Mere Cognition

Part 3 of the study on Galatians, covering Galatians 2:11-21

This section of Galatians is titled in different ways - Paul's apostolic confidence, Paul confronts Peter, Paul opposes Peter... there is a significant amount of church history and theological significance to unpack from this rather short section of scripture.

Grace to You has an article, entitled "Is Truth Worth Fighting for?" that talks about Paul in this way:

Take the apostle Paul for example. Paul was certainly fair with his opponents in the sense that he never misrepresented what they taught or told lies about them. But Paul plainly recognized their errors for what they were and labeled them appropriately. He spoke the truth. In his everyday teaching style, Paul spoke the truth gently and with the patience of a tender father. But when circumstances warranted a stronger type of candor, Paul could speak very bluntly—sometimes even with raw sarcasm (1 Corinthians 4:8-10). Like Elijah (1 Kings 18:27), John the Baptist (Matthew 3:7-10), and even Jesus (Matthew 23:24), he could also employ derision effectively and appropriately, to highlight the ridiculousness of serious error (Galatians 5:12). He was a sacred-cow tipper in the mold of Moses or Nehemiah.

Paul didn't seem to suffer from the same overscrupulous angst that causes so many people today to whitewash every error as much as language permits; to grant even the grossest of false teachers the benefit of every doubt; and to impute the best possible intentions even to the rankest of heretics. The apostle's idea of "gentleness" was not the sort of faux benevolence and artificial politeness people today sometimes think is the true essence of charity. We never once see him inviting false teachers or casual dabblers in religious error to dialogue, nor did he approve of that strategy even when someone of Peter's stature succumbed to the fear of what others might think and showed undue deference to false teachers (Galatians 2:11-14).

Paul understood that truth is worth fighting for. He stood for the truth even when it was unpopular to do so.

As we remember, Paul was converted on the road to Damascus by Jesus Himself. He was directly affected by the risen Christ, and discipled for three years - three years for the other apostles, three years for Paul (Galatians 1:15-18). This direct intervention by our Lord gave him a confidence and boldness that is not so often exemplified in our western society today. Paul knew the truth, because the truth was set forth in front of him directly by Christ Himself.

PAUL CONFRONTING AND OPPOSING PETER

Galatians 2:11-14

This section gives a brief account of how willing Paul was to fight for truth. When Peter arrived at Antioch (Cephas in Aramaic), he was freely sharing meals with the Gentiles. This account lays out the basics of the dispute - Peter withdrawing from the Gentiles due to pressure.

This sounds familiar for Peter, doesn't it? As John MacArthur put it, "Peter just can't seem to get out of his own way." At one point Peter was fellowshipping and eating with Gentile believers without issue. Then, when false teachers (the Judaizers) came claiming to be sent by James, he removed himself from the Gentiles in fear of them. This fear may have been fearing to offend them, fearing to be seen not following Mosaic regulations, or even fearing them directly. It's not entirely clear - but there was fear, nonetheless. Sadly, the Jewish believers followed Peter's example, and likely began to shun their Gentile brethren.

Paul confronts Peter directly, noting in verse 14 that he and the Jewish believers were not "walking in step" with the truth of the gospel - literally, not walking "straight" or "uprightly". By removing themselves from the Gentiles, they were quite literally not walking in line with God's word. Paul points out this hypocrisy to Peter, effectively asking him, "How do you reconcile living like a Gentile while being a Jew, and then forcing Gentiles to live like Jews?" It's assumed (e.g. Acts 10:13-15) that Peter was disregarding Mosaic regulations, regarding kosher and non-kosher foods for example. Suddenly going out from the Gentiles after fear and pressure from the false teachers of circumcision was a direct example of fear of man - directly from an apostle!

This should both concern us and encourage us. On one side, if the one Jesus renamed "rock" can be shaken in his faith this easily, what sort of hope is there for us? Yet, this example shows that the apostles were also men - sinners the same as you and I, no better or worse. They were just as capable of sin and lack of faith as we are. We should be encouraged that even though we may fail continually, there is hope. This story of Peter being rebuked, with the assumed repentance and transactional forgiveness, is a great lead-in to the next section, where Paul makes the case for justification by faith.

PAUL'S ARGUMENT OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH

Galatians 2:15-21

Paul's rebuke of Peter, and Peter's apparent repentance, was acknowledging and affirming Paul's apostolic authority, as well as Peter's own submission to the truth. The previous evidence and arguments of Paul culminate in this passage. The Reformation Study Bible notes that Galatians 2:15-16 are central to the entire epistle, going so far as to positing that it's basically the work's thesis statement, more or less. To rephrase, Paul is effectively saying that no one at all, whether Jew or not, is put in a right relationship with God through anything other than faith in Jesus Christ alone - "because by works of the law no one will be justified" (v. 16). To recap, the word justify here means, "to declare to be right." Several words used for this concept, such as righteous, righteousness, justify, and justification, all come from the same Greek root in the New Testament and thus have related meanings. Justified is used three times in verse 16, all referring to faith (belief) in Christ being the manner of being declared righteous, while simultaneously denying and excluding works of the law.

Matthew Henry adds color to it this way:

And, if we have thought it necessary to seek justification by the faith of Christ, why then should we hamper ourselves with the law? What did we believe in Christ for? Was it not that we might be justified by the faith of Christ? And, if so, is it not folly to go back to the law, and to expect to be justified either by the merit of moral works or the influence of any ceremonial sacrifices or purifications? And if it would be wrong in us who are Jews by nature to return to the law, and expect justification by it, would it not be much more so to require this of the Gentiles, who were never subject to it, since by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified?

Verse 17 is referencing the Judaizers' consideration that, because the Jewish believers were breaking Jewish law (in this case, dietary law), it meant that they were unclean and thus falling back into sin. Paul uses one of the strongest negatives in Greek here - translated as "certainly not!", but it wasn't simply referring to them falling back into sin. Christ himself taught that food cannot contaminate a person (Mark 7:18-20), therefore this would effectively accuse Christ himself of lying and make him a servant of sin. To reiterate, in endeavoring to have faith in Christ and follow His teaching - if Peter, Paul, and the other Jewish believers were sinning, then that effectively accuses Jesus himself of being a purveyor of sin. Hence Paul using one of the strongest negatives he could.

Verses 18-21 further elaborate and exemplify the logical outworking of Peter's disobedience in fear: Paul refers to rebuilding what was torn down, using the Greek word that means the tearing down of an edifice. The Reformation study bible hypothesizes that Paul is likely making an analogy to rebuilding the "wall of the law" in front of justification by faith, thereby making himself out to be a transgressor of the law. Verses 19-20 exhort that through the death of Christ and Paul's faith in Christ, Paul has died to the law through Christ's death on the cross in his place. This satisfied the justice needed by the law. By Christ's love for the believer through His sacrificial death on the cross, the believer's old self is effectively dead and his new self in Christ is free from further penalty. To end, Paul points out the basic fact that if the law were still to be observed, rather than fulfilled in Christ's death on the cross, then Jesus died for no reason. Many atheists and wayward denominations like to implicitly and explicitly make this sort of argumentation that Paul refutes in this epistle.

FAITH AND WORKS

Many people also like to play around with semantics regarding justification by faith and/or works by interpreting scripture to include or exclude one or the other. The New Testament often talks about "fruits", which some interpret to mean that we need works in order to be justified. I am not convinced of this argumentation at all. Christ's death on the cross, and faith in Him, is the only way we are justified in the sight of God. It logically follows that, if we are justified, there will be an outward manifestation of this change - "fruits of the spirit", as it were. It's not that we try to do works because we are required to; rather, works spring forth out of us naturally, due to the head and heart change that comes from a saving faith in Christ.

This can lead believers to fall into yet another ditch, placing too much emphasis on certain fruits, or lack thereof. I can attest in my own walk with Christ that I spent a very long time in full faith belief, yet still walked in disobedience due to multiple sins, from self-deceptively holding on to unbiblical worldviews despite it being pointed out to me rather clearly, to having a measure of unbelief by continuing to carry a fear of man alongside my faith in Christ. I bore very little fruit during this time, and sowed much discord. However, there were fruits nonetheless - just very small, and somewhat shriveled. I would go so far as to even call them partially diseased by the sin I still carried.

Proper discipleship, a proper hermeneutic, and deep-diving into the truths of the Bible by first letting scripture interpret scripture is one of, if not the only way that I have found that helps minimize these sinful errors we are prone to in our walk with Christ. Commentaries and other resources are great - but we can't get our theology primarily from the interpretation of man - this is a similar problem that led to Judaism effectively becoming based on rabbinic tradition rather than scripture itself. Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, through scripture, prayer, and the Holy Spirit. Then add on other resources for context.

Be blessed.

Part 2 of the study on Galatians, covering Galatians 1:10-2:10

In order to repudiate the rumors and false claims against him, the apostle Paul spends a significant amount of time in his letter laying out his apostolic credentials. As mentioned previously, there were agitators amongst the churches of Galatia attempting to attack not only the gospel but also the messenger. These people were generally Judaizers, or those that still considered circumcision (works) a requirement for justification, along with regarding Old Testament Levitical law binding upon Christians.

Paul strikes quickly in Galatians 1:10, asking, "For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God?" One of the charges levied against him was that he was preaching an easy form of the gospel, which required no obedience to Levitical law, only faith in Jesus as Messiah. Paul, here, is making the claim that if he were still trying to please man (for example, as he was previously in Judaism), that he would not be a servant of Christ. The takeaway is that he has become a willing servant, not coerced. This servitude ended up costing Paul a great deal of suffering and sacrifice, something a man-pleasing person would unlikely do.

In Galatians 1:11-17, Paul lays out where he received the gospel from as well as what he did (and did not) do. Verses 11-12 note that the gospel he received was not of human origin but of God alone - repelling his opponents' charge that he was in rebellion against the other apostles in Jerusalem by preaching what he preached. There's a strong distinction that he did not receive religious instruction in the rabbinic tradition that mixed scripture with human interpretation. As recounted in the book of Acts, Paul received the truth of the gospel directly from Christ Jesus on the road to Damascus, not from any man. Verses 13-14 explain a bit of the known history about Paul, noting that prior to his conversion he was an extremely zealous rabbi advancing quickly beyond his contemporaries, until verses 14-17 where he contrasts that with God's will and purpose that set him apart from others even before the womb, eventually being called by Christ for His purpose. Paul finishes this section by pointing out that he did not immediately go to Jerusalem to consult with anyone but instead traveled to Arabia and Damascus. The word "consult" here has the connotation of submitting something before someone for comment and/or approval. He did meet with Ananias three days after his conversion (Acts 9:10-19, Acts 22:12-16) but was not meeting with this sense in mind. Rather, Ananias' role was to confirm Paul's calling to preach as well as baptize him.

Verses 18-24 continue Paul's story, explaining that he visited Jerusalem after three years, visiting with Cephas and only seeing James, the brother of Jesus. Afterwards he traveled to other areas, being relatively unknown except by reputation - that he was the one that had been persecuting the church and attempting to destroy it, only to now be preaching the gospel that he once so zealously attacked. For this amazing heart and mind change, scripture tells us that they glorified God because of it.

The first ten verses of chapter 2 continues to provide more of Paul's story, chronicling his next trip to Jerusalem (v1-6) and his meeting with James, Cephas, and John, where they pledged fellowship to and friendship with one another. Since this follows in the vein of chapter 1, I suggest you read the passage for yourself as it is fairly straightforward.

For more context, I suggest picking up a Reformation Study Bible and/or a Macarthur Study Bible - preferably both, as the study notes focus on different things and help to round out one's understanding. Also, if you're on a budget, check out E-Sword, a free bible study tool with a lot of good resources, some free, some for purchase. I'm being edified greatly by the Matthew Henry commentary that's available. Blessings to you all!

Part 1 of the study on Galatians, covering Galatians 1:1-9

Paul's letter to the Galatians begins a bit differently compared to his other letters. In Galatians 1:1-5, he dispenses with his customary longer greeting full of commendations and courtesies and gets right to the point. There's likely numerous other letters not included in scripture that begin this way - however, this one is included and we shouldn't miss even this small difference. It's apparent, by the truncated greeting, that Paul has a deep concern about what he is hearing about the churches' defection from the gospel, so his greeting becomes brief and impersonal, likely in order to not waste time.

In Galatians 1:6-9, Paul drives right into the point of his letter:

⁶ I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel - ⁷not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. (v.6-7)

The word quickly here, in the Greek, can mean either quickly or easily, and I think it would be fair to say that either would fit here, based on the description of what's happening. Deserting, from the Greek, was used of military desertion, which was punishable by death during the time. It's used to both denote the seriousness of the matter as well as the fact that this turning from the gospel is voluntary. Paul is also making clear that they are not simply deserting the gospel that was given to them - they were effectively turning their back on God. These few words in verse 6 already pack lot of theology regarding soteriology - the doctrines of salvation.

Who called you...? This is clearly referring to God's call, through the gospel, to the grace and mercy of salvation provided in Christ. There are some that believe that this call is of man's own free will and that he is able to choose or reject Christ for himself and by himself; others believe that this call is effectual - that is, God calls whom He will to himself and because of our prime condition in sin from Adam, will never voluntarily come to belief on our own accord. I am convinced by scripture alone of the latter but that is a discussion for another time.

The word trouble, from the Greek, means "to shake back and forth" - literally what our modern word agitate means. Others were literally stirring up these relatively new believers by delivering a distorted gospel to them and creating agitation and strife.

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.  As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (v.8-9)

Paul's absolutely clear here, and he is unequivocal. The use of "angel from heaven" is a good example of hyperbole, as any angel not in rebellion alongside Satan would never preach a gospel contrary to God's. Paul is making it explicitly clear that if anyone, anyone - preaches a gospel contrary to Christ's, that he shall be accursed. The word accursed here is the familiar Greek word anathema - devotion of someone to destruction. In this case, that destruction is an eternity in hell.

I would say that's pretty strong language. And it's often language that we pass over while reading the Bible, without giving too much thought to the gravity of what it means. We don't really have the capability to fathom the level of accursedness that an eternity down below would entail - we're far too limited in our imagination. Paul is literally placing a curse on those that distort the gospel - and doing so rightly in his position as apostle.