Only Grace

Greetings everyone.

Today, we will finish up Galatians 2 with a quick look at verse 21.  Here is my translation of the verse:  

I will not negate the grace of God. If I could somehow be made righteous through the law, Christ died for no reason. 

Paul has been making the arguments in this chapter that lead us up to this verse. Paul wants to make sure that he does not negate the work of grace in his life, because if somehow we could be righteous enough to earn, then Jesus suffered and died on Cross for no reason whatsoever.  Paul emphasizes this point: obedience to the Law will never make us righteous.  We can never be justified due to our obedience.  

Paul begins verse 21 with these Greek words.  Οὐκ ἀθετῶ  (ouk athetō).   Οὐκ means ‘not.’  So whatever ἀθετῶ means, Paul is saying he does not do it, in relationship to the grace of God.   According to The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, ἀθετῶ can mean any of these: 

1. To reject something as invalid, nullify, ignore. 
2. To reject by not recognizing something, reject, disallow.
3. To make of no account.  

In other words, Paul is saying that he will not make the grace of God to be of no account. So when we are looking for a means of justification, Paul is saying that no matter of obedience to the Law, or any kind of hybrid of grace and law, merits any kind of consideration.  Those ways of thinking negate or invalidate grace.  

He follows this by saying that if we could somehow be made righteous through obedience to the Law, then Jesus died for nothing, because grace isn’t grace any more.  It has become something else. 

So verse 21 is closely connected to the last phrase of verse 20, “the Son of God, who has loved me and given himself up for me.”  He described Jesus’s gracious action on our behalf on the Cross, and because of that, Paul will not set aside grace.  There is nothing that we could do in obedience to the Law that would possibly merit the Cross.  We cannot possibly earn it.  The conclusion: It is far better for us if we instead accept God’s gracious gift.  

Paul has been conituous driving this point home, and he will continue to do so.  I hope that the 1st Century Galatians got the message.  I hope we get it too. 

Death and New Life

Greetings.

As we move further into Paul's defense of grace and his fight against legalistic righteousness, we come to an intersting comparison, even comparing the old life and new life in Christ to life and death, or rather death and new life.  Here is my translation of verses 19-20: 

19 For through the law, I am dead to the law, so that in God, I might live. 20 I have been crucified with Christ.  I no longer live, but now Christ lives in me. The life that I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who has loved me and given himself up for me.

Here, in verses 19-20, Paul clarifies his claim that rejecting the law and instead having faith in Jesus does not constitute sin.  As explained by Douglas Moo, Paul claims now that he has had such a reorientation of values as to compare it to “death and new life.” (Moo. 167.)  

("Death and new life"is what Paul is talking about. I believe Jesus talked about it as well, when he talked about the old and the new wineskins.  The old paradigm and the new paradigm are just not compatible. It is like a death, followed by a new life.)  

Paul says in verse 19 that he has died to the Law, and has had a radical transformation that comes through identification with Jesus’s crucifixion and death, saying that he was dead to the Law, so that in God, he might live. So, this is a metaphor of death followed by new life, with that new life being in God and for God.  He becomes the reason we are alive. His kingdom and His righteousness become the priority. (Matt. 6:33) 

Paul has been saying that we are no longer bound to the Mosaic Law, and we should not rebuild it in any form, since we cannot be justified by it. He further explains that the Law basically just shows us to be sinners.  We can never fulfill the Law, or in any way adequately keep it.  Only Jesus can do that and He did.

He carries that idea of death and new life into verse 20.  Paul says, “I have been crucified with Christ.”  Now, he is obviously speaking in metaphor, he had not been literally crucified, but he is declaring an end to his old life and its way of thinking.  

He continues, “I no longer live, but now Christ lives in me.”  His death and new life comparison continues, saying that yes, his body is still alive, but it is Christ, not Paul, that lives in that body. Because, while Paul is still alive, his life is lived by faith in Jesus. 

We often talk about spiritual formation, and we talk about having Christ formed in us.  (We will get to Gal. 4:19) That is what Paul is talking about now.  Jesus is living in him, and while he is still alive, he denies himself (basic discipleship) and walks by faith in the one who is living inside him. Thomas Schreiner puts it like this, “The new age of redemptive history is also marked by the indwelling of Christ in believers.” (Schreiner, 172.) The idea of Christ in us cannot be overstated. 

In verse 20, Paul uses the Greek verb ζῶ (zō) or “live” four times.  The verse is all about this new life that he lives in Christ, after he has put his old life to death, by association with the crucifixion of Jesus (death.) As we died with Christ, we now, like him, live in resurrection (new life.) Paul’s comparison of death and new life sounds a lot like Jesus in Luke 9:23.  He tells those who would follow him that they must deny self, and take up their Cross daily.  Paul echoes Jesus in the call to deny ourselves and live for Christ. 

As Paul continues, he describes Jesus as the one “who has loved and given himself up for me.”  The love and willing sacrifice of Jesus is why Paul is so willing to make such a radical transformation, from life to death and to a new and completely different  life. 

       Douglas Moo, Galatians, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2013.

        Thomas Schriener, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Galatians, Zondervan Academic, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2010. 

Made Righteous, Part 2

Hello everyone.

We are going to continue our examination of Galatians 2. This time looking a verses 17 and 18.  Here is my translation: 

17 If then, as we are seeking to be justified in Christ, we recognize ourselves to be sinners, does Christ then become a servant of our sinfulness?  No way!  18 Because, if I tear it down, only to rebuild it again, I prove that I am guilty. 

To be honest, verses 17 and 18 are difficult to understand. Within the context, Paul has just established that Jews and Gentile "sinners" alike are made righteous, or justified by faith rather than works of the law.  So when Jewish brothers come to Christ, they must recognize that they are just like the Gentile “sinners,” no better, no worse. 

Douglas Moo suggests that Paul’s use of the word ἁμαρτωλοί (hamartoloi) (or sinners), would indicate that Jewish Christians have now become like the Gentile "sinners," with no allegiance to the Torah. Obedience to the Torah was how God’s people had always been defined, but now God’s people were to be defined by their faith. (Moo, 165.) With that thought in mind, Thomas Schriener adds that it is possible that Paul is being accused by these false teachers of being a "sinner" for having abandoned the Torah. (Schreiner, 167.)  Paul doesn’t shy away from the idea that he is a sinner, but his "sinner" status is not based upon his non-allegiance to the Torah.   

Paul then takes what he is saying to another level, asking, “does Christ then become a servant to our sinfulness?”  Or in other words, as we have abandoned the Law, does Christ enable us to be sinful?  Paul’s response to that μὴ γένοιτο! (May genoito) - may it never be.  I have translated it as: “No way!”  Jesus is not promoting sin by leading us away from some brand of legalistic righteous, instead, as we will see down the road, Jesus is leading toward freedom.  

Consider it this way, it is not like we became sinful because Jesus led away from the Law.  We were sinful under the Law, too.  We are sinful because it is our nature to be thus. We are simply inadequate and therefore miss the mark. As much as we might want to be perfect, we are just incapable of it.  We are going to sin.  Therefore, we need Jesus, who is perfect, rather the Law, which glaringly shows our imperfection. The idea that Paul addresses, that Jesus would be leading us into sinfulness, is just silly.  

We also see in verse 18 that Paul says that we cannot tear down the Law, only to rebuild a new Law.  It’s pointless and in doing so, I would further prove myself to be guilty of breaking the law.  Accepting grace through faith is a much better plan.  Throwing over one legalistic system, only to create another legalistic system makes very little sense, and just creates new ways to feel guilty all the time. This is what Paul is saying to the churches in Galatia.  Freedom and grace in Christ through our faith is a much better way to live than getting rid of an old Law, only to adopt a new Law.   

        Douglas Moo, Galatians, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2013.

         Thomas Schriener, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Galatians, Zondervan Academic, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2010. 

Made Righteous

Greetings.

We will continue our discussion of Galatains and Paul's argument for grace.  Here is my translation of Galatains 2:15-16:

15 Those of us who are Jews by birth, and not ‘Gentile sinners’, 16 understand that no one is made righteous through works of the law, but rather faith in Jesus Christ. We have faith in Christ Jesus, so that our righteousness comes from our faith in Him, and not from works of the law.  Nothing we do in our fleshly bodies can be justified through works of the law.

Paul uses an important word from the Greek here. It is δικαιοῦται (dikaioutai). It is a form of the verb δικαιόω (dikaioō).  Verse 16 and 17 contain the word in some form three times.  This word is often translated as "justified."  I translated first as "made righteous" once, and then as justified in the other two.  David deSilva in his Galatians: A Handbook on the Greek Text, defines the word like this: “δικαιόω can carry the sense of ‘acquit’ or ‘declare just’...but is can also mean ‘make righteous’ or ‘bring in line with a standard’...as well as other statement suggestive of ethical transformation as a prerequisite to entering into life beyond death.”  He goes on to suggest that Paul has both meanings in mind as he writes Galatians.  (deSilva, 42.)  

So as we examine this justification we are looking at something that first, acquits our wrongdoing, and then makes us righteous.  Not only is our guilt removed, but we are put in a place where it is as though our transgressions never occurred. It is important, however, that we remember that this δικαιόω is a passive verb.  We do not make ourselves righteous.  There is an outside force at work, making us righteous, and nothing we can do can in any way earn this. 

Those who have come into Galatia and are stirring up trouble, those who would pervert the Gospel, have presented a hybrid Gospel that includes grace and faith, combined with the keeping of the Law.  I can see where this would sound good to those who really want to please God, but Paul insists that it is Christ, and not our works that saves us, making this hybrid gospel invalid. 

In verse 15, Paul makes a distinction between those who are born Jews and those who are not.  He refers to those who are not born as Jews, as ἐθνῶν Ἁμαρτωλοί (ethnōn hamartōloi) or Gentile sinners. I can’t help but think that Paul says this with a note of sarcasm, as it implies that those who were born Jewsih are not ‘sinners.”  

An interesting thought here is that the main tenet of those who had come into Galatia and were perverting the Gospel of grace was that those “Gentile sinners” had to become Jews in order to please Christ.  In a sense they were teaching that they had to be ‘naturalized citizens’ of Judaism in order to please God.  

Certainly this idea of Gentiles as ‘sinners’ is consistent with everything the Jews had been taught to believe.  They were a nation set apart by God and for God.  So Paul uses this term here in the traditional sense only for the purpose of debunking that way of thinking. (Moo, 156.) Certainly, they understood that Jew and Gentiles alike were sinners, as ethnicity does not make one righteous, and we all find ourselves in need of God’s grace. \

Thomas Schreiner states that Peter and Paul were both Jews, but they understood that even though they were a part of God’s covenant people that they were not justified by works of the law, but only through faith in Jesus Christ.  Paul says, “those of us who are Jews,” but his understanding does not reflect the point of view of the typical Jew.  (Shreiner, 154.) Paul is making his case to Jewish Christians, like Peter and himself.  Being a Jew does not save them.  Each person, Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free, is just an ordinary human being in need of God’s grace.   

This is the launching pad for Paul to make his case for grace and freedom over strict obedience to the law. According to Schreiner, Paul lays out an argument against the devotion to the Mosaic law that stretches from 2:16 to 5:12.  His argument is “intended to prove that Gentiles do not need to obey in order to be justified.  Paul argues that faith rather than Torah makes one a child of Abraham (3:6-9); that the attempt to be justified by law places one under a curse. (3:10-14)...and that those who desire to be justified by the law cut themselves off from grace and Christ. (5:2-5:12).” (Schreiner, 44.) 

Generally, religion teaches us that if we try harder, work more diligently and do more, we will earn our way.  However,real New Testament Christianity flies in the face of that.  We cannot earn it.  That idea is a lie. 

Paul, in presenting his case, will argue two different means of justification:  1. Justification through obedience to the Law, and 2. Justification through faith in Jesus Christ.  Moving forward, we will see his arguments and determine which is the better way to justification. We will all have the ability to choose.  

        David deSilva, Galatians: A Handbook on the Greek Text, Waco, Texas, Baylor University Press, 2014.

         Douglas Moo, Galatians, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2013.

         Thomas Schriener, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Galatians, Zondervan Academic, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2010. 

The Truth of the Gospel, Part 2

Hello everyone

It has been afew weeks since I have posted anything.  I am ready now to get back writing more.  We will continue in Galatians 2 today, and finish up some thoughts on verses 11-14, where Paul has reprimanded Peter to his face over table fellowship and association with Gentiles.  Here is my translation again:

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood convicted of grave error. 12 Before the arrival of certain men sent by James, Peter had eaten with the Gentiles, but afterwards, he separated himself because he feared the circumcision group. 

 

13 The rest of the Jews joined with him in his hypocrisy, to the point that even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that their behavior was not compatible with the truth of the Gospel, I called out Cephas in front of everyone, saying, “If you are Jew who lives like a Gentile, then why are you trying to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

In verse 13, Paul calls Peter’s withdrawal from the Gentiles hypocrisy, then states that such behavior was not compatible with the truth of the Gospel.  This is what we have been talking about.  So determining what exactly is the truth of the Gospel is a very important question to answer.  I think that Paul’s letter to the churches in Galatia is an answer to that question.  We can be certain that it involves God's grace and mercy rather than the keeping of a codified set of rules. 

Paul had freely abandoned the purity standards established in the Torah, (or at least the Pharisaic view of these standards,) by eating freely with the Gentiles.  He took the view of being like a Jew to win the Jews and being like a Gentile to win the Gentiles. (1 Cor. 9:19-23.)   In verse 14, Paul states that he had asked Peter, “If you are Jew who lives like a Gentile, then why are you trying to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” 

How far had Peter come toward living as a Gentile?  It is unclear.  What is clear is that, with his actions, Peter was now putting an expectation on the Gentile converts that he himself had not been living.  Obviously, Peter could not go back to a state of uncircumcision, but there were many other remnants of the old law that Peter could and perhaps did do away with in his own personal walk.  

Perhaps this was the reason for the charge of hypocrisy.  Peter was living one way, but now suddenly, in the face of opposition, expecting the Gentiles to live under a more strict code.  

A lot of time and thought was being given to the question of how the interactions between Jewish and Gentile Christians should be, and much fuss was made about table fellowship, who you were willing to sit and eat with.  Jesus' detractors found fault with him over this point.  He ate with “sinners’ and the Pharisees complained about it. Jews did not eat with Gentiles. That and the issue of circumcision were traditions that many Christian Jews were holding fast to.  

John Stott makes a great point here concerning the Gentiles.  He says, “If God accepted them, how can we reject them? He has reconciled them himself; how can we withdraw from those whom God has reconciled?” (Stott, 55.)    

Was this all settled in Acts 15?  Since the timeline is unclear, we can’t be sure.  It could be that there lingering doubts by the circumcision group that had infiltrated the churches in Galatia, and were spreading their version of the gospel?  

However, Paul’s point of view was that these Gentile converts owed nothing to the old law, because they were saved by grace.  However, it seems that he continually had to fight this fight, as legalism doesn’t seem to go away easily.  

Paul has given a lot of attention to his own story since the beginning of the letter, but in this section, he brings his story to a close.  Douglas Moo explains that he has given the reader a history of his background in Judaism, his conversion and his relationship with church leaders.  He has also established his special mission to the Gentiles and the Gospel of grace that he preaches to them.  (Moo, 141.) 

Moo later points out that up to this point, Paul has used the phrase, “the truth of the Gospel” twice.  In 2:5, where he talks about Titus, a Gentile, who could not be compelled to be circumcised, and then , in 2:14, within the context of Peter and other Jewish Christians being pulled away from fellowship with the Gentile Christians.   In both instances, the compelling of Gentile converts to be circumcised and the withdrawal of self from the fellowship of certain believers, is incompatible with "the truth of the Gospel.” (Moo, 153.) In the verses that follow, verses 15 to 21, we learn more about this truth of the Gospel. Stay tuned. 

Tom