5) But Not Even Titus, Who Was With Paul - A Greek - Was Compelled To Be Circumcised, And That Because Of The False Brethren, Albeit Believers Who Departed From The Gospel, Brought In Secretly, Who Did Come In Secretly To Spy Out Our Liberty That We Have In Christ Jesus, That They Might Bring Us Under Bondage. But We Did Not Yield In Subjection To Them For Even An Hour, So That The Truth Of The Gospel Would Remain In You

(Gal 2:3 NASB) "But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised, (Gal 2:4 YLT) and that because of the false brethren brought in [secretly], who did come in [secretly] to spy out our liberty that we have in Christ Jesus, that us they might bring under bondage, (Gal 2:5 NASB) But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain in you." =

So it is evident that Paul brought Titus along in order to test the leadership and the believers in the Jerusalem Church to see if they would demand that Titus be circumcised and be instructed to keep the Law of Moses in order to be saved. And some of the congregation in the Jersusalem Church actually did stand up and did indeed insist that Titus be circumcised and observe the Law of Moses, (cf. Acts 15:5). Notice Gal 2:3 rendered, "But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised" implies that there was pressure brought to bear upon Paul and Titus and their group for Titus to be circumcised, but Paul and his group did resist the pressure so that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised!

******

a) [Compare Acts 15:1, 5 with Gal 2:3-5]:

(Acts 15:1 NASB) "Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.'

(Acts 15:5 NASB) But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, 'It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.' "

(Gal 2:3 NASB) "But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

(Gal 2:4 YLT) and that because of the false brethren brought in [secretly], who did come in [secretly] to spy out our liberty that we have in Christ Jesus, that us they might bring under bondage,

(Gal 2:5 NASB) But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you."

So these individuals who were disrupting Paul's ministry were stipulated as believers in Jesus Christ from the Jerusalem Church / from Judea - albeit believers who had then reverted to insisting upon circumcision and the keeping of the Mosaic Law, in order to be saved, (see Acts 15:1, 5). Hence they were in effect "false brethren" in their practice amongst fellow believers, (Gal 2:4). But they were nevertheless saved unto eternal life in their eternal position with God. And these were most likely the false brethren that Paul referred to in Gal 2:3-5, since both accounts refer to only one group within the Jerusalem congregation who insisted that Titus be circumcised. In addition there might have been other dissenters to what Paul preached, i.e., "false" brethren or individuals who were not believers at all; but such were not stipulated in either Paul's or Luke's account. In any case, there is no conflict in the account of Galatians chapter two vs Acts chapter 15.

The absence of any mention in Paul's or Luke's account of the leaders of the Jerusalem Church intervening on behalf of Paul and against the "false brethren" - which would have been notable - implies that the leadership most likely did not raise an objection to the demand that Titus be circumcized or even that they urged that Titus be circumcized for the sake of an outward "harmony" - not taking a stand for the gospel of Christ which they and Paul had received from God and were preaching, (cf. Gal 2:7-9).

So Paul's response to those in the Jerusalem Church who opposed his preaching as stipulated in Gal 2:5 indicates that the false brethren of Gal 2:4 who insisted on Titus being circumcised, described more particularly by author Luke in Acts 15:5 as "some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed, stood up, saying 'It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses', " was not to yield in subjection to them for even [so much as] an hour - so that the truth of the gospel would remain in the Gentile believers in the sense that they would not be convinced to change what they believed in, in order to be saved from Christ alone to adding circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses.

F) (Gal 2:6-10) Paul Stated That Those Who Were Of High Reputation - Which Made No Difference To Paul, For God Shows No Partiality - Contributed Nothing To Paul's Ministry. On The Contrary, They Determined That The Gospel Paul Preached To The Gentiles Was The Same As The Gospel That Peter Preached To The Jews. For God Who Worked Effectually For Peter In His Apostleship To The Jews, Effectually Worked For Paul To The Gentiles. And Having Known The Grace That Was Given To Paul, James and Cephas And John, Who Were The Esteemed Pillars, Gave Paul And Barnabas The Right Hand Of Fellowship, That To The Gentiles They Were To Go; As They To The Jews To Go To Preach The Gospel. They Only Asked Paul And His Group To Remember The Poor - The Very Thing Paul Stated He Was Eager To Do

(Gal 2:6 NASB) "But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) - well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. (Gal 2:7 NKJV) But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (Gal 2:7 YLT) but, on the contrary, having seen that I have been entrusted with the [gospel] of the uncircumcision, as Peter with that of the circumcision, (Gal 2:8 NASB) (For He Who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), (Gal 2:9 YLT) and having known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were esteemed to be pillars, a right hand of fellowship they did give to me, and to Barnabas, that we to the [Gentiles], and they to the circumcision may go' (Gal 2:10 NASB) They only asked us to remember the poor - the very thing I also was eager to do." =

1) (Gal 2:9) Manuscript Evidence For Gal 2:9

TR, WH, NU, Sinaiticus, B, C, I(vid), Psi, 0278, 33, 1739, Maj, syr, cop have "James and Cephas and John"

A has "James and John"

p46, it(r) has "James and Peter and John"

D, F, G, it(b), Tertullian, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius have "Peter and James and John"

The first variant, "James and John" might display an Alexandrian scribe's attempt to make two pairs of names: James and John with Paul and Barnabas. But why would he delete Cephas? Other scribes changed the Aramaic name "Cephas" to the Greek "Peter," and / or rearranged the order of the names to put Peter first to show his prominence. However, it is apparent that James, the brother of Jesus, had taken the leading role in Jerusalem at this point in the history of the church. This is evident by his decisive role at the Jerusalem council in A.D. 50 (See Acts 15), which occurred around the same time this epistle was written and which dealt with the same issues addressed in this epistle. This supports the placement of James at the beginning of the names here.

Nearly all versions have "Cephas" here, with the exception of NIV and NLT, which read "Peter" in the text (for the sake of modern readers), but note "Cephas" in the margin as being the word in Greek. The same occurs in 2:11.

2) (Gal 2:6-10) Paul Stated That Those Who Were Of High Reputation - Which Made No Difference To Paul, For God Shows No Partiality - Contributed Nothing To Paul's Ministry. On The Contrary, They Determined That The Gospel Paul Preached To The Gentiles Was The Same As The Gospel That Peter Preached To The Jews. For God Who Worked Effectually For Peter In His Apostleship To The Jews, Effectually Worked For Paul To The Gentiles. And Having Known The Grace That Was Given To Paul, James and Cephas And John, Who Were The Esteemed Pillars, Gave Paul And Barnabas The Right Hand Of Fellowship, That To The Gentiles They Were To Go; As They To The Jews To Go To Preach The Gospel. They Only Asked Paul And His Group To Remember The Poor - The Very Thing Paul Stated He Was Eager To Do

In Gal 2:5, Paul stipulated that for the sake of the continuity of the gospel, he and anyone in his group, especially Titus, did not yield in subjection to those who insisted that Titus be circumcised and instructed to keep the Law of Moses, so that the truth of the gospel would remain in the Gentile believers, especially in Galatia.

Whereupon, Paul reflected in Gal 2:6 upon the leaders of the Jerusalem Assembly and their responsibility in all of this, with "But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) - well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me" - in the sense that they had contributed nothing to what he preached, to his ministry. Paul was making a point that was not intended to discredit the apostles' work through the Jerusalem Assembly, as some contend, but to clarify, affirm and authenticate the gospel that he was preaching - that he did not receive it through the apostles, nor from any man; but he was taught it through a revelation of Jesus Christ, (Gal 1:11-12). Although some contend that Paul's tone in Gal 2:6 bordered upon one which lacked respect for the apostles and leaders of the Jerusalem Assembly, such is not the case.

For Paul's tone was completely positive in Gal 2:7, "but, on the contrary, having seen that I have been entrusted with the [gospel] of the uncircumcision, as Peter with that of the circumcision," His was a statement of the directon of his ministry being apart from that of the Jerusalem Church; with the implication that God had chosen Paul for this ministry - to be apostle to the Gentiles; but Paul's message was nevertheless the same gospel as for the circumcised [the Jews] for which ministry God chose Peter to be apostle to the Jews. On the other hand in the early days of the church, Peter was called by God to minister to the Gentiles with the same gospel that Paul was preaching:

a) [Compare Acts 15:7]:

(Acts 15:7 NASB) "After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, 'Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe," (cf. Acts 10:43).

Note that instead of rendering Gal 2:7 as follows (Gal 2:7 YLT) "but, on the contrary, having seen that I have been entrusted with the [gospel] of the uncircumcision, as Peter with that of the circumcision," the KJV incorrectly translates Gal 2:7 to falsely imply that there are two different gospels instead of the one and only gospel of God, "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter."

Paul then restated the one gospel which God entrusted to Paul to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews in Gal 2:8 with, "(for He [God] Who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles)."

At this point, the leaders of the Jerusalem Assembly had made known all the more of the gospel of faith alone in Christ alone unto eternal life apart from circumcision and the works of the Law - to all those who were in their congregation.

Whereupon, in Gal 2:9-10, there is nothing but respect and thankfulness from Paul toward the leaders of the Jerusalem Assembly, when he wrote, "and having known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were esteemed to be pillars, a right hand of fellowship they did give to me, and to Barnabas, that we to the [Gentiles], and they to the circumcision may go' They only asked us to remember the poor - the very thing I also was eager to do."

The phrase rendered, "and having known the grace that was given to me" evidently refers to an experiential knowledge of Paul's ministry - that it was blessed by God with so many converts which the apostles concluded that God's grace had blessed Paul's ministry.

Note that Paul had already demonstrated remembering the poor at the time of his famine visit to Jerusalem with Barnabas, both representing the church at Antioch (Acts 11:27-30). And Paul would participate further in this cause, (Acts 24:17; Ro 15:26; 1 Cor 16:1-4; 2 Cor 1-9).

In Gal 2:6-10, Paul in no way supports the idea of Peter or anyone being a Pope, or any congregation being in authority over another.

Note that the account of Peter's conduct at Antioch which immediately follows this section in Gal 2:11-21 has in view Peter's failure to follow through on the very conclusion that had just been made at the Council in Jerusalem. Peter's conduct affirms that the apostles in Jerusalem had not intervened and confronted the Judaizers when they should have before and during that Council sufficiently in order to let the Judaizers know that they were wrong. If they had done their job properly, it is doubtful that the Judaizers would have stood up in the middle of the congregation to declare their point of view while Paul, Barnabas, Titus and the rest of the party were standing there, (cf. Gal 2:4-5; Acts 15:5); nor would the Judaizers have succeeded to the degree that they did in Galatia.

3) (Gal 2:6-10) The Significance Of The Names In Galatians Chapter 2: Peter, James And John

a) [Expositor's Bible Commentary, CBL Commentary, Galatians-Philemon]

"The exact use and order of the names of the leading apostles in this verse [Gal 2:9] should not escape notice. First, the order obviously corresponds to the relative positions and work of James and Peter as recorded in Acts. Peter was the great missionary. Hence, when Paul is speaking of the ministry to the Jews, Peter is prominent and James is not mentioned (vv. 7, 8). In dealing with a particular and official act of the Jerusalem church, however, James (who apparently presided at the council) is mentioned in the first position with the names of Peter and John following. Lightfoot (in loc.) also points out, no doubt rightly, that the fact that James is first called "James, the Lord's brother" (1:19) but here only "James" is explained clearly by the Acts narrative. At the earlier visit to Jerusalem there were two prominent Jameses in the city - James, the Lord's brother, and James, the son of Zebedee. So, in describing that visit, Paul identifies the proper James. By the time of this visit (the visit of Acts 15), James, the son of Zebedee, had been put to death by Herod."

In this whole episode, Paul demonstrated his keen mind, developed also during his training by Gamaliel. All of the Epistle to the Galatians has the character of a carefully written legal document, especially the first two chapters.

II) [Gal 2:11-13]:

(Gal 2:11 NKJV) "Now when Cephas had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed [lit., having been condemned] (Gal 2:12 YLT) for before the coming of certain [individuals] from James, with the [Gentiles] he was eating, and when they came, he was withdrawing and separating himself, fearing those of the circumcision, (Gal 2:13 NKJV) And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy." =

A) Manuscript Evidence For Gal 2:11

(Gal 2:11 NKJV) "Now when Cephas had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed [lit., having been condemned]" =

WH, NU, Sinaiticus, A, B, C, H, P, Psi, 0278, 33, 1739 have "Cephas"

TR, D, F, G, Maj, it, syr(h) have "Peter"

Having early and diverse support, the WH NU reading is superior. Scribes substituted the more familar Greek name, "Peter," for the Aramaic surname, "Cephas."

B) Manuscript Evidence For Gal 2:12a

(Gal 2:12 YLT) "for before the coming of certain [individuals] from James, with the [Gentiles] he was eating, and when they came, he was withdrawing and separating himself, fearing those of the circumcision." =

TR, WH, NU, Sinaiticus, A, B, C, D, F, G, H, Maj, all versions have "certain ones [came] from James"

p46, it(dx), Irenaeus have "a certain one [came] from James"

The NEBmg notes a variant reading here, saying that "some witnesses read a certain person." Only one extant Greek manuscript, p46, reads this way. It is possible that the scribe of p46 was thinking of the one Judaizer (from Jerusalem) who was negatively influencing the believers in Antioch - and perhaps in Galatia, as well. This one individual is alluded to in 3:1; 5:7-10 (note the singular "who" and "he"); he may have been the leader of the Judaizers that visited Galatia (compare 5:12 where the plural "they" is used).

C) Manuscript Evidence For Gal 2:12b

TR, WH, NU, A, C, D(2), H, Psi, 0278, 1739, 1881, Maj and all versions have "they came"

p46, Sinaiticus, B, D(org), F, G, 33, it(b,d,g), Irenaeus have "he came"

The variant "he came" is contended to be the result of scribal error. But the "error" is represented in so many diverse manuscripts. The singular, "elthEn" in p46 is no mistake, for the scribe was writing of a particular individual who, having come from James, caused problems in the church at Antioch. It seems more likely that"elthEn" in so many good witnesses, is not a mistake but rather points to an original "tina" rendered "a certain one," singular, in Gal 1:12a, as in p46, it(d,g), Iranaeus. If so, then Paul was speaking of a particular individual who disturbed the unity among the Jewish and Gentile Christians in Antioch.

In either case, singular or plural, a number (one or more) of individuals from the church in Jerusalem were undermining the gospel of grace in Antioch.

D) (Gal 2:11-13) Peter Came To Antioch Shortly After The Council Meeting With Paul In Jerusalem. It Resulted In Paul's Public Confrontation Of Peter's Hypocrisy Of Withdrawing His Fellowship From The Gentile Brethren Because Of The Arrival And Presence Of Judaizers From Jerusalem - His Withdrawal Causing The Rest Of The Jewish Believers At Antioch To Fall Away From The Faith As Well, Including Barnabas

According to Gal 2:11-13, at some unspecified time most likely shortly after the council meeting in Jerusalem, Peter came to Antioch. For new issues other than circumcision and keeping the Mosaic Law for salvation which were settled at the council were primarily in view in Peter's visit to Antioch: namely the conducting of the temporal life in freedom for Jew and Gentile alike which includes the freedom to eat what one chooses, and the freedom from regulations which impose Jewish believers' separatism from Gentile believers - which Peter evidently was not following to the visiting Jews' satisfaction.

Prior to the gospel being presented by Jesus Christ in His Humanity, and His disciples after Him, Jews did not make it a practice to eat with Gentiles because they arrogantly considered them to be chronic sinners, unlike what they considered themselves to be. Of the 341 rules the rabbis had added for daily life, two-thirds of them dealt with table fellowship which excluded fellowship with Gentiles and their dietary customs. Several times during His ministry Jesus was reproached for eating with people whom the Pharisees considered "sinners" (Matthew 9:9-13; Luke 19:1-9).

Upon arrival at Antioch, Peter found Jewish and Gentile Christians in an ongoing fellowship together especially at mealtimes. This practice of table fellowship had evidently been going on in the church at Antioch for a number of years.

So in view of Peter's experience of his water baptism of Samaritan believers and fellowship with them who were non-Jews in Acts 8:14-25 , his vision pertaining to his acceptance of Gentiles which he had received while staying at the house of Simon the tanner - a profession that was considered unclean by Jews - and his consequent preaching the gospel of faith alone in Christ alone and his fellowship with Gentiles in Cornelius' house, (Acts 10:22-48 , he felt free to eat with Gentiles. And he did so on an ongoing basis in Antioch as well. Notice the imperfect tense conveying ongoing action of the phrase rendered "he was eating," in Gal 2:12. So Peter went beyond the letter of the decrees of the council. Although the council had acknowledged the right of freedom from the Law for Gentiles, it did not stipulate freedom from the Law for Jewish believers as well. In view of this omission and the ongoing contention amongst the Jewish believers in the Jerusalem Assembly and against Paul and the church in Antioch on this matter, this was a remarkable oversight by the leaders and apostles of the Jerusalem Church. For observance of the Mosaic Law evidently remained as an obligation in the minds of a number of members of the Jerusalem Assembly in the temporal life; and even for salvation as a group of Jewish believers in the Assembly were contending, (Gal 2:4-5; Acts 15:1, 5). This group of Judaizers even reached out from their base in the Jerusalem Assembly to as far as Antioch to foister their legalism upon the Gentile and Jewish believers there - the reason for Paul's visit to Jerusalem which is in view in Galatians chapter two. And the leaders - the apostles of the Jerusalem Assembly still had not dealt with this issue; especially Peter who had a number of experiences that pointed him in the right direction:

Recall that Peter at one time, at a vision on this matter at the house of Simon the Tanner; whereupon he preached faith alone in Jesus Christ alone to a Gentile named Cornelius and his household and had fellowship with them, (Acts 10:1-48 ). Thereafter he courageously defended his fellowshipping / eating meals with Gentiles in Cornelius' household before the Jerusalem leaders (cf. Acts 11:1-18). So Peter was regularly eating with the Gentiles in Antioch. And by his fellowshipping with them, he was in effect declaring that the Jews as well as the Gentiles were free from the Mosaic Law.

But then certain individuals from James came to Antioch, evidently Jews from the Jerusalem Assembly who declared that James had peronally sent them - probably a false statement since in the final analysis what they were advocating was against the gospel that Peter, James and John and the rest of the apostles from the Jerusalem Assembly and the apostle Paul had received individually from God. Nevertheless, as a result of the Judaizer's presence, Peter did not persevere in the faith as he had in the past. He feared reprisal from the Jews if he continued to fellowship with the Gentiles. So he began to withdraw, separating himself ever increasingly from fellowship with the Gentiles. (The imperfect tense rendered "was withdrawing" signifies a withdrawal over time). Whereupon the rest of the Jewish believers at Antioch followed Peter's lead. Even Barnabas, who was from Cyprus, a Gentile center, who was involved in a missionary program with Paul to reach Gentiles with the gospel, was carried away with their hypocrisy.

Peter was in the wrong and as it stipulates in Gal 2:11, Paul "withstood him to his face; because he was to be blamed." Paul's condemnation of him - an apostle - was quite severe, evidently public. It was not an honest or inadvertant mistake. Peter had received the vision of accepting Gentiles prior to going to the house of Cornelius where he preached the gospel of faith alone in Christ alone for forgiveness of sins unto eternal life to Gentiles and fellowshipped with them, (Acts 10:1-48) and defended his eating with the Gentiles there, (Acts 11:1-18); and he defended Paul at the council meeting in Jerusalem, (Acts 15:1-30). Although Peter did not endorse the arguments of the legalizers, he did not take active steps in going against them either. The difficulty was that by not taking a positive stance against the Judaizers, he gradually gave in to pressure exerted by them in Antioch, even though he already and repeatedly demonstrated that he knew what was right - agreeing whole heartedly with Paul re: the latter's ministry to the Gentiles. In other words, Peter played the hypocrite. This is the same Peter who had denied his Lord for fear of a maid servant's reprisal, (Jn 18:15-27; Lk 22:54-62), who now denied Him again for fear of the reprisal of the visiting Jewish legalists from the Jerusalem Assembly. This was Peter, the pillar apostle, the companion of the Lord during his earthly ministry! But there were further consequences: what Peter did moved others. It is obvious that any Christian must give heed to his actions. The greater the position or responsibility, the more others might be effected.

In his visit to Antioch, Peter allowed his fear of the Jews' reprisals to effect his actions and led the Antioch Assembly into temptation and legalism. This indicates that a number of individuals from the Jerusalem Assembly had continued to expound and observe circumcision and the keeping of the Law of Moses as a requirement for salvation and/or for proper conduct in the temporal life resulting in imposing a separation between Jew and Gentile in the temporal life. The Jerusalem Assembly still had problems with Jews insisting on keeping their temporal lives strictly separate from those of the Assembly who were Gentiles.

Further support for Paul's key point of his being independent of the other apostles in his ministry work was his confrontation of Peter for leading the congregation toward Jewish separatism from Gentiles in the temporal life and circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses for salvation - further dispelling the idea that Peter or anyone was a pope.

III) Gal 2:14-18]:

(Gal 2:15 NKJV) We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

(Gal 2:16 YLT) having known also that a man is not declared righteous by works of law, if not through ... faith [in] Jesus Christ, also we in Christ Jesus did believe, that we might be declared righteous by ... faith [in] Christ, and not by works of law, wherefore declared righteous by works of law shall be no flesh'

(Gal 2:17 NASB) But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister [in the sense of promoter, (HCSB)] of sin? May it never be!

(Gal 2:18 NASB) For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor.

A) Manuscript Evidence For Gal 2:14

WH NU p46, Sinaiticus, A, B, C, D, F, G, H, Psi, 33, 1739, cop, Lach, Treg, Alf, Word, Tisc, Weis, Sod, UBS, Var Modern Editions, Maj, it, syr have "to Cephas"

D, F, G, Maj, it, K, L, P, byz have "To Peter"

Having early and diverse support, the WH NU reading is superior. Later scribes substituted the more familiar name, "Peter"

(Gal 2:15 NKJV) We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

B) Manuscript Evidence For Gal 2:16a

(Gal 2:16 YLT) "Having known also that a man is not declared righteous by works of law, if not through ... faith [in] Jesus Christ, also we in Christ Jesus did believe, that we might be declared righteous by ... faith [in] Christ, and not by works of law, wherefore declared righteous by works of law shall be no flesh' " =

TR, NU, p46, Sinaiticus, C, D, F, G, H, Psi, 1739, Maj, it, syr have "faith of Jesus Christ" (or, "faithfulness of Jesus Christ")

A, B, 33 have "faith of Christ Jesus" (or "faithfulness of Christ Jesus")

C) Manuscript Evidence For Gal 2:16b

(Gal 2:16 YLT) "Having known also that a man is not declared righteous by works of law, if not through ... faith [in] Jesus Christ, also we in Christ Jesus did believe, that we might be declared righteous by ... faith [in] Christ, and not by works of law, wherefore declared righteous by works of law shall be no flesh' " =

TR, WH, NU, Sinaiticus, A, C, D, F, G, I(vid), Psi, Maj have "in Christ Jesus we believed"

p46, B, H, 33, 1739, 1881, it(d), syr have "in Jesus Christ we believed"

On the basis of superior documentation and parallel usage in 3:22, we have to judge that Paul wrote "faith of Jesus Christ" in the first part of the verse. The expression "faith of Jesus Christ" is usually taken to mean "faith in Jesus Christ" (an objective genitive), but it can also mean "Jesus Christ's faith" or "Jesus Christ's trustworthiness." The latter means that Christians have been justified by Jesus Christ's faithfulness in obeying the Father, which is the implicit message of 2:20.

The testimony in the second part of the verse is somewhat divided. Either reading can be attributed to assimilation to the first part of the verse. Most English versions follow the text in all three editions, but KJV deviates from TR and NEB again shows its independence.

D) (Gal 2:14-18) With The Jewish Brethren At Antioch Not Walking According To The Truth Of The Gospel Because Of Peter's Defection, Paul Said To Peter, 'If You Being A Jew, Live Like The Gentiles... How Is It That You Compel The Gentiles To Live Like The Jews?' We Are Jews By Nature, Not Sinners Of The Gentiles. But Having Known Also That A Man Is Not Declared Righteous By Works Of Law, If Not Through Faith In Christ. We In Christ Did Believe To Be Declared Righteous, So If While Seeking To Be Justified In Christ, We Had Also Been Found Sinners, Is Christ Then A Minister Of Sin? May It Never Be! For If I Rebuild What I Have Once Destroyed - My Dependance Upon Works Of Law For Righteousness - I Once Again Prove Myself To Be A Transgressor

(Gal 2:14 NASB) "But when I saw that they were not straightforward [i.e., walking uprightly] [according to] the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, 'If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like the Jews?' (Gal 2:15 NKJV) We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, (Gal 2:16 YLT) having known also that a man is not declared righteous by works of law, if not through ... faith [in] Jesus Christ, also we in Christ Jesus did believe, that we might be declared righteous by ... faith [in] Christ, and not by works of law, wherefore declared righteous by works of law shall be no flesh' (Gal 2:17 NASB) But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister [in the sense of promoter, (HCSB)] of sin? May it never be! (Gal 2:18 NASB) For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor." =

In Gal 2:11-13, Peter came to Antioch shortly after the council meeting in Jerusalem. It resulted in Paul's public confrontation of Peter relative to the latter's hyprocrisy of withdrawing his fellowship from the Gentile brethren more and more because of the arrival and presence of Judaizers from Jerusalem - his withdrawals causing the rest of the Jewish believers at Antioch to fall away from the faith as well - including Barnabas.

So then in Gen 2:14, Paul continued to express his reaction to the falling away of the Jewish brethren from the truth of the gospel at Antioch because of Peter's defection and his confrontation with Peter about it. He saw that the Jewish believers at Antioch were not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel. They were advocating circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses for salvation and for the temporal life apart from faith alone in Christ alone for both Jew and Gentile because of the influence of Peter and the visiting Judaizers.

When Peter first came to Antioch, being a Jew as a believer, he was living like the Gentiles - sharing fellowship with them, adopting their lifestyle, not acting like he was the Jew that the Judaizers insisted he act like, but being true to the gospel of freedom in Christ Jesus for Jew and Gentile; and Paul had no objection to him. But when the Judaizers from Jerusalem came to Antioch, Peter reversed his role, began to forsake fellow Gentile brethren, was leaving their table where he was eating and withdrawing his fellowship from them. He began acting more and more like the kind of Jew that the visiting Judaizers from Jerusalem insisted he should be. So Paul confronted Peter in public, but not out of a propensity to argue, or to enhance his own prestige. His real concern, as evident in his thirteen epistles, was for the truth of the gospel - which Peter at the moment lacked. For Peter by then had completely separated himself from Gentile believers and had fully joined with the Judaizers. Paul's message to Peter was a public stinging rebuke, "If you [Peter], being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews

[referring to when he first came to Antioch],

how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like the Jews?"

[referring to Peter's role reversal in living like the Judiazer Jews when they came to visit Antioch].

Peter's actions gave a clear message that it was mandatory for the Gentile believers to become Jews under the Law of Moses - and depart from the grace basis of salvation and the Christian life. So in view of his hypocrisy, Paul asked Peter publically how it was that he might compel the Gentile brethren to live like Jews, when he had been living like a Gentile believer since he first came to be part of the assembly at Antioch?

In Gal 2:15-16, the self-evident answer to Paul's question to Peter's hypocrisy in Gal 2:14 was emphasized all the more when Paul continued his public confrontation of Peter, "We

[Peter, Paul and fellow Jewish believers]

are Jews by nature [by birth], and not sinners of the Gentiles."

[Paul implied that all Gentiles were sinners in the sense that Jews viewed all Gentiles as constant sinners because the Jews' reasoned that this was true because Gentiles were not in a covenant relationship with God as the Jews were - referring to the Law of Moses under the covenant of Abraham. But what the Jews thought about Gentiles being sinners was also true of them because a man is not declared righteous by works of law as Paul stipulated three times in the next verse - Gal 2:16: "having known also that a man is not declared righteous by works of law, if not through ... faith [in] Jesus Christ, also we in Christ Jesus did believe, that we might be declared righteous by ... faith [in] Christ, and not by works of law, wherefore declared righteous by works of law shall be no flesh' " (Ps 143:2). Paul was indicating by Gal 2:15-16 that Jewish believers, unlike Gentile believers, had the knowledge of - and experience in attempting to be faithful to - the Law of Moses. Notice the first phrase of Gal 2:16, "having known also that a man is not declared righteous [i.e., not justified] by works of law" and the other two phrases which have verb forms rendered "justified" in Gal 2:16 which are in the passive voice - all three phrases - indicate that the individual does not participate in his justification, i.e., not by works of law can one be justified. So Paul stated in Gal 2:16b, "also we [Jewish believers] in Christ Jesus did believe, that we might be declared righteous by the faith of Christ [i.e., through faith in Christ] and not by works of law [the absence of the definite article signifying not by any human doing]. So twice, in Gal 2:16a & b, Paul stated that justification was a matter of faith alone in Christ alone apart from law - any law, any human doing, which includes the Law of Moses. Then in Gal 2:16c, Paul, to be emphatic, wrote a third confirmation that justification is by faith alone in Christ alone apart from law: "wherefore declared righteous by works of law shall be no flesh," [Ps 103:4]. Hence all Jews are sinners too!

Note that the phrases rendered "through the faith of Jesus Christ," and "declared righteous by the faith of Christ" in Gen 2:16 are in the genetive case which can refer to the faith of Christ or our faith in Him. They are saying the same thing as the phrase rendered "we in Christ Jesus did believe," in the same verse. For it is not by Christ's faith in us, but by our faith in Him that we are justified:

****** EXCERPT FROM ROMANS CHAPTER 3 ON JUSTIFICATION ******

OR SKIP TO NEXT SECTION

[Ro 3:20]:

(v. 3:20) "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in His sight by observing law; rather, through law we become conscious of sin."

NO MAN IS ABLE TO KEEP THE RIGHTEOUS STANDARD OF THE LAW. RATHER THROUGH THE LAW ALL MEN BECOME CONSCIOUS OF SIN AND OF BEING UNDER THE WRATH OF GOD

(v. 1:16) I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. (v. 1:17 NKJV) For in the gospel an [eternal] righteousness from God is revealed [in one to mankind] from faith to faith, [i.e., out of ones belief in the gospel to faithfulness in ones life to that belief] just as it is written: 'The righteous will live [out the length of their lives] by faith.' (v. 2:13) For it is not those who hear the Law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the Law who will be declared righteous. (v. 3:19) Now we know that whatever the Law says, it says to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. (v. 3:20) Therefore no one will be declared righteous in His sight by observing law; rather, through law we become conscious of sin." =

Since perfect obedience to the requirements of the Law was stipulated as the standard of behavior for all individuals to be declared righteous unto eternal life, (v. 2:13), then the Law's requirements are righteous by definition. In verses 3:19-20, which continues this theme, law is portrayed as impossible to keep in order to be declared righteous in God's sight. Rather through law, because of our inabililty to live up to its standards of God's righteousness, we become conscious of sin, (v. 3:20), and of being under the wrath of God, which is to then lead one to faith in Jesus Christ unto an eternal righteousness from God, (vv. 1:16-17). The phrase "so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God" implies that any and every man are under law and will fall short of God's righteousness that God expects all men to live by; so everyone's mouth will be silenced in the realization that his life is held accountable to God and falls short of the righteousness that God demands of him. Note that the Greek text in verse 3:20 has the word rendered "law" without the definite article, which emphasizes the quality of the particular kind of law in view, i.e., principles behind godly rules governing human behavior such as the prime example in view in verse 3:19: the Mosaic Law.

[Ro 3:21-24]:

(v. 3:21) "But now an eternal righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

(v. 3:22) This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,

(v. 3:23) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

(v. 3:24) and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."

RECEIVING A RIGHTEOUSNESS FROM GOD UNTO ETERNAL LIFE, THE GOSPEL, IS ACCOMPLISHED APART FROM HUMAN DOING, HAS BEEN MADE KNOWN THROUGHOUT THE AGES AND IS TESTIFIED AS SUCH IN SCRIPTURE

(v. 1:16) "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. (v. 1:17 NKJV) For in the gospel an [eternal] righteousness from God is revealed [in one to mankind] from faith to faith, [i.e., out of ones belief in the gospel to faithfulness in ones life to that belief] just as it is written: 'The righteous will live [out the length of their lives] by faith.' (v. 3:21) But now an eternal righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify." =

Receiving a righteouseness from God unto eternal life, the gospel, is accomplished apart from human doing, has been made known throughout the ages and is testified as such in Scripture. The phrase "apart from law", literally "without law", ("chOris nomon") is without the definite article pointing to a quality of law, not a specific law like the Mosaic Law. So the phrase "chOris nomon" = "without law" means without any set of rules of human doing, not limited to the Mosaic Law. It refers to the reception of an eternal righteousness from God unto eternal life apart from, i.e., to the exclusion of any human doing. Verse 1:17 refers to an eternal righteousness from God being revealed in the gospel. Hence verse 3:21: "But now an eternal righteousness from God apart from law has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify" is directly related to the gospel and its proclamation to the world. The phrase "an eternal righteousness from God...has been made known" in v. 3:21 has in it the verb "has been made known," rendered from the Greek, "pephanerOtai," which is in the perfect tense. The perfect tense signifies a completed action (in the past) of providing information as to the reception of the righteousness of God, (the gospel, ref. 1:17), with an ongoing result of that action in the present. In effect this is an ongoing proclamation of the gospel throughout the ages largely through the testimony of Scripture. The phrase "the Law and the Prophets" is a phrase which was established in the past to refer to the entire Old Testament Scriptures, the Law referring to the Pentateuch and the Prophets referring to the rest of the OT books. It is thus declared in 3:21 that an eternal righteousness from God, (the gospel), apart from law, i.e., apart from human doing, has been made known throughout history to which Scripture testifies.

THE DEFINITION OF "JUSTIFIED" IS TO HAVE REVEALED IN ONE A RIGHTEOUSNESS FROM GOD WHEN ONE BELIEVES IN JESUS CHRIST, THE GOSPEL. SUCH JUSTIFICATION COMES THROUGH THE REDEMPTION THAT CAME BY CHRIST JESUS

(v. 1:16) "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. (v. 1:17 NKJV) For in the gospel an [eternal] righteousness from God is revealed [in one to mankind] from faith to faith, [i.e., out of ones belief in the gospel to faithfulness in ones life to that belief] just as it is written: 'The righteous will live [out the length of their lives] by faith.' (v. 3:21) But now an eternal righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. (v. 3:22) This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, (v. 3:23) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (v. 3:24) and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." =

The word "For" which means 'because' begins verses 3:23-24 with an explanation and reiteration of verse 3:21-22's "But now an eternal righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes [has been made known, is revealed] through faith in Jesus Christ [the gospel] to all who believe. There is no difference [among kinds of individuals]"

From this explanation, one can discern that the meaning of the word "justified" is having an eternal righteousness from God unto eternal life revealed in one when one believes in Jesus Christ. as follows:

Since it is stipulated that a moment of faith in Jesus Christ, [the gospel, (vv. 1:1-4), the redemption that came by Christ Jesus, (v. 3:24)], one has it made known in one, (revealed in one), that one has an eternal righteousness from God, (vv. 3:21-22);

and since the explanation of vv. 3:21-22 in vv. 3:23-24, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are justified freely by His [God's] grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus", (vv. 3:23-24),

then the definition of "justified" is to have revealed in one an eternal righteousness from God unto eternal life when one believes in Jesus Christ, (the gospel, vv. 1:16-17).

****** END OF EXCERPT FROM ROMANS CHAPTER 3 ******

D cont.) (Gal 2:14-18) With The Jewish Brethren At Antioch Not Walking According To The Truth Of The Gospel Because Of Peter's Defection, Paul Said To Peter, 'If You Being A Jew, Live Like Gentiles... How Is It That You Compel The Gentiles To Live Like The Jews?' We Are Jews By Nature, Not Sinners Of The Gentiles. But Having Known Also That A Man Is Not Declared Righteous By Works Of Law, If Not Through Faith In Christ. We In Christ Did Believe To Be Declared Righteous, So If While Seeking To Be Justified In Christ, We Had Also Been Found Sinners, Is Christ Then A Minister Of Sin? May It Never Be! For If I Rebuild What I Have Once Destroyed - My Dependance Upon Works Of Law For Righteousness - I Once Again Prove Myself To Be A Transgressor, (cont.)

In Gen 2:17a Paul begins to make a case against those who would accuse him of being found a sinner and promoting sinful living - even accusing Jesus Christ of promoting sin, because he preached justification by faith alone in Christ alone apart from law - any human doing: "But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ [in the sense of through faith alone in Christ alone apart from law as Paul had just stated three times in the previous verse] we ourselves have also been found sinners" in the sense of echoing the Judaizers who were accusing him of being a sinner just like the Gentiles who didn't have the Law of Moses because Paul was no longer trying to be justified by keeping the Law of Moses in order to live without sinning.

Since justification - being declared righteous before God - by works of law is not possible with man because man is a sinner and won't succeed in becoming righteous even for a moment in his mortal life, (ref. Gal 3ff; Ro 3:9, 20-23), then to state that a man is found to be a sinner because he does not attempt to keep law is nonsensical and contradicts Scripture as Paul had just stipulated in Gal 2:16. On the other hand, God as Judge forensically declares the man who trusts alone in Christ alone, apart from law, to be righteous unto eternal life, despite his sinful activities throughout his mortal life as a free gift because Christ paid the penalty for the sins of all mankind as verses 20-21 will indicate. This is not promoting a license to sin, but accepting the fact that keeping law is not the answer to eradicating sin in ones life - temporal or eternal! But justification through Christ by faith alone in Him alone apart is the doorway to eternal life and to living a life of fellowship with God via the grace and mercy of God through the blood of His Son - but Paul does not address this issue in this passage, (ref. Gal chapters 5 & 6; Ro 6:1-23; cf. 1 Jn 1:1-10).

Then in Gal 2:17b, Paul continued to confirm the truth of the gospel,

(Gal 3:17a) "But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners,

(Gal 3:17b) is Christ then a minister [in the sense of promoter] of sin? May it never be!"

Paul emphatically denies the possibility that Christ is a minister of sin. He had just repeated the doctrine three times in Gal 2:16 that no man can be declared righteous by works of law, but only by faith in Jesus Christ implying that man is sinful and no amount of effort to perform good works will erase the sins that he constantly commits. Man is unable to successfully commit himself to a life of righteousness, so out of his own efforts he cannot be declared by God to be lawful, i.e., righteous at any time, any moment in his life, (ref Gal 2:16; 3:1ff; cf. 1 Jn 1:8, 10). Hence those that contend that man must obey the Law of Moses in order not to be accused of being sinners or promoting sin - even accusing Jesus Christ of promoting sin - are proved wrong by Scripture and history. Should a believer return to the Law of Moses, or any law, after trusting alone in Christ alone for salvation, that Law would only demonstrate further that he was a sinner, "a lawbreaker" - that he had been a sinner all the time - Jew or Gentile, unbeliever or believer! Although Paul was using the first person here, he clearly had Peter in mind and the other Jewish believers.

In Gal 2:18, Paul states, "For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed [in the sense of rebuilding his committment to obey the Law of Moses, or any law of human doing which he had been in the sense of abandoned as a means of salvation unto eternal life and for righteous living in the temporal life], I prove myself to be a transgressor."

This is so because all men are transgressors all the time, believer, non-believer's alike, so any means other than faith in Christ will fail all the more and make it clear all the more that one is a sinner and a transgressor, unable to faithfully keep the Law of Moses, or any law, (Gal 2:16; 1 Jn 1:8, 10).

Paul stated three times in Gal 2:16 that "no flesh shall be declared righteous by works of law," implying that works of law cannot be faithfully kept in order to be justified as righteous before God, it only makes one conscious of sin, (Ro 3:19-20), and proves by this that one is a transgressor all the more. Hence in Gal 2:18, Paul is stating that the effort to try to faithfully keep works of law will fail, it will never make one righteous because no one can be successful in being declared righteous before God by what one does except to prove to oneself to be a transgressor - a persistent violater of the commandments of such law that one is trying to keep. As a matter of fact, the more that one tries to keep the Law or any law in order to be declared righteous before God, the more self-righteous and sinful one becomes. For forgiveness of sins to be justified unto eternal life begins and ends with a moment of faith alone in Christ alone + nothing else, (Gal 2:16); and forgiveness of temporal sins begins and ends with confession of sins to God, not with one godly deed after another, (1 Jn 1:7, 9). Any attempt to override these provisions with legalism or otherwise is rebellion against the grace of God toward self-aggrandizement, i.e., sinful all the more.

IV) [Gal 2:19-21]:

(Gal 2:19 NASB) "For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.

(Gal 2:20 NASB) I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, Who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

(Gal 2:21 NASB) I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."

A) Manuscript Evidence For Gal 2:20

(Gal 2:20 NASB) "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, Who loved me and gave Himself up for me." =

All Greek editions and English versions, sinaiticus, A, C, D, Psi, 0278, 33, 1739, 1881, it, syr, cop, Clement have "I live by faith of [in] the Son of God"

p46, B, D*, F, G have "I live by faith of (in) God, even Christ."

All of these could be rendered "I live by the faithfulness of the Son of God."

The variant "I live by faith of (in) God" might likely be a scribal error due to the eye passing from the first "tou" to the second "tou," and then the scribe added "and Christ" for the sake of what follows: "Who loved me and gave Himself for me." The variant reading could scarcely be original since Paul nowhere else expressly speaks of God as the object of a Christian's faith.

On the other hand, it is just as plausible that a scribe changed the phrase rendered "faith in God" to "faith in the Son of God" to parallel what Paul repeatedly wrote in other letters.

B) (Gal 2:19-21) No One Can Keep The Law Of Moses Or Any Law To Be Justified Before God Unto Eternal Life, So Attempting This Is Intended To Lead One To Be Conscious Of Being Under God's Condemnation Unto Eternal Death. This In Turn Is Intended To Lead One Then To Choose To Trust Alone In Christ Alone Apart From Law In Order to Be Justified Unto Eternal Life So That One Might Live To God. The Believer Has Been Crucified With Christ And May No Longer Have To Live A Self-Centered Life, For Christ Lives In Him So That The Believer's Life May Be Christ Centered. For If Righteousness Comes Through Law, Then Christ Died Needlessly

(Gal 2:19 NASB) "For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. (Gal 2:20 NASB) I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, Who loved me and gave Himself up for me. (Gal 2:21 NASB) I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." =

In Gal 2:19, Paul offers confirmation of the value and purpose of the Law relative to justification unto eternal life,

"For through the Law I died to the Law,

[Paul stipulates that through the Law in the sense of through attempting to keep the Law of Moses in order to be justified unto eternal life he died to the Law in the sense of being persuaded of the truth that there is no way he (or anyone) could keep the Law, (or any law) to be justified before God unto eternal life. Hence he died to the Law in the sense that he realized that eternal death was inevitable for him (and everyone) who tries to keep the Law, or any human doing, to the end of receiving justification unto eternal life. The Law itself - any law or human doing - is dead / useless to man as a means for justification before God unto eternal life. Paul's recognition of his inevitable eternal death via attempting to keep the Law of Moses, i.e., via human doing led to his believing alone in Christ's sacrifice alone for his sins which brought him eternal life, for which the Law was in part established - to make men conscious of their sins and seek justification through the grace of God via a moment of faith alone in His Son alone, (Ro 3:20 )]:

so that I might live to God,"

[Paul's death to the Law which evidently led to his decision to believe alone in Christ Jesus alone for eternal life, (Gal 2:16), was so that he might live to God. The phrase rendered "so that he might live to God" is in the subjunctive mood which signifies objective possibility, i.e., an enablement to live for God, but not a certainty that one would choose to live moment to moment to God. So the word rendered "live" has the sense of

(1) having eternal life and

(2) having an opportunity for a blessed temporal life before God. The means of the latter (#2) is not addressed here in Gal 2, but later in chapters 5 & 6]

****** EXCERPT-RO 7-BELIEVER, LAW & ETERNAL LIFE ******

OR SKIP TO NEXT SECTION

PAUL OR ANY BELIEVER, HAVING ALREADY SECURED ETERNAL LIFE THROUGH A MOMENT OF FAITH ALONE IN CHRIST ALONE BY DEFINITION, HAS DIED, I.E., BEEN SEPARATED FROM HAVING TO KEEP LAW TO SECURE ETERNAL LIFE. HE IS TO SERVE IN NEWNESS OF SPIRIT IMPLYING A NEW SPIRITUAL CONNECTION WITH GOD AS OPPOSED TO FOLLOWING THE LETTER OF LAW - RULES GOVERNING HUMAN BEHAVIOR

(v. 7:4 NIV) 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. 7:5 ASV) For when we were in the flesh, [= controlled by the sinful nature within], the sinful passions, which were through the Law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. (v. 7:6 KJV) But now we are delivered from the Law, that being dead [lit. having died] wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." =

To paraphrase and explain verse 7:4 above: 'So fellow believers, brothers in Christ, you also died to the Law in the sense of not having to abide by its commands in order to secure eternal life - through the body of Christ, i.e., through the reception of a righteousness by faith unto eternal life in the redemption that came by Christ Jesus, (cf. 3:21-23), that you might belong to Another, Jesus Christ Himself Who was raised from the dead to testify to mankind of His redemption, in order that we might bear fruit to God.'

Notice that in verse 7:5, Paul refers to himself and fellow believers in their former state when they were unbelievers using a personal pronoun ("we" or "I") + the past tense. Then in verse 7:6, using the phrase "but now" plus the present tense, Paul refers to himself and fellow believers in their present state as believers. This pattern continues throughout chapter 7 and must be carefully considered when studying it.

The implication in verse 7:6, which has been supported many times in the book of Romans heretofore, is that the believer has completely secured eternal life via a moment of faith alone in Christ alone, (cf. 1:16-17; 3:21-24; 5:1). As a result of this, author Paul reminds himself and any believer in this verse that his deliverance from obligation to keep law relative to securing eternal life presents him with a new purpose: to serve God in newness of spirit. The Greek word "douleuein" rendered "we should serve" in verse 7:6 in the KJV is in the infinitive form, literally "to serve" signifying a purpose but not a certainty that we who are believers will serve God in newness in spirit. Note that the definite article is not present with the word, "pneumatos" rendered "spirit" in verse 7:6 "that we should serve in newness of spirit." Hence it is a newness of spiritual life of the believer that is in view, implying a new spiritual connection with God as a result of having become a believer. Evidently it is the spiritual life of the believer which is to be conducted in a new way - to the end that we might bear fruit to God, (cf. 7:4). The source of the believer's new and godly conduct is from within his human spirit and under the sovereign rule of God and His righteousness, (cf. Ro 6:18; 7:4) as opposed to following the letter of law, i.e., as opposed to human effort to comply with godly rules governing human behavior.

PAUL CONTINUES TO DESCRIBE HIS EXPERIENCE BEFORE HE WAS A BELIEVER RELATIVE TO THE LAW. HE FALSELY PERCEIVED HIMSELF AS ALIVE BEFORE GOD WHEN HE DELIBERATELY MISCONSTRUED THE LAW AND HIS RECORD OF OBEDIENCE TO IT. HE CONVINCED HIMSELF THAT HE WAS BLAMELESS UNDER IT AND HE DENIED THAT HIS LIFESTYLE CONDEMNED HIM TO DAILY SPIRITUAL DEATH / SEPARATION FROM FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD, WHICH ULTIMATELY WOULD LEAD TO ETERNAL DEATH IN THE LAKE OF FIRE HAD HE NOT BECOME A BELIEVER - HE WAS IN EFFECT WITHOUT LAW

(v. 2:17) "Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the Law and brag about your relationship to God; (v. 2:18) if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the Law; (v. 2:19) if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, (v. 2:20) an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and truth - (v. 2:21) You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? [The implication is yes]. You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? [The implication is again, yes] (v. 2:23) You who brag about the Law, do you dishonor God by breaking the Law? [The implication is yes]: (v. 2:24) As it is written: 'God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." (v. 3:19) Now we know that whatever the Law says, it says to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. (v. 3:20) Therefore no one will be declared righteous in His sight by observing the Law; rather, through the Law we become conscious of sin. (v. 3:21) But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. (v. 3:22) This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, (v. 3:23) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (v. 5:20 NKJV) Moreover..... law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more. (v. 5:21 NKJV) so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (v. 7:4 NIV) 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. 7:5 ASV) For when we were in the flesh, [= controlled by the sinful nature within], the sinful passions, which were through the Law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. (v. 7:6 KJV) But now we are delivered from the Law, that being dead [lit. having died] wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in [the] oldness of [the] letter. (v. 7:7 NIV) What shall we say, then? Is the [Mosaic] Law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through law [law, no article = any rules of moral behavior]. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the [Mosaic] Law had not said, 'Do not covet.' [Ex 20:17, Dt 5:21] (v. 7:8 NIV) but sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. (v. 7:9 NKJV) I was alive once without... law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died." =

Paul continues to describe his experience before he was a believer relative to the Law. He falsely perceived himself as alive when he deliberately misconstrued the Law and his record of obedience to it. He convinced himself that he was blameless under it and he denied that his lifestyle condemned him to daily spiritual death / separation from fellowship with God, which ultimately would lead to eternal death in the Lake of Fire had he not become a believer - he was in effect without law.

So the phrase in verse 7:9 rendered "I was alive without... law" is not referring to being physically alive without the Law of Moses, or any law governing human behavior. For before he was a believer in Christ Jesus, he was a Pharisee who believed that the way into the Eternal Kingdom of God was through obedience to the Law of Moses. But the phrase is referring to having a mindset of deliberately misconstruing / being willfully ignorant of the Mosaic Law's condemnation of one who does not meet its standard of Righteousness and thus being subject to eternal death. Paul did not consider the Mosaic Law for what it was - a standard of the Righteousness of God which a man must have in order to have eternal life in the Eternal Kingdom of God. For a time in Paul's life, there was evidently an absence of conviction before God of sin and daily spiritual death / separation from fellowship with God. In that absence, Paul considered himself alive because he had misconstrued the Law and was in his opinion successful in his attempts to be obedient to what he thought the Law of Moses commanded of him. Paul was not acknowledging the true content of the Law of Moses which makes one conscious of being dead in trespasses and sins before a holy God, (Gal 2:16; Ro 3:20). As a matter of fact, Paul at one time thought he was blameless, (ref. Phil 3:4-6). But no one can actually be blameless in keeping the Law of Moses or any law governing human behavior - man is just not that consistent. Hence in his delusion, he was actually without law, i.e., lawless, excusing every instance of violation of the Law as it suited him, all the while considering himself blameless. But all men sin throughout their lives, (ref. Ro 3:23).

On the other hand, when Paul was willing to receive an accurate understanding of and was making an honest attempt to keep the Law of Moses, he was inevitably convicted of his failure of such an attempt and of God's condemnation unto eternal death. Hence Paul then considered himself dead - no longer alive to God:

(Ro 7:9b) "but when the commandment came"

[in the sense of when he arrived at a true understanding of the meaning of the commandments of the Law, especially the commandment, "Do not covet"]

"sin revived and I died"

[in the sense that he became painfully aware of his failure to keep that commandment and thus of his overall sinfulness before God and of his condemnation unto eternal death].

So when Paul realized that he was not blameless at all, especially having realized that he persistently violated the commandment to not covet, he recognized his moral bankruptcy and spiritual death before God. The thought of his constantly committing sins was revived in his consciousness; and he died in the sense of having become aware of his spiritual death before God and of being on the way to eternal condemnation / death. The next step would then be for him to trust alone in Christ alone for justification unto eternal life - which he did.

****** END EXCERPT-RO 7-BELIEVER, LAW & ETERNAL LIFE ******

B cont) (Gal 2:19-21 cont) No One Can Keep The Law Of Moses Or Any Law To Be Justified Before God Unto Eternal Life, So Attempting This Is Intended To Lead One To Be Conscious Of Being Under God's Condemnation Unto Eternal Death. This In Turn Is Intended To Lead One Then To Choose To Trust Alone In Christ Alone Apart From Law In Order to Be Justified Unto Eternal Life So That One Might Live To God. The Believer Has Been Crucified With Christ And May No Longer Have To Live A Self-Centered Life, For Christ Lives In Him So That The Believer's Life May Be Christ Centered. For If Righteousness Comes Through Law, Then Christ Died Needlessly, cont.

(Gal 2:16 YLT) having known also that a man is not declared righteous by works of law, if not through ... faith [in] Jesus Christ, also we in Christ Jesus did believe, that we might be declared righteous by ... faith [in] Christ, and not by works of law, wherefore declared righteous by works of law shall be no flesh' Gal 2:19 NASB) For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. (Gal 2:20 NASB) I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, Who loved me and gave Himself up for me. (Gal 2:21 NASB) I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." =

In Gal 2:20, Paul enlargened upon what he previously wrote, especially in Gal 2:16b "also we in Christ Jesus did believe, that we might be declared righteous by the faith of Christ," and Gal 2:19, "For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God," as follows:

"I have been crucified with Christ;

[Paul declares that as a result of his moment of trusting alone in Christ alone for eternal life - a moment of believing in Christ's crucifixion on the cross as payment for the sins of all mankind in order for Paul and anyone who believes in Christ alone to receive justification unto eternal life one has from that moment ongoing, (perfect tense) been crucified with Christ. It is as if one had been there on the cross, having been crucified with Christ, having vicariously and forever been given the benefit of what Christ had paid for, i.e., the sins of all mankind - Paul's own sins, resulting in Paul and anyone who has believed forever justified unto Christ's Righteousness unto eternal life beginning at the moment that one has expressed faith alone in Christ alone for eternal life - enduring forever]

and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me;

[it is no longer Paul who lives within himself alone in a self-centered existence, but it is Christ Who lives in him (in His human spirit through the baptism of the Holy Spirit, ref. Ro 6:1ff; 8:16; Jn 3:5-6; 2 Cor 5:17) - and especially within his mind from where Paul's actions are directed toward godliness through faith in order to facilitate a Christ centered life]

and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God,"

[and the life that Paul now as a believer lives in the flesh, i.e., in his mortal body, he lives by faith in the Son of God in the sense of whenever Paul / whenever all believers trust in, hence are obedient to the commands of the Son of God which are known through their personal study of God's Word verse by verse and moment by moment insofar as they are enabled by and through faith in the grace provisions of God. That is the life the believer is to live: by faith in the Son of God, (Romans chapter 6; cf. First John chapter one]

Who loved me [Paul and all mankind] and gave Himself up for me [Paul and all mankind]."

[in view is Jesus Christ's sacrifice for the sins of the whole world out of His love for mankind Who gave Himself up to His death on the cross for the sins of all mankind]

****** EXCERPT-RO 6-THE BELIEVER, LAW & LIVING TO GOD ******

OR SKIP TO NEXT SECTION

HAVING BEEN BAPTIZED INTO THE DEATH OF CHRIST IT THEREFORE IS IN GOD'S VIEW AS IF WE BELIEVERS DIED WITH CHRIST FOR OUR SINS AND WERE BURIED WITH HIM

(v. 6:4a) "We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into [His] death" =

The believer was buried = "sunetaphEmen" = aorist, passive, indicative = completed action verb, once for all time, passive voice pointing to the action being performed by God on the believer and not by the believer; indicative mood meaning a statement of fact.

So the believer was once for all time identified and credited with the results of the death of our Lord on the cross, he was therefore through that baptism by God, buried with Him. In other words it is as if we believers were actually crucified, dead and buried in the tomb with our Lord - in the viewpoint of God Himself relative to all of our sins - past, present and future.

PAUL FOCUSES ON A COMPELLING CONSIDERATION OF THE BELIEVER BEING BURIED WITH CHRIST THROUGH BAPTISM INTO HIS DEATH WITH OUR LORD'S RESURRECTION ESPECIALLY IN VIEW EVIDENTLY PROVIDING A NEW CAPACITY TO CHOOSE TO LIVE A NEW LIFE

(v. 6:4a) "We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." =

The death, burial and resurrection of Christ provide the believer in a number of ways with the freedom to choose and the capacity to live a new and godly life. Or he can revert to slavery to the ungodly nature which still remains within him (Ro 5:20-6:1). So verse 4 in Romans chapter 6 verifies that this union with Jesus Christ via Holy Spirit baptism means that the believer is credited with sharing the benefits of Christ's death, burial and resurrection which includes complete forgiveness, the crediting to him of the Righteousness of Christ and the provision of the enablement to live a new and godly life.

THE BELIEVER HAS BEEN GIVEN A UNIQUE CAPACITY TO WALK IN NEWNESS OF LIFE, I.E., IN A NEW KIND OF LIFESTYLE: A GODLY ONE

"even so we also should walk in newness of life." =

"newness" = "kainoteti" = from the Greek word kainos meaning new in the sense of kind rather than new in the sense of time. The proper form of the Greek word "neos' is used when new is to mean new in terms of time or age.

So "newness" = "kainoteti" in Romans 6:4 means a new quality. The word "newness" = "kainoteti" might better be translated "freshness," i.e., a fresh new lifestyle, something totally different and unrelated to the days when the old sin nature was always in control.

THOSE WHO WERE BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST JESUS ARE EXHORTED TO WALK IN NEWNESS OF LIFE WHICH HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THEM THROUGH THEIR IDENTIFICATION WITH (BAPTISM INTO) CHRIST, HIS DEATH, BURIAL AND RESURRECTION RATHER THAN TO GO ON SINNING SO THAT GRACE MAY INCREASE

(v. 6:1) "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?" (v. 6:4b) just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." =

"peripatesomen" = "should walk," subjunctive mood. The subjunctive mood is a mood of potential, i.e., of objective possibility wherein one is exhorted to walk in newness of life with no guarantees implied that one will comply.

Those who were baptized into Christ Jesus hence are exhorted to walk in newness of life which has been made available to them through their identification with (i.e., baptism into), Christ - His death, burial and resurrection into a new life rather than go on sinning so that grace may increase, (cf. Ro 6:1).

****** END OF EXCERPT-RO 6-THE BELIEVER, LAW & LIVING TO GOD ******

The last verse in Galatians chapter two provides a final / summary statement for the chapter. Paul states that he does not nullify the grace of God, because if righteousness comes through the Law, (or any law, i.e., human doing), then Christ died needlessly; and the grace of God is nullified. Since man cannot rise to the standard of God's Righteousness by his conduct, then it is only by God's grace through a moment of faith alone in what Christ Jesus did on the cross alone that man will be declared righteous unto eternal life.

On the other hand, the actions of Peter, Barnabas, and the other Jewish believers at Antioch nullified the meaning of God's grace, especially relative to being declared righteous unto eternal life and living by faith in the Son of God apart from human doing. Paul had been accused of not declaring that all believers, Jew and Gentile alike, had to live as Jews relative to being circumcised and keeping the Law of Moses. But Paul restated that if salvation is indeed by works of the Law or any human doing, then Christ had died in vain; and there was no grace of God available to mankind toward salvation and living for God at all!

Galatians chapter three