Hey Everyone-
updated the blog with Guzik's commentaries for the last two weeks.
Also posted a link to the entire LUTHER commentaries so you can look around at will.
Pray this finds you well along the journey.
blessings-
brandon
Friday, January 25, 2008
David Guzik - Galatians 3:1-14
Galatians 3:1-14 - The Christian, Law, and Living by Faith
http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/4803.htm
A. The principle of continuing in faith.
1. (1) Paul confronts their blurred vision of Jesus and His work for them.
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?
a. The Galatians struggled with a basic question: How are we made right before God? What is our standing before Him? Because of some bad teaching, they answered those questions wrong. They thought, “We are made right before God based on what Jesus did for us, plus what we do for Him under the Law of Moses.” In correcting this, Paul first wrote about his own experiences – first, when he came to Jesus by faith alone, not faith plus being under the law. Then he wrote about his experience of confronting the apostle Peter when he slipped up under this same error. Now, after dealing with his experience, the Apostle Paul deals with the experience of the Galatian Christians themselves. Just as Paul’s experience proved that we stand right before God based on what Jesus did, not based on what do under the law, so will the Galatians’ experience prove the same thing.
b. O foolish Galatians! The strong words are well deserved. Phillips even translates this, O you dear idiots of Galatia. In calling the Galatians foolish, Paul is not saying they are morally or mentally deficient (the Greek word moros conveys that idea, and was used by Jesus in parables, such as in Matthew 7:26; 25:1-13). Instead, Paul uses the Greek word anoetos, which has the idea of someone who can think but fails to use their power of perception.
i. The principles Paul referred to are things the Galatians knew, things they had been taught. The knowledge and understanding were there, but they were not using them.
c. Who has bewitched you: Bewitched has the idea that the Galatians are under some type of spell. Paul doesn’t mean this literally, but their thinking is so clouded – and so unbiblical – that it seems that some kind of spell has been cast over them.
i. Barclay translates bewitched as put the evil eye on. The ancient Greeks were accustomed to and afraid of the idea that a spell could be cast upon them by an “evil eye.”
ii. The “evil eye” was thought to work in the way a serpent could hypnotize its prey with its eyes. Once the victim looked into the “evil eye,” a spell could be cast. Therefore, the way to overcome the evil eye was simply not to look at it. In using this phrasing, and using the word picture of bewitched, Paul is encouraging the Galatians to keep their eyes always, steadfastly, upon Jesus.
iii. How easily the church can be bewitched today! Through the centuries, error after error arises, and we are well able to see some of the errors of the past, but many are blind to the errors of today. We are amazed right along with the apostle Paul: Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth? Even great men of God battle with this. “Although I am a doctor of divinity, and have preached Christ and fought His battles for a long time, I know from personal experience how difficult it is to hold fast to the truth. I cannot always shake off Satan. I cannot always apprehend Christ as the Scriptures portray Him. Sometimes the devil distorts Christ to my vision. But thanks be to God, who keeps us in His Word, in faith, and in prayer.” (Luther)
iv. It is wonderful to have a soft, tender heart before God. But some people have softer heads than hearts. Their minds are too accommodating to wrong, unbiblical ideas, and they don’t think things through to see if they really are true or not according to the Bible. This is a sign of spiritual immaturity, even as a baby will stick anything into its mouth.
v. “We often court the coming of the evil influence, and are willing to be fascinated and to turn our backs upon Jesus. Mysterious it is, for why should men cast away diamonds for paste? Mysterious it is, for we do not usually drop the substance to get the shadow. Mysterious it is, for man does not ordinarily empty his pockets of gold in order to fill them with gravel. Mysterious it is, for a thirsty man will not usually turn away from the full, bubbling, living fountain, to see if he can find any drops still remaining, green with scum, stagnant and odorous, at the bottom of some broken cistern. But all these follies are sanity as compared with the folly of which we are guilty, times without number, when, having known the sweetness of Jesus Christ, we turn away to the fascinations of the world.” (Maclaren)
d. Before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified: The idea behind clearly portrayed is something like “billboarded,” to publicly display as in setting on a billboard. Paul wonders how the Galatians could have missed the message, because he certainly made it clear enough to them.
i. Their vision of Jesus Christ and Him crucified has become cloudy. They no longer see Him and His work on the cross as the center of their Christian lives, now it is Jesus plus what they must do for Him.
ii. When they left the message of Jesus and Him crucified, they left the message Paul preached. Paul’s preaching was like setting up posters of Jesus all over town - if you saw anything, you saw Jesus.
iii. “Let those who want to discharge the ministry of the Gospel aright learn not only to speak and declaim but also to penetrate into consciences, so that men may see Christ crucified and that His blood may flow. When the Church has such painters as these she no longer needs wood and stone, that is, dead images, she no longer requires any pictures.” (Calvin)
iv. When we see Jesus clearly before us, we won’t be deceived. “If anything contrary to this comes before him, he does not timidly say, ‘Everybody has a right to his opinion’; but he says, ‘Yes, they may have a right to their opinion, and so have I to mine; and my opinion is that any opinion which takes away from the glory of Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice is a detestable opinion.’ Get the real atonement of Christ thoroughly into your soul, and you will not be bewitched.” (Spurgeon)
e. Before whose eyes: Paul doesn’t mean that they literally saw the crucifixion of Jesus, or even that they had a spiritual vision of it. He means that the truth of Jesus and Him crucified and the greatness of His work for them was clearly laid out for them, so clearly that they could see it. Actually watching the death of Jesus on the cross might mean nothing. Hundreds, if not thousands, saw Jesus dying on the cross, and most of them only mocked Him.
2. (2-3) Paul confronts their departure from the principle of faith.
This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?
a. This only I want to learn from you: “Just tell me this,” Paul says. Did you receive the Holy Spirit through the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Obviously, the Galatians received the Holy Spirit through simple faith. The Holy Spirit is not a “prize” earned through the works of the law.
i. Can you imagine? A Gentile is told he must come under the Law of Moses, or God will not bless him. This means he must be circumcised according to the Law of Moses. So he goes in for the operation, and as soon as the cut is made, the Holy Spirit is poured out upon him! Is this how it works? Of course not! We receive the Holy Spirit by faith, not by coming under the works of the law.
ii. Some people think that we need to work for the gift of the Holy Spirit, or earn this gift from God. But Jesus made it plain that all we have to do is ask: So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him! (Luke 11:9-13)
b. Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? The Galatians were deceived into thinking that spiritual growth or maturity could be achieved through the works of the flesh, instead of a continued simple faith and abiding in Jesus.
i. “You received the greatest gift – the Holy Spirit of God – by faith. Are you going on from there, not by faith, but by trusting in your own obedience under the Law of Moses?”
ii. This lays out one of the fundamental differences between the principle of law and the principle of grace. Under law, we are blessed and grow spiritually by earning and deserving. Under grace, we are blessed and grow spiritually by believing and receiving. God deals with you under the covenant of grace; are you trying to deal with Him on the principle of law? Do you believe God wants to bless you? Which is it: by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
c. Are you so foolish? This is indeed foolishness. This deception is cultivated by Satan to set our Christian life off-track. If he cannot stop us from being saved by faith, then he will attempt to hinder our blessing and growth and maturity by faith.
i. And, when the works of the flesh are substituted for faith, self-confidence and pride are the inevitable result. “The reason of this contention lies in the fact that man is not only poor, but proud; not only guilty, but conceited; so that he will not humble himself to he saved upon terms of divine charity. He will not consent to believe God; he prefers to believe in the proud falsehoods of his own heart, which delude him into the flattering hope that he may merit eternal life.” (Spurgeon)
3. (4) A question about the past: Was it all for nothing?
Have you suffered so many things in vain; if indeed it was in vain?
a. Have you suffered so many things in vain: Apparently, the Galatians had (perhaps when Paul was among them) suffered for the principle of faith (probably at the hands of legalistic Christians). Does their departure from the principle of faith mean that this past suffering was in vain?
i. We know that Paul did suffer persecution in this region. Acts 14 makes it clear that Paul and his companions were persecuted vigorously (Paul even being stoned and left for dead) by the Jews when they were among the cities of Galatia. Surely some of this persecution spilled over to the Christian congregations Paul left behind in Galatia.
b. A better translation of the phrase have you suffered so many things in vain may be “Have you had such wonderful spiritual experiences, all to no purpose?” This may fit the context better. Paul wonders if all the gifts of the Spirit they had received would amount to no lasting value because now they try to walk by law, not by faith.
4. (5) Paul asks them to examine the source of the Spirit’s work.
Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
a. He who supplies the Spirit to you: Who supplies the Holy Spirit? Obviously, the Spirit is given as a gift from God.
b. Does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? God supplies the Holy Spirit in response to faith. Miracles are wrought by faith. Yet the Galatians have been deceived into thinking that real spiritual riches lie in pursuing God through a works relationship.
c. By the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Paul repeats the phrase from Galatians 3:2, because he wants to emphasize there is a choice to be made. Which will it be? Do you believe you will be blessed by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Will you earn and deserve your blessing from God, or will you believe and receive it?
i. This speaks to those who see lack of blessing. Why? Not from a lack of devotion, not because they haven’t earned enough; but because they are not putting their faith, their joyful, confident expectation in Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
ii. This speaks to those who a wonderfully blessed. How? For them to be proud is to be blind. They have not earned their blessing, why should they take pride in it? All the more they should look to Jesus, and put their expectation in Him.
B. Abraham: an example of those justified and walking by faith.
1. (6) How Abraham was made righteous before God.
“Just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
a. Just as Abraham: Among the Galatian Christians, the push towards a works-based relationship with God came from certain Christians who were born as Jews, and who claimed Abraham as their spiritual ancestor. Therefore, Paul uses Abraham as an example of being right before God by faith, not by faith plus works.
i. Galatians 3:5 ended with a question: Did you receive the Holy Spirit and see miracles among you by the work of the law, or by faith? Paul assumes the answer, being “Of course we received the Holy Spirit and have seen miracles through faith.” Now Paul will show that it is more than a matter of personal experience; God’s work revealed in His Word demonstrates the same truth.
ii. “It mattered a great deal to the apostle that God saves people by grace, not on the grounds of their human achievement, and he found Abraham an excellent example of that truth.” (Morris)
iii. “The following passage vv. 6-9 was omitted in Marcion’s recension of the epistle, as repugnant to his leading principle of the antagonism between the Old and New Testaments.” (Lightfoot)
b. Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness: Paul quotes here from Genesis 15:6. It simply shows that righteousness was accounted to Abraham because he believed God. It was not because he performed some work, and certainly not because he was circumcised, because the covenant of circumcision had not yet been given.
i. Genesis 15:1-6 shows that when Abraham put his trust in God, specifically in God’s promise to give him children that would eventually bring forth the Messiah, God credited this belief to Abraham’s account as righteousness. “Abraham was not justified merely because he believed that God would multiply his seed, but because he embraced the grace of God, trusting to the promised Mediator.” (Calvin)
ii. There are essentially two types of righteousness: righteousness we accomplish by our own efforts, and righteousness accounted to us by the work of God when we believe. Since none of us can be good enough to accomplish perfect righteousness, we must have God’s righteousness accounted to us by doing just what Abram did: Abraham believed God.
c. This quotation from Genesis 15:6 is one of the clearest expressions in the Bible of the truth of salvation by grace, through faith alone. It is the gospel in the Old Testament, quoted four times in the New Testament (Romans 4:3, Romans 4:9-10, Romans 4:22 and here in Galatians 3:6).
i. Romans 4:9-10 makes much of the fact this righteousness was accounted to Abraham before he was circumcised (Genesis 17). No one could say Abraham was made righteous because of his obedience or fulfillment of religious law or ritual. It was faith and faith alone that caused God to account Abraham as righteous.
ii. We should be careful to say that Abraham’s faith did not make him righteous. Abraham’s God made him righteous, by accounting his faith to him for righteousness. “His faith was not his righteousness, but God so rewarded his exercise of faith, as that upon it he reckoned (or imputed) . . . the righteousness of him in whom he believed.” (Poole)
d. Accounted to him for righteousness: Abraham’s experience shows that God accounts us as righteous, because of what Jesus did for us, as we receive what He did for us by faith.
i. Morris on accounted: “It has a meaning like ‘reckon, calculate’, and may be used of placing something to someone’s account, here of placing righteousness to Abraham’s account.”
ii. If God accounts Abraham as righteous, then that is how Abraham should account himself. That is his standing before God, and God’s accounting is not pretending. God does not account to us a pretended righteousness, but a real one in Jesus Christ.
e. Believed God: It wasn’t that Abraham believed in God (as we usually speak of believing in God). Instead, it was that Abraham believed God. Those who only believe in God, in the sense that they believe He exists, are only as spiritual as demons! (James 2:19)
i. “Believed, of course, means more than that he accepted what God said as true (though, of course, he did that); it means that he trusted God.” (Morris)
ii. Generally speaking, ancient Rabbis did not really admire Abraham’s faith. The believed he was so loved by God because he was thought to have kept the law hundreds of year before it was given. For these and other reasons, when Paul brought up Abraham, it would have been a complete surprise to his opponents, who believed that Abraham proved their point. “Paul’s emphasis on Abraham’s faith must have come as a complete surprise to the Galatians.” (Morris)
iii. However, some Rabbis have seen the importance of
Abraham’s faith. “It is remarkable that the Jews themselves maintained that Abraham was saved by faith. Mehilta, in Yalcut Simeoni, page 1, fol. 69, makes this assertion: ‘It is evident that Abraham could not obtain an inheritance either in this world or in the world to come, but by faith.’” (Clarke)
iv. “Faith in God constitutes the highest worship, the prime duty, the first obedience, and the foremost sacrifice. Without faith God forfeits His glory, wisdom, truth, and mercy in us. The first duty of man is to believe in God and to honor Him with his faith. Faith is truly the height of wisdom, the right kind of righteousness, the only real religion . . . Faith says to God: ‘I believe what you say.’” (Luther)
2. (7) The true sons of Abraham.
Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.
a. Therefore know: The emphasis is clear. Paul is making an important point, and he wants everyone of his readers to understand it.
i. “Know is imperative; Paul commands the Galatians to acquire this piece of knowledge.” (Morris)
b. Only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham: Since Abraham was made righteous by faith, and not by works, Abraham is therefore the father of everyone who believes God and is accounted righteous.
i. “It is always possible that we should translate huioi Abraam, not so much children (or ‘sons’) of Abraham as ‘real Abrahams.’” (Cole)
c. What a rebuke this was to the Jewish Christians who tried to bring Gentile Christians under the law! They believed they were superior, because they descended from Abraham, and observed the law. Paul says that the most important link to Abraham is not the link of genetics, not the link of works, but the link of faith.
i. This would have been a shocking change of thinking for these particular opponents of Paul. They deeply believed that they had a standing before God because they were genetically descended from Abraham. At that time, some Jewish Rabbis taught that Abraham stood at the gates of Hell, just to make sure that none of his descendants accidentally slipped by. John the Baptist dealt with this same thinking when he said do not think to say to yourselves, “We have Abraham as our father.” For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones (Matthew 3:9). Paul is knocking down their blind reliance on genetic relation to Abraham, and showing that what really matters is faith in Jesus.
ii. It’s the same today when people believe God accepts them because they come from a Christian family. God is a Father, not a grandfather; everyone must have their own faith in God.
d. What a comfort this was to the Gentile Christians who were regarded as “second class Christians” by many! Now they could know that they had a real, important link to Abraham, and could consider themselves sons of Abraham.
e. Sadly, Christians have taken this glorious truth and misapplied it through the centuries. This has been a verse that many claim in support of replacement theology – the idea that God is finished with the people of Israel as a nation or a distinct ethnic group, and that the Church spiritually inherits all the promises made to Israel.
i. Replacement theology has done tremendous damage in the Church, providing the theological fuel for the fires of horrible persecution of the Jews. If Galatians 3:7 were the only verse in the Bible speaking to the issue, there might be a place for saying that the Church has completely replaced Israel. But we understand the Bible according to its entire message, and allow one passage to give light to others.
ii. For example, Romans 11:25 (hardening in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in) states clearly that God is not finished with Israel as a nation or a distinct ethnic group. Even though God has turned the focus of His saving mercies away from Israel on to the Gentiles, He will turn it back again. This simple passage refutes those who insist that God is forever done with Israel as Israel, and that the Church is the New Israel and inherits every promise ever made to national and ethnic Israel of the Old Testament.
iii. We are reminded of the enduring character of the promises made to national and ethnic Israel (such as Genesis 13:15 and Genesis 17:7-8). God is not “finished” with Israel, and Israel is not “spiritualized” as the church. While we do see and rejoice in a continuity of God’s work throughout all His people through all generations, we still see a distinction between Israel and the Church - a distinction that Paul understands well.
f. All who put their faith in Jesus Christ are sons of Abraham; but Abraham has his spiritual sons and his genetic sons, and God has a plan and a place for both. But no one can deny that it is far more important to be a spiritual son of Abraham than a genetic son.
3. (8-9) This blessing of righteousness by faith is for all nations.
And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.
a. And the Scripture: Paul is speaking from the Scriptures. He has already spoken from his personal experience, and from the experience of the Galatian Christians themselves. But this passage is even more important, because it shows how Paul’s teaching is correct according to the Bible itself.
i. It would have been just fine for Paul’s opponents to say, “Experiences are just fine Paul, but show us from the Scriptures.” Paul was more than ready to take up the challenge.
ii. The Scripture, foreseeing . . . preached . . . saying: Remarkably, Paul refers to the Scriptures virtually as a person, who foresees, preaches, and says. This shows just how strongly Paul regarded the Bible as God’s word. Paul believed that when the Scriptures speak, God speaks.
iii. “Paul personifies Scripture.” (Morris) “Excellently spake he, who called the Scripture, Cor et animam Dei, The heart and soul of God.” (Trapp)
b. Foreseeing that God would justify the nations by faith: Paul observes that even back in Abraham’s day it was clear that this blessing of righteousness by faith was intended for every nation, for Gentiles as well as Jews, because God pronounced that in you all the nations shall be blessed (Genesis 12:3).
i. The intention is to destroy the idea that a Gentile must first become a Jew before they can become a Christian. If that were necessary, God would never have said this blessing would extend to every nation, because Gentiles would have had to become part of the Israelite nation to be saved.
ii. The idea is that the gospel goes out to the nations, not that the nations come and assimilate into Israel.
c. Those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham: The blessing we receive with believing Abraham is not the blessing of fantastic wealth and power, though Abraham was extremely wealthy and powerful. The blessing is something far more precious: the blessing of a right standing with God through faith.
i. “The faith of the fathers was directed at the Christ who was to come, while ours rests in the Christ who has come.” (Luther)
d. The most important question to ask is, “Am I of faith?” Do I believe God even as Abraham did? When God says it, do I believe it? Do I live as if I really believe God is true? Can others see that I am trusting God?
i. “They who are of faith are those whose characteristic is faith; it is not that they sometimes have an impulse to believe, but rather that believing is their constant attitude; faith is characteristic of them.” (Morris)
C. The Law in light of the Old Testament and the New Testament.
1. (10) The Old Testament tells us that the Law of Moses brings a curse.
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”
a. For as many as are under the works of the law: Paul is addressing those who think that their law-performance can give them a standing before God.
i. The transition from believing Abraham (Galatians 3:9) to those who are of the works of the law has a purpose. “If even the great patriarch was accepted by God only because of his faith, then it follows that lesser mortals will not succeed in producing the good deeds that would allow them to be accepted before God.” (Morris)
ii. Morris on as many as are of the works of the law: “The preposition denotes origin and here will mean those whose essential position originates in the law, those who see law-keeping as the essence of our approach to God. It is not simply that they see the law as important: they see it as all-important. Their whole position depends on the keeping of the law.”
iii. “The hypocritical doers of the Law are those who seek to obtain a righteousness by a mechanical performance of good works while their hearts are far removed from God. They act like the foolish carpenter who starts with the roof when he builds a house.” (Luther)
b. For as many as are under the works of the law are under the curse: The Christians from a Jewish background who believed we should still live under the Law of Moses thought that it was a path to blessing. Paul boldly declares that instead of blessing, living under the works of the law puts them under the curse.
i. It isn’t hard to see how these Christians believed that living under law brought blessing. They could read in the Old Testament many passages that supported this thinking. Psalm 119:1 says, Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD! Psalm 1:1-2 says, Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the path of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and in His law he meditates day and night.
ii. How does the law bring blessing? First, we must understand that the word law is used in two senses in the Bible. Sometimes it means “the Law of Moses, with all its commands, which a man must obey to be approved by God.” Sometimes it means “God’s Word” in a very general sense. Many times when the Old Testament speaks of the law, it speaks of it in the general sense of God’s Word to us. When Psalm 119:97 says Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day, the Psalmist means more than just the Law of Moses. He means all of God’s Word. Seeing this, we understand how the Bible is filled with praise for the law. Secondly, we are blessed when we keep the law because we are living according to the “instruction manual” for life. There is an inherent, built-in blessing in living the way God says we should live, in fulfilling the “manufacturer’s recommendation.”
iii. When Paul says that as are under the works of the law are under the curse, he doesn’t mean that the law is bad or the Word of God is wrong. He simply means that God never intended the law to be the way we find our approval before Him. He knew we could never keep the law, and so God instituted the system of atoning sacrifice along with the law. And the entire sacrificial system looked forward to what Jesus would accomplish on the cross for us.
c. To prove his point Scripturally, Paul quotes from Deuteronomy 27:26: Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them. The Old Testament itself shows us that if we do not keep all things in the law, and actually do them, then we are under a curse.
i. The important words are all and do. If God would approve you on the basis of the law, you first have to do it. Not simply know it, not simply love it, not simply teach it, not simply want it, you must do it. Secondly, you have to do it all. Not some. Not just when you are over 18 or 40. Not just more good than bad. Deuteronomy 27:26 specifically says that to be justified by the law, you must do it, and do it in all things.
ii. All means a lot. It means that while some sins are worse than others are, there are no small sins before such a great God. “Jewish keepers of the law would overlook small transgressions. Paul would not.” (Morris)
iii. “It is worthy of remark that no printed copy of the Hebrew Bible preserves the word col, ALL, in Deuteronomy 27:26, which answers to the apostle’s word all, here. St. Jerome says that the Jews suppressed it, lest it should appear that they were bound to perform all things that are written in the book of the law. Of the genuineness of the reading there is no cause to doubt: it exists in six MSS. of Kennicott and De Rossi, in the Samaritan text, in several copies of the Targum, in the Septuagint, and in the quotation made here by the apostle, in which there is no variation either in the MSS. or in the versions.” (Clarke)
d. Paul’s point is heavy; it weighs us down with a curse. If you are under the works of the law, the only way you can stand approved and blessed before God by the law is to do it, and to do it all. If you don’t, you are cursed.
i. Cursed is a word that sounds strange in our ears. We think of witches boiling a strange mixture in a dark cauldron. We think of a Snidely Whiplash kind of guy saying “Curses, foiled again!” But in the Bible, the idea of being cursed is important, and frightening – because we are talking about being cursed by God. Not only cursed by our own bad choices, not only cursed by this wicked world, not only cursed by the Devil – but especially cursed by God. He is the one Person you don’t want to be cursed by!
ii. “The law holds all men under its curse. From the law, therefore, it us useless to seek a blessing.” (Calvin)
2. (11) The Old Testament tells us that a right standing before God comes by faith, not by the law.
But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.”
a. But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident: Paul has already proven this point in the Scriptures by examining the life of Abraham (Galatians 3:5-9). Now he brings in another passage from the Old Testament, Habakkuk 2:4, which reminds us that the just live by faith, not by law.
i. The Jews themselves sensed that because none could keep it perfectly, salvation could not come through keeping the law. This is why they placed such emphasis on their descent from Abraham, essentially trusting in Abraham’s merits to save them because they sensed that their own merits could not.
b. The just shall live by faith: This brief statement from the prophet Habakkuk is one of the most important, and most quoted Old Testament statements in the New Testament. Paul uses it here to show that the just live by faith, not by law. Being under the law isn’t the way to be found just before God, only living by faith is.
i. If you are found to be just – approved – before God, you have done it by a life of faith. If your life is all about living under the law, then God does not find you approved.
ii. “For the present question is not whether believers ought to keep the law as far as they can (which is beyond all doubt), but whether they obtain righteousness by works; and this is impossible.” (Calvin)
c. Every word in Habakkuk 2:4 is important, and the Lord quotes it three times in the New Testament just to bring out the fullness of the meaning!
i. In Romans 1:17, when Paul quotes this same passage from Habakkuk 2:4, the emphasis is on faith: “The just shall live by faith.”
ii. In Hebrews 10:38, when the writer to the Hebrews quotes this same passage from Habakkuk 2:4, the emphasis is on live: “The just shall live by faith.”
iii. Here in Galatians 3:11, when Paul quotes this passage from Habakkuk 2:4, the emphasis is on just: “The just shall live by faith.”
3. (12) The Old Testament tells us that approval by God through the law must be earned by actually living in obedience to the law, not just trying.
Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”
a. Yet the law is not of faith: Some might come back to Paul and say, “Look, I’ll do the best I can under the law and let faith cover the rest. God will look at my performance, my effort, and my good intentions and credit to me as righteousness. The important thing is that I am really trying.” Paul proves from the Old Testament itself that this simply isn’t good enough. No; the paths of approval by the law and faith don’t run together, because the law is not of faith.
b. The man who does them shall live by them: The quote from Leviticus 18:5 is clear. If you want to live by the law, you must do it. Not try to do it, not intend to do it, and not even want to do it. No, it is only the man who does them who shall live by them.
i. It is very easy to comfort ourselves with our good intentions. We all mean very well; but if we want to find our place before God by our works under the law, good intentions are never enough. A good effort isn’t enough. Only actual performance will do.
c. This passage from Leviticus 18:5 is another often-quoted principle from the Old Testament. Nehemiah (Nehemiah 9:29) quoted it in his great prayer for Israel. The LORD Himself quoted it through the prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 20:11, 13, and 21). Paul also quotes it again in Romans 10:5).
d. The effect of Paul’s use of Scripture in Galatians 3:10-12 is overwhelming. We understand that we don’t actually do the law. We understand that we don’t actually do all the law. And we understand that this put us under a curse. Galatians 3:10-12 is the bad news; now Paul begins to explain the good news.
4. (13-14) Jesus redeems us from the curse of the law.
Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
a. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law: Because we didn’t actually do it, and do it all, the law put us under a curse. But now Jesus has redeemed us from the curse of the law. Redeemed has the idea of “buying back” or “purchasing out of.” It isn’t just rescuing; it is paying a price to rescue. Jesus bought us out from under the curse of the law.
i. In Jesus, we aren’t cursed anymore! Galatians 3:10-12 left us all under a curse, but we are cursed any more because Jesus bought us out from under the curse.
ii. Redemption is an important idea. “Redemption points to the payment of a price that sets sinners free.” (Morris) Redemption came from the practices of ancient warfare. After a battle the victors would often capture some of the defeated. Among the defeated, the poorer ones would usually be sold as slaves, but the wealthy and important men, the men who mattered in their own country, would be held to ransom. When the people in their homeland had raised the required price, they would pay it to the victors and the captives would be set free. The process was called redemption, and the price was called the ransom.
iii. The image took root in other areas. When a slave had his freedom purchased – perhaps by a relative, perhaps by his own diligent work and saving – this was called “redemption.” Sometimes the transaction took place at a temple, and a record was carved in the wall so everyone would forever know that this former slave was now a redeemed, free man. Or, a man condemned to death might be set free by the paying of a price, and this was considered “redemption.” Most importantly, Jesus bought us out of defeat, out of slavery, and out of a death sentence to reign as kings and priests with Him forever.
b. How did Jesus do it? How did He pay a price to rescue us? Having become a curse for us means that Jesus became cursed on our behalf; He stood in our place and took the curse we deserved.
i. It stops us in our tracks to understand that the price He paid to buy us out from under the curse of the law was the price of Himself. It didn’t just cost Jesus something, even something great – it cost Jesus Himself. We know that men cursed Jesus as He hung on the cross; but that compares nothing to how He was cursed by God the Father. He made Himself the target of the curse, and set those who believe outside the target.
ii. “Paul does not say that Christ was made a curse for Himself. The accent is on the two words, ‘for us.’ Christ is personally innocent. Personally, He did not deserve to be hanged for any crime of His own doing. But because Christ took the place of others who were sinners, He was hanged like any other transgressor.” (Luther)
iii. “All the prophets of old said that Christ should be the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, blasphemer that ever was or ever could be on earth. When He took the sins of the whole world upon Himself, Christ was no longer an innocent person. He was a sinner burdened with the sins of a Paul who was a blasphemer; burdened with the sins of a Peter who denied Christ; burdened with the sins of a David who committed adultery and murder, and gave the heathen occasion to laugh at the Lord. In short, Christ was charged with all the sins of all me, that He should pay with them with His own blood. The curse struck Him.” (Luther)
iv. “I am told that it is preposterous and wicked to call the Son of God a cursed sinner. I answer: If you deny that He is a condemned sinner, you are forced to deny that Christ died. It is not less preposterous to say, the Son of God died, than to say, the Son of God was a sinner.” (Luther)
v. “Whatever sins I, you, all of us have committed or shall commit, they are Christ’s sins as if He had committed them Himself. Our sins have to be Christ’s sins or we shall perish forever.” (Luther)
c. For it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.” When did Jesus pay this price? The principle of Deuteronomy 21:23 shows that Jesus received this curse upon Himself as He hung on the cross, fulfilling the Deuteronomy 21:23 promise of a curse to all who are not only executed but have their bodies publicly exposed to shame.
i. “This passage did not refer to crucifixion (which the Jews did not practise), but to the hanging on a tree or wooden post of the corpse of a criminal who had been executed. But in the New Testament times a cross was often called a tree and there is no doubting that that is what Paul has in mind here.” (Morris)
ii. Hangs on a tree: In the thinking of ancient Israel, there was something worse than being put to death. Worse than that was to be put to death, and to have your corpse left in the open, exposed to shame, humiliation, and scavenging animals and birds. When it says hangs on a tree, it does not have the idea of being executed by strangulation; but of having the corpse “mounted” on a tree or other prominent place, to expose the executed one to the elements and supreme disgrace.
iii. However, if anyone was executed, and deemed worthy of such disgrace, the humiliation to his memory and his family must not be excessive. Deuteronomy 21:23 also says “his body shall not remain overnight on the tree.” This was a way of tempering even the most severe judgment with mercy. Significantly, Jesus fulfilled this also, being taken down from the cross before night had fully come (John 19:31-33).
d. Cursed is everyone: The punishment of being hanged on a tree, and left to open exposure, was thought to be so severe that it was reserved only for those for which is was to be declared: “this one is cursed by God.” So Jesus not only died in our place; but He took the place as the cursed of God, being hung on a “tree” in open shame and degradation.
e. That the blessing of Abraham might come: Jesus received this curse, which we deserved and He did not, so that we could receive the blessing of Abraham, which He deserved and we did not! It would be enough if Jesus simply took away the curse we deserved. But He did far more than that; He also gave a blessing that we didn’t deserve!
i. What is the blessing of Abraham? It is what Paul already described in Galatians 3:8-9, the blessing of being justified before God by faith, instead of works.
f. Who does the blessing of Abraham come to? The Gentiles in Christ Jesus. Paul doesn’t mean that it only comes upon Gentiles, as if Jews were excluded, but that it – quite unexpectedly to some – comes upon the Gentiles also, to those Gentiles in Christ Jesus.
i. The phrase in Christ Jesus is important. The blessing doesn’t come because they are Gentiles, any more than the blessing of being right with God comes to Jewish people because they are Jews. It comes to all, Jew and Gentile alike, who are identified in Christ Jesus, and not by their own attempts to justify themselves.
g. Because this blessing is ours in Jesus, we receive the promise of the Spirit through faith - not through coming back under the law as the principle for living. The promise is received, not earned.
---------
SIDE NOTE: If you actually read this-BRAVO!- send simone an email that says "TELL BRANDON I READ THIS" --- simone@ecclesiahollywood.org
http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/4803.htm
A. The principle of continuing in faith.
1. (1) Paul confronts their blurred vision of Jesus and His work for them.
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?
a. The Galatians struggled with a basic question: How are we made right before God? What is our standing before Him? Because of some bad teaching, they answered those questions wrong. They thought, “We are made right before God based on what Jesus did for us, plus what we do for Him under the Law of Moses.” In correcting this, Paul first wrote about his own experiences – first, when he came to Jesus by faith alone, not faith plus being under the law. Then he wrote about his experience of confronting the apostle Peter when he slipped up under this same error. Now, after dealing with his experience, the Apostle Paul deals with the experience of the Galatian Christians themselves. Just as Paul’s experience proved that we stand right before God based on what Jesus did, not based on what do under the law, so will the Galatians’ experience prove the same thing.
b. O foolish Galatians! The strong words are well deserved. Phillips even translates this, O you dear idiots of Galatia. In calling the Galatians foolish, Paul is not saying they are morally or mentally deficient (the Greek word moros conveys that idea, and was used by Jesus in parables, such as in Matthew 7:26; 25:1-13). Instead, Paul uses the Greek word anoetos, which has the idea of someone who can think but fails to use their power of perception.
i. The principles Paul referred to are things the Galatians knew, things they had been taught. The knowledge and understanding were there, but they were not using them.
c. Who has bewitched you: Bewitched has the idea that the Galatians are under some type of spell. Paul doesn’t mean this literally, but their thinking is so clouded – and so unbiblical – that it seems that some kind of spell has been cast over them.
i. Barclay translates bewitched as put the evil eye on. The ancient Greeks were accustomed to and afraid of the idea that a spell could be cast upon them by an “evil eye.”
ii. The “evil eye” was thought to work in the way a serpent could hypnotize its prey with its eyes. Once the victim looked into the “evil eye,” a spell could be cast. Therefore, the way to overcome the evil eye was simply not to look at it. In using this phrasing, and using the word picture of bewitched, Paul is encouraging the Galatians to keep their eyes always, steadfastly, upon Jesus.
iii. How easily the church can be bewitched today! Through the centuries, error after error arises, and we are well able to see some of the errors of the past, but many are blind to the errors of today. We are amazed right along with the apostle Paul: Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth? Even great men of God battle with this. “Although I am a doctor of divinity, and have preached Christ and fought His battles for a long time, I know from personal experience how difficult it is to hold fast to the truth. I cannot always shake off Satan. I cannot always apprehend Christ as the Scriptures portray Him. Sometimes the devil distorts Christ to my vision. But thanks be to God, who keeps us in His Word, in faith, and in prayer.” (Luther)
iv. It is wonderful to have a soft, tender heart before God. But some people have softer heads than hearts. Their minds are too accommodating to wrong, unbiblical ideas, and they don’t think things through to see if they really are true or not according to the Bible. This is a sign of spiritual immaturity, even as a baby will stick anything into its mouth.
v. “We often court the coming of the evil influence, and are willing to be fascinated and to turn our backs upon Jesus. Mysterious it is, for why should men cast away diamonds for paste? Mysterious it is, for we do not usually drop the substance to get the shadow. Mysterious it is, for man does not ordinarily empty his pockets of gold in order to fill them with gravel. Mysterious it is, for a thirsty man will not usually turn away from the full, bubbling, living fountain, to see if he can find any drops still remaining, green with scum, stagnant and odorous, at the bottom of some broken cistern. But all these follies are sanity as compared with the folly of which we are guilty, times without number, when, having known the sweetness of Jesus Christ, we turn away to the fascinations of the world.” (Maclaren)
d. Before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified: The idea behind clearly portrayed is something like “billboarded,” to publicly display as in setting on a billboard. Paul wonders how the Galatians could have missed the message, because he certainly made it clear enough to them.
i. Their vision of Jesus Christ and Him crucified has become cloudy. They no longer see Him and His work on the cross as the center of their Christian lives, now it is Jesus plus what they must do for Him.
ii. When they left the message of Jesus and Him crucified, they left the message Paul preached. Paul’s preaching was like setting up posters of Jesus all over town - if you saw anything, you saw Jesus.
iii. “Let those who want to discharge the ministry of the Gospel aright learn not only to speak and declaim but also to penetrate into consciences, so that men may see Christ crucified and that His blood may flow. When the Church has such painters as these she no longer needs wood and stone, that is, dead images, she no longer requires any pictures.” (Calvin)
iv. When we see Jesus clearly before us, we won’t be deceived. “If anything contrary to this comes before him, he does not timidly say, ‘Everybody has a right to his opinion’; but he says, ‘Yes, they may have a right to their opinion, and so have I to mine; and my opinion is that any opinion which takes away from the glory of Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice is a detestable opinion.’ Get the real atonement of Christ thoroughly into your soul, and you will not be bewitched.” (Spurgeon)
e. Before whose eyes: Paul doesn’t mean that they literally saw the crucifixion of Jesus, or even that they had a spiritual vision of it. He means that the truth of Jesus and Him crucified and the greatness of His work for them was clearly laid out for them, so clearly that they could see it. Actually watching the death of Jesus on the cross might mean nothing. Hundreds, if not thousands, saw Jesus dying on the cross, and most of them only mocked Him.
2. (2-3) Paul confronts their departure from the principle of faith.
This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?
a. This only I want to learn from you: “Just tell me this,” Paul says. Did you receive the Holy Spirit through the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Obviously, the Galatians received the Holy Spirit through simple faith. The Holy Spirit is not a “prize” earned through the works of the law.
i. Can you imagine? A Gentile is told he must come under the Law of Moses, or God will not bless him. This means he must be circumcised according to the Law of Moses. So he goes in for the operation, and as soon as the cut is made, the Holy Spirit is poured out upon him! Is this how it works? Of course not! We receive the Holy Spirit by faith, not by coming under the works of the law.
ii. Some people think that we need to work for the gift of the Holy Spirit, or earn this gift from God. But Jesus made it plain that all we have to do is ask: So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him! (Luke 11:9-13)
b. Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? The Galatians were deceived into thinking that spiritual growth or maturity could be achieved through the works of the flesh, instead of a continued simple faith and abiding in Jesus.
i. “You received the greatest gift – the Holy Spirit of God – by faith. Are you going on from there, not by faith, but by trusting in your own obedience under the Law of Moses?”
ii. This lays out one of the fundamental differences between the principle of law and the principle of grace. Under law, we are blessed and grow spiritually by earning and deserving. Under grace, we are blessed and grow spiritually by believing and receiving. God deals with you under the covenant of grace; are you trying to deal with Him on the principle of law? Do you believe God wants to bless you? Which is it: by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
c. Are you so foolish? This is indeed foolishness. This deception is cultivated by Satan to set our Christian life off-track. If he cannot stop us from being saved by faith, then he will attempt to hinder our blessing and growth and maturity by faith.
i. And, when the works of the flesh are substituted for faith, self-confidence and pride are the inevitable result. “The reason of this contention lies in the fact that man is not only poor, but proud; not only guilty, but conceited; so that he will not humble himself to he saved upon terms of divine charity. He will not consent to believe God; he prefers to believe in the proud falsehoods of his own heart, which delude him into the flattering hope that he may merit eternal life.” (Spurgeon)
3. (4) A question about the past: Was it all for nothing?
Have you suffered so many things in vain; if indeed it was in vain?
a. Have you suffered so many things in vain: Apparently, the Galatians had (perhaps when Paul was among them) suffered for the principle of faith (probably at the hands of legalistic Christians). Does their departure from the principle of faith mean that this past suffering was in vain?
i. We know that Paul did suffer persecution in this region. Acts 14 makes it clear that Paul and his companions were persecuted vigorously (Paul even being stoned and left for dead) by the Jews when they were among the cities of Galatia. Surely some of this persecution spilled over to the Christian congregations Paul left behind in Galatia.
b. A better translation of the phrase have you suffered so many things in vain may be “Have you had such wonderful spiritual experiences, all to no purpose?” This may fit the context better. Paul wonders if all the gifts of the Spirit they had received would amount to no lasting value because now they try to walk by law, not by faith.
4. (5) Paul asks them to examine the source of the Spirit’s work.
Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
a. He who supplies the Spirit to you: Who supplies the Holy Spirit? Obviously, the Spirit is given as a gift from God.
b. Does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? God supplies the Holy Spirit in response to faith. Miracles are wrought by faith. Yet the Galatians have been deceived into thinking that real spiritual riches lie in pursuing God through a works relationship.
c. By the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Paul repeats the phrase from Galatians 3:2, because he wants to emphasize there is a choice to be made. Which will it be? Do you believe you will be blessed by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Will you earn and deserve your blessing from God, or will you believe and receive it?
i. This speaks to those who see lack of blessing. Why? Not from a lack of devotion, not because they haven’t earned enough; but because they are not putting their faith, their joyful, confident expectation in Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
ii. This speaks to those who a wonderfully blessed. How? For them to be proud is to be blind. They have not earned their blessing, why should they take pride in it? All the more they should look to Jesus, and put their expectation in Him.
B. Abraham: an example of those justified and walking by faith.
1. (6) How Abraham was made righteous before God.
“Just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
a. Just as Abraham: Among the Galatian Christians, the push towards a works-based relationship with God came from certain Christians who were born as Jews, and who claimed Abraham as their spiritual ancestor. Therefore, Paul uses Abraham as an example of being right before God by faith, not by faith plus works.
i. Galatians 3:5 ended with a question: Did you receive the Holy Spirit and see miracles among you by the work of the law, or by faith? Paul assumes the answer, being “Of course we received the Holy Spirit and have seen miracles through faith.” Now Paul will show that it is more than a matter of personal experience; God’s work revealed in His Word demonstrates the same truth.
ii. “It mattered a great deal to the apostle that God saves people by grace, not on the grounds of their human achievement, and he found Abraham an excellent example of that truth.” (Morris)
iii. “The following passage vv. 6-9 was omitted in Marcion’s recension of the epistle, as repugnant to his leading principle of the antagonism between the Old and New Testaments.” (Lightfoot)
b. Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness: Paul quotes here from Genesis 15:6. It simply shows that righteousness was accounted to Abraham because he believed God. It was not because he performed some work, and certainly not because he was circumcised, because the covenant of circumcision had not yet been given.
i. Genesis 15:1-6 shows that when Abraham put his trust in God, specifically in God’s promise to give him children that would eventually bring forth the Messiah, God credited this belief to Abraham’s account as righteousness. “Abraham was not justified merely because he believed that God would multiply his seed, but because he embraced the grace of God, trusting to the promised Mediator.” (Calvin)
ii. There are essentially two types of righteousness: righteousness we accomplish by our own efforts, and righteousness accounted to us by the work of God when we believe. Since none of us can be good enough to accomplish perfect righteousness, we must have God’s righteousness accounted to us by doing just what Abram did: Abraham believed God.
c. This quotation from Genesis 15:6 is one of the clearest expressions in the Bible of the truth of salvation by grace, through faith alone. It is the gospel in the Old Testament, quoted four times in the New Testament (Romans 4:3, Romans 4:9-10, Romans 4:22 and here in Galatians 3:6).
i. Romans 4:9-10 makes much of the fact this righteousness was accounted to Abraham before he was circumcised (Genesis 17). No one could say Abraham was made righteous because of his obedience or fulfillment of religious law or ritual. It was faith and faith alone that caused God to account Abraham as righteous.
ii. We should be careful to say that Abraham’s faith did not make him righteous. Abraham’s God made him righteous, by accounting his faith to him for righteousness. “His faith was not his righteousness, but God so rewarded his exercise of faith, as that upon it he reckoned (or imputed) . . . the righteousness of him in whom he believed.” (Poole)
d. Accounted to him for righteousness: Abraham’s experience shows that God accounts us as righteous, because of what Jesus did for us, as we receive what He did for us by faith.
i. Morris on accounted: “It has a meaning like ‘reckon, calculate’, and may be used of placing something to someone’s account, here of placing righteousness to Abraham’s account.”
ii. If God accounts Abraham as righteous, then that is how Abraham should account himself. That is his standing before God, and God’s accounting is not pretending. God does not account to us a pretended righteousness, but a real one in Jesus Christ.
e. Believed God: It wasn’t that Abraham believed in God (as we usually speak of believing in God). Instead, it was that Abraham believed God. Those who only believe in God, in the sense that they believe He exists, are only as spiritual as demons! (James 2:19)
i. “Believed, of course, means more than that he accepted what God said as true (though, of course, he did that); it means that he trusted God.” (Morris)
ii. Generally speaking, ancient Rabbis did not really admire Abraham’s faith. The believed he was so loved by God because he was thought to have kept the law hundreds of year before it was given. For these and other reasons, when Paul brought up Abraham, it would have been a complete surprise to his opponents, who believed that Abraham proved their point. “Paul’s emphasis on Abraham’s faith must have come as a complete surprise to the Galatians.” (Morris)
iii. However, some Rabbis have seen the importance of
Abraham’s faith. “It is remarkable that the Jews themselves maintained that Abraham was saved by faith. Mehilta, in Yalcut Simeoni, page 1, fol. 69, makes this assertion: ‘It is evident that Abraham could not obtain an inheritance either in this world or in the world to come, but by faith.’” (Clarke)
iv. “Faith in God constitutes the highest worship, the prime duty, the first obedience, and the foremost sacrifice. Without faith God forfeits His glory, wisdom, truth, and mercy in us. The first duty of man is to believe in God and to honor Him with his faith. Faith is truly the height of wisdom, the right kind of righteousness, the only real religion . . . Faith says to God: ‘I believe what you say.’” (Luther)
2. (7) The true sons of Abraham.
Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.
a. Therefore know: The emphasis is clear. Paul is making an important point, and he wants everyone of his readers to understand it.
i. “Know is imperative; Paul commands the Galatians to acquire this piece of knowledge.” (Morris)
b. Only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham: Since Abraham was made righteous by faith, and not by works, Abraham is therefore the father of everyone who believes God and is accounted righteous.
i. “It is always possible that we should translate huioi Abraam, not so much children (or ‘sons’) of Abraham as ‘real Abrahams.’” (Cole)
c. What a rebuke this was to the Jewish Christians who tried to bring Gentile Christians under the law! They believed they were superior, because they descended from Abraham, and observed the law. Paul says that the most important link to Abraham is not the link of genetics, not the link of works, but the link of faith.
i. This would have been a shocking change of thinking for these particular opponents of Paul. They deeply believed that they had a standing before God because they were genetically descended from Abraham. At that time, some Jewish Rabbis taught that Abraham stood at the gates of Hell, just to make sure that none of his descendants accidentally slipped by. John the Baptist dealt with this same thinking when he said do not think to say to yourselves, “We have Abraham as our father.” For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones (Matthew 3:9). Paul is knocking down their blind reliance on genetic relation to Abraham, and showing that what really matters is faith in Jesus.
ii. It’s the same today when people believe God accepts them because they come from a Christian family. God is a Father, not a grandfather; everyone must have their own faith in God.
d. What a comfort this was to the Gentile Christians who were regarded as “second class Christians” by many! Now they could know that they had a real, important link to Abraham, and could consider themselves sons of Abraham.
e. Sadly, Christians have taken this glorious truth and misapplied it through the centuries. This has been a verse that many claim in support of replacement theology – the idea that God is finished with the people of Israel as a nation or a distinct ethnic group, and that the Church spiritually inherits all the promises made to Israel.
i. Replacement theology has done tremendous damage in the Church, providing the theological fuel for the fires of horrible persecution of the Jews. If Galatians 3:7 were the only verse in the Bible speaking to the issue, there might be a place for saying that the Church has completely replaced Israel. But we understand the Bible according to its entire message, and allow one passage to give light to others.
ii. For example, Romans 11:25 (hardening in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in) states clearly that God is not finished with Israel as a nation or a distinct ethnic group. Even though God has turned the focus of His saving mercies away from Israel on to the Gentiles, He will turn it back again. This simple passage refutes those who insist that God is forever done with Israel as Israel, and that the Church is the New Israel and inherits every promise ever made to national and ethnic Israel of the Old Testament.
iii. We are reminded of the enduring character of the promises made to national and ethnic Israel (such as Genesis 13:15 and Genesis 17:7-8). God is not “finished” with Israel, and Israel is not “spiritualized” as the church. While we do see and rejoice in a continuity of God’s work throughout all His people through all generations, we still see a distinction between Israel and the Church - a distinction that Paul understands well.
f. All who put their faith in Jesus Christ are sons of Abraham; but Abraham has his spiritual sons and his genetic sons, and God has a plan and a place for both. But no one can deny that it is far more important to be a spiritual son of Abraham than a genetic son.
3. (8-9) This blessing of righteousness by faith is for all nations.
And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.
a. And the Scripture: Paul is speaking from the Scriptures. He has already spoken from his personal experience, and from the experience of the Galatian Christians themselves. But this passage is even more important, because it shows how Paul’s teaching is correct according to the Bible itself.
i. It would have been just fine for Paul’s opponents to say, “Experiences are just fine Paul, but show us from the Scriptures.” Paul was more than ready to take up the challenge.
ii. The Scripture, foreseeing . . . preached . . . saying: Remarkably, Paul refers to the Scriptures virtually as a person, who foresees, preaches, and says. This shows just how strongly Paul regarded the Bible as God’s word. Paul believed that when the Scriptures speak, God speaks.
iii. “Paul personifies Scripture.” (Morris) “Excellently spake he, who called the Scripture, Cor et animam Dei, The heart and soul of God.” (Trapp)
b. Foreseeing that God would justify the nations by faith: Paul observes that even back in Abraham’s day it was clear that this blessing of righteousness by faith was intended for every nation, for Gentiles as well as Jews, because God pronounced that in you all the nations shall be blessed (Genesis 12:3).
i. The intention is to destroy the idea that a Gentile must first become a Jew before they can become a Christian. If that were necessary, God would never have said this blessing would extend to every nation, because Gentiles would have had to become part of the Israelite nation to be saved.
ii. The idea is that the gospel goes out to the nations, not that the nations come and assimilate into Israel.
c. Those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham: The blessing we receive with believing Abraham is not the blessing of fantastic wealth and power, though Abraham was extremely wealthy and powerful. The blessing is something far more precious: the blessing of a right standing with God through faith.
i. “The faith of the fathers was directed at the Christ who was to come, while ours rests in the Christ who has come.” (Luther)
d. The most important question to ask is, “Am I of faith?” Do I believe God even as Abraham did? When God says it, do I believe it? Do I live as if I really believe God is true? Can others see that I am trusting God?
i. “They who are of faith are those whose characteristic is faith; it is not that they sometimes have an impulse to believe, but rather that believing is their constant attitude; faith is characteristic of them.” (Morris)
C. The Law in light of the Old Testament and the New Testament.
1. (10) The Old Testament tells us that the Law of Moses brings a curse.
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”
a. For as many as are under the works of the law: Paul is addressing those who think that their law-performance can give them a standing before God.
i. The transition from believing Abraham (Galatians 3:9) to those who are of the works of the law has a purpose. “If even the great patriarch was accepted by God only because of his faith, then it follows that lesser mortals will not succeed in producing the good deeds that would allow them to be accepted before God.” (Morris)
ii. Morris on as many as are of the works of the law: “The preposition denotes origin and here will mean those whose essential position originates in the law, those who see law-keeping as the essence of our approach to God. It is not simply that they see the law as important: they see it as all-important. Their whole position depends on the keeping of the law.”
iii. “The hypocritical doers of the Law are those who seek to obtain a righteousness by a mechanical performance of good works while their hearts are far removed from God. They act like the foolish carpenter who starts with the roof when he builds a house.” (Luther)
b. For as many as are under the works of the law are under the curse: The Christians from a Jewish background who believed we should still live under the Law of Moses thought that it was a path to blessing. Paul boldly declares that instead of blessing, living under the works of the law puts them under the curse.
i. It isn’t hard to see how these Christians believed that living under law brought blessing. They could read in the Old Testament many passages that supported this thinking. Psalm 119:1 says, Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD! Psalm 1:1-2 says, Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the path of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and in His law he meditates day and night.
ii. How does the law bring blessing? First, we must understand that the word law is used in two senses in the Bible. Sometimes it means “the Law of Moses, with all its commands, which a man must obey to be approved by God.” Sometimes it means “God’s Word” in a very general sense. Many times when the Old Testament speaks of the law, it speaks of it in the general sense of God’s Word to us. When Psalm 119:97 says Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day, the Psalmist means more than just the Law of Moses. He means all of God’s Word. Seeing this, we understand how the Bible is filled with praise for the law. Secondly, we are blessed when we keep the law because we are living according to the “instruction manual” for life. There is an inherent, built-in blessing in living the way God says we should live, in fulfilling the “manufacturer’s recommendation.”
iii. When Paul says that as are under the works of the law are under the curse, he doesn’t mean that the law is bad or the Word of God is wrong. He simply means that God never intended the law to be the way we find our approval before Him. He knew we could never keep the law, and so God instituted the system of atoning sacrifice along with the law. And the entire sacrificial system looked forward to what Jesus would accomplish on the cross for us.
c. To prove his point Scripturally, Paul quotes from Deuteronomy 27:26: Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them. The Old Testament itself shows us that if we do not keep all things in the law, and actually do them, then we are under a curse.
i. The important words are all and do. If God would approve you on the basis of the law, you first have to do it. Not simply know it, not simply love it, not simply teach it, not simply want it, you must do it. Secondly, you have to do it all. Not some. Not just when you are over 18 or 40. Not just more good than bad. Deuteronomy 27:26 specifically says that to be justified by the law, you must do it, and do it in all things.
ii. All means a lot. It means that while some sins are worse than others are, there are no small sins before such a great God. “Jewish keepers of the law would overlook small transgressions. Paul would not.” (Morris)
iii. “It is worthy of remark that no printed copy of the Hebrew Bible preserves the word col, ALL, in Deuteronomy 27:26, which answers to the apostle’s word all, here. St. Jerome says that the Jews suppressed it, lest it should appear that they were bound to perform all things that are written in the book of the law. Of the genuineness of the reading there is no cause to doubt: it exists in six MSS. of Kennicott and De Rossi, in the Samaritan text, in several copies of the Targum, in the Septuagint, and in the quotation made here by the apostle, in which there is no variation either in the MSS. or in the versions.” (Clarke)
d. Paul’s point is heavy; it weighs us down with a curse. If you are under the works of the law, the only way you can stand approved and blessed before God by the law is to do it, and to do it all. If you don’t, you are cursed.
i. Cursed is a word that sounds strange in our ears. We think of witches boiling a strange mixture in a dark cauldron. We think of a Snidely Whiplash kind of guy saying “Curses, foiled again!” But in the Bible, the idea of being cursed is important, and frightening – because we are talking about being cursed by God. Not only cursed by our own bad choices, not only cursed by this wicked world, not only cursed by the Devil – but especially cursed by God. He is the one Person you don’t want to be cursed by!
ii. “The law holds all men under its curse. From the law, therefore, it us useless to seek a blessing.” (Calvin)
2. (11) The Old Testament tells us that a right standing before God comes by faith, not by the law.
But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.”
a. But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident: Paul has already proven this point in the Scriptures by examining the life of Abraham (Galatians 3:5-9). Now he brings in another passage from the Old Testament, Habakkuk 2:4, which reminds us that the just live by faith, not by law.
i. The Jews themselves sensed that because none could keep it perfectly, salvation could not come through keeping the law. This is why they placed such emphasis on their descent from Abraham, essentially trusting in Abraham’s merits to save them because they sensed that their own merits could not.
b. The just shall live by faith: This brief statement from the prophet Habakkuk is one of the most important, and most quoted Old Testament statements in the New Testament. Paul uses it here to show that the just live by faith, not by law. Being under the law isn’t the way to be found just before God, only living by faith is.
i. If you are found to be just – approved – before God, you have done it by a life of faith. If your life is all about living under the law, then God does not find you approved.
ii. “For the present question is not whether believers ought to keep the law as far as they can (which is beyond all doubt), but whether they obtain righteousness by works; and this is impossible.” (Calvin)
c. Every word in Habakkuk 2:4 is important, and the Lord quotes it three times in the New Testament just to bring out the fullness of the meaning!
i. In Romans 1:17, when Paul quotes this same passage from Habakkuk 2:4, the emphasis is on faith: “The just shall live by faith.”
ii. In Hebrews 10:38, when the writer to the Hebrews quotes this same passage from Habakkuk 2:4, the emphasis is on live: “The just shall live by faith.”
iii. Here in Galatians 3:11, when Paul quotes this passage from Habakkuk 2:4, the emphasis is on just: “The just shall live by faith.”
3. (12) The Old Testament tells us that approval by God through the law must be earned by actually living in obedience to the law, not just trying.
Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”
a. Yet the law is not of faith: Some might come back to Paul and say, “Look, I’ll do the best I can under the law and let faith cover the rest. God will look at my performance, my effort, and my good intentions and credit to me as righteousness. The important thing is that I am really trying.” Paul proves from the Old Testament itself that this simply isn’t good enough. No; the paths of approval by the law and faith don’t run together, because the law is not of faith.
b. The man who does them shall live by them: The quote from Leviticus 18:5 is clear. If you want to live by the law, you must do it. Not try to do it, not intend to do it, and not even want to do it. No, it is only the man who does them who shall live by them.
i. It is very easy to comfort ourselves with our good intentions. We all mean very well; but if we want to find our place before God by our works under the law, good intentions are never enough. A good effort isn’t enough. Only actual performance will do.
c. This passage from Leviticus 18:5 is another often-quoted principle from the Old Testament. Nehemiah (Nehemiah 9:29) quoted it in his great prayer for Israel. The LORD Himself quoted it through the prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 20:11, 13, and 21). Paul also quotes it again in Romans 10:5).
d. The effect of Paul’s use of Scripture in Galatians 3:10-12 is overwhelming. We understand that we don’t actually do the law. We understand that we don’t actually do all the law. And we understand that this put us under a curse. Galatians 3:10-12 is the bad news; now Paul begins to explain the good news.
4. (13-14) Jesus redeems us from the curse of the law.
Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
a. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law: Because we didn’t actually do it, and do it all, the law put us under a curse. But now Jesus has redeemed us from the curse of the law. Redeemed has the idea of “buying back” or “purchasing out of.” It isn’t just rescuing; it is paying a price to rescue. Jesus bought us out from under the curse of the law.
i. In Jesus, we aren’t cursed anymore! Galatians 3:10-12 left us all under a curse, but we are cursed any more because Jesus bought us out from under the curse.
ii. Redemption is an important idea. “Redemption points to the payment of a price that sets sinners free.” (Morris) Redemption came from the practices of ancient warfare. After a battle the victors would often capture some of the defeated. Among the defeated, the poorer ones would usually be sold as slaves, but the wealthy and important men, the men who mattered in their own country, would be held to ransom. When the people in their homeland had raised the required price, they would pay it to the victors and the captives would be set free. The process was called redemption, and the price was called the ransom.
iii. The image took root in other areas. When a slave had his freedom purchased – perhaps by a relative, perhaps by his own diligent work and saving – this was called “redemption.” Sometimes the transaction took place at a temple, and a record was carved in the wall so everyone would forever know that this former slave was now a redeemed, free man. Or, a man condemned to death might be set free by the paying of a price, and this was considered “redemption.” Most importantly, Jesus bought us out of defeat, out of slavery, and out of a death sentence to reign as kings and priests with Him forever.
b. How did Jesus do it? How did He pay a price to rescue us? Having become a curse for us means that Jesus became cursed on our behalf; He stood in our place and took the curse we deserved.
i. It stops us in our tracks to understand that the price He paid to buy us out from under the curse of the law was the price of Himself. It didn’t just cost Jesus something, even something great – it cost Jesus Himself. We know that men cursed Jesus as He hung on the cross; but that compares nothing to how He was cursed by God the Father. He made Himself the target of the curse, and set those who believe outside the target.
ii. “Paul does not say that Christ was made a curse for Himself. The accent is on the two words, ‘for us.’ Christ is personally innocent. Personally, He did not deserve to be hanged for any crime of His own doing. But because Christ took the place of others who were sinners, He was hanged like any other transgressor.” (Luther)
iii. “All the prophets of old said that Christ should be the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, blasphemer that ever was or ever could be on earth. When He took the sins of the whole world upon Himself, Christ was no longer an innocent person. He was a sinner burdened with the sins of a Paul who was a blasphemer; burdened with the sins of a Peter who denied Christ; burdened with the sins of a David who committed adultery and murder, and gave the heathen occasion to laugh at the Lord. In short, Christ was charged with all the sins of all me, that He should pay with them with His own blood. The curse struck Him.” (Luther)
iv. “I am told that it is preposterous and wicked to call the Son of God a cursed sinner. I answer: If you deny that He is a condemned sinner, you are forced to deny that Christ died. It is not less preposterous to say, the Son of God died, than to say, the Son of God was a sinner.” (Luther)
v. “Whatever sins I, you, all of us have committed or shall commit, they are Christ’s sins as if He had committed them Himself. Our sins have to be Christ’s sins or we shall perish forever.” (Luther)
c. For it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.” When did Jesus pay this price? The principle of Deuteronomy 21:23 shows that Jesus received this curse upon Himself as He hung on the cross, fulfilling the Deuteronomy 21:23 promise of a curse to all who are not only executed but have their bodies publicly exposed to shame.
i. “This passage did not refer to crucifixion (which the Jews did not practise), but to the hanging on a tree or wooden post of the corpse of a criminal who had been executed. But in the New Testament times a cross was often called a tree and there is no doubting that that is what Paul has in mind here.” (Morris)
ii. Hangs on a tree: In the thinking of ancient Israel, there was something worse than being put to death. Worse than that was to be put to death, and to have your corpse left in the open, exposed to shame, humiliation, and scavenging animals and birds. When it says hangs on a tree, it does not have the idea of being executed by strangulation; but of having the corpse “mounted” on a tree or other prominent place, to expose the executed one to the elements and supreme disgrace.
iii. However, if anyone was executed, and deemed worthy of such disgrace, the humiliation to his memory and his family must not be excessive. Deuteronomy 21:23 also says “his body shall not remain overnight on the tree.” This was a way of tempering even the most severe judgment with mercy. Significantly, Jesus fulfilled this also, being taken down from the cross before night had fully come (John 19:31-33).
d. Cursed is everyone: The punishment of being hanged on a tree, and left to open exposure, was thought to be so severe that it was reserved only for those for which is was to be declared: “this one is cursed by God.” So Jesus not only died in our place; but He took the place as the cursed of God, being hung on a “tree” in open shame and degradation.
e. That the blessing of Abraham might come: Jesus received this curse, which we deserved and He did not, so that we could receive the blessing of Abraham, which He deserved and we did not! It would be enough if Jesus simply took away the curse we deserved. But He did far more than that; He also gave a blessing that we didn’t deserve!
i. What is the blessing of Abraham? It is what Paul already described in Galatians 3:8-9, the blessing of being justified before God by faith, instead of works.
f. Who does the blessing of Abraham come to? The Gentiles in Christ Jesus. Paul doesn’t mean that it only comes upon Gentiles, as if Jews were excluded, but that it – quite unexpectedly to some – comes upon the Gentiles also, to those Gentiles in Christ Jesus.
i. The phrase in Christ Jesus is important. The blessing doesn’t come because they are Gentiles, any more than the blessing of being right with God comes to Jewish people because they are Jews. It comes to all, Jew and Gentile alike, who are identified in Christ Jesus, and not by their own attempts to justify themselves.
g. Because this blessing is ours in Jesus, we receive the promise of the Spirit through faith - not through coming back under the law as the principle for living. The promise is received, not earned.
---------
SIDE NOTE: If you actually read this-BRAVO!- send simone an email that says "TELL BRANDON I READ THIS" --- simone@ecclesiahollywood.org
Saturday, January 5, 2008
UPDATES-2008!
Welcome Back to a study of GALATIANS-
I think the Advent Break was a nice sorbe for our study.
To create easier navigation of various commentaries...
I've posted COMMENTARY LINKS to the left.
This week I've added 2 more LUTHER commentaries along with Guzik's study that I always find most helpful.
You can still find a few paragraphs from William Barclay on PEACE and GRACE as well as another David Guzik commentary.
Looking forward to studying together in this new year.
ENJOY!
brandon
I think the Advent Break was a nice sorbe for our study.
To create easier navigation of various commentaries...
I've posted COMMENTARY LINKS to the left.
This week I've added 2 more LUTHER commentaries along with Guzik's study that I always find most helpful.
You can still find a few paragraphs from William Barclay on PEACE and GRACE as well as another David Guzik commentary.
Looking forward to studying together in this new year.
ENJOY!
brandon
Friday, January 4, 2008
GALATIANS-2:11-16 COMMENTARY by GUZIK
B. The setting of Paul’s confrontation with Peter regarding the acceptance of the Gentiles.
1. (11-13) The reason for Paul’s public rebuke of the apostle Peter.
Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
a. Peter had approved of Paul’s gospel and ministry when Paul came to Jerusalem (Galatians 2:9); and God used Peter himself to welcome Gentiles into Christianity without the precondition of becoming Jews (Acts 11:1-18).
b. He withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision: Though Peter had been in agreement with welcoming Gentiles into the church without bringing them under the Law of Moses, when Peter came to Antioch (Paul’s home church), it was another story. He refused to associate with Gentile Christians once certain Jewish believers from Jerusalem came.
i. These men were Christians of Jewish background – Paul calls them certain men . . . from James and those who were of the circumcision – and Peter knew they would be “offended” at his fellowship with Gentiles who had not come under the Law of Moses. In their eyes, these uncircumcised Gentiles were not really Christians at all, so to please them and avoid a conflict, Peter treated these Gentile Christians as if they were not Christians at all.
ii. Peter had known that God did not require Gentiles to come under the Law of Moses for salvation. He learned this from the vision God gave him in Acts 10:23. He learned this from the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles who believed (apart from being circumcised!) in Acts 10:44-48. He learned this by the agreement of the other leaders of the church in Acts 11:1-18. Now, Peter turns back on all that he had known about the place of Gentiles in the church, and he treats uncircumcised Gentiles as if they are not saved at all.
iii. “He seems to have taken this action shamefacedly. As Bishop Lightfoot says, ‘the words describe forcibly the cautious withdrawal of a timid person who shrinks from observation.’” (Stott)
iv. “It is perhaps curious that nobody seems to have recalled that Jesus ate ‘with publicans and sinners’, which can scarcely mean that he conformed to strict Jewish practice.” (Morris)
v. Sadly, others will follow Peter’s lead. “The sins of teachers are the teachers of sins.” (Trapp)
c. The matter was so serious that Paul boldly withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed. Paul had a public confrontation with Peter over this issue (I said to Peter before the all, Galatians 2:14).
i. This was also serious because it involved the issue of eating together. Before the certain men came from James, Peter would eat with the Gentiles. But once they came, Peter withdrew and separated himself. This separation was probably at the church potluck dinner, which they called “the agape banquet” or the “love feast.” They would also remember the Lord’s death at this dinner, and take communion together. Therefore, Peter put these Gentile Christians away from the communion table!
ii. “It may be that the observance of holy communion was involved in this, for it seems that often in the early church it was celebrated at a meal shared by all the believers. If this was the case at Antioch, there would have been a division of believers at the table of the Lord.” (Morris)
iii. “Paul had no small matter in hand, but the chief article of the Christian religion. When this article is endangered, we must not hesitate to resist Peter, or an angel from heaven.” (Luther)
iv. “Paul not hearing this from the report of others, but being an eye-witness to it, doth not defer the reproof, lest the scandal should grow: nor doth he reprove him privately, because the offence was public, and such a plaster would not have fitted the sore.” (Poole)
d. Why did Peter do this, when he knew that God welcomed Gentiles into the church without placing them under the Law of Moses? Paul says Peter was fearing those who were of the circumcision. Peter acted against what he knew was right out of fear. “Peter perhaps felt that if the members of the embassy went back and told the Jerusalem church that he was eating with Gentiles it would compromise his position with the leading church.” (Morris)
i. It is easy to criticize Peter; but every person knows what it means to do something you know is wrong. Everyone knows what it feels like to go against what you know very well is right. Everyone knows what it feels like when social pressure pushes you towards compromise in some way.
ii. “Their withdrawal from table-fellowship with Gentile believers was not prompted by any theological principle, but by craven fear of a small pressure group . . . He still believed the gospel, but he failed to practise it.” (Stott)
iii. This is the kind of behavior that dominated Peter’s life before he was transformed by the power of God. This is like Peter telling Jesus not to go to the cross, or Peter taking his eyes of Jesus and sinking, or like Peter cutting off the ear of the servant of the High Priest when they came to arrest Jesus. We see that the flesh is still present in Peter. Salvation and the filling of the Holy Spirit has not made Peter perfect; the old Peter is still there, just seen less often!
iv. We might be surprised that Peter, who did know better, did this; but we are only surprised if we don’t believe what God says about the weakness and corruption of our flesh. Paul himself knew this struggle, as he describes it in Romans 7:18: For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.
v. “No man’s standing is so secure that he may not fall. If Peter fell, I may fall. If he rose again, I may rise again. We have the same gifts that they had, the same Christ, the same baptism and the same Gospel, the same forgiveness of sins.” (Luther)
e. We don’t know what it was about these certain men from James that made Peter afraid. Perhaps they were men of very strong personality. Perhaps they were men of great prestige and influence. Perhaps they made threats of one kind or another. Whatever it was, the desire to cater to these legalistic Jewish Christians was so strong that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. When these men from James came, even Barnabas treated the Gentile Christians as if they were not Christians at all!
i. This is amazing. Barnabas was Paul’s trusted friend and associate. Barnabas stood beside Paul when he first met the apostles (Acts 9:27). Barnabas sought out Paul and brought him to Antioch to help with the ministry there (Acts 11:25). Acts 11:24 says of Barnabas, he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. Yet, Barnabas fails at this critical test also.
ii. “The defection of Barnabas was of a far more serious nature with regard to Gentile freedom than the vacillation of Peter . . . Barnabas, the foremost champion of Gentile liberty next to Paul, had become a turncoat.” (Wuest)
iii. “It is not impossible that this incident, by producing a temporary feeling of distrust, may have prepared the way for the dissension between Paul and Barnabas which shortly afterwards led to their separation: Acts 15:39.” (Lightfoot)
f. The rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him: It was bigger than just Peter and Barnabas! Peter first made the compromise of acting as if the Gentile Christians were not Christians at all. Then Barnabas followed him. Then the rest of the Jews at the church in Antioch followed Peter and Barnabas.
i. This shows what a heavy responsibility it is to be a leader. When we go astray, others will often follow. Satan knew that if he could make Peter take the wrong path, so would many others.
g. Played the hypocrite . . . carried away with their hypocrisy: How was this hypocrisy? The word hypocrite, in the original language of the Bible, means “one who puts on a mask,” referring to an actor. In this case, Peter, Barnabas, and the rest of the Jewish Christians in Antioch knew that these Gentile believers were really Christians. Yet, because of the pressure from the certain men from James, they acted like they were not Christians at all.
i. But there was more to it than this. Peter withdrew and separated himself from Gentile believers, when before he would eat with the Gentiles. In fact, he used to eat with them often. iii. Stott writes about the phrase he would eat with Gentiles: “The imperfect tense of the verb shows that this had been his regular practice. ‘He . . . was in the habit of eating his meals with the gentiles’ (JBP).”
ii. But now Peter refused to eat with Gentile believers! When a Jew refused to eat with a Gentile, he did this in obedience to Jewish rituals. Peter had already learned that obedience to Jewish rituals (such as keeping kosher) was not essential for salvation, for either Jews or Gentiles (Acts 10 and 11). Peter had stopped keeping these Jewish rituals for himself, but now he is acting as if he does keep them, to accommodate the legalism of the certain men from James. Peter no longer kept a strict observance of the Law of Moses for himself, but by his actions, he implies that Gentiles believers must keep the law – when he himself does not!
2. (14a) Paul confronts Peter publicly.
But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all.
a. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel: At the foundation, this wasn’t an issue of seating arrangements at the church potluck. It wasn’t about table manners and being a good host. It wasn’t even about being sensitive to another brother’s conscience. Paul saw the issue for what it was; it was about the truth of the gospel.
i. When the certain men from James, and Peter, and Barnabas, and the rest of the Jews of the church in Antioch would not eat with Gentile Christians, they declared those Gentiles unsaved unbelievers. They said loud and clear, “You can only be right with God if you put yourself under the demands of the Law of Moses. You must be circumcised. You must eat a kosher diet. You must observe the feasts and rituals. You must do nothing that would imply partnership with someone who is not under the Law of Moses. This is the only way to receive the salvation of Jesus.” That message made Paul say, I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel.
ii. Clarke on were not straightforward: “They did not walk with a straight step.”
iii. “Peter did not say so, but his example said quite plainly that the observance of the Law must be added to faith in Christ, if men are to be saved. From Peter’s example the Gentiles could not help but draw the conclusion that the Law was necessary unto salvation.” (Luther)
b. I said to Peter before them all: What a scene this must have been! There they are, at the church of Antioch potluck. The Gentile Christians have just been asked to leave, or are told to sit in their own section away from the “real” Christians. They also wouldn’t be allowed to share the same food that the “real” Christians ate. Peter – the honored guest – goes along with all this. Barnabas – the man who led many of the Gentiles to Jesus! – goes along with all this. The rest of the Jews in the church at Antioch go along with all this. But Paul won’t stand for it. Because this is a public affront to the Gentile Christians, and because it is a public denial of the truth of the gospel, Paul confronts Peter in a public way.
i. It must have been hard, knowing who Peter was. Peter was the most prominent of all the disciples of Jesus. Peter was the spokesman for the apostles, and probably the most prominent Christian in the whole world at the time.
ii. It must have been hard, knowing who Paul was. This was before any of Paul’s missionary journeys; before he was an apostle of great prominence. At this time, Paul was far more famous for who he was before he was a Christian – a terrible persecutor of the church – than he was for who he was as a Christian.
iii. It must have been hard, knowing who was in agreement with Peter. First, Paul had the strong, domineering personalities of the certain men from James. Then, Paul had Barnabas, who was probably his best friend. Finally, Paul had the rest of the Jews. Paul was in the minority on this issue – it was him and all the Gentile Christians against all the Jewish Christians!
iv. As hard as this was, why did Paul do it? Because he knew what was at stake. This wasn’t a matter of personal conduct, or just personal sin on Peter’s part. If that were the case, it is unlikely that Paul would have first used such a public approach. This was a matter about the truth of the gospel, proclaiming, “This is how a man is right before God.”
C. What Paul said when he publicly rebuked Peter over the issue of the acceptance of Gentile Christians.
1. (14b) Paul exposes Peter’s hypocrisy in appearing to live under the law.
“If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?”
a. If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews: Paul first reminded Peter that he himself did not live under strict obedience to the Law of Moses. “Peter, you eat bacon and ham and lobster. You don’t keep a kosher diet. Yet now, before these visitors, these certain men . . . from James, now you act as if you keep these laws all the time.”
i. Imagine the scene! They had all been having a good time, until Paul spoils the party. He probably wasn’t shouting, but he did speak with firmness in his voice. And as he tells everyone that Peter doesn’t live under the Law of Moses, the certain men . . . from James look amazed. Their jaws drop! “What? Peter, the most prominent of all the apostles, Peter doesn’t live under the Law of Moses? Peter eats bacon and lobster? Peter eats with Gentiles?” As for Peter, his face gets red, his heart beats faster, and he just feels sick to his stomach. Everyone else just feels awkward and wishes the whole problem would go away.
ii. How was Paul? Nervous? Bold? Shaking? It’s impossible to know until we get to heaven, but Paul did not necessarily have a commanding physical presence. Others said of Paul – and it was probably at least partially true - his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible (2 Corinthians 10:10). However Paul acted, his words were memorable, because he recalls them exactly here!
b. Lightfoot on being a Jew: “Here it is very emphatic; ‘If you, born and bred a Jew, discard Jewish customs, how unreasonable to impose them on Gentiles.’”
c. Why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? Perhaps Peter and the others might say, “We’re not making them live as Jews.” But of course they were; because their message was, “Unless you live as Jews, you aren’t saved!”
2. (15-16) Paul reminds Peter that they are justified before God by the work of Jesus, not by their keeping of the law.
“We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.”
a. We who are Jews by nature . . . knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ: “Peter, we all grew up as observant Jews. Yet we know very well that we were not considered right before God – justified – by the works of the law that we did. We know that we, even though we grew up as observant Jews, are considered right before God by faith in Jesus Christ.”
i. Not justified by the works of the law: This is Paul’s first use of the great word dikaioo (justified, declared righteous) in his letter to the Galatians. “It is a legal concept; the person who is ‘justified’ is the one who gets the verdict in a court of law. Used in a religious sense it means the getting of a favorable verdict before God on judgment day.” (Morris)
b. Even we have believed in Christ Jesus: Paul knew that even a strictly observant Jew such as he was could never be considered right before God by what they did under the Law of Moses. Instead, he, and Peter, and every single Christian must have believed in Christ Jesus.
i. “‘Faith in Jesus Christ’, then, is not intellectual conviction only, but personal commitment. The expression in the middle of verse 16 is (literally) ‘we have believed into (eis) Christ Jesus.’ It is an act of committal, not just assenting to the fact that Jesus lived and died, but running to Him for refuge and calling on Him for mercy.” (Stott)
ii. “It would be hard to find a more forceful statement of the doctrine of justification than this. It is insisted upon by the two leading apostles (‘we know’), confirmed from their own experience (‘we have believed’), and endorsed by the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament (‘by works of the law shall no one be justified’). With this threefold guarantee we should accept the biblical doctrine of justification and not let our natural self-righteousness keep us from faith in Christ.” (Stott)
iii. “In order to have faith you must paint a true portrait of Christ. The scholastics caricature Christ into a judge and tormentor. But Christ is no law giver. He is the Life-giver. He is the Forgiver of sins. You must believe that Christ might have atoned for the sins of the world with one single drop of His blood. Instead, He shed His blood abundantly in order than He might give abundant satisfaction for our sins.” (Luther)
c. The emphasis is plain: That we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law. “Peter, we were not justified by being under the Law of Moses, but by faith in Jesus.” By refusing fellowship with Gentile Christians, Peter said in his actions that we are – in part – considered right before God by the works of the law. Paul couldn’t stand for this, because it wasn’t the truth.
d. For by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified: Here, Paul emphasizes the point in the strongest way possible. No flesh – not Gentile, not Jewish, not anyone – will be considered right before God by the works of the law.
i. Lightfoot on for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified: “The words are therefore to be regarded as a free citation of Psalm 143:2.” (For in Your sight no one living in righteous).
ii. “The scholastics explain the way of salvation in this manner. When a person happens to perform a good deed, God accepts it and as a reward for the good deed God pours charity into that person. They call it ‘charity infused.’ This charity is supposed to remain in the heart. They get wild when they are told that this quality of the heart cannot justify a person.” (Luther)
iii. Since this is true, it’s plain to see how foolish and wrong it was for Peter to separate from these Gentile Christians because they had not put themselves under the Law of Moses. Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified, then what difference does it make if a Gentile is circumcised according to the Law of Moses? What difference does it make if a Gentile keeps a kosher table? All that matters is their faith in Christ, because that is how we are made right before God.
-- David Guzik
1. (11-13) The reason for Paul’s public rebuke of the apostle Peter.
Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
a. Peter had approved of Paul’s gospel and ministry when Paul came to Jerusalem (Galatians 2:9); and God used Peter himself to welcome Gentiles into Christianity without the precondition of becoming Jews (Acts 11:1-18).
b. He withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision: Though Peter had been in agreement with welcoming Gentiles into the church without bringing them under the Law of Moses, when Peter came to Antioch (Paul’s home church), it was another story. He refused to associate with Gentile Christians once certain Jewish believers from Jerusalem came.
i. These men were Christians of Jewish background – Paul calls them certain men . . . from James and those who were of the circumcision – and Peter knew they would be “offended” at his fellowship with Gentiles who had not come under the Law of Moses. In their eyes, these uncircumcised Gentiles were not really Christians at all, so to please them and avoid a conflict, Peter treated these Gentile Christians as if they were not Christians at all.
ii. Peter had known that God did not require Gentiles to come under the Law of Moses for salvation. He learned this from the vision God gave him in Acts 10:23. He learned this from the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles who believed (apart from being circumcised!) in Acts 10:44-48. He learned this by the agreement of the other leaders of the church in Acts 11:1-18. Now, Peter turns back on all that he had known about the place of Gentiles in the church, and he treats uncircumcised Gentiles as if they are not saved at all.
iii. “He seems to have taken this action shamefacedly. As Bishop Lightfoot says, ‘the words describe forcibly the cautious withdrawal of a timid person who shrinks from observation.’” (Stott)
iv. “It is perhaps curious that nobody seems to have recalled that Jesus ate ‘with publicans and sinners’, which can scarcely mean that he conformed to strict Jewish practice.” (Morris)
v. Sadly, others will follow Peter’s lead. “The sins of teachers are the teachers of sins.” (Trapp)
c. The matter was so serious that Paul boldly withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed. Paul had a public confrontation with Peter over this issue (I said to Peter before the all, Galatians 2:14).
i. This was also serious because it involved the issue of eating together. Before the certain men came from James, Peter would eat with the Gentiles. But once they came, Peter withdrew and separated himself. This separation was probably at the church potluck dinner, which they called “the agape banquet” or the “love feast.” They would also remember the Lord’s death at this dinner, and take communion together. Therefore, Peter put these Gentile Christians away from the communion table!
ii. “It may be that the observance of holy communion was involved in this, for it seems that often in the early church it was celebrated at a meal shared by all the believers. If this was the case at Antioch, there would have been a division of believers at the table of the Lord.” (Morris)
iii. “Paul had no small matter in hand, but the chief article of the Christian religion. When this article is endangered, we must not hesitate to resist Peter, or an angel from heaven.” (Luther)
iv. “Paul not hearing this from the report of others, but being an eye-witness to it, doth not defer the reproof, lest the scandal should grow: nor doth he reprove him privately, because the offence was public, and such a plaster would not have fitted the sore.” (Poole)
d. Why did Peter do this, when he knew that God welcomed Gentiles into the church without placing them under the Law of Moses? Paul says Peter was fearing those who were of the circumcision. Peter acted against what he knew was right out of fear. “Peter perhaps felt that if the members of the embassy went back and told the Jerusalem church that he was eating with Gentiles it would compromise his position with the leading church.” (Morris)
i. It is easy to criticize Peter; but every person knows what it means to do something you know is wrong. Everyone knows what it feels like to go against what you know very well is right. Everyone knows what it feels like when social pressure pushes you towards compromise in some way.
ii. “Their withdrawal from table-fellowship with Gentile believers was not prompted by any theological principle, but by craven fear of a small pressure group . . . He still believed the gospel, but he failed to practise it.” (Stott)
iii. This is the kind of behavior that dominated Peter’s life before he was transformed by the power of God. This is like Peter telling Jesus not to go to the cross, or Peter taking his eyes of Jesus and sinking, or like Peter cutting off the ear of the servant of the High Priest when they came to arrest Jesus. We see that the flesh is still present in Peter. Salvation and the filling of the Holy Spirit has not made Peter perfect; the old Peter is still there, just seen less often!
iv. We might be surprised that Peter, who did know better, did this; but we are only surprised if we don’t believe what God says about the weakness and corruption of our flesh. Paul himself knew this struggle, as he describes it in Romans 7:18: For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.
v. “No man’s standing is so secure that he may not fall. If Peter fell, I may fall. If he rose again, I may rise again. We have the same gifts that they had, the same Christ, the same baptism and the same Gospel, the same forgiveness of sins.” (Luther)
e. We don’t know what it was about these certain men from James that made Peter afraid. Perhaps they were men of very strong personality. Perhaps they were men of great prestige and influence. Perhaps they made threats of one kind or another. Whatever it was, the desire to cater to these legalistic Jewish Christians was so strong that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. When these men from James came, even Barnabas treated the Gentile Christians as if they were not Christians at all!
i. This is amazing. Barnabas was Paul’s trusted friend and associate. Barnabas stood beside Paul when he first met the apostles (Acts 9:27). Barnabas sought out Paul and brought him to Antioch to help with the ministry there (Acts 11:25). Acts 11:24 says of Barnabas, he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. Yet, Barnabas fails at this critical test also.
ii. “The defection of Barnabas was of a far more serious nature with regard to Gentile freedom than the vacillation of Peter . . . Barnabas, the foremost champion of Gentile liberty next to Paul, had become a turncoat.” (Wuest)
iii. “It is not impossible that this incident, by producing a temporary feeling of distrust, may have prepared the way for the dissension between Paul and Barnabas which shortly afterwards led to their separation: Acts 15:39.” (Lightfoot)
f. The rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him: It was bigger than just Peter and Barnabas! Peter first made the compromise of acting as if the Gentile Christians were not Christians at all. Then Barnabas followed him. Then the rest of the Jews at the church in Antioch followed Peter and Barnabas.
i. This shows what a heavy responsibility it is to be a leader. When we go astray, others will often follow. Satan knew that if he could make Peter take the wrong path, so would many others.
g. Played the hypocrite . . . carried away with their hypocrisy: How was this hypocrisy? The word hypocrite, in the original language of the Bible, means “one who puts on a mask,” referring to an actor. In this case, Peter, Barnabas, and the rest of the Jewish Christians in Antioch knew that these Gentile believers were really Christians. Yet, because of the pressure from the certain men from James, they acted like they were not Christians at all.
i. But there was more to it than this. Peter withdrew and separated himself from Gentile believers, when before he would eat with the Gentiles. In fact, he used to eat with them often. iii. Stott writes about the phrase he would eat with Gentiles: “The imperfect tense of the verb shows that this had been his regular practice. ‘He . . . was in the habit of eating his meals with the gentiles’ (JBP).”
ii. But now Peter refused to eat with Gentile believers! When a Jew refused to eat with a Gentile, he did this in obedience to Jewish rituals. Peter had already learned that obedience to Jewish rituals (such as keeping kosher) was not essential for salvation, for either Jews or Gentiles (Acts 10 and 11). Peter had stopped keeping these Jewish rituals for himself, but now he is acting as if he does keep them, to accommodate the legalism of the certain men from James. Peter no longer kept a strict observance of the Law of Moses for himself, but by his actions, he implies that Gentiles believers must keep the law – when he himself does not!
2. (14a) Paul confronts Peter publicly.
But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all.
a. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel: At the foundation, this wasn’t an issue of seating arrangements at the church potluck. It wasn’t about table manners and being a good host. It wasn’t even about being sensitive to another brother’s conscience. Paul saw the issue for what it was; it was about the truth of the gospel.
i. When the certain men from James, and Peter, and Barnabas, and the rest of the Jews of the church in Antioch would not eat with Gentile Christians, they declared those Gentiles unsaved unbelievers. They said loud and clear, “You can only be right with God if you put yourself under the demands of the Law of Moses. You must be circumcised. You must eat a kosher diet. You must observe the feasts and rituals. You must do nothing that would imply partnership with someone who is not under the Law of Moses. This is the only way to receive the salvation of Jesus.” That message made Paul say, I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel.
ii. Clarke on were not straightforward: “They did not walk with a straight step.”
iii. “Peter did not say so, but his example said quite plainly that the observance of the Law must be added to faith in Christ, if men are to be saved. From Peter’s example the Gentiles could not help but draw the conclusion that the Law was necessary unto salvation.” (Luther)
b. I said to Peter before them all: What a scene this must have been! There they are, at the church of Antioch potluck. The Gentile Christians have just been asked to leave, or are told to sit in their own section away from the “real” Christians. They also wouldn’t be allowed to share the same food that the “real” Christians ate. Peter – the honored guest – goes along with all this. Barnabas – the man who led many of the Gentiles to Jesus! – goes along with all this. The rest of the Jews in the church at Antioch go along with all this. But Paul won’t stand for it. Because this is a public affront to the Gentile Christians, and because it is a public denial of the truth of the gospel, Paul confronts Peter in a public way.
i. It must have been hard, knowing who Peter was. Peter was the most prominent of all the disciples of Jesus. Peter was the spokesman for the apostles, and probably the most prominent Christian in the whole world at the time.
ii. It must have been hard, knowing who Paul was. This was before any of Paul’s missionary journeys; before he was an apostle of great prominence. At this time, Paul was far more famous for who he was before he was a Christian – a terrible persecutor of the church – than he was for who he was as a Christian.
iii. It must have been hard, knowing who was in agreement with Peter. First, Paul had the strong, domineering personalities of the certain men from James. Then, Paul had Barnabas, who was probably his best friend. Finally, Paul had the rest of the Jews. Paul was in the minority on this issue – it was him and all the Gentile Christians against all the Jewish Christians!
iv. As hard as this was, why did Paul do it? Because he knew what was at stake. This wasn’t a matter of personal conduct, or just personal sin on Peter’s part. If that were the case, it is unlikely that Paul would have first used such a public approach. This was a matter about the truth of the gospel, proclaiming, “This is how a man is right before God.”
C. What Paul said when he publicly rebuked Peter over the issue of the acceptance of Gentile Christians.
1. (14b) Paul exposes Peter’s hypocrisy in appearing to live under the law.
“If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?”
a. If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews: Paul first reminded Peter that he himself did not live under strict obedience to the Law of Moses. “Peter, you eat bacon and ham and lobster. You don’t keep a kosher diet. Yet now, before these visitors, these certain men . . . from James, now you act as if you keep these laws all the time.”
i. Imagine the scene! They had all been having a good time, until Paul spoils the party. He probably wasn’t shouting, but he did speak with firmness in his voice. And as he tells everyone that Peter doesn’t live under the Law of Moses, the certain men . . . from James look amazed. Their jaws drop! “What? Peter, the most prominent of all the apostles, Peter doesn’t live under the Law of Moses? Peter eats bacon and lobster? Peter eats with Gentiles?” As for Peter, his face gets red, his heart beats faster, and he just feels sick to his stomach. Everyone else just feels awkward and wishes the whole problem would go away.
ii. How was Paul? Nervous? Bold? Shaking? It’s impossible to know until we get to heaven, but Paul did not necessarily have a commanding physical presence. Others said of Paul – and it was probably at least partially true - his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible (2 Corinthians 10:10). However Paul acted, his words were memorable, because he recalls them exactly here!
b. Lightfoot on being a Jew: “Here it is very emphatic; ‘If you, born and bred a Jew, discard Jewish customs, how unreasonable to impose them on Gentiles.’”
c. Why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? Perhaps Peter and the others might say, “We’re not making them live as Jews.” But of course they were; because their message was, “Unless you live as Jews, you aren’t saved!”
2. (15-16) Paul reminds Peter that they are justified before God by the work of Jesus, not by their keeping of the law.
“We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.”
a. We who are Jews by nature . . . knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ: “Peter, we all grew up as observant Jews. Yet we know very well that we were not considered right before God – justified – by the works of the law that we did. We know that we, even though we grew up as observant Jews, are considered right before God by faith in Jesus Christ.”
i. Not justified by the works of the law: This is Paul’s first use of the great word dikaioo (justified, declared righteous) in his letter to the Galatians. “It is a legal concept; the person who is ‘justified’ is the one who gets the verdict in a court of law. Used in a religious sense it means the getting of a favorable verdict before God on judgment day.” (Morris)
b. Even we have believed in Christ Jesus: Paul knew that even a strictly observant Jew such as he was could never be considered right before God by what they did under the Law of Moses. Instead, he, and Peter, and every single Christian must have believed in Christ Jesus.
i. “‘Faith in Jesus Christ’, then, is not intellectual conviction only, but personal commitment. The expression in the middle of verse 16 is (literally) ‘we have believed into (eis) Christ Jesus.’ It is an act of committal, not just assenting to the fact that Jesus lived and died, but running to Him for refuge and calling on Him for mercy.” (Stott)
ii. “It would be hard to find a more forceful statement of the doctrine of justification than this. It is insisted upon by the two leading apostles (‘we know’), confirmed from their own experience (‘we have believed’), and endorsed by the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament (‘by works of the law shall no one be justified’). With this threefold guarantee we should accept the biblical doctrine of justification and not let our natural self-righteousness keep us from faith in Christ.” (Stott)
iii. “In order to have faith you must paint a true portrait of Christ. The scholastics caricature Christ into a judge and tormentor. But Christ is no law giver. He is the Life-giver. He is the Forgiver of sins. You must believe that Christ might have atoned for the sins of the world with one single drop of His blood. Instead, He shed His blood abundantly in order than He might give abundant satisfaction for our sins.” (Luther)
c. The emphasis is plain: That we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law. “Peter, we were not justified by being under the Law of Moses, but by faith in Jesus.” By refusing fellowship with Gentile Christians, Peter said in his actions that we are – in part – considered right before God by the works of the law. Paul couldn’t stand for this, because it wasn’t the truth.
d. For by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified: Here, Paul emphasizes the point in the strongest way possible. No flesh – not Gentile, not Jewish, not anyone – will be considered right before God by the works of the law.
i. Lightfoot on for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified: “The words are therefore to be regarded as a free citation of Psalm 143:2.” (For in Your sight no one living in righteous).
ii. “The scholastics explain the way of salvation in this manner. When a person happens to perform a good deed, God accepts it and as a reward for the good deed God pours charity into that person. They call it ‘charity infused.’ This charity is supposed to remain in the heart. They get wild when they are told that this quality of the heart cannot justify a person.” (Luther)
iii. Since this is true, it’s plain to see how foolish and wrong it was for Peter to separate from these Gentile Christians because they had not put themselves under the Law of Moses. Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified, then what difference does it make if a Gentile is circumcised according to the Law of Moses? What difference does it make if a Gentile keeps a kosher table? All that matters is their faith in Christ, because that is how we are made right before God.
-- David Guzik
Martin Luther Commentary pt 5 - Galatians 2:14-16
Commentary on the Epistle
to the Galatians
(1535)
by Martin Luther
Translated by Theodore Graebner
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1949)
Galatians 2:14-16
__________
VERSE 14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.
No one except Paul had his eyes open. Consequently it was his duty to reprove Peter and his followers for swerving from the truth of the Gospel. It was no easy task for Paul to reprimand Peter. To the honor of Peter it must be said that he took the correction. No doubt, he freely acknowledged his fault.
The person who can rightly divide Law and Gospel has reason to thank God. He is a true theologian. I must confess that in times of temptation I do not always know how to do it. To divide Law and Gospel means to place the Gospel in heaven, and to keep the Law on earth; to call the righteousness of the Gospel heavenly, and the righteousness of the Law earthly; to put as much difference between the righteousness of the Gospel and that of the Law, as there is difference between day and night. If it is a question of faith or conscience, ignore the Law entirely. If it is a question of works, then lift high the lantern of works and the righteousness of the Law. If your conscience is oppressed with a sense of sin, talk to your conscience. Say: "You are now groveling in the dirt. You are now a laboring ass. Go ahead, and carry your burden. But why don't you mount up to heaven? There the Law cannot follow you!" Leave the ass burdened with laws behind in the valley. But your conscience, let it ascend with Isaac into the mountain.
In civil life obedience to the law is severely required. In civil life Gospel, conscience, grace, remission of sins, Christ Himself, do not count, but only Moses with the lawbooks. If we bear in mind this distinction, neither Gospel nor Law shall trespass upon each other. The moment Law and sin cross into heaven, i.e., your conscience, kick them out. On the other hand, when grace wanders unto the earth, i.e., into the body, tell grace: "You have no business to be around the dreg and dung of this bodily life. You belong in heaven."
By his compromising attitude Peter confused the separation of Law and Gospel. Paul had to do something about it. He reproved Peter, not to embarrass him, but to conserve the difference between the Gospel which justifies in heaven, and the Law which justifies on earth.
The right separation between Law and Gospel is very important to know. Christian doctrine is impossible without it. Let all who love and fear God, diligently learn the difference, not only in theory but also in practice.
When your conscience gets into trouble, say to yourself: "There is a time to die, and a time to live; a time to learn the Law, and a time to unlearn the Law; a time to hear the Gospel, and a time to ignore the Gospel. Let the Law now depart, and let the Gospel enter, for now is the right time to hear the Gospel, and not the Law." However, when the conflict of conscience is over and external duties must be performed, close your ears to the Gospel, and open them wide to the Law.
VERSE 14. I said unto Peter before them all, If thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews.
To live as a Jew is nothing bad. To eat or not to eat pork, what difference does it make? But to play the Jew, and for conscience' sake to abstain from certain meats, is a denial of Christ. When Paul saw that Peter's attitude tended to this, he withstood Peter and said to him: "You know that the observance of the law is not needed unto righteousness. You know that we are justified by faith in Christ. You know that we may eat all kinds of meats. Yet by your example you obligate the Gentiles to forsake Christ, and to return to the Law. You give them reason to think that faith is not sufficient unto salvation."
Peter did not say so, but his example said quite plainly that the observance of the Law must be added to faith in Christ, if men are to be saved. From Peter's example the Gentiles could not help but draw the conclusion that the Law was necessary unto salvation. If this error had been permitted to pass unchallenged, Christ would have lost out altogether.
The controversy involved the preservation of pure doctrine. In such a controversy Paul did not mind if anybody took offense.
VERSE 15. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles.
"When we Jews compare ourselves with the Gentiles, we look pretty good. We have the Law, we have good works. Our rectitude dates from our birth, because the Jewish religion is natural to us. But all this does not make us righteous before God."
Peter and the others lived up to the requirements of the Law. They had circumcision, the covenant, the promises, the apostleship. But because of these advantages they were not to think themselves righteous before God. None of these prerogatives spell faith in Christ, which alone can justify a person. We do not mean to imply that the Law is bad. We do not condemn the Law, circumcision, etc., for their failure to justify us. Paul spoke disparagingly of these ordinances, because the false apostles asserted that mankind is saved by them without faith. Paul could not let this assertion stand, for without faith all things are deadly.
VERSE 16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.
For the sake of argument let us suppose that you could fulfill the Law in the spirit of the first commandment of God: "Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thy heart." It would do you no good. A person simply is not justified by the works of the Law.
The works of the Law, according to Paul, include the whole Law, judicial, ceremonial, moral. Now, if the performance of the moral law cannot justify, how can circumcision justify, when circumcision is part of the ceremonial law?
The demands of the Law may be fulfilled before and after justification. There were many excellent men among the pagans of old, men who never heard of justification. They lived moral lives. But that fact did not justify them. Peter, Paul, all Christians, live up to the Law. But that fact does not justify them. "For I know nothing by myself," says Paul, "yet am I not hereby justified." (I Cor. 4:4.)
The nefarious opinion of the papists, which attributes the merit of grace and the remission of sins to works, must here be emphatically rejected. The papists say that a good work performed before grace has been obtained, is able to secure grace for a person, because it is no more than right that God should reward a good deed. When grace has already been obtained, any good work deserves everlasting life as a due payment and reward for merit. For the first, God is no debtor, they say; but because God is good and just, it is no more than right (they say) that He should reward a good work by granting grace for the service. But when grace has already been obtained, they continue, God is in the position of a debtor, and is in duty bound to reward a good work with the gift of eternal life. This is the wicked teaching of the papacy.
Now, if I could perform any work acceptable to God and deserving of grace, and once having obtained grace my good works would continue to earn for me the right and reward of eternal life, why should I stand in need of the grace of God and the suffering and death of Christ? Christ would be of no benefit to me. Christ's mercy would be of no use to me.
This shows how little insight the pope and the whole of his religious coterie have into spiritual matters, and how little they concern themselves with the spiritual health of their forlorn flocks. They cannot believe that the flesh is unable to think, speak, or do anything except against God. If they could see evil rooted in the nature of man, they would never entertain such silly dreams about man's merit or worthiness.
With Paul we absolutely deny the possibility of self merit. God never yet gave to any person grace and everlasting life as a reward for merit. The opinions of the papists are the intellectual pipe-dreams of idle pates, that serve no other purpose but to draw men away from the true worship of God. The papacy is founded upon hallucinations.
The true way of salvation is this. First, a person must realize that he is a sinner, the kind of a sinner who is congenitally unable to do any good thing. "Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin." Those who seek to earn the grace of God by their own efforts are trying to please God with sins. They mock God, and provoke His anger. The first step on the way to salvation is to repent.
The second part is this. God sent His only-begotten Son into the world that we may live through His merit. He was crucified and killed for us. By sacrificing His Son for us God revealed Himself to us as a merciful Father who donates remission of sins, righteousness, and life everlasting for Christ's sake. God hands out His gifts freely unto all men. That is the praise and glory of His mercy.
The scholastics explain the way of salvation in this manner. When a person happens to perform a good deed, God accepts it and as a reward for the good deed God pours charity into that person. They call it "charity infused." This charity is supposed to remain in the heart. They get wild when they are told that this quality of the heart cannot justify a person.
They also claim that we are able to love God by our own natural strength, to love God above all things, at least to the extent that we deserve grace. And, say the scholastics, because God is not satisfied with a literal performance of the Law, but expects us to fulfill the Law according to the mind of the Lawgiver, therefore we must obtain from above a quality above nature, a quality which they call "formal righteousness."
We say, faith apprehends Jesus Christ. Christian faith is not an inactive quality in the heart. If it is true faith it will surely take Christ for its object. Christ, apprehended by faith and dwelling in the heart, constitutes Christian righteousness, for which God gives eternal life.
In contrast to the doting dreams of the scholastics, we teach this: First a person must learn to know himself from the Law. With the prophet he will then confess: "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." And, "there is none that doeth good, no, not one." And, "against thee, thee only, have I sinned."
Having been humbled by the Law, and having been brought to a right estimate of himself, a man will repent. He finds out that he is so depraved, that no strength, no works, no merits of his own will ever deliver him from his guilt. He will then understand the meaning of Paul's words: "I am sold under sin"; and "they are all under sin."
At this state a person begins to lament: "Who is going to help me?" In due time comes the Word of the Gospel, and says: "Son, thy sins are forgiven thee. Believe in Jesus Christ who was crucified for your sins. Remember, your sins have been imposed upon Christ."
In this way are we delivered from sin. In this way are we justified and made heirs of everlasting life.
In order to have faith you must paint a true portrait of Christ. The scholastics caricature Christ into a judge and tormentor. But Christ is no law giver. He is the Lifegiver. He is the Forgiver of sins. You must believe that Christ might have atoned for the sins of the world with one single drop of His blood. Instead, He shed His blood abundantly in order that He might give abundant satisfaction for our sins.
Here let me say, that these three things, faith, Christ, and imputation of righteousness, are to be joined together. Faith takes hold of Christ. God accounts this faith for righteousness.
This imputation of righteousness we need very much, because we are far from perfect. As long as we have this body, sin will dwell in our flesh. Then, too, we sometimes drive away the Holy Spirit; we fall into sin, like Peter, David, and other holy men. Nevertheless we may always take recourse to this fact, "that our sins are covered," and that "God will not lay them to our charge." Sin is not held against us for Christ's sake. Where Christ and faith are lacking, there is no remission or covering of sins, but only condemnation.
After we have taught faith in Christ, we teach good works. "Since you have found Christ by faith," we say, "begin now to work and do well. Love God and your neighbor. Call upon God, give thanks unto Him, praise Him, confess Him. These are good works. Let them flow from a cheerful heart, because you have remission of sin in Christ."
When crosses and afflictions come our way, we bear them patiently. "For Christ's yoke is easy, and His burden is light." When sin has been pardoned, and the conscience has been eased of its dreadful load, a Christian can endure all things in Christ.
To give a short definition of a Christian: A Christian is not somebody chalks sin, because of his faith in Christ. This doctrine brings comfort to consciences in serious trouble. When a person is a Christian he is above law and sin. When the Law accuses him, and sin wants to drive the wits out of him, a Christian looks to Christ. A Christian is free. He has no master except Christ. A Christian is greater than the whole world.
VERSE 16. Even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified.
The true way of becoming a Christian is to be justified by faith in Jesus Christ, and not by the works of the Law.
We know that we must also teach good works, but they must be taught in their proper turn, when the discussion is concerning works and not the article of justification.
Here the question arises by what means are we justified? We answer with Paul, "By faith only in Christ are we pronounced righteous, and not by works." Not that we reject good works. Far from it. But we will not allow ourselves to be removed from the anchorage of our salvation.
The Law is a good thing. But when the discussion is about justification, then is no time to drag in the Law. When we discuss justification we ought to speak of Christ and the benefits He has brought us.
Christ is no sheriff. He is "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." (John 1:29.)
VERSE 16. That we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law.
We do not mean to say that the Law is bad. Only it is not able to justify us. To be at peace with God, we have need of a far better mediator than Moses or the Law. We must know that we are nothing. We must understand that we are merely beneficiaries and recipients of the treasures of Christ.
So far, the words of Paul were addressed to Peter. Now Paul turns to the Galatians and makes this summary statement:
VERSE 16. For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
By the term "flesh" Paul does not understand manifest vices. Such sins he usually calls by their proper names, as adultery, fornication, etc. By "flesh" Paul understands what Jesus meant in the third chapter of John, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh". (John 3:6.) "Flesh" here means the whole nature of man, inclusive of reason and instincts. "This flesh," says Paul, "is not justified by the works of the law."
The papists do not believe this. They say, "A person who performs this good deed or that, deserves the forgiveness of his sins. A person who joins this or that holy order, has the promise of everlasting life."
To me it is a miracle that the Church, so long surrounded by vicious sects, has been able to survive at all. God must have been able to call a few who in their failure to discover any good in themselves to cite against the wrath and judgment of God, simply took to the suffering and death of Christ, and were saved by this simple faith.
Nevertheless God has punished the contempt of the Gospel and of Christ on the part of the papists, by turning them over to a reprobate state of mind in which they reject the Gospel, and receive with gusto the abominable rules, ordinances, and traditions of men in preference to the Word of God, until they went so far as to forbid marriage. God punished them justly, because they blasphemed the only Son of God.
This is, then, our general conclusion: "By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
This text was prepared by Laura J. Hoelter for Project Wittenberg by Robert E. Smith and is in the public domain. You may freely distribute, copy or print this text. Please direct any comments or suggestions to:
Rev. Robert E. Smith
Walther Library
Concordia Theological Seminary.
E-mail: smithre@mail.ctsfw.edu
Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA
Phone: (260) 452-3149 - Fax: (260) 452-2126
To: Next Page - Contents Galatians - Martin Luther - Project Wittenberg
to the Galatians
(1535)
by Martin Luther
Translated by Theodore Graebner
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1949)
Galatians 2:14-16
__________
VERSE 14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.
No one except Paul had his eyes open. Consequently it was his duty to reprove Peter and his followers for swerving from the truth of the Gospel. It was no easy task for Paul to reprimand Peter. To the honor of Peter it must be said that he took the correction. No doubt, he freely acknowledged his fault.
The person who can rightly divide Law and Gospel has reason to thank God. He is a true theologian. I must confess that in times of temptation I do not always know how to do it. To divide Law and Gospel means to place the Gospel in heaven, and to keep the Law on earth; to call the righteousness of the Gospel heavenly, and the righteousness of the Law earthly; to put as much difference between the righteousness of the Gospel and that of the Law, as there is difference between day and night. If it is a question of faith or conscience, ignore the Law entirely. If it is a question of works, then lift high the lantern of works and the righteousness of the Law. If your conscience is oppressed with a sense of sin, talk to your conscience. Say: "You are now groveling in the dirt. You are now a laboring ass. Go ahead, and carry your burden. But why don't you mount up to heaven? There the Law cannot follow you!" Leave the ass burdened with laws behind in the valley. But your conscience, let it ascend with Isaac into the mountain.
In civil life obedience to the law is severely required. In civil life Gospel, conscience, grace, remission of sins, Christ Himself, do not count, but only Moses with the lawbooks. If we bear in mind this distinction, neither Gospel nor Law shall trespass upon each other. The moment Law and sin cross into heaven, i.e., your conscience, kick them out. On the other hand, when grace wanders unto the earth, i.e., into the body, tell grace: "You have no business to be around the dreg and dung of this bodily life. You belong in heaven."
By his compromising attitude Peter confused the separation of Law and Gospel. Paul had to do something about it. He reproved Peter, not to embarrass him, but to conserve the difference between the Gospel which justifies in heaven, and the Law which justifies on earth.
The right separation between Law and Gospel is very important to know. Christian doctrine is impossible without it. Let all who love and fear God, diligently learn the difference, not only in theory but also in practice.
When your conscience gets into trouble, say to yourself: "There is a time to die, and a time to live; a time to learn the Law, and a time to unlearn the Law; a time to hear the Gospel, and a time to ignore the Gospel. Let the Law now depart, and let the Gospel enter, for now is the right time to hear the Gospel, and not the Law." However, when the conflict of conscience is over and external duties must be performed, close your ears to the Gospel, and open them wide to the Law.
VERSE 14. I said unto Peter before them all, If thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews.
To live as a Jew is nothing bad. To eat or not to eat pork, what difference does it make? But to play the Jew, and for conscience' sake to abstain from certain meats, is a denial of Christ. When Paul saw that Peter's attitude tended to this, he withstood Peter and said to him: "You know that the observance of the law is not needed unto righteousness. You know that we are justified by faith in Christ. You know that we may eat all kinds of meats. Yet by your example you obligate the Gentiles to forsake Christ, and to return to the Law. You give them reason to think that faith is not sufficient unto salvation."
Peter did not say so, but his example said quite plainly that the observance of the Law must be added to faith in Christ, if men are to be saved. From Peter's example the Gentiles could not help but draw the conclusion that the Law was necessary unto salvation. If this error had been permitted to pass unchallenged, Christ would have lost out altogether.
The controversy involved the preservation of pure doctrine. In such a controversy Paul did not mind if anybody took offense.
VERSE 15. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles.
"When we Jews compare ourselves with the Gentiles, we look pretty good. We have the Law, we have good works. Our rectitude dates from our birth, because the Jewish religion is natural to us. But all this does not make us righteous before God."
Peter and the others lived up to the requirements of the Law. They had circumcision, the covenant, the promises, the apostleship. But because of these advantages they were not to think themselves righteous before God. None of these prerogatives spell faith in Christ, which alone can justify a person. We do not mean to imply that the Law is bad. We do not condemn the Law, circumcision, etc., for their failure to justify us. Paul spoke disparagingly of these ordinances, because the false apostles asserted that mankind is saved by them without faith. Paul could not let this assertion stand, for without faith all things are deadly.
VERSE 16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.
For the sake of argument let us suppose that you could fulfill the Law in the spirit of the first commandment of God: "Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thy heart." It would do you no good. A person simply is not justified by the works of the Law.
The works of the Law, according to Paul, include the whole Law, judicial, ceremonial, moral. Now, if the performance of the moral law cannot justify, how can circumcision justify, when circumcision is part of the ceremonial law?
The demands of the Law may be fulfilled before and after justification. There were many excellent men among the pagans of old, men who never heard of justification. They lived moral lives. But that fact did not justify them. Peter, Paul, all Christians, live up to the Law. But that fact does not justify them. "For I know nothing by myself," says Paul, "yet am I not hereby justified." (I Cor. 4:4.)
The nefarious opinion of the papists, which attributes the merit of grace and the remission of sins to works, must here be emphatically rejected. The papists say that a good work performed before grace has been obtained, is able to secure grace for a person, because it is no more than right that God should reward a good deed. When grace has already been obtained, any good work deserves everlasting life as a due payment and reward for merit. For the first, God is no debtor, they say; but because God is good and just, it is no more than right (they say) that He should reward a good work by granting grace for the service. But when grace has already been obtained, they continue, God is in the position of a debtor, and is in duty bound to reward a good work with the gift of eternal life. This is the wicked teaching of the papacy.
Now, if I could perform any work acceptable to God and deserving of grace, and once having obtained grace my good works would continue to earn for me the right and reward of eternal life, why should I stand in need of the grace of God and the suffering and death of Christ? Christ would be of no benefit to me. Christ's mercy would be of no use to me.
This shows how little insight the pope and the whole of his religious coterie have into spiritual matters, and how little they concern themselves with the spiritual health of their forlorn flocks. They cannot believe that the flesh is unable to think, speak, or do anything except against God. If they could see evil rooted in the nature of man, they would never entertain such silly dreams about man's merit or worthiness.
With Paul we absolutely deny the possibility of self merit. God never yet gave to any person grace and everlasting life as a reward for merit. The opinions of the papists are the intellectual pipe-dreams of idle pates, that serve no other purpose but to draw men away from the true worship of God. The papacy is founded upon hallucinations.
The true way of salvation is this. First, a person must realize that he is a sinner, the kind of a sinner who is congenitally unable to do any good thing. "Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin." Those who seek to earn the grace of God by their own efforts are trying to please God with sins. They mock God, and provoke His anger. The first step on the way to salvation is to repent.
The second part is this. God sent His only-begotten Son into the world that we may live through His merit. He was crucified and killed for us. By sacrificing His Son for us God revealed Himself to us as a merciful Father who donates remission of sins, righteousness, and life everlasting for Christ's sake. God hands out His gifts freely unto all men. That is the praise and glory of His mercy.
The scholastics explain the way of salvation in this manner. When a person happens to perform a good deed, God accepts it and as a reward for the good deed God pours charity into that person. They call it "charity infused." This charity is supposed to remain in the heart. They get wild when they are told that this quality of the heart cannot justify a person.
They also claim that we are able to love God by our own natural strength, to love God above all things, at least to the extent that we deserve grace. And, say the scholastics, because God is not satisfied with a literal performance of the Law, but expects us to fulfill the Law according to the mind of the Lawgiver, therefore we must obtain from above a quality above nature, a quality which they call "formal righteousness."
We say, faith apprehends Jesus Christ. Christian faith is not an inactive quality in the heart. If it is true faith it will surely take Christ for its object. Christ, apprehended by faith and dwelling in the heart, constitutes Christian righteousness, for which God gives eternal life.
In contrast to the doting dreams of the scholastics, we teach this: First a person must learn to know himself from the Law. With the prophet he will then confess: "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." And, "there is none that doeth good, no, not one." And, "against thee, thee only, have I sinned."
Having been humbled by the Law, and having been brought to a right estimate of himself, a man will repent. He finds out that he is so depraved, that no strength, no works, no merits of his own will ever deliver him from his guilt. He will then understand the meaning of Paul's words: "I am sold under sin"; and "they are all under sin."
At this state a person begins to lament: "Who is going to help me?" In due time comes the Word of the Gospel, and says: "Son, thy sins are forgiven thee. Believe in Jesus Christ who was crucified for your sins. Remember, your sins have been imposed upon Christ."
In this way are we delivered from sin. In this way are we justified and made heirs of everlasting life.
In order to have faith you must paint a true portrait of Christ. The scholastics caricature Christ into a judge and tormentor. But Christ is no law giver. He is the Lifegiver. He is the Forgiver of sins. You must believe that Christ might have atoned for the sins of the world with one single drop of His blood. Instead, He shed His blood abundantly in order that He might give abundant satisfaction for our sins.
Here let me say, that these three things, faith, Christ, and imputation of righteousness, are to be joined together. Faith takes hold of Christ. God accounts this faith for righteousness.
This imputation of righteousness we need very much, because we are far from perfect. As long as we have this body, sin will dwell in our flesh. Then, too, we sometimes drive away the Holy Spirit; we fall into sin, like Peter, David, and other holy men. Nevertheless we may always take recourse to this fact, "that our sins are covered," and that "God will not lay them to our charge." Sin is not held against us for Christ's sake. Where Christ and faith are lacking, there is no remission or covering of sins, but only condemnation.
After we have taught faith in Christ, we teach good works. "Since you have found Christ by faith," we say, "begin now to work and do well. Love God and your neighbor. Call upon God, give thanks unto Him, praise Him, confess Him. These are good works. Let them flow from a cheerful heart, because you have remission of sin in Christ."
When crosses and afflictions come our way, we bear them patiently. "For Christ's yoke is easy, and His burden is light." When sin has been pardoned, and the conscience has been eased of its dreadful load, a Christian can endure all things in Christ.
To give a short definition of a Christian: A Christian is not somebody chalks sin, because of his faith in Christ. This doctrine brings comfort to consciences in serious trouble. When a person is a Christian he is above law and sin. When the Law accuses him, and sin wants to drive the wits out of him, a Christian looks to Christ. A Christian is free. He has no master except Christ. A Christian is greater than the whole world.
VERSE 16. Even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified.
The true way of becoming a Christian is to be justified by faith in Jesus Christ, and not by the works of the Law.
We know that we must also teach good works, but they must be taught in their proper turn, when the discussion is concerning works and not the article of justification.
Here the question arises by what means are we justified? We answer with Paul, "By faith only in Christ are we pronounced righteous, and not by works." Not that we reject good works. Far from it. But we will not allow ourselves to be removed from the anchorage of our salvation.
The Law is a good thing. But when the discussion is about justification, then is no time to drag in the Law. When we discuss justification we ought to speak of Christ and the benefits He has brought us.
Christ is no sheriff. He is "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." (John 1:29.)
VERSE 16. That we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law.
We do not mean to say that the Law is bad. Only it is not able to justify us. To be at peace with God, we have need of a far better mediator than Moses or the Law. We must know that we are nothing. We must understand that we are merely beneficiaries and recipients of the treasures of Christ.
So far, the words of Paul were addressed to Peter. Now Paul turns to the Galatians and makes this summary statement:
VERSE 16. For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
By the term "flesh" Paul does not understand manifest vices. Such sins he usually calls by their proper names, as adultery, fornication, etc. By "flesh" Paul understands what Jesus meant in the third chapter of John, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh". (John 3:6.) "Flesh" here means the whole nature of man, inclusive of reason and instincts. "This flesh," says Paul, "is not justified by the works of the law."
The papists do not believe this. They say, "A person who performs this good deed or that, deserves the forgiveness of his sins. A person who joins this or that holy order, has the promise of everlasting life."
To me it is a miracle that the Church, so long surrounded by vicious sects, has been able to survive at all. God must have been able to call a few who in their failure to discover any good in themselves to cite against the wrath and judgment of God, simply took to the suffering and death of Christ, and were saved by this simple faith.
Nevertheless God has punished the contempt of the Gospel and of Christ on the part of the papists, by turning them over to a reprobate state of mind in which they reject the Gospel, and receive with gusto the abominable rules, ordinances, and traditions of men in preference to the Word of God, until they went so far as to forbid marriage. God punished them justly, because they blasphemed the only Son of God.
This is, then, our general conclusion: "By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
This text was prepared by Laura J. Hoelter for Project Wittenberg by Robert E. Smith and is in the public domain. You may freely distribute, copy or print this text. Please direct any comments or suggestions to:
Rev. Robert E. Smith
Walther Library
Concordia Theological Seminary.
E-mail: smithre@mail.ctsfw.edu
Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA
Phone: (260) 452-3149 - Fax: (260) 452-2126
To: Next Page - Contents Galatians - Martin Luther - Project Wittenberg
Martin Luther Commentary pt 4 - Galatians 2:1-13
Commentary on the Epistle
to the Galatians
(1535)
by Martin Luther
Galatians 2:1-3
__________
VERSE 1. Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem.
Paul taught justification by faith in Christ Jesus, without the deeds of the Law. He reported this to the disciples at Antioch. Among the disciples were some that had been brought up in the ancient customs of the Jews. These rose against Paul in quick indignation, accusing him of propagating a gospel of lawlessness.
Great dissension followed. Paul and Barnabas stood up for the truth. They testified: "Wherever we preached to the Gentiles, the Holy Ghost came upon those who received the Word. This happened everywhere. We preached not circumcision, we did not require observance of the Law. We preached faith in Jesus Christ. At our preaching of faith, God gave to the hearers the Holy Ghost." From this fact Paul and Barnabas inferred that the Holy Ghost approved the faith of the Gentiles without the Law and circumcision. If the faith of the Gentiles had not pleased the Holy Ghost, He would not have manifested His presence in the uncircumcised hearers of the Word.
Unconvinced, the Jews fiercely opposed Paul, asserting that the Law ought to be kept and that the Gentiles ought to be circumcised, or else they could not be saved.
When we consider the obstinacy with which Romanists cling to their traditions, we can very well understand the zealous devotion of the Jews for the Law. After all, they had received the Law from God. We can understand how impossible it was for recent converts from Judaism suddenly to break with the Law. For that matter, God did bear with them, as He bore with the infirmity of Israel when the people halted between two religions. Was not God patient with us also while we were blindfolded by the papacy? God is longsuffering and full of mercy. But we dare not abuse the patience of the Lord. We dare no longer continue in error now that the truth has been revealed in the Gospel.
The opponents of Paul had his own example to prefer against him. Paul had circumcised Timothy. Paul defended his action on the ground that he had circumcised Timothy, not from compulsion, but from Christian love, lest the weak in faith should be offended. His opponents would not accept Paul's explanation.
When Paul saw that the quarrel was getting out of hand he obeyed the direction of God and left for Jerusalem, there to confer with the other apostles. He did this not for his own sake, but for the sake of the people.
VERSE 1. With Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
Paul chose two witnesses, Barnabas and Titus. Barnabas had been Paul's preaching companion to the Gentiles. Barnabas was an eye-witness of the fact that the Holy Ghost had come upon the Gentiles in response to the simple preaching of faith in Jesus Christ. Barnabas stuck to Paul on this point, that it was unnecessary for the Gentiles to be bothered with the Law as long as they believed in Christ.
Titus was superintendent of the churches in Crete, having been placed in charge of the churches by Paul. Titus was a former Gentile.
VERSE 2. And I went up by revelation.
If God had not ordered Paul to Jerusalem, Paul would never have gone there.
VERSE 2. And communicated unto them that gospel.
After an absence of fourteen years, respectively eighteen years, Paul returned to Jerusalem to confer with the other apostles.
VERSE 2. Which I preach among the Gentiles.
Among the Jews Paul allowed Law and circumcision to stand for the time being. So did all the apostles. Nevertheless Paul held fast to the liberty of the Gospel. On one occasion he said to the Jews: "Through this man (Christ) is preached unto you forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13:39.) Always remembering the weak, Paul did not insist that they break at once with the Law.
Paul admits that he conferred with the apostles concerning his Gospel. But he denies that the conference benefited or taught him anything. The fact is he resisted those who wanted to force the practice of the Law upon the Gentiles. They did not overcome him, he overcame them. "Your false apostles lie, when they say that I circumcised Timothy, shaved my head in Cenchrea, and went up to Jerusalem, at the request of the apostles. I went to Jerusalem at the request of God. What is more, I won the indorsement of the apostles. My opponents lost out."
The matter upon which the apostles deliberated in conference was this: Is the observance of the Law requisite unto justification? Paul answered: "I have preached faith in Christ to the Gentiles, and not the Law. If the Jews want to keep the Law and be circumcised, very well, as long as they do so from a right motive."
VERSE 2. But privately to them which were of reputation.
This is to say, "I conferred not only with the brethren, but with the leaders among them."
VERSE 2. Lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
Not that Paul himself ever thought he had run in vain. However, many did think that Paul had preached the Gospel in vain, because he kept the Gentiles free from the yoke of the Law. The opinion that obedience to the Law was mandatory unto salvation was gaining ground. Paul meant to remedy this evil. By this conference he hoped to establish the identity of his Gospel with that of the other apostles, to stop the talk of his opponents that he had been running around in vain.
VERSE 3. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
The word "compelled" acquaints us with the outcome of the conference. It was resolved that the Gentiles should not be compelled to be circumcised.
Paul did not condemn circumcision in itself. Neither by word nor deed did he ever inveigh against circumcision. But he did protest against circumcision being made a condition for salvation. He cited the case of the Fathers. "The fathers were not justified by circumcision. It was to them a sign and seal of righteousness. They looked upon circumcision as a confession of their faith."
The believing Jews, however, could not get it through their heads that circumcision was not necessary for salvation. They were encouraged in their wrong attitude by the false apostles. The result was that the people were up in arms against Paul and his doctrine.
Paul did not condemn circumcision as if it were a sin to receive it. But he insisted, and the conference upheld him, that circumcision had no bearing upon salvation and was therefore not to be forced upon the Gentiles. The conference agreed that the Jews should be permitted to keep their ancient customs for the time being, so long as they did not regard those customs as conveying God's justification of the sinner.
The false apostles were dissatisfied with the verdict of the conference. They did not want to rest circumcision and the practice of the Law in Christian liberty. They insisted that circumcision was obligatory unto salvation.
As the opponents of Paul, so our own adversaries [Luther's, the enemies of the Reformation] contend that the traditions of the Fathers dare not be neglected without loss of salvation. Our opponents will not agree with us on anything. They defend their blasphemies. They go as far to enforce them with the sword.
Paul's victory was complete. Titus, who was with Paul, was not compelled to be circumcised, although he stood in the midst of the apostles when this question of circumcision was debated. This was a blow to the false apostles. With the living fact that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised Paul was able to squelch his adversaries.
__________
Galatians 2:4-13
__________
VERSES 4,5. And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
Paul here explains his motive for going up to Jerusalem. He did not go to Jerusalem to be instructed or confirmed in his Gospel by the other apostles. He went to Jerusalem in order to preserve the true Gospel for the Galatian churches and for all the churches of the Gentiles.
When Paul speaks of the truth of the Gospel he implies by contrast a false gospel. The false apostles also had a gospel, but it was an untrue gospel. "In holding out against them," says Paul, "I conserved the truth of the pure Gospel."
Now the true Gospel has it that we are justified by faith alone, without the deeds of the Law. The false gospel has it that we are justified by faith, but not without the deeds of the Law. The false apostles preached a conditional gospel.
So do the papists. They admit that faith is the foundation of salvation. But they add the conditional clause that faith can save only when it is furnished with good works. This is wrong. The true Gospel declares that good works are the embellishment of faith, but that faith itself is the gift and work of God in our hearts. Faith is able to justify, because it apprehends Christ, the Redeemer.
Human reason can think only in terms of the Law. It mumbles: "This I have done, this I have not done." But faith looks to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, given into death for the sins of the whole world. To turn one's eyes away from Jesus means to turn them to the Law.
True faith lays hold of Christ and leans on Him alone. Our opponents cannot understand this. In their blindness they cast away the precious pearl, Christ, and hang onto their stubborn works. They have no idea what faith is. How can they teach faith to others?
Not satisfied with teaching an untrue gospel, the false apostles tried to entangle Paul. "They went about," says Paul, "to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage."
When Paul saw through their scheme, he attacked the false apostles. He says, "We did not let go of the liberty which we have in Christ Jesus. We routed them by the judgment of the apostles, and we would not give in to them, no, not an inch."
We too were willing to make all kinds of concessions to the papists. Yes, we are willing to offer them more than we should. But we will not give up the liberty of conscience which we have in Christ Jesus. We refuse to have our conscience bound by any work or law, so that by doing this or that we should be righteous, or leaving this or that undone we should be damned.
Since our opponents will not let it stand that only faith in Christ justifies, we will not yield to them. On the question of justification we must remain adamant, or else we shall lose the truth of the Gospel. It is a matter of life and death. It involves the death of the Son of God, who died for the sins of the world. If we surrender faith in Christ, as the only thing that can justify us, the death and resurrection of Jesus are without meaning; that Christ is the Savior of the world would be a myth. God would be a liar, because He would not have fulfilled His promises. Our stubbornness is right, because we want to preserve the liberty which we have in Christ. Only by preserving our liberty shall we be able to retain the truth of the Gospel inviolate.
Some will object that the Law is divine and holy. Let it be divine and holy. The Law has no right to tell me that I must be justified by it. The Law has the right to tell me that I should love God and my neighbor, that I should live in chastity, temperance, patience, etc. The Law has no right to tell me how I may be delivered from sin, death, and hell. It is the Gospel's business to tell me that. I must listen to the Gospel. It tells me, not what I must do, but what Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has done for me.
To conclude, Paul refused to circumcise Titus for the reason that the false apostles wanted to compel him to circumcise Titus. Paul refused to accede to their demands. If they had asked it on the plea of brotherly love, Paul would not have denied them. But because they demanded it on the ground that it was necessary for salvation, Paul defied them, and prevailed. Titus was not circumcised.
VERSE 6. But of those who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me.
This is a good point in Paul's refutation. Paul disparages the authority and dignity of the true apostles. He says of them, "Which seemed to be somewhat." The authority of the apostles was indeed great in all the churches. Paul did not want to detract from their authority, but he had to speak disparagingly of their authority in order to conserve the truth of the Gospel, and the liberty of conscience.
The false apostles used this argument against Paul: "The apostles lived with Christ for three years. They heard His sermons. They witnessed His miracles. They themselves preached and performed miracles while Christ was on earth. Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh. Now, whom ought you to believe: Paul, who stands alone, a mere disciple of the apostles, one of the last and least; or will you believe those grand apostles who were sent and confirmed by Christ Himself long before Paul?"
What could Paul say to that? He answered: "What they say has no bearing on the argument. If the apostles were angels from heaven, that would not impress me. We are not now discussing the excellency of the apostles. We are talking about the Word of God now, and the truth of the Gospel. That Gospel is more excellent than all apostles.
VERSE 6. God accepteth no man's person.
Paul is quoting Moses: "Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty." (Lev. 19:15) This quotation from Moses ought to shut the mouths of the false apostles. "Don't you know that God is no respecter of persons?" cries Paul. The dignity or authority of men means nothing to God. The fact is that God often rejects just such who stand in the odor of sanctity and in the aura of importance. In doing so God seems unjust and harsh. But men need deterring examples. For it is a vice with us to esteem personality more highly than the Word of God. God wants us to exalt His Word and not men.
There must be people in high office, of course. But we are not to deify them. The governor, the mayor, the preacher, the teacher, the scholar, father, mother, are persons whom we are to love and revere, but not to the extent that we forget God. Least we attach too much importance to the person, God leaves with important persons offenses and sins, sometimes astounding shortcomings, to show us that there is a lot of difference between any person and God. David was a good king. But when the people began to think too well of him, down he fell into horrible sins, adultery and murder. Peter, excellent apostle that he was, denied Christ. Such examples of which the Scriptures are full, ought to warn us not to repose our trust in men. In the papacy appearance counts for everything. Indeed, the whole papacy amounts to nothing more than a mere kowtowing of persons and outward mummery. But God alone is to be feared and honored.
I would honor the Pope, I would love his person, if he would leave my conscience alone, and not compel me to sin against God. But the Pope wants to be adored himself, and that cannot be done without offending God. Since we must choose between one or the other, let us choose God. The truth is we are commissioned by God to resist the Pope, for it is written, "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29)
We have seen how Paul refutes the argument of the false apostles concerning the authority of the apostles. In order that the truth of the Gospel may continue; in order that the Word of God and the righteousness of faith may be kept pure and undefiled, let the apostles, let an angel from heaven, let Peter, let Paul, let them all perish.
VERSE 6. For they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me.
The Apostle repeats: "I did not so confer with the apostles that they taught me anything. What could they possibly teach me since Christ by His revelation had taught me all things? It was but a conference, and no disputation. I learned nothing, neither did I defend my cause. I only stated what I had done, that I had preached to the Gentiles faith in Christ, without the Law, and that in response to my preaching the Holy Ghost came down upon the Gentiles. When the apostles heard this, they were glad that I had taught the truth."
If Paul would not give in to the false apostles, much less ought we to give in to our opponents. I know that a Christian should be humble, but against the Pope I am going to be proud and say to him: "You, Pope, I will not have you for my boss, for I am sure that my doctrine is divine." Such pride against the Pope is imperative, for if we are not stout and proud we shall never succeed in defending the article of the righteousness of faith.
If the Pope would concede that God alone by His grace through Christ justifies sinners, we would carry him in our arms, we would kiss his feet. But since we cannot obtain this concession, we will give in to nobody, not to all the angels in heaven, not to Peter, not to Paul, not to a hundred emperors, not to a thousand popes, not to the whole world. If in this matter we were to humble ourselves, they would take from us the God who created us, and Jesus Christ who has redeemed us by His blood. Let this be our resolution, that we will suffer the loss of all things, the loss of our good name, of life itself, but the Gospel and our faith in Jesus Christ--we will not stand for it that anybody take them from us.
VERSES 7, 8. But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; [For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.]
Here the Apostle claims for himself the same authority which the false apostles attributed to the true apostles. Paul simply inverts their argument. "to bolster their evil cause," says he, "the false apostles quote the authority of the great apostles against me. I can quote the same authority against them, for the apostles are on my side. They gave me the right hand of fellowship. They approved my ministry. O my Galatians, do not believe the counterfeit apostles!"
What does Paul mean by saying that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto him, and that of the circumcision to Peter? Did not Paul preach to the Jews, while Peter preached to the Gentiles also? Peter converted the Centurion. Paul's custom was to enter into the synagogues of the Jews, there to preach the Gospel. Why then should he call himself the apostle of the Gentiles, while he calls Peter the apostle of the circumcision?
Paul refers to the fact that the other apostles remained in Jerusalem until the destruction of the city became imminent. But Paul was especially called the apostle of the Gentiles. Even before the destruction of Jerusalem Jews dwelt here and there in the cities of the Gentiles. Coming to a city, Paul customarily entered the synagogues of the Jews and first brought to them as the children of the kingdom, the glad tidings that the promises made unto the fathers were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. When the Jews refused to hear these glad tidings, Paul turned to the Gentiles. He was the apostle of the Gentiles in a special sense, as Peter was the apostle of the Jews.
Paul reiterates that Peter, James, and John, the accepted pillars of the Church, taught him nothing, nor did they commit unto him the office of preaching the Gospel unto the Gentiles. Both the knowledge of the Gospel and the commandment to preach it to the Gentiles, Paul received directly from God. His case was parallel to that of Peter's, who was particularly commissioned to preach the Gospel to the Jews.
The apostles had the same charge, the identical Gospel. Peter did not proclaim a different Gospel, nor had he appointed his fellow apostles. They were equals. They were all taught of God. None was greater than the other, none could point to prerogatives above the other. To justify his usurped primacy in the Church the Pope claims that Peter was the chief of the apostles. This is an impudent falsehood.
VERSE 8. For he that wrought effectually in Peter.
With these words Paul refutes another argument of the false apostles. "What reason have the false apostles to boast that the Gospel of Peter was mighty, that he converted many, that he wrought great miracles, and that his very shadow healed the sick? These reports are true enough. But where did Peter acquire this power? God gave him the power. I have the same power. I received my power, not from Peter, but from the same God, the same Spirit who was mighty in Peter was mighty in me also." Luke corroborates Paul's statement in the words: "And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul, so that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them." (Acts 19:11, 12.)
To conclude, Paul is not going to be inferior to the rest of the apostles. Some secular writers put Paul's boasting down as carnal pride. But Paul had no personal interest in his boasting. It was with him a matter of faith and doctrine. The controversy was not about the glory of Paul, but the glory of God, the Word of God, the true worship of God, true religion, and the righteousness of faith.
VERSE 9. And when James, Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
"The fact is, when the apostles heard that I had received the charge to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles from Christ; when they heard that God had wrought many miracles through me; that great numbers of the Gentiles had come to the knowledge of Christ through my ministry; when they heard that the Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost without Law and circumcision, by the simple preaching of faith; when they heard all this they glorified God for His grace in me." Hence, Paul was justified in concluding that the apostles were for him, and not against him.
VERSE 9. The right hands of fellowship.
As if the apostles had said to him: "We, Paul, do agree with you in all things. We are companions in doctrine. We have the same Gospel with this difference, that to you is committed the Gospel for the uncircumcised, while the Gospel for the circumcision is committed unto us. But this difference ought not to hinder our friendship, since we preach one and the same Gospel."
VERSE 10. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
Next to the preaching of the Gospel, a true and faithful pastor will take care of the poor. Where the Church is, there must be the poor, for the world and the devil persecute the Church and impoverish many faithful Christians.
Speaking of money, nobody wants to contribute nowadays to the maintenance of the ministry, and the erection of schools. When it comes to establishing false worship and idolatry, no cost is spared. True religion is ever in need of money, while false religions are backed by wealth.
VERSE 11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Paul goes on in his refutation of the false apostles by saying that in Antioch he withstood Peter in the presence of the whole congregation. As he stated before, Paul had no small matter in hand, but the chief article of the Christian religion. When this article is endangered, we must not hesitate to resist Peter, or an angel from heaven. Paul paid no regard to the dignity and position of Peter, when he saw this article in danger. It is written: "He that loveth father or mother or his own life, more than me, is not worthy of me." (Matt. 10:37.)
For defending the truth in our day, we are called proud and obstinate hypocrites. We are not ashamed of these titles. The cause we are called to defend, is not Peter's cause, or the cause of our parents, or that of the government, or that of the world, but the cause of God. In defense of that cause we must be firm and unyielding.
When he says, "to his face," Paul accuses the false apostles of slandering him behind his back. In his presence they dared not to open their mouths. He tells them, "I did not speak evil of Peter behind his back, but I withstood him frankly and openly."
Others may debate here whether an apostle might sin. I claim that we ought not to make Peter out as faultless. Prophets have erred. Nathan told David that he should go ahead and build the Temple of the Lord. But his prophecy was afterwards corrected by the Lord. The apostles erred in thinking of the Kingdom of Christ as a worldly state. Peter had heard the command of Christ, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature." But if it had not been for the heavenly vision and the special command of Christ, Peter would never have gone to the home of Cornelius. Peter also erred in this matter of circumcision. If Paul had not publicly censured him, all the believing Gentiles would have been compelled to receive circumcision and accept the Jewish law. We are not to attribute perfection to any man.
Luke reports "that the contention between Paul and Barnabas was so sharp that they departed asunder one from the other." The cause of their disagreement could hardly have been small since it separated these two, who had been joined together for years in a holy partnership. Such incidents are recorded for our consolation. After all, it is a comfort to know that even saints might and do sin.
Samson, David, and many other excellent men, fell into grievous sins. Job and Jeremiah cursed the day of their birth. Elijah and Jonah became weary of life and prayed for death. Such offenses on the part of the saints, the Scriptures record for the comfort of those who are near despair. No person has ever sunk so low that he cannot rise again. On the other hand, no man's standing is so secure that he may not fall. If Peter fell, I may fall. If he rose again, I may rise again. We have the same gifts that they had, the same Christ, the same baptism and the same Gospel, the same forgiveness of sins. They needed these saving ordinances just as much as we do.
VERSE 12. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles.
The Gentiles who had been converted to faith in Christ, ate meats forbidden by the Law. Peter, visiting some of these Gentiles, ate meat and drank wine with them, although he knew that these things were forbidden in the Law. Paul declared that he did likewise, that he became as a Jew to the Jews, and to them that were without law, as without law. He ate and drank with the Gentiles unconcerned about the Jewish Law. When he was with the Jews, however, he abstained from all things forbidden in the Law, for he labored to serve all men, that he "might by all means save some." Paul does not reprove Peter for transgressing the Law, but for disguising his attitude to the Law.
VERSE 12. But when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Paul does not accuse Peter of malice or ignorance, but of lack of principle, in that he abstained from meats, because he feared the Jews that came from James. Peter's weak attitude endangered the principle of Christian liberty. It is the deduction rather than the fact which Paul reproves. To eat and to drink, or not to eat and drink, is immaterial. But to make the deduction "If you eat, you sin; if you abstain you are righteous"--this is wrong.
Meats may be refused for two reasons. First, they may be refused for the sake of Christian love. There is no danger connected with a refusal of meats for the sake of charity. To bear with the infirmity of a brother is a good thing. Paul himself taught and exemplified such thoughtfulness. Secondly, meats may be refused in the mistaken hope of thereby obtaining righteousness. When this is the purpose of abstaining from meats, we say, let charity go. To refrain from meats for this latter reason amounts to a denial of Christ. If we must lose one or the other, let us lose a friend and brother, rather than God, our Father.
Jerome, who understood not this passage, nor the whole epistle for that matter, excuses Peter's action on the ground "that it was done in ignorance." But Peter offended by giving the impression that he was indorsing the Law. By his example he encouraged Gentiles and Jews to forsake the truth of the Gospel. If Paul had not reproved him, there would have been a sliding back of Christians into the Jewish religion, and a return to the burdens of the Law.
It is surprising that Peter, excellent apostle that he was, should have been guilty of such vacillation. In a former council at Jerusalem he practically stood alone in defense of the truth that salvation is by faith, without the Law. Peter at that time valiantly defended the liberty of the Gospel. But now by abstaining from meats forbidden in the Law, he went against his better judgment. You have no idea what danger there is in customs and ceremonies. They so easily tend to error in works.
VERSE 13. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
It is marvelous how God preserved the Church by one single person. Paul alone stood up for the truth, for Barnabas, his companion, was lost to him, and Peter was against him. Sometimes one lone person can do more in a conference than the whole assembly.
I mention this to urge all to learn how properly to differentiate between the Law and the Gospel, in order to avoid dissembling. When it come to the article of justification we must not yield, if we want to retain the truth of the Gospel.
When the conscience is disturbed, do not seek advice from reason or from the Law, but rest your conscience in the grace of God and in His Word, and proceed as if you had never heard of the Law. The Law has its place and its own good time. While Moses was in the mountain where he talked with God face to face, he had no law, he made no law, he administered no law. But when he came down from the mountain, he was a lawgiver. The conscience must be kept above the Law, the body under the Law.
Paul reproved Peter for no trifle, but for the chief article of Christian doctrine, which Peter's hypocrisy had endangered. For Barnabas and other Jews followed Peter's example. It is surprising that such good men as Peter, Barnabas, and others should fall into unexpected error, especially in a matter which they knew so well. To trust in our own strength, our own goodness, our own wisdom, is a perilous thing. Let us search the Scriptures with humility, praying that we may never lose the light of the Gospel. "Lord, increase our faith."
This text was prepared by Laura J. Hoelter for Project Wittenberg by Robert E. Smith and is in the public domain. You may freely distribute, copy or print this text. Please direct any comments or suggestions to:
Rev. Robert E. Smith
Walther Library
Concordia Theological Seminary.
E-mail: smithre@mail.ctsfw.edu
Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA
Phone: (260) 452-3149 - Fax: (260) 452-2126
To: Next Page - Contents Galatians - Martin Luther - Project Wittenberg
to the Galatians
(1535)
by Martin Luther
Galatians 2:1-3
__________
VERSE 1. Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem.
Paul taught justification by faith in Christ Jesus, without the deeds of the Law. He reported this to the disciples at Antioch. Among the disciples were some that had been brought up in the ancient customs of the Jews. These rose against Paul in quick indignation, accusing him of propagating a gospel of lawlessness.
Great dissension followed. Paul and Barnabas stood up for the truth. They testified: "Wherever we preached to the Gentiles, the Holy Ghost came upon those who received the Word. This happened everywhere. We preached not circumcision, we did not require observance of the Law. We preached faith in Jesus Christ. At our preaching of faith, God gave to the hearers the Holy Ghost." From this fact Paul and Barnabas inferred that the Holy Ghost approved the faith of the Gentiles without the Law and circumcision. If the faith of the Gentiles had not pleased the Holy Ghost, He would not have manifested His presence in the uncircumcised hearers of the Word.
Unconvinced, the Jews fiercely opposed Paul, asserting that the Law ought to be kept and that the Gentiles ought to be circumcised, or else they could not be saved.
When we consider the obstinacy with which Romanists cling to their traditions, we can very well understand the zealous devotion of the Jews for the Law. After all, they had received the Law from God. We can understand how impossible it was for recent converts from Judaism suddenly to break with the Law. For that matter, God did bear with them, as He bore with the infirmity of Israel when the people halted between two religions. Was not God patient with us also while we were blindfolded by the papacy? God is longsuffering and full of mercy. But we dare not abuse the patience of the Lord. We dare no longer continue in error now that the truth has been revealed in the Gospel.
The opponents of Paul had his own example to prefer against him. Paul had circumcised Timothy. Paul defended his action on the ground that he had circumcised Timothy, not from compulsion, but from Christian love, lest the weak in faith should be offended. His opponents would not accept Paul's explanation.
When Paul saw that the quarrel was getting out of hand he obeyed the direction of God and left for Jerusalem, there to confer with the other apostles. He did this not for his own sake, but for the sake of the people.
VERSE 1. With Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
Paul chose two witnesses, Barnabas and Titus. Barnabas had been Paul's preaching companion to the Gentiles. Barnabas was an eye-witness of the fact that the Holy Ghost had come upon the Gentiles in response to the simple preaching of faith in Jesus Christ. Barnabas stuck to Paul on this point, that it was unnecessary for the Gentiles to be bothered with the Law as long as they believed in Christ.
Titus was superintendent of the churches in Crete, having been placed in charge of the churches by Paul. Titus was a former Gentile.
VERSE 2. And I went up by revelation.
If God had not ordered Paul to Jerusalem, Paul would never have gone there.
VERSE 2. And communicated unto them that gospel.
After an absence of fourteen years, respectively eighteen years, Paul returned to Jerusalem to confer with the other apostles.
VERSE 2. Which I preach among the Gentiles.
Among the Jews Paul allowed Law and circumcision to stand for the time being. So did all the apostles. Nevertheless Paul held fast to the liberty of the Gospel. On one occasion he said to the Jews: "Through this man (Christ) is preached unto you forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13:39.) Always remembering the weak, Paul did not insist that they break at once with the Law.
Paul admits that he conferred with the apostles concerning his Gospel. But he denies that the conference benefited or taught him anything. The fact is he resisted those who wanted to force the practice of the Law upon the Gentiles. They did not overcome him, he overcame them. "Your false apostles lie, when they say that I circumcised Timothy, shaved my head in Cenchrea, and went up to Jerusalem, at the request of the apostles. I went to Jerusalem at the request of God. What is more, I won the indorsement of the apostles. My opponents lost out."
The matter upon which the apostles deliberated in conference was this: Is the observance of the Law requisite unto justification? Paul answered: "I have preached faith in Christ to the Gentiles, and not the Law. If the Jews want to keep the Law and be circumcised, very well, as long as they do so from a right motive."
VERSE 2. But privately to them which were of reputation.
This is to say, "I conferred not only with the brethren, but with the leaders among them."
VERSE 2. Lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
Not that Paul himself ever thought he had run in vain. However, many did think that Paul had preached the Gospel in vain, because he kept the Gentiles free from the yoke of the Law. The opinion that obedience to the Law was mandatory unto salvation was gaining ground. Paul meant to remedy this evil. By this conference he hoped to establish the identity of his Gospel with that of the other apostles, to stop the talk of his opponents that he had been running around in vain.
VERSE 3. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
The word "compelled" acquaints us with the outcome of the conference. It was resolved that the Gentiles should not be compelled to be circumcised.
Paul did not condemn circumcision in itself. Neither by word nor deed did he ever inveigh against circumcision. But he did protest against circumcision being made a condition for salvation. He cited the case of the Fathers. "The fathers were not justified by circumcision. It was to them a sign and seal of righteousness. They looked upon circumcision as a confession of their faith."
The believing Jews, however, could not get it through their heads that circumcision was not necessary for salvation. They were encouraged in their wrong attitude by the false apostles. The result was that the people were up in arms against Paul and his doctrine.
Paul did not condemn circumcision as if it were a sin to receive it. But he insisted, and the conference upheld him, that circumcision had no bearing upon salvation and was therefore not to be forced upon the Gentiles. The conference agreed that the Jews should be permitted to keep their ancient customs for the time being, so long as they did not regard those customs as conveying God's justification of the sinner.
The false apostles were dissatisfied with the verdict of the conference. They did not want to rest circumcision and the practice of the Law in Christian liberty. They insisted that circumcision was obligatory unto salvation.
As the opponents of Paul, so our own adversaries [Luther's, the enemies of the Reformation] contend that the traditions of the Fathers dare not be neglected without loss of salvation. Our opponents will not agree with us on anything. They defend their blasphemies. They go as far to enforce them with the sword.
Paul's victory was complete. Titus, who was with Paul, was not compelled to be circumcised, although he stood in the midst of the apostles when this question of circumcision was debated. This was a blow to the false apostles. With the living fact that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised Paul was able to squelch his adversaries.
__________
Galatians 2:4-13
__________
VERSES 4,5. And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
Paul here explains his motive for going up to Jerusalem. He did not go to Jerusalem to be instructed or confirmed in his Gospel by the other apostles. He went to Jerusalem in order to preserve the true Gospel for the Galatian churches and for all the churches of the Gentiles.
When Paul speaks of the truth of the Gospel he implies by contrast a false gospel. The false apostles also had a gospel, but it was an untrue gospel. "In holding out against them," says Paul, "I conserved the truth of the pure Gospel."
Now the true Gospel has it that we are justified by faith alone, without the deeds of the Law. The false gospel has it that we are justified by faith, but not without the deeds of the Law. The false apostles preached a conditional gospel.
So do the papists. They admit that faith is the foundation of salvation. But they add the conditional clause that faith can save only when it is furnished with good works. This is wrong. The true Gospel declares that good works are the embellishment of faith, but that faith itself is the gift and work of God in our hearts. Faith is able to justify, because it apprehends Christ, the Redeemer.
Human reason can think only in terms of the Law. It mumbles: "This I have done, this I have not done." But faith looks to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, given into death for the sins of the whole world. To turn one's eyes away from Jesus means to turn them to the Law.
True faith lays hold of Christ and leans on Him alone. Our opponents cannot understand this. In their blindness they cast away the precious pearl, Christ, and hang onto their stubborn works. They have no idea what faith is. How can they teach faith to others?
Not satisfied with teaching an untrue gospel, the false apostles tried to entangle Paul. "They went about," says Paul, "to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage."
When Paul saw through their scheme, he attacked the false apostles. He says, "We did not let go of the liberty which we have in Christ Jesus. We routed them by the judgment of the apostles, and we would not give in to them, no, not an inch."
We too were willing to make all kinds of concessions to the papists. Yes, we are willing to offer them more than we should. But we will not give up the liberty of conscience which we have in Christ Jesus. We refuse to have our conscience bound by any work or law, so that by doing this or that we should be righteous, or leaving this or that undone we should be damned.
Since our opponents will not let it stand that only faith in Christ justifies, we will not yield to them. On the question of justification we must remain adamant, or else we shall lose the truth of the Gospel. It is a matter of life and death. It involves the death of the Son of God, who died for the sins of the world. If we surrender faith in Christ, as the only thing that can justify us, the death and resurrection of Jesus are without meaning; that Christ is the Savior of the world would be a myth. God would be a liar, because He would not have fulfilled His promises. Our stubbornness is right, because we want to preserve the liberty which we have in Christ. Only by preserving our liberty shall we be able to retain the truth of the Gospel inviolate.
Some will object that the Law is divine and holy. Let it be divine and holy. The Law has no right to tell me that I must be justified by it. The Law has the right to tell me that I should love God and my neighbor, that I should live in chastity, temperance, patience, etc. The Law has no right to tell me how I may be delivered from sin, death, and hell. It is the Gospel's business to tell me that. I must listen to the Gospel. It tells me, not what I must do, but what Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has done for me.
To conclude, Paul refused to circumcise Titus for the reason that the false apostles wanted to compel him to circumcise Titus. Paul refused to accede to their demands. If they had asked it on the plea of brotherly love, Paul would not have denied them. But because they demanded it on the ground that it was necessary for salvation, Paul defied them, and prevailed. Titus was not circumcised.
VERSE 6. But of those who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me.
This is a good point in Paul's refutation. Paul disparages the authority and dignity of the true apostles. He says of them, "Which seemed to be somewhat." The authority of the apostles was indeed great in all the churches. Paul did not want to detract from their authority, but he had to speak disparagingly of their authority in order to conserve the truth of the Gospel, and the liberty of conscience.
The false apostles used this argument against Paul: "The apostles lived with Christ for three years. They heard His sermons. They witnessed His miracles. They themselves preached and performed miracles while Christ was on earth. Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh. Now, whom ought you to believe: Paul, who stands alone, a mere disciple of the apostles, one of the last and least; or will you believe those grand apostles who were sent and confirmed by Christ Himself long before Paul?"
What could Paul say to that? He answered: "What they say has no bearing on the argument. If the apostles were angels from heaven, that would not impress me. We are not now discussing the excellency of the apostles. We are talking about the Word of God now, and the truth of the Gospel. That Gospel is more excellent than all apostles.
VERSE 6. God accepteth no man's person.
Paul is quoting Moses: "Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty." (Lev. 19:15) This quotation from Moses ought to shut the mouths of the false apostles. "Don't you know that God is no respecter of persons?" cries Paul. The dignity or authority of men means nothing to God. The fact is that God often rejects just such who stand in the odor of sanctity and in the aura of importance. In doing so God seems unjust and harsh. But men need deterring examples. For it is a vice with us to esteem personality more highly than the Word of God. God wants us to exalt His Word and not men.
There must be people in high office, of course. But we are not to deify them. The governor, the mayor, the preacher, the teacher, the scholar, father, mother, are persons whom we are to love and revere, but not to the extent that we forget God. Least we attach too much importance to the person, God leaves with important persons offenses and sins, sometimes astounding shortcomings, to show us that there is a lot of difference between any person and God. David was a good king. But when the people began to think too well of him, down he fell into horrible sins, adultery and murder. Peter, excellent apostle that he was, denied Christ. Such examples of which the Scriptures are full, ought to warn us not to repose our trust in men. In the papacy appearance counts for everything. Indeed, the whole papacy amounts to nothing more than a mere kowtowing of persons and outward mummery. But God alone is to be feared and honored.
I would honor the Pope, I would love his person, if he would leave my conscience alone, and not compel me to sin against God. But the Pope wants to be adored himself, and that cannot be done without offending God. Since we must choose between one or the other, let us choose God. The truth is we are commissioned by God to resist the Pope, for it is written, "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29)
We have seen how Paul refutes the argument of the false apostles concerning the authority of the apostles. In order that the truth of the Gospel may continue; in order that the Word of God and the righteousness of faith may be kept pure and undefiled, let the apostles, let an angel from heaven, let Peter, let Paul, let them all perish.
VERSE 6. For they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me.
The Apostle repeats: "I did not so confer with the apostles that they taught me anything. What could they possibly teach me since Christ by His revelation had taught me all things? It was but a conference, and no disputation. I learned nothing, neither did I defend my cause. I only stated what I had done, that I had preached to the Gentiles faith in Christ, without the Law, and that in response to my preaching the Holy Ghost came down upon the Gentiles. When the apostles heard this, they were glad that I had taught the truth."
If Paul would not give in to the false apostles, much less ought we to give in to our opponents. I know that a Christian should be humble, but against the Pope I am going to be proud and say to him: "You, Pope, I will not have you for my boss, for I am sure that my doctrine is divine." Such pride against the Pope is imperative, for if we are not stout and proud we shall never succeed in defending the article of the righteousness of faith.
If the Pope would concede that God alone by His grace through Christ justifies sinners, we would carry him in our arms, we would kiss his feet. But since we cannot obtain this concession, we will give in to nobody, not to all the angels in heaven, not to Peter, not to Paul, not to a hundred emperors, not to a thousand popes, not to the whole world. If in this matter we were to humble ourselves, they would take from us the God who created us, and Jesus Christ who has redeemed us by His blood. Let this be our resolution, that we will suffer the loss of all things, the loss of our good name, of life itself, but the Gospel and our faith in Jesus Christ--we will not stand for it that anybody take them from us.
VERSES 7, 8. But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; [For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.]
Here the Apostle claims for himself the same authority which the false apostles attributed to the true apostles. Paul simply inverts their argument. "to bolster their evil cause," says he, "the false apostles quote the authority of the great apostles against me. I can quote the same authority against them, for the apostles are on my side. They gave me the right hand of fellowship. They approved my ministry. O my Galatians, do not believe the counterfeit apostles!"
What does Paul mean by saying that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto him, and that of the circumcision to Peter? Did not Paul preach to the Jews, while Peter preached to the Gentiles also? Peter converted the Centurion. Paul's custom was to enter into the synagogues of the Jews, there to preach the Gospel. Why then should he call himself the apostle of the Gentiles, while he calls Peter the apostle of the circumcision?
Paul refers to the fact that the other apostles remained in Jerusalem until the destruction of the city became imminent. But Paul was especially called the apostle of the Gentiles. Even before the destruction of Jerusalem Jews dwelt here and there in the cities of the Gentiles. Coming to a city, Paul customarily entered the synagogues of the Jews and first brought to them as the children of the kingdom, the glad tidings that the promises made unto the fathers were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. When the Jews refused to hear these glad tidings, Paul turned to the Gentiles. He was the apostle of the Gentiles in a special sense, as Peter was the apostle of the Jews.
Paul reiterates that Peter, James, and John, the accepted pillars of the Church, taught him nothing, nor did they commit unto him the office of preaching the Gospel unto the Gentiles. Both the knowledge of the Gospel and the commandment to preach it to the Gentiles, Paul received directly from God. His case was parallel to that of Peter's, who was particularly commissioned to preach the Gospel to the Jews.
The apostles had the same charge, the identical Gospel. Peter did not proclaim a different Gospel, nor had he appointed his fellow apostles. They were equals. They were all taught of God. None was greater than the other, none could point to prerogatives above the other. To justify his usurped primacy in the Church the Pope claims that Peter was the chief of the apostles. This is an impudent falsehood.
VERSE 8. For he that wrought effectually in Peter.
With these words Paul refutes another argument of the false apostles. "What reason have the false apostles to boast that the Gospel of Peter was mighty, that he converted many, that he wrought great miracles, and that his very shadow healed the sick? These reports are true enough. But where did Peter acquire this power? God gave him the power. I have the same power. I received my power, not from Peter, but from the same God, the same Spirit who was mighty in Peter was mighty in me also." Luke corroborates Paul's statement in the words: "And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul, so that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them." (Acts 19:11, 12.)
To conclude, Paul is not going to be inferior to the rest of the apostles. Some secular writers put Paul's boasting down as carnal pride. But Paul had no personal interest in his boasting. It was with him a matter of faith and doctrine. The controversy was not about the glory of Paul, but the glory of God, the Word of God, the true worship of God, true religion, and the righteousness of faith.
VERSE 9. And when James, Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
"The fact is, when the apostles heard that I had received the charge to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles from Christ; when they heard that God had wrought many miracles through me; that great numbers of the Gentiles had come to the knowledge of Christ through my ministry; when they heard that the Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost without Law and circumcision, by the simple preaching of faith; when they heard all this they glorified God for His grace in me." Hence, Paul was justified in concluding that the apostles were for him, and not against him.
VERSE 9. The right hands of fellowship.
As if the apostles had said to him: "We, Paul, do agree with you in all things. We are companions in doctrine. We have the same Gospel with this difference, that to you is committed the Gospel for the uncircumcised, while the Gospel for the circumcision is committed unto us. But this difference ought not to hinder our friendship, since we preach one and the same Gospel."
VERSE 10. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
Next to the preaching of the Gospel, a true and faithful pastor will take care of the poor. Where the Church is, there must be the poor, for the world and the devil persecute the Church and impoverish many faithful Christians.
Speaking of money, nobody wants to contribute nowadays to the maintenance of the ministry, and the erection of schools. When it comes to establishing false worship and idolatry, no cost is spared. True religion is ever in need of money, while false religions are backed by wealth.
VERSE 11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Paul goes on in his refutation of the false apostles by saying that in Antioch he withstood Peter in the presence of the whole congregation. As he stated before, Paul had no small matter in hand, but the chief article of the Christian religion. When this article is endangered, we must not hesitate to resist Peter, or an angel from heaven. Paul paid no regard to the dignity and position of Peter, when he saw this article in danger. It is written: "He that loveth father or mother or his own life, more than me, is not worthy of me." (Matt. 10:37.)
For defending the truth in our day, we are called proud and obstinate hypocrites. We are not ashamed of these titles. The cause we are called to defend, is not Peter's cause, or the cause of our parents, or that of the government, or that of the world, but the cause of God. In defense of that cause we must be firm and unyielding.
When he says, "to his face," Paul accuses the false apostles of slandering him behind his back. In his presence they dared not to open their mouths. He tells them, "I did not speak evil of Peter behind his back, but I withstood him frankly and openly."
Others may debate here whether an apostle might sin. I claim that we ought not to make Peter out as faultless. Prophets have erred. Nathan told David that he should go ahead and build the Temple of the Lord. But his prophecy was afterwards corrected by the Lord. The apostles erred in thinking of the Kingdom of Christ as a worldly state. Peter had heard the command of Christ, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature." But if it had not been for the heavenly vision and the special command of Christ, Peter would never have gone to the home of Cornelius. Peter also erred in this matter of circumcision. If Paul had not publicly censured him, all the believing Gentiles would have been compelled to receive circumcision and accept the Jewish law. We are not to attribute perfection to any man.
Luke reports "that the contention between Paul and Barnabas was so sharp that they departed asunder one from the other." The cause of their disagreement could hardly have been small since it separated these two, who had been joined together for years in a holy partnership. Such incidents are recorded for our consolation. After all, it is a comfort to know that even saints might and do sin.
Samson, David, and many other excellent men, fell into grievous sins. Job and Jeremiah cursed the day of their birth. Elijah and Jonah became weary of life and prayed for death. Such offenses on the part of the saints, the Scriptures record for the comfort of those who are near despair. No person has ever sunk so low that he cannot rise again. On the other hand, no man's standing is so secure that he may not fall. If Peter fell, I may fall. If he rose again, I may rise again. We have the same gifts that they had, the same Christ, the same baptism and the same Gospel, the same forgiveness of sins. They needed these saving ordinances just as much as we do.
VERSE 12. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles.
The Gentiles who had been converted to faith in Christ, ate meats forbidden by the Law. Peter, visiting some of these Gentiles, ate meat and drank wine with them, although he knew that these things were forbidden in the Law. Paul declared that he did likewise, that he became as a Jew to the Jews, and to them that were without law, as without law. He ate and drank with the Gentiles unconcerned about the Jewish Law. When he was with the Jews, however, he abstained from all things forbidden in the Law, for he labored to serve all men, that he "might by all means save some." Paul does not reprove Peter for transgressing the Law, but for disguising his attitude to the Law.
VERSE 12. But when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Paul does not accuse Peter of malice or ignorance, but of lack of principle, in that he abstained from meats, because he feared the Jews that came from James. Peter's weak attitude endangered the principle of Christian liberty. It is the deduction rather than the fact which Paul reproves. To eat and to drink, or not to eat and drink, is immaterial. But to make the deduction "If you eat, you sin; if you abstain you are righteous"--this is wrong.
Meats may be refused for two reasons. First, they may be refused for the sake of Christian love. There is no danger connected with a refusal of meats for the sake of charity. To bear with the infirmity of a brother is a good thing. Paul himself taught and exemplified such thoughtfulness. Secondly, meats may be refused in the mistaken hope of thereby obtaining righteousness. When this is the purpose of abstaining from meats, we say, let charity go. To refrain from meats for this latter reason amounts to a denial of Christ. If we must lose one or the other, let us lose a friend and brother, rather than God, our Father.
Jerome, who understood not this passage, nor the whole epistle for that matter, excuses Peter's action on the ground "that it was done in ignorance." But Peter offended by giving the impression that he was indorsing the Law. By his example he encouraged Gentiles and Jews to forsake the truth of the Gospel. If Paul had not reproved him, there would have been a sliding back of Christians into the Jewish religion, and a return to the burdens of the Law.
It is surprising that Peter, excellent apostle that he was, should have been guilty of such vacillation. In a former council at Jerusalem he practically stood alone in defense of the truth that salvation is by faith, without the Law. Peter at that time valiantly defended the liberty of the Gospel. But now by abstaining from meats forbidden in the Law, he went against his better judgment. You have no idea what danger there is in customs and ceremonies. They so easily tend to error in works.
VERSE 13. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
It is marvelous how God preserved the Church by one single person. Paul alone stood up for the truth, for Barnabas, his companion, was lost to him, and Peter was against him. Sometimes one lone person can do more in a conference than the whole assembly.
I mention this to urge all to learn how properly to differentiate between the Law and the Gospel, in order to avoid dissembling. When it come to the article of justification we must not yield, if we want to retain the truth of the Gospel.
When the conscience is disturbed, do not seek advice from reason or from the Law, but rest your conscience in the grace of God and in His Word, and proceed as if you had never heard of the Law. The Law has its place and its own good time. While Moses was in the mountain where he talked with God face to face, he had no law, he made no law, he administered no law. But when he came down from the mountain, he was a lawgiver. The conscience must be kept above the Law, the body under the Law.
Paul reproved Peter for no trifle, but for the chief article of Christian doctrine, which Peter's hypocrisy had endangered. For Barnabas and other Jews followed Peter's example. It is surprising that such good men as Peter, Barnabas, and others should fall into unexpected error, especially in a matter which they knew so well. To trust in our own strength, our own goodness, our own wisdom, is a perilous thing. Let us search the Scriptures with humility, praying that we may never lose the light of the Gospel. "Lord, increase our faith."
This text was prepared by Laura J. Hoelter for Project Wittenberg by Robert E. Smith and is in the public domain. You may freely distribute, copy or print this text. Please direct any comments or suggestions to:
Rev. Robert E. Smith
Walther Library
Concordia Theological Seminary.
E-mail: smithre@mail.ctsfw.edu
Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA
Phone: (260) 452-3149 - Fax: (260) 452-2126
To: Next Page - Contents Galatians - Martin Luther - Project Wittenberg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)