Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXXIX)

Methodist theologian Adam Clarke envisions Paul saying this to the Galatian believers, a message that is still apropos for Jewish messianic believers today. “You must unconditionally acknowledge that all must be justified by faith in the Anointed One since all sinned and came short of the glory of God.”[1] Even though in the past, before they were converted, they observed all the rites, rituals, sacrifices, and ceremonies of their Jewish faith, yet they were still sinners. All they did never could and never did justify them as believers before God. So, don’t let anyone tell a converted Jew that because they no longer observe these things at the Anointed One’s request, He made them sinners. That’s what Paul was trying to tell the Galatians. He should know because he was one of the most observant Jews of his day. Yet he came to realize that it was all for naught.[2]

William O’Conor looks at what Paul is saying in verse eighteen about rebuilding the framework, under the Law, for justification by works that were destroyed. The objection seems to be that Paul was assuming that the Anointed One abolished the law completely and without any reference to a person’s need to qualify for freedom. The truth is, the Law was left at the place where we rose into the region of spiritual holiness. The instant we fall down again into the region of sin we are again under the law’s condemnation. However, by faith in the Anointed One, we are liberated from the Law and sin altogether. Our deliverance from the Law is not a separate thing in itself; it is one of several connected things. Under the legal system, the Law compels righteousness. Under the Christian system, righteousness supersedes the Law. We must deal with either system as a whole, and not fragmentary.

O’Conor goes on to say that if a Jew is seeking to be justified by faith as a sinner, the Anointed One is not the reason for their sinning. Sin is determined by going back to the legal system to see what law was broken. If, however, after having disclaimed the legal system and adopted the Christian system, or system of faith, a believing Jew then seeks forgiveness under the old legal system which was destroyed, they then render themselves liable to the Law’s verdict. The way the believing Jews lived told which system they belonged to. Paul made it clear that they could seek forgiveness under the Law or under Grace of which God made available through the Anointed One. He made this perfectly clear to the Romans when he wrote them.[3] [4]

Alvah Hovey gives us an excellent explanation of what he feels Paul is trying to get at here in light of Peter’s hypocrisy and the Galatians’ need for instruction due to the influence of the Judaizers. He hears Paul saying that no one should suppose for a moment that in their and other believer’s seeking to be justified by the Anointed One without the works of the Law, that they somehow were found wallowing in sin on the same level as the lawless Gentiles. If that were the case, then it would follow that the Anointed One is a promoter of sin. No believer would ever accept that! No one is breaking the moral law of the Torah and committing sin just by looking to the Anointed One alone for acceptance with God. All it means is that they ceased keeping the Law as a means of justification. Hovey continues Paul’s dialogue. Just the opposite of this is true. For if I build up again the things which I destroyed and subjugate myself to them, then I make myself a transgressor according to the Law.

In verse eighteen the Apostle substitutes, with great delicacy of feeling, the first-person singular for the first-person plural. For the act supposed was precisely that for which Peter now stood condemned. What he did by his example caused the wall of ceremonial observances to be erected again, which he destroyed by testifying that they as Christians were no longer obligatory as the ground of justification, and were a means of condemnation rather than of justification. The true purpose of the Law was to convince people of sin and drive them away from it to the Anointed One. That’s why those who turn back to legal works as a condition of forgiveness and life, transgress the very nature and purpose of the Law. This thought is explained and justified in verse nineteen.[5]

J. B. Lightfoot sees it this way: In order for believers in union with the Anointed One to be justified before God, they first must sink to the low level of the Gentiles and admit they were sinners without any hope of salvation. Only then could they receive the message of salvation by grace. But that didn’t make the Anointed One a “sinner maker.” That is a ridiculous thought and not worthy of consideration. There is no guilt in understanding that the Law only convicts but does not convert. The Law shows one guilty of sinning against God’s ordinances but offers no forgiveness. So, it made sense to turn away from the Law and seek salvation by grace in faith through the Anointed One. Lightfoot goes on to offer several interpretations of verse seventeen. But the one he sees as most acceptable is this: “It cannot be sinful to abandon the Law because it is necessary to abandon the Law in order to be justified before God as acquitted in the Anointed One.”[6]

Charles Spurgeon goes at this from an evangelistic point of view. Paul is arguing against the idea of salvation by works, or salvation by rites, rituals, or ceremonies; and he shows, beyond all question, that salvation is by the grace of God through faith in Jesus the Anointed One. Paul will make a strong point concerning this in verse twenty-one. Spurgeon then goes on to say, the true Christian carries the cross in their heart. And a cross inside the heart is one of the sweetest cures for a cross on the back. If a cross is in your heart – you are crucified with the Anointed One – all this world’s troubles will seem to you light enough, and you will easily be able to sustain it. If you say with Paul that Jesus loves you and gave Himself for you, you are expressing yourself far beyond what the Greek orator Demosthenes or the Roman orator Cicero was ever able to say with all their eloquence of speech.

Paul is telling Peter and the Galatians that it was never his intention to frustrate the grace of God. This would be a sin so gross that even the heathen could not commit it. They never heard of the grace of God, and, therefore, they cannot break it even slightly. Spurgeon then gives this warning. Heathens will perish and face far less sinister doom than those who were told that God is gracious and ready to pardon, and yet they wickedly boast of innocence and pretend to be clean in the sight of God by what they’ve done, not what the Anointed One did. This is a sin which devils cannot commit. With all the obstinacy of their rebellion, they never reached this level. They never heard the sweet notes of saving grace and dying love ring in their ears, and, therefore, were never given a chance to refused the heavenly invitation.[7]

In another place, Spurgeon quotes David Griffiths (1792-1863),[8] as saying that travelers in Turkey carry with them lozenges of opium, on which is stamped “mash Allah,” the gift of God. Too many sermons are just such lozenges. Grace is preached but duty denied. Divine predestination is promoted, but human responsibility is rejected. Such teaching ought to be shunned as poisonous, but those who by reason of use grew accustomed to the sedative, now condemn all other preaching and claim their opium lozenges of high doctrine to be the truth, a precious gift from God. It is to be feared that this narcotic-laced doctrine put many souls to sleep who will awake in hell.[9]

Church historian Philip Schaff (1819-1893) gives his detailed view of Justification. He begins by saying that the doctrine of justification by faith is one of the fundamental doctrines of Paul, and is presented fully in this Epistle and in that to the Romans. How will a sinner be justified to stand as right before a holy God? This was a vital question in the Apostolic age and came very near splitting the congregation. It shook Western Christendom again in the sixteenth century and divided it into two camps. It is no idle theological dispute, but involves the peace of conscience and affects a believer’s whole conduct It is almost like asking: “What must I do to be saved?”

To this question there were two answers, notes Schaff. The Pharisaical Jews and Christian Judaizers were teaching that a person is justified by doing good works to satisfy the Law’s demands. Paul is teaching just as emphatically that a person is justified by faith without works by the Anointed One. The Judaizers would not deny the importance and necessity of faith in the Anointed One, but they practically laid the main stress upon works, and that’s why they demanded circumcision as a term of membership in the congregation, and a sign and pledge for the observance of the whole Mosaic law.

Now Paul reasons in this chapter that to return to the Law for justification is virtually to abandon the work the Anointed One did on the cross or leave Him rotting in the grave. Schaff offers what he calls chief points to be considered. The Greek verb dikaioō (to “justify”) may be used both in an efficient and in a judicial sense, namely, (a) to make just, to transform a sinner into a saint; (b) to declare just, to acquit. In Hellenistic Greek, and especially in Paul’s Epistles, it has the judicial or forensic meaning. This appears – From the equivalent terms “to reckon,” or “to account for righteousness.”[10] From the phrase to be justified “before God,” or “in God’s sight,” for example,  before His tribunal.[11] (c) From such passages where God or the Anointed One is said to be just. God is just and cannot be made just, but He may be accounted or declared just by mankind.[12] (d) From the opposite phrase to condemn.[13]

So, concludes Schaff, consequently “justification” is seen as a judicial act of acquittal, in opposition to condemnation.[14] Now there may be two kinds of justification, legal and by grace. The first would be a reward of merit, the second a free gift of lovingkindness. We may be justified and accepted by God on the ground of our good works, the observance of His law, that is, because we are really righteous and deserving of acceptance; or we may be justified by grace on the grounds of the merits of the righteous Anointed One, as obtained by a living faith. But justification by works has proven to be impossible because we are all sinners by nature and practice and, therefore, justly deserving of God’s wrath. We cannot in our own strength observe the divine law with perfection. If that were possible, there would have been no need of a Savior and His death to atone for our sins. The more we try to keep the Law, the more are we driven to a conviction of sin and guilt and to a painful sense of the need of redemption. This is what the Law was given to teach us. While the Law itself is holy, just, and good, it offers no forgiveness or salvation. The best it can do is to bring the moral decease to a crisis by revealing sin in its true nature, and thus to prepare the way for the cure through the blood of the Anointed One.[15]

[1] Romans 3:23

[2] Adam Clarke: Commentary on Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[3] Romans 6:15-16 – NIV

[4] O’Conor, W. A: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., pp. 37–38

[5] Hovey, Alvah: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 33

[6] J. B. Lightfoot: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., pp. 243-244

[7] Charles Spurgeon: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[8] Welsh Congregational missionary and translator in Madagascar

[9] Ryle, J.C.; Exell, Joseph; MacLaren, Alexander; Moody, D.L.; Spurgeon, Charles. The Biblical Illustrator – Vol. 48 – Kindle Locations 4938-4942

[10] Galatians 3:6; Romans 4:3, 5, 9, 23, 24; James 2:23

[11] Galatians 3:11; Romans 3:20

[12] Romans 3:4 (from Psalm 51:4); 1 Timothy 3;16; cf. Matthew 11:19; Luke 6: 29, 35.

[13] Matthew 12:37; See Deuteronomy 25:1; Proverbs 17:15

[14] Romans 4:14; 5:18

[15] Philip Schaff: On Galatians, op. cit., pp. 314-315

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXXVIII)

Medieval Catholic scholar, Thomas Aquinas, gives us his assessment of what was happening here and the charges being made. Someone could say, he argues, that the Apostles sinned by abandoning the Law and turning to the faith in the Anointed One for salvation. But Paul shows that this would lead to the following unwelcomed conclusion, namely, that the Anointed One is the author of sin in calling men and women from faith in the Law to faith in Him. Paul responds adamantly, “God forbid!” the Anointed One is the minister of justice; the Anointed One is not the minister of sin in leading someone from the First Covenant to the Final Covenant. This should be plain to see because if Paul himself, by wanting to glory once more in the Law, were to build up again the things he tore down, namely, his pride for glorying in his obedience to the Law, he would make himself a liar and fraud by putting trust back into what was already destroyed. He was not speaking of the Law itself, but his pride in being a servant of the law. This is what the Manicheans[1] were teaching because the Law is holy, but pride in having knowledge of and in keeping the Law is not holiness.[2]

The great Reformer Martin Luther shares the agony he went through on both sides of the issue when it came to salvation by works instead of faith.  To him, Paul was crying out: “What are these false Apostles doing?” Paul saw that they were turning Law into grace, and grace into Law. They were changing Moses into the Anointed One, and the Anointed One into Moses. By teaching that besides the Anointed One and His righteousness, the performance of good works under the Law was necessary for full salvation. In doing so, they advocated the Law in the place of the Anointed One, they attributed to the Law power to save, a power that belongs only to the Anointed One only.

Luther then goes on to explain his situation: Catholic priests quote the words of the Anointed One: “If you want to obtain timeless life, keep the commandments.”[3] But they don’t realize that with their own words they deny the Anointed One and abolish faith in Him by placing emphasis on the commandments. By doing this, the Anointed One is made to lose His good name, His office, and His glory, and is demoted to the status of a law enforcer, reproving, terrifying, and chasing poor sinners around. The proper office of the Anointed One is to raise sinners, and extricate them from the clutches of sins. But Luther wasn’t finished. He accuses Catholic Priests and Anabaptists[4] of being critical of him and his followers because they so firmly require faith. “Faith,” they say, “makes people reckless.” What do these law-workers know about faith, Luther wants to know, why they are so busy calling people back from baptism, from faith, from the promises of the Anointed One to the Law?[5]

John Calvin disagrees somewhat with Chrysostom’s conclusions. For him, Chrysostom, and some other commentators make the whole passage to be an affirmation of the fact that if, while we seek to be justified by the Anointed One, we are not yet perfectly righteous but still unholy. If this is true, then the Anointed One is not sufficient for our righteousness which makes Him a minister of a doctrine which leaves people in sin. By supposing that anyone accepts such an absurd proposition, Paul is calling for a charge of blasphemy against those who attribute any part of justification to the Law. However, Paul does not hold back in saying that when it comes to justification, it’s like making the dead try to continue doing good works in order to comply. He puts a question, in his usual manner, into the mouth of his antagonists. “If, in consequence of the righteousness of faith, we, who are Jews and were sanctified from the womb, are reckoned guilty and polluted, shall we say that the Anointed One makes sin to be powerful in His own people and that He is, therefore, the author of sin?”[6]

Calvin goes on to explain that this all arose from the fact that Paul indicated that the Jews, by believing in the Anointed One, renounced their inherited righteousness under the law. As such, even before they became believers, and having separated themselves from the Gentiles were never called sinners, are they now being placed on the same level with Gentiles, therefore, becoming sinners? Paul’s conclusion that the Jews were mistaken in claiming any holiness for themselves in the Law apart from the Anointed One. As a consequence, the Anointed One did not bring sin, but unveiled it; He did not take away righteousness but stripped the Jews of a false righteous disguise.

Paul insinuates a charge of blasphemy against those who attribute a part of justification to the Law. His “absolutely not!” says all that is needed to say to quash such a notion. Calvin takes the rest of what Paul says here as setting aside an absurd conclusion which some thought Paul’s doctrine appeared to warrant. He puts a question, in his usual manner, into the mouth of his antagonists. “Are you saying, that if, as part of obtaining righteousness by faith in the Anointed One, we, who are Jews and were ‘sanctified from the womb,’[7] are still reckoned guilty and polluted because the Law is not involved? Are you charging that we are saying that the Anointed One makes sin so powerful in His own people who give up the Law as a source for justification, that He is, therefore, the author of sin?” I think we all join Paul in saying that such an idea is ridiculous!

Catholic scholar Cornelius à Lapide questions that if we are still in sin and are looking to faith in the Anointed One for forgiveness but find that there is no forgiveness in Him but in the Law, as the Judaizers were teaching, does that make the Anointed One a preacher of sin? After all, He’s the one who says we must forget the Law and believe only on Him. Lapide points this out as the interpretation of early church scholars Jerome, Chrysostom, Primasius, Anselm, and Theophylact. Lapide examines two other interpretations but settles on this first one as the best to define what Paul was saying because it is less forced.

One of the biggest criticisms that Paul received was that he was making the Law void and that any good works done to help others was needless. They concluded that he was preaching a spiritual philosophy that said once God declares you to be in right standing with Him, you may go on living in sin the way you are living now because God loves nothing more than forgiving a sinner. So, sin more so that God will show how great is His love, grace, and mercy.

Of course, that was ridiculous. For John Owen, there was only one way to answer such a fool-hearted idea. Our own personal righteousness and obedience to the Law in order to be justified before God would be something purchased by the work of our hands. But the justification that we receive as a gift was purchased for us by the blood of Jesus the Anointed One. But there was another factor, even some who were justified before God through the Anointed One, believed that their personal righteousness, holiness, and works could enhance their right standing before God. However, if it didn’t get us there, it can’t keep us there. There is a place for good works and holy living because it shows the evidence of our true nature as a born-again believer living in union with the Anointed One. Paul’s message here in verse eighteen to the Jewish believers in Galatia was that if they insist on working toward being made right with God by keeping the Law, they were only making themselves out to be sinners.[8]

Matthew Poole believes that some interpreters of verse seventeen think that Paul begins his discourse to the Galatians by picking up again the main theme of his Epistle, mainly, that justification by faith in the Anointed One is the only valid way to receive a right standing before God. However, he does admit that there were some who contended that by making the Anointed One alone the foundation of one’s faith, thereby forsaking the Law requirement for obedience in performing good deeds, that not only does one become a sinner but makes the Anointed One the minister of sin.

However, Poole notes that there are still others who think that the Apostle Paul hereby eliminates a common objection which was made back then, and also made during Poole’s day, that the doctrine of justification by faith alone in the Anointed One opens a door for believers to live any way they desired without any moral or ethical laws to control their behavior and conduct. To them, that was the role of the Law. So, by adopting this understanding it would make the Anointed One liable for their sinful behavior. Not only does Paul disavow any such idea by saying, “God forbid!” But to suggest that Christians mistake their faith in the Anointed One for justification as a license to do anything they want is to say that believers possess no sense of what is right or wrong in God’s eyes. Pleasing God by loving Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength and loving our fellowman as ourselves will keep all the laws that are written in God’s Holy Word.[9]

Joseph Benson shows us a neat way of expressing this argument that Paul is making. It’s as if Paul was being accused of saying that the Gospel promises justification to those who continue in sin. But that’s not what the Apostle was getting at. Therefore, if any, who profess the Gospel, do not live according to it, they are sinners but not justified in doing so. The Gospel is very clear, live God’s way or you will be living the wrong way. Benson sees Paul making this point: Through the Law, he understood, in its spiritual sense, the extent and obligation applied by the Holy Spirit to his conscience, enough to convince him of his utter sinfulness, guilt, and helplessness in trying to acquire salvation through the Law. Therefore, he considers the Law as a dead thing when it comes to being justified by it to a right standing before God.

Therefore, to all dependence upon the Law must be canceled. All dependence now falls on the Anointed One and His work on the cross. That’s why Paul said he wanted to live for God sake. So, he lacked any interest in continuing in sin. For this very end, he was delivered from the death sentence pronounced by the Law on all did not follow its rules. It was only by his faith in the Anointed One that he was justified and brought into a state of favor and acceptance with God. And for what reason? That he might be motivated by nobler views and hopes than the Law could give, and engaged, through love to God, his people, and all mankind, to a more generous, sublime, and extensive obedience than the law was capable of producing.[10]

[1] Manicheans were followers of a 3rd century Persian named Mani who was also known as the “Angel of light.”  They were long considered a Christian movement.  Mani taught a dualistic doctrine that offered salvation through special knowledge (gnosis) of spiritual truth.

[2] Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[3] Matthew 19:17

[4] The Anabaptist Movement began in 1525 with those joining the Reformation of Luther, Zwingli and others felt it wasn’t going far enough and insisted on more purity including being re-baptized in order to seal one’s salvation. Luther saw this as works.

[5] Martin Luther, On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 44

[6] John Calvin, Commentary on Galatians, loc. cit.

[7] Jeremiah 1:5; Galatians 1:15

[8] John Owen: op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 525

[9] Matthew Poole on Galatians: op. cit., loc. cit., Kindle Locations 665-678, Kindle Edition

[10] Joseph Benson: On Galatians, op. cit., loc., cit.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXXVII)

This is similar to what Paul shared later with the Roman believers. When talking about how God preserved some true believers among the Jews so that when Jesus came, He would find those willing to believe in Him while the others rejected Him. So, in the place of those who would not receive Him, He allowed the Gospel to be preached to the Gentiles through Peter and Paul. That’s why Paul’s question to the Romans is, “What are we to say about these things?” The Apostle then answers his own question by saying that the Gentiles were not made right with God by the Law. They were made right with God because they put their trust in His Son. The Jews tried to be right with God by obeying the Law, but they did not become right with God on their own. Why? Because, unlike the Gentiles, they did not put their trust in God’s Son. They tried to be right with God by working for it. In doing so, the very important building block in their path became their stumbling block as they tripped over the Anointed One trying to get to God on their own.[1]

However, some Jews took Paul’s message the wrong way. Since the Gentiles were born sinners and possessed no law to show them right from wrong, yet God forgave them on the spot because of grace, they offered nothing to God by way of good deeds or participation in holy rites and rituals. In their eyes, this made sin and sinning more important for salvation than obedience to the law and good works. So they asked the obvious question, if being a sinner causes God to love and forgive you, then why not then sin and be a sinner as long as possible?

There were some in Rome who asked the same question. Does this mean that we are to keep on sinning so that God will give us more of His loving-favor? Paul’s response to them was a quick emphatic, No! Not at all! We are dead to sin. Why then keep on living in sin? All of us were baptized to show we belong to the Anointed One. We were baptized first of all to show His death. We were buried in baptism as the Anointed One was buried in death. As the Anointed One was raised from the dead by the great power of God, so we were raised to enjoy a new life as a new creation in the Anointed One.[2]

This echoes Paul’s answer here to the Galatians. Even the Apostle John dealt with this. So, he wrote the following in his first letter, “The person who keeps on sinning belongs to the devil. The devil sinned from the beginning. But the Son of God came to destroy the works of the devil. No person who became a child of God keeps on sinning. This is because the Holy Spirit is in him. He cannot keep on sinning because God is his Father. This is the way you can know who are the children of God and who are the children of the devil. The person who does not keep on doing what is right and does not love his brother does not belong to God.”[3]

Not only was Paul’s argument against mixing salvation by works, but he emphasized that salvation by grace was the most important way and will remain critical as long as the believers exist.  Some 300 years later, Augustine of Hippo gives his assessment of this argument in his day, especially Paul’s contention that by dropping salvation by works it makes everyone a sinner. Augustine makes it clear, there is no way that Paul’s opponents could accuse him of being soft on those who insisted on continuing to work for their salvation. After all, even those who were unwilling to entrust the Gospel to the Gentiles unless they were circumcised, still trusted the Anointed One for their own salvation. Paul destroyed the ego of those who boasted about works of the law – a false pride that should and must be annihilated. If this wasn’t done, then the Gospel of faith by grace becomes an option. So, in Paul’s mind, the person who after being saved by grace sets out to rebuild salvation by works again is the one at fault. What gives them the right to say that works by the law justifies without grace?[4]

In Augustine’s mind, the thing that bothered Paul the most was that he spent years tearing down the wall of legalistic belief between man and God, so if he did not confront Peter’s hypocrisy now, it would appear as though he too was rebuilding that wall. This is exactly what he saw Peter doing.  God broke down that wall so He might send Peter to the Gentile Cornelius’ house. And did not Peter eat and worship with the Gentile believers in Antioch before these visitors from Jerusalem arrive? Therefore, in Paul’s eyes, Peter was the transgressor here, not the Gentiles.

Early church commentator Marius Victorinus asks the question, suppose that we, after receiving faith in the Anointed One, did to the Anointed One what the Judaizers tried to do? They taught that after putting our faith in the Anointed One and wish to be justified, even though we know that no one justified by the works of the law, we still insist on doing all the works that the law demands, will that mean we will be counted as sinners? If so, then after we believe in the Anointed One for salvation and are ordered not to sin, simply by observing the law, will that make us sinners? In that case, the Anointed One, whom we accepted in order not to sin, would Himself become a minister of sin. Victorinus does not hesitate to announce that if after receiving the Anointed One we return to sin – that is depending on the Law to save us – the Anointed One is not responsible for making us sinners. Paul would declare such a thought as being far from what he was teaching. No right-minded person would think this way. It doesn’t make sense that the One who suffered and died to free us from sin would turn around and cause us to sin.[5]

But Bishop Theodoret of Cyr turns the tables on those who think this way. He sees them proposing that once a person forsook the law and turned to the Anointed One as their Savior in order to enjoy a right standing with God through faith in Him, that by forsaking the Law the Anointed One made them sinners. If proven true, then the Anointed One Himself became a minister of sin. So, any fault that would be incurred, could be laid at the feet of the Anointed One. And by bringing us the Gospel of the Final Covenant, He inadvertently did away with the First Covenant which abolished all the laws and thereby made everyone a sinner. The Bishop says, “Far be it from us to tolerate such blasphemy!”[6]

In Chrysostom’s quite a lengthy exposition on verse seventeen in his homilies he begins by saying that Paul is speaking about Peter. And he questions what if Peter put his faith in the Anointed One but did not receive justification, would it be necessary for him to again embrace the Law? If so, it reasons then that once Peter forsook the Law for the Anointed One’s sake but was still not justified but condemned for such abandonment – then Peter would find out that the One for whom he forsook the Law and went over to in faith really became the author of his condemnation. Chrysostom feels that Paul resolved the matter of Peter’s hypocrisy with an absurd argument. And he points out how earnestly and strongly he argues. For if, he says, it was in Peter’s interest not to abandon the Law, and since he abandoned it for the Anointed One’s sake, he was being harshly judged. So, Chrysostom asks, how could Paul put such a burden upon Peter who was more intimately acquainted with it than anyone?

In the end, Chrysostom does not believe that it was Paul’s objective to correct Peter, but that his censure was directed to him for the sake of Galatians and all those who followed this erroneous teaching. In other words, since Paul was writing to the Galatians who were so easily been fooled by the Judaizers into going back to obeying the Law as a safeguard to their faith in the Anointed One, he wanted to use what Peter did in separating himself from the Gentiles to eat with the Jewish contingent that came down from Jerusalem at the Apostle James’ bidding to show how false such thinking was.

Chrysostom then concludes by saying that this was Paul’s way of asking the Galatians, “Do you not understand what these Judaizers were trying to prove?” They wanted to make the Anointed One, who is the Author of our righteousness, and turn Him into the Author of sin. As Paul says, this makes the Anointed One the minister of sin. Having thus reduced the proposition to an absurdity, Paul saw no further reason or way of dealing with it. He felt that he adequately handled this subject by protesting what Peter and his fellow Jews did.[7]

Ambrosiaster, a contemporary scholar of Chrysostom and Augustine’s, asks: “How can the Anointed One who forgives sin be an agent of sin?” He sees this charge against what Paul is saying as nonsense. He goes on to explain that anyone who wants to be justified by faith in the Anointed One and yet still obeys the law to earn their salvation are admitting that they are still under sin, because faith in the Anointed One delivers a person from the law so that they are justified by grace. However, if we must still surrender ourselves to the Law with the intent of maintaining our righteous standing with God through good works because we are still sinners, then those who stay under the law stay under a curse.

In other words, if someone in prison claims they received a pardon and allowed to go free, but decides to continue to live in jail to serve out their sentence, and be forced to abide by all the restrictions and conditions, they are thereby classifying themselves as still being a prisoner. No matter how many times they wave the pardon around, they are still a prisoner. Ambrosiaster concludes that it is essential that whoever comes to the Anointed One must give up the law as a means of salvation because it frees the slave. Therefore, if he goes back to the law, he will be his own accuser, because he is condemning what he is doing.[8]

One medieval Christian scholar named Peter Lombard who showed great interest and expertise in Jewish law, gives us his insight on what Paul is saying. For him, when speaking of building up again those things which he destroyed, he was referring to the pride he exhibited in boasting about doing the works of the Law. And by doing so, he would make himself a transgressor because the Anointed One’s grace would be abandoned. However, some might contend, that if Paul was now building up the very same faith in the Anointed One that he attacked, he makes himself a transgressor against the Law which he is deserting. This is an argument that only a former Pharisee would understand.

Lombard goes on to argue that Paul did not destroy this faith in the Anointed One since it cannot be destroyed. What really got destroyed was pride. If he then built back up what he destroyed he would indeed become a transgressor? One is a transgressor when one destroys a false idol and then builds it up again for worship. One is not a transgressor, however, when one attempts to destroy a true thing and then later comes to realize that it is true and cannot be destroyed. For then that person holds on to the true thing in order to be maintained by it.[9]

[1] Romans 9:30-32

[2] Ibid. 6:1-4

[3] 1 John 3:8-10

[4] Augustine, Commentary on Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[5] Marius Victorinus: op. cit., loc, cit., On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 31

[6] Theodoret of Cyr: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 31

[7] Chrysostom: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., Homily 2

[8] Ambrosiaster: On Galatians, Ancient Christian Texts, op. cit., p. 13

[9] Peter Lombard: The Letter to the Galatians (Medieval Bible Commentary series, op. cit., loc, cit.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXXVI)

For the casual reader, there is a subliminal message in this text not easily perceived.  The word Paul uses here for “faith” is also translated as “faithfulness.” Paul points out to the Jews that their faithfulness in keeping all God’s Law cannot substitute for Jesus’ faithfulness in fulfilling all God’s Law. So, in other words, either God may accept your efforts as fulfilling Mosaic Law, or He accepts the work of the Anointed One as satisfying Mosaic Law. Which will it be? Your ongoing efforts or the Anointed One’s finished work? If you insist on God accepting your acts for piety, then you are claiming to be saved by your own efforts. If, however, you accept the work of the Anointed One, then you are saved by faith in what the Anointed One did for you in His crucifixion and resurrection.

What upset Paul so much, were these born-again Jewish brethren saying to their born-again Gentile brethren: look, if you want to stay saved and really be counted as a part of God’s congregation then you need to wear this, pray like this, stop doing that, start doing this, don’t play that game, and don’t watch this, have devotions every morning, pray an hour each day, fast on Fridays, etc. Does this sound familiar to any of you? If all of those things could qualify as keeping our salvation alive, then there would be no need for continued faith in the Anointed One as Lord and Savior. The Holy Spirit would be out of a job. Let’s face it, says Paul, you cannot keep the whole Mosaic Law by just keeping one law, or nine out of ten, or even ninety-nine out of a hundred. To be perfect you must keep them all. Now, who does that? Yet, the Anointed One. He is perfect in everything. There was no fault found in Him.

Augustine of Hippo gives us insight into the Roman Catholic thinking during his time on this issue of faith and works. In commenting on verse sixteen he notes that all believers came to realize that a person is not declared righteous by God on the ground of their legalistic observance of the Law. So why in their weakness are the Jews, not aided by their own justification and imperfection but by the grace of God, now demand from the Gentiles fleshly observance of the Law? They should be aware that both they and the Gentiles fulfilled spiritual works of the law through the grace of faith. By works of the law, Augustine says this means laws of their own making and not to the grace of the merciful God. That means no person, especially none who think in a physical manner, will ever be justified. And, therefore, those who believed in the Anointed One when they were already under the Law, added faith by grace, not because they were righteous but in order to become so.[1]

However, Jewish writer Kohler Kaufmann feels that Paul pushed his denouncing of the Law too far. For him, the greatest harm of all was done to Judaism itself. Paul made a caricature of the Law, which he declared to be a rigid, external system, not elevating life, but only inciting to transgression and spawning a curse. He sees Paul arousing a feeling of hatred toward the Law, which grew in intensity until it became a source of untold cruelty to the Jews for many centuries.[2] But what my good Rabbi friend seems to have missed is the fact that all of this came as a result of the Jews’ rejection of Jesus as the Messiah and His Word as the only source of a new covenant relationship with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. To change their views of the Law and the Cross required that they do what all other Christians did. We know this from what happened to Peter, James, John, and Paul.

Another Jewish writer, Avi ben Mordechai, sees some hidden truths that come with having faith in Jesus the Messiah. From a Jewish point of view, “faith” signifies putting one’s trust in Yahweh and who He is, and “faithfulness” is keeping His commandments.[3] In fact, the Hebrew noun ’emuwnah gives us many English words such as “truth, faith, faithful, faithfully, faithfulness, and stability.” But none of them are used to denote any intellectual exercise. In their Hebrew sense, they always point to something that involves demonstrating one’s “faith.” And this is confirmed, of course, by obeying Yahweh’s Word and His Will. Therefore, it is obvious that having faith in Yeshua the Messiah means to put our faith in His Gospel by doing what He said we should do.[4] That’s why Mordechai believes that when we see the term “works of the law,” we should take that as doing what the Rabbis instructed the Jews to do in their oral teachings as found in the Mishnah and Talmud.[5]

Adam Clarke (1760-1851), whom we referenced earlier, points out that Paul locates the origin of justification in believing the Gospel rather than believing in what the Law demanded. In so doing, they felt that for it to be justified is to be treated as righteous despite disobedience to the Law, not to be righteous by virtue of obedience to it. Since Paul’s use of the Greek noun sarx (“flesh” – KJV) here in verse sixteen, it implies human frailty and moral frailty in particular. In most Greek Lexicons it is taken here as pertaining to humanity itself. In other words, “no human on their own will be declared right with God.” The statement that “no flesh at all will be justified because of works of the Law” roundly rejects the Law as a means to acquire justification. That’s why Paul was so upset with Peter. Before the Jewish contingent from James arrived, the Jews and non-Jews were recognized as equal Christians because of what they believed, not what they did in complying with Jewish Law. But now Peter and his cohorts turn this on its head by focusing on what they do rather than what they believe. In other words, Paul was accusing Peter of saying one thing but doing the opposite.

No wonder why so many in recent decades who were raised as churchgoers, but when they started to “stray from the church’s ways,” not only felt like they were no longer a part of the faith they grew up in, but also that they were no longer saved and could call themselves Christians. On top of that, how many in the church knew that some of those who strutted their holiness in dress, prayer, Bible reading, church attendance, taking communion, singing, shouting, speaking in tongues, dancing in the Spirit, were the same ones who criticized, gossiped, cheated, told little white lies, and would not associate with people of less stature in society. They were not judged by their attitude but by their attire.

In one church I pastored, the piano player informed me that he was quitting and going to another church.  When I asked why, so I could inform the congregation, he stated that we didn’t sing out of the traditional hymn book any longer. All we sang were new praise and worship songs. I told him that while I certainly believe he should go where he’s more comfortable and feels fulfilled, that as Pastor my main aim in the song service wasn’t so much what song we sang, but who we sang it to, for what reason we sang it, and what the song had to say. We weren’t singing to the congregation, nor were we weren’t singing just to keep a certain tradition. But any song that praised, glorified, magnified, thanked, and worshiped God our King and Redeemer, Jesus our Lord and Savior, and the Holy Spirit our Comforter and Guide were the ones I desired.

There are some people who read the Bible every morning, over every meal and say a prayer before going to bed each night because they believe that’s what’s expected of a good Christian. However, they are at a loss to explain what reading their Bible and saying their prayers are intended to accomplish for their spiritual life. By the same token, how many believers do you know who are deeply into the Word and attend each worship service and Bible Study, and listen intently to every speaker, but when it comes to applying what they read and heard and studied to their everyday life they don’t know where to start?

To emphasize and illustrate what Paul was trying to say about not standing on his good works to achieve justification for being forgiven by God of his sins and canceling the death sentence the Law demanded that hung over his head, J. L. Nye, British Sunday school teacher in the 1800s offers this illustration:

2:17-18 Do you suppose that after we get right with God through faith in the Anointed One, we still end up sinners just because we didn’t perform every religious ritual and obey every regulation? Is it possible that following the Anointed One makes sinners out of us? Absolutely not! Just the opposite, we only remain sinners if we keep using the old outdated system of religious rituals and regulations instead of following the Anointed One.

I imagine the Judaizers might be thinking, “Isn’t Paul finished yet?” Oh no! What else is he going to say that makes us look so foolish? Since Peter is known as “The Rock,” I’ve given Paul the nickname “The Hammer.” I remember at the university when I studied Basic Logic, we were taught to watch for “p’s” and “q’s.” No doubt this is because the lowercase “p” looks like the “q” written backward. We used these symbols to identify parts of a statement that were either premises or conclusions. Depending on how the p’s and q’s were lined up as p → q or q ← p would determine whether or not the logic in the statement was true, flawed, or false.

At this point in Paul’s letter, he gives the Judaizers and Galatians something to really think about that sounds a lot like an exercise in logic.  Paul asks them, when you came to the Anointed One, was it because you were a sinner? Yes! So, as a sinner, you needed to be saved? Yes! Once you are saved, were you saved as a sinner? Yes! However, if after the Anointed One saves you and someone tells you that you are still a sinner because you don’t measure up to the standards of Mosaic Law, does that mean that the Anointed One really didn’t save you? No! The only way you end up being a sinner is if you let yourself be judged by what Mosaic Law demands, instead of being judged by what the Anointed One did for you. Upon being born again you are a sinner saved by grace. But after being born again you are in God’s grace that saves you from being considered a sinner any longer. If you sin after being born again you are a disobedient child of God and ripe for discipline.

[1] Augustine: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[2] Kohler, Kaufmann, Jewish Theology, op. cit., loc. cit.

[3] Deuteronomy 32:20; Hosea 4:1-3; Daniel 9:13; Jeremiah 11:1-17; 2 Kings 17:13-15

[4] John 1:14

[5] Avi ben Mordechai: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 23

[6] The Poetical Works of William Cowper: “The Task – ‘The Winter Morning Walk,’”, Published by William P. Nimmo, Edinburgh, 1863, Bk. V, p. 116

[7] J. L. Nye: op. cit., pp. 109-110

Some years ago, my wife and I stood in front of the Stephen Sondheim Theater on West 43rd Street in New York City, waiting for the doors to open so we could attend a Broadway Performance about songwriter Carole King. When I looked across the street, I noticed a four-story red brick building. But what really caught my eye was the large stone plaque above the marquee. It read: TOWN HALL, THE LEAGUE FOR POLITICAL EDUCATION. Then beneath this were these words, “YE SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE.” I immediately thought of what Jesus said in John 8:32. But then it hit me! If only the American public, every politician, every school administrator, and teacher in the United States would subscribe to this motto, how much better our nation would be today. This Town Hall was opened on January 12, 1921, but its message has not only faded somewhat on the plaque over the years but in the minds of America’s educators. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

WHAT SEASON OF LIFE ARE YOU IN?

The individual who wrote this story did not give their name. But I’m glad they did share it with us. So, let it speak to your heart and mind as it did to me.

There was a man who had four sons. He wanted his sons to learn not to judge things too quickly. So, he sent them each on a mission. They were each to go at different times of the year and look at a pear tree that was a great distance away from their farmhouse.

He sent his first son in the winter, the second in the spring, the third in summer, and the youngest son in the fall. When they all completed their mission, he called them together to describe what they had seen.

The first son said that the tree was ugly, bent, and twisted. But the second son said no it was covered with green buds and leaves. The third son disagreed; he said it was full of blossoms that smelled so sweet and looked so beautiful, it was the most graceful thing he had ever seen. The last son said they were all wrong, he saw a pear tree that was ripe and drooping with fruit, full of life and fulfillment.

The man then explained to his sons that they were all correct because they had each seen but only one season in the tree’s life. He told them that you cannot judge a tree, or a person, by a particular season in their life, and that the essence of who they are and the pleasure, joy, and love that come from that life can only be measured at the end when all the seasons are up. If you give up on them when it’s winter, you will miss what they are like in the spring, their beauty during the summertime, and their accomplishments in the autumn of their life.

What can we learn from this? Don’t let the pain of one season destroy the joy of all the rest of your life. Don’t judge life by one difficult season. Persevere through the difficult patches and better times are sure to come. As King Solomon said so clearly, There’s an opportune time to do things, a right time for everything in life.[1] And the Scriptures say that there is a time when old things will be gone and new things will come.[2] In other words, life does not stand still, it keeps moving every day.

So, don’t let a bad Friday destroy your joy for the coming Sunday. Remember, that’s what the disciples went through. When they looked at Jesus on Friday, hanging dead on a cross, they thought their dreams of the Messiah were over. What they forgot was that Sunday was coming when they would see Him again in all His resurrected glory. The same is true for us. Don’t let some disappointing season in life ruin your hope and joy of one day seeing Him when He comes again. As the old hymn goes: “What a day that will be!” – Dr. Robert R Seyda

[1] Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

[2] Isaiah 42: 9; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Revelation 21:5

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXXV)

British theologian James D. G. Dunn presents an interesting point of view in his commentary on this second chapter. As he sees it, the term “Works of the Law” are not the subject here, not by the Judaizers who flooded into Galatia or by Paul himself, as works, which earn God’s favor, as merit-amassing observances. They are rather seen as badges: they are simply what membership of the covenant people involves, what identify the Jews as God’s people; given to them by God for precisely that reason, that they serve to demonstrate a covenant status with Him. They are the proper response to God’s covenant grace, the minimal commitment for members of God’s people. This is a historical conclusion of some importance since it begins to clarify with more precision what were the connections and disconnections between Paul, his fellow Jewish Christians, and his own Pharisaic past, so far as justification and grace, covenant and law are concerned.

Dunn is disappointed that some dismissed the “works of the Law” because they see them as “good works” done to earn or enhance one’s salvation. In fact, these regulations prescribed by the law are what any good Jew would follow simply to define what a good Jew would do. To be a Jew was to be a member of the covenant, was to observe circumcision, food laws, and sabbath. In short, once again Paul seems much less a man of sixteenth-century Europe and much more firmly in touch with the reality of first-century Judaism than many thought.[1]

Andrew Roth gives us his translation of verse sixteen from the Aramaic Version. It reads: “For we know that the sons of men are not justified by the works of the Torah, but by faith in Yeshua the Messiah. Even we who believed in Him know that it is from the faith in Messiah that we will be justified and not from the works of the Torah. For from the works of the Torah no flesh shall be justified.”[2] This should help us understand that from the Jewish perspective, the “works” spoken of here by Paul were the works required by the Law for any Jew to prove themselves as a true Jew. This does not eliminate the good works reflected in the Fruit of the Spirit or the high moral standards that Jesus taught on how we should love each other and our fellowman.

In their Exposition on Galatians, several writers take the words of David as something Paul alluded to here in this verse. David prayed: “Adonai, hear my prayer; listen to my pleas for mercy. In your faithfulness, answer me, and in your righteousness. Don’t bring your servant to trial, since in your sight no one alive would be considered righteous.”[3] They then go on to note that David is at the end of his rope and he knows that no one is righteous before God, nor is there anything in any person that makes them right before God. Nothing in us warrants, merits, initiates or causes God to save us. Justification is all about grace, which means that faith itself is evidence of grace. Therefore, we must be careful not to make faith into a work of the law, so to speak. Yet, this is what is being done with things such as conventional prayers which, when recited, are supposed to result in a conversion. If we’re not careful, “Do this work and you’ll be saved” is what we’re communicating to people. But faith is not a work we muster up. Faith itself is evidence of grace. Justification is a gracious act of God that we need Him to take.[4]

Ronald Fung tells us that verses fifteen and sixteen form a single, overloaded sentence in the Greek; and aptly described as “Paul’s doctrine of justification in a nutshell” and must be examined in considerable detail. Speaking “from the provisional standpoint of the Jews” Paul describes himself, Peter, and the other Jewish Christians as “Jews by birth, not sinners like Gentiles.” This characterization at once focuses attention on the sharp distinction between Jew and Gentile. What made the Gentiles sinners, in the estimation of the Jews, was not only that they did not observe the law but also that they did not even possess it and consequently lacked the possibility of obtaining righteousness through it.

Fung then goes on to provide an extensive examination of what Paul is saying here about the role of knowledge in acquiring justification to stand before God as forgiven and redeemed. There are both negative and positive aspects of this concept. On the negative side, Paul is asserting that no human being is justified by doing all that the Law demands in order to live a righteous life. Positively, Paul states that there is a way and that is only through faith in the Anointed One Jesus. So, when we look for the middle ground between what is negative and positive factors, it boils down to two words, “not,” and “but.” People are not to depend on their good works to gain a right standing before God, but trust in the work of the Anointed One on the cross to make that possible. The Law is good in telling you what to do and not to do, but the Law cannot forgive or wash one’s sins away. Only the blood of the Lamb of God possesses that power. So, put your trust in Him, not in yourself.[5]

Don Garlington gives us a lengthy discussion on these two verses. But here are some of the salient points he makes. First, the concluding verses of chapter two appear to be disconnected from Paul’s autobiography. However, on closer examination, it is clear that Paul does not leave off talking about himself. Repeatedly in this closing on the first major segment of the letter, he refers to himself, along with other like-minded Jewish Christians, either in the first person singular or plural pronouns. The convictions at which he arrived about the justification of the people before God were forged on the anvil of his own experience as he made the painful transition from zealot persecutor of the congregation to proclaimer of the Gospel. But not only does this bring to a close what went before, it also forms a transition into chapters 3-4 in which Paul will expound in detail salvation’s historical grounding behind his Christian certitude that the Anointed One ended the law, fulfilled the promise to Abraham, and procured the gift of the Spirit for the reborn people of the final covenant.

Paul is basically saying to those who were “Jews by birth,” that they must understand that they only become Christians by a new birth. But their new birth would be very much like that of Nicodemus who came to Jesus at night to find out he could become part of the Kingdom of God. He was told that he lacked the knowledge he needed to understand the truth. So in order for him to gain that understanding, he must experience a complete overhaul of his mind and thinking.[6] Garlington points out that this was also a factor in Paul’s illustration about the Jewish believers being the natural branches in the Holy Olive tree and the Gentile believers being the wild branches that were grafted in.[7]

Garlington also points out the difference in how various English translations parse the participle “knowing” in verse sixteen. The New American Standard Bible reads: “We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; nevertheless, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in the Anointed One Jesus.” On the other hand, the New International Version renders the participle as a finite verb and provides a somewhat smoother reading: “We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus the Anointed One.” Either way, Paul’s point is that God’s method of justifying both Jews and Gentiles was a matter well-known to every Jewish believer.[8]

Duncan Heaster also shares an interesting insight as to why Paul is emphasizing the fact that once a person knows they cannot be justified by works, there’s only one choice, and that is to put their faith in Jesus the Anointed One. After his call by the Anointed One on the road to Damascus and his years spent in the wilderness, Paul was deeply touched by the inability of the Law to save. This realization led him to throw himself on the mercy of God by placing his faith in Jesus for justification. Therefore, the motive for believing in Jesus is not some impressive argument interlinking Jewish and Christians theologies. Instead, it is the stark realization that apart from the Anointed One, no one saves themselves from the penalty for their sins. Not through obedience to the Law nor in an abundance of good works.

Grant Osborne joins in the chorus in helping us understand the importance of this critical juncture in Paul’s doctrine of justification. Here in verse sixteen, we are introduced to the language that will dominate the doctrine of salvation for the rest of human history. The two key phrases are found in the antithesis between “justified by faith” (which occurs three times) and “works of the law” (also three times). Osborne says these would become the primary concepts for Paul’s understanding of salvation by faith in the Anointed One alone, with “justify” appearing twenty-seven times in his writings.

There are three levels at which this justification takes place: Because of the atoning sacrifice of the Anointed One when He took our place and carried our sins to the cross. (1) We are declared righteous by God and forgiven and our sanctification process expands. (2) Then we are made righteous by the Spirit, and the ethical side is born. (3) We then live rightly (“in righteousness”) before Him. All three elements are indicated in the “righteous” word group. All this means is that we are justified entirely by faith in the saving blood of the Anointed One – in no way by the works of the law. This phrase is found eight times in Romans and Galatians, always in connection with the issue of justification. While obeying the law could never bring salvation, it provided enough light to maintain a right relationship with God under the First Covenant. But now that the Anointed One came, both salvation and relationship with God result from the cross. The works of the law cannot justify a sinner, cannot produce forgiveness of sins, and cannot make a person right with God.

Osborne finishes by saying that our faith and trust cannot be in the Law or in our inherent goodness and good deeds, for it’s impossible for them to keep the Law perfectly enough or perform without error and often enough to overcome sin and purchase salvation. We are like the rich young ruler who came to Jesus claiming that he observed the law from childhood and hoped that his record would be sufficient, only to go away crestfallen because he couldn’t overcome his lust for wealth.[9] It would take a morally perfect person to earn salvation, and there is no such person apart from the Anointed One.[10]

In our modern context, this means that just being born in a Christian family, being baptized as an infant, and going to church during your youth years and continuing thereafter does not make one right with God nor qualifies them to be called a born-again child of God. Like the Jews and Gentiles, it only comes with a person’s recognition that sinners remain, sinners, unless they put their faith and trust in Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Believing in their heart and confessing with their mouths that He is the Son of God and they are now in union with Him.[11]

[1] James D.G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul: Revised Edition (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2008), Section II.

[2] Andrew G. Roth: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[3] Psalm 143:1-2 – Complete Jewish Bible

[4] Platt, David; Merida, Tony, on Galatians: op. cit., loc. cit., p. 46

[5] Ronald Y. K. Fung: On Galatians, op. cit., loc., cit., pp. 112-118

[6] John 3:1-17

[7] Romans 11:21-24

[8] Don Garlington: On Galatians, op. cit., pp. 71-74

[9] Mark 10:17-22

[10] Osborne, G. R. On. Galatians, op. cit., pp. 71-73

[11] Romans 10:9-10

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXXIV)

Joseph S. Exell goes on to say that the law will not acquit them; it will pronounce them guilty; it will condemn them. No argument they may use will show that they were right and that God was wrong. No works that they perform will be any compensation for what they already did. No denial of the existence of the facts will alter the case; they must stand condemned by the law of God. In the legal sense, they cannot be justified, and receive justification if it exists at all, it must be in a mode that is a departure from the regular operation of law, and in a mode over which the law exercises no control. The law makes no provision for pardoning those who violate it. It must be by some system which is distinct from the law, and in which man may be justified on different principles than those which the law contemplates.[1]

Benjamin W. Bacon (1860-1932), makes a good point when he notes that the departure by Peter and his Jewish friends from the type of teaching attributed to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels is more a matter of form than of substance. It is true that Paul’s theological language might fall somewhat strangely on the ears of Peter, and he and other personal followers of Jesus might well be tempted to resent an attempt by Paul to prove them inconsistent with their Master’s teaching. Nevertheless, the real consistency was on Paul’s side and not on theirs. The essence of Jesus’ teaching taught they could exchange this burden of daily rites, rituals, and ceremonies for His “light and comfortable yoke”[2] that He offered them for the “grievous burdens” of the scribes. To trust the “Friend of publicans and sinners”[3] was to seek access to the heavenly Father by the road of the “Prodigal Son” and not that of his “elder brother.”[4] Meantime, it should be remembered that while Paul’s theological phraseology comes from his schooling, his underlying conflict against legalism is the same as that waged by Jesus.[5]

James Denney wrote about the absoluteness of what Paul says here in verse sixteen that we all must come to realize that a person is not declared righteous by God on the ground of their legalistic observance of the Torah’s commandments but through the Messiah Yeshua’s trustworthy faithfulness. Therefore, we too put our trust in Messiah Yeshua and become faithful to Him, in order that we might be declared righteous on the ground of the Messiah’s trustworthy faithfulness and not on the ground of our legalistic observance of the Torah commandments. For on the ground of legalistic observance of the Torah commandments, no one will ever be declared righteous.

Denny reports that he observed many attempts by skeptical scholars to find something quite different in Galatians, which will dispense with the necessity of considering faith as the only option. This they do by connecting verses like a string of pearls to make their point. They argued that the Apostle Paul in this whole epistle is dealing with Jews, or with people who wanted to become Jews, and with their relationship to the Jewish Ceremonial Law – a situation they claim is no longer a reality for us. But this is hardly the case. Nowhere does Paul draw any distinction between Ceremonial and Moral Law. For him, there is only one Law and that is the Law of God.

We note that when Jesus came, He was confronted by how much Ceremonial Law had taken precedence over Moral Law. But we shall find the same line of argument repeated in Romans, where it is the Moral Law which is at stake; and when the Apostle tells us that through the Law we died to the Law because of our union with the Anointed One, or that we are not under Law but under Grace.[6] But Paul is not blind to the effect of God’s law on the Jewish moral law than it has on the ceremonial law. What Paul is trying to say is that nothing in the Christian life explained in any church doctrine or creed explains how the Anointed One turned all our responsibilities to the Law to Him and Him alone. The Apostle Paul declared that the Anointed One redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us. So, it is not a matter of discussion or debate. It must be accepted by faith.[7]

Cyril W. Emmet (1875-1923), would be comfortable if the phrase “not sinners like the Gentile,” were to be expressed simply as “Gentile sinners.” For in the Jew’s mind, the word “Gentile” was a synonym for “sinner.”[8] So when it came to being justified before God as worthy of salvation, the fact that a person was a sinner was already a verdict passed by God. It came without any hope or opportunity for cross-examination, rebuttal or appeal. Paul said that all mankind already is judged as being guilty of sin and the punishment already announced. Was there any hope that a compassionate God might overlook some of those sins and allow them to enter the Kingdom of Heaven by a backdoor? No! So how could anyone like Peter or Paul claim to be justified? Paul says that it all happened when they abandoned their hope of salvation through the Law and accepted Jesus the Anointed One as their Savior. He already paid the price for their acquittal and release from the Law. And since this applied to them as Jews who inherited their religion, it would also apply to the Gentiles who found their religion in the Gospel of the Anointed One.[9]

Lutheran Paul Kretzmann (1883-1965), is quick to point out that what Paul says here about justification is not a matter of feeling, but of knowledge, based upon the testimony of the Gospel. This is the foundation for why we put our faith in the Anointed One Jesus, not in works, not in merit, not in any good conduct of our own, for a sinful person cannot and does not perform any such deeds that will make them pure and righteous in the sight of God. Justification is only obtained in the way it is offered in God’s revelation, by placing one’s faith in the Anointed One Jesus alone. And even then, it is not the act of knowing which merits salvation, but it is the act of believing that it will manifest a new life wrought by God, by which a person receives the righteousness of the Anointed One.

Kretzmann goes on to say that everything that pertains to good works, or even the semblance of good works, must be absolutely ruled out. There is no justification for anyone through moral works of the Law, highly as they may be esteemed otherwise in the Christian’s sanctification.[10] By faith, the sins of the sinner are imputed to the Anointed One, and the righteousness of the Anointed One is imputed to the sinner. Also, by faith, the works that agree with the will of God in the Law are set aside as works that fulfill the Law. However, that same faith, having accepted the justification offered by the grace of God through the merits of the Anointed One, is found in those same moral virtues and ethics that are done to honor the Anointed One for His sacrifice and give praise to our heavenly Father for His love and forgiveness.[11] But never are they to be thought of as adding to or enhancing our salvation. No one improves on what the Anointed One did for us on the cross.

Greek word expert Marvin Vincent explains that when examining the Greek text of verse sixteen it reads, “Having perceived that not is being justified out of acts of law if ever no, through belief of Jesus anointed.” Let’s read this in a modern version, “…knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in the Anointed One Jesus.”[12] Here Vincent notes that Roman Catholic translators rendered it, “Knowing that a man is not justified by observing the law but through faith in Jesus the Anointed One.”[13] Taken this way, the Catholic interpreters of the Bible chose to understand the word “but” as meaning “except” or “unless.” That way it would read that no man is justified by observing the law unless by doing so through faith in Jesus the Anointed One. In other words, it takes faith and works to bring about justification. To put it another way, good works done in honor of one’s faith in the Anointed One will justify them before God as believers.[14]

One Jewish commentator gives us an interesting take on how we may better understand the Jewish view of righteousness. He says that there are two kinds of righteousness: (1) Behavioral righteousness – doing what is morally and legally right. (2) Forensic righteousness – being regarded as righteous in two ways: One, that God cleared the individual of guilt for past sins. And two, that God gave them a new human nature inclined to obey God rather than rebel against Him as before. It was Yeshua the Messiah that made this forensic righteousness available to everyone who believes by paying on their behalf the penalty for sin which God’s justice demanded. That penalty was removal from God’s presence into timeless spiritual death.[15]

Another Jewish writer, Adriaan Liebenberg, is disappointed that some non-Jewish believers took Paul’s words here in verses 15-16 to interpret Paul as saying to Peter, since you are a Jew and rightly abandoned the Law (living like a Gentile), why do you compel the Gentiles to keep the law like a Jew by only eating with other Jews? They take this then to teach that Paul was saying that the Law should be abolished. But that is not the case. Jesus Himself said He did not come to destroy the law.[16] To the contrary, He came to give credence to the law by fulfilling it. What Paul was really saying to Peter is this: How are you ever going to bring Gentiles into a living relationship with the Anointed One when you are acting like a sinner yourself? So Paul’s rebuke was not against the Gentiles for not keeping the law, but against Peter for not keeping the law.[17] Paul’s choice to fear retribution from the Jewish group that came down from Jerusalem over fearing Yahweh’s declaration that all mankind were invited to His table, he was going along with false doctrine and ended up playing the hypocrite.[18]

[1] Ryle, J.C.; Exell, Joseph; MacLaren, Alexander; Moody, D.L.; Spurgeon, Charles. The Biblical Illustrator – Vol. 48 – Pastoral Commentary on Galatians, Kindle Locations 4561-4571.

[2] Matthew 11:29

[3] Ibid. 11:19

[4] Luke 15:25-30

[5] Bacon, B. W.: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 67.

[6] Romans 6:14; 7:4

[7] James Denney: Ch. 3, p. 108

[8] See John 7:49

[9] Cyril W. Emmet: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit. pp. 22-23

[10] See Psalm_143:2; Romans 3:28.

[11] Paul Kretzmann: On Galatians, op. cit., loc., cit.

[12] New American Standard Bible

[13] St. Jerome, Interlinear Latin Vulgate

[14] Marvin Vincent, Word Studies, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 104

[15] Stern, David H.: On Galatians, op. cit., loc., cit., Kindle Location 15250-15257

[16] Matthew 5:17

[17] See 1 John 3:4

[18] W. Adriaan Liebenberg: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXXIII)

Matthew Poole (1624-1679), points out that even though Gentiles were ordinarily called by the Jews “sinners;” and even though it appears that many of them became worshipers of the One True God, yet when they came up to Jerusalem to worship, they were not allowed into the Temple where the Jews worshiped. Instead, there was a particular court allotted outside the Temple itself called: “The Court of the Gentiles.” That was because even though they committed themselves to be under the obligation of obeying Jewish ceremonial laws, they were still referred to as “sinners” by the Jews.[1] We clearly see that not only were these believing Gentiles treated like second-class converts but were discriminated against because of their race and ethnicity. It certainly shows us why the Jews could not evangelize the world with the Gospel. No wonder the Anointed One called Paul to do that work.

John Bengel feels that the Galatians were not clearly understanding and interpreting the difference between Moral Law and Ceremonial Law since they include both under the word “law.” That’s why the Judaizers were able to convince them that they were to seek justification in observance of the whole law which included both. So, for Bengel, Paul was rejecting works done as part of the Ceremonial Law, not those expected under Moral Law. For him, this is the sum of it all: Moses and Jesus the Anointed One; the Law and the Promise; doing and believing; works and faith; wages and gift; the curse of death and the blessing of timeless life. These do not work together but are diametrically opposed to one another. You must choose one or the other. You cannot serve two masters.[2]

John Wesley not only subscribes to the doctrine that justification is not appropriated by the Ceremonial Law, but neither is it granted by obeying the Moral Law. Those things are not done before justification but after. Justification instills such respect and reverence for the One who justified us that we willingly live according to the moral code of the Gospel. So why then should the Jewish believers try to force their Gentile brethren to comply with the whole Law? Not only does Paul remove any obligation by Christian believers to observe the Jewish ceremonial law but also the moral law. Even King David agreed with Paul.[3] The moral law lacked the power to justify and save. But it is accepted as a way to please God with one’s conduct and behavior.

Joseph Benson points to Matthew 26:45 and the clause, “the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners,” as meaning, He was delivered into the hands of the Gentiles, as is evident from Matthew 20:18-19. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law – not even of the moral law, much less of the ceremonial law, but by faith in Jesus the Anointed One. This is the faith which Jesus the Anointed One prescribed and requires as the means of our justification, namely, faith in the Gospel, in its important truths and precious promises. Not only that, but faith in Jesus the Anointed One, as the true Messiah, the Son of God, in whom alone there is salvation for guilty, depraved, weak, and wretched sinners. It is this faith by which we make an application to Him, and rely on Him for salvation, present and timeless. We learn more from Him as our Teacher, depend on Him as our Mediator, become subject to Him as our Governor, and prepare to meet Him as our Judge.[4] So Paul is telling his fellow Jews that if they must observe these truths, how much more must the Gentiles, who are less pretentious than the Jews, must not depend on their own works to get salvation?[5]

James Haldane (1768-1851), agrees that Paul was right in pointing out that he and Peter and the others were certainly privileged to belong to God’s peculiar people, who by the Sinai Covenant were chosen by God out of all other nations. This, in fact, meant that although they were sinners in God’s eyes, they were not sinners on the same level as the Gentiles. Jews sinned against the Law while Gentiles sinned against God by way of their idolatry and other vices. Jews trusted in God for salvation but Gentiles were without hope in a lost world. Nevertheless, even with such an advantage, the Jews were still required to put their faith in the Anointed One for justification by God not their good works under the Law. Just as the Gentiles must denounce faith in their idols and ceremonies, so the Jews must denounce their faith in the Law and ceremonies in order to stand justified before God.

German Lutheran theologian Heinrich A. W. Meyer (1800-1873), makes an interesting statement when it comes to the opening of verse sixteen where Paul says tells Peter: “We now know that a person is not justified by the works of the law.” Meyer says that such a statement that they attained their salvation by faith would fit with what we know about history. “The conversion of these two Apostles did not at all take place by means of any logical process in figuring it out on their own,” says Meyer. They were both miraculously and suddenly chosen by the Anointed One. Only then by becoming believers was the light of knowing they were chosen finally dawned on them.[6] However, German Calvinist theologian Peter Lange says that such an objection by Meyer to Paul and Peter coming into a right relationship with the Anointed One by faith is a best “imaginative.” The fact is the foundation of their faith in the Anointed One was the knowledge that Jesus was the true Messiah, the Son of the Living God and it is upon this faith in Him that brought them full salvation. So, we see that there was no trust or faith in the Law by either Paul or Peter that led to their justification.[7]

William O’Conor (1820-1887), tells us that according to the Jews, the word “sinner” applied to those who became careless about observing their duties to the Law, Ceremonies, and Temple worship. By doing so, they allowed life to evaporate out of their religion until it became a dead form of obligation. Furthermore, anyone who did not worship God as they did was certainly a sinner. So, they applied this to people within their religion and outside their religion who did this without any consideration to faith in God for their salvation. Only works demanded by the Law and their Ceremonies. However, both Peter and Paul learned that their rigid habits of legal observance were worthless when it came to being justified before God to receive full salvation. It was this knowledge that helped them escape the torment of being under the penalty of death even though they did the best they could to comply with the Law and Ceremonies. It was only by faith in the Anointed One that they were saved. So why make the Gentiles responsible for going through the same maze of legal complexity? Once they believe in the Anointed One, they as justified and sanctified as the Jews.[8]

Alvah Hovey (1820-1903) gives us a little grammar lesson when explaining verse fifteen. He shows us that the first clause is concessive:[9] “Although we were Jews by birth, we are not heathen-born sinners;” the second is causal,[10] “yet because we knew that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but only through faith;” the third is declarative, “even we believed on the Anointed One Jesus!” the fourth is final, to the end “that we might be justified by the faith in the Anointed One, and not by the works of the law;” and the fifth confirmatory, “because by the works of the law shall no flesh (or, sinful man) be justified.” O’Conor admits that there seems at first sight to be some needless repetition in this verse, but strictly speaking, there is none. The fullness of statement in every clause is emphatic.[11]

Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892), in one of his sermons, where he speaks about the relationship of good works to grace, says that certainly there are some who would object by questioning, “are good works of no use?” As he understands the Apostle, Spurgeon states that God’s Works are of use when a person is saved because they provide evidence of their being saved. But Good Works do not save a person, good works do not influence the mind of God to redeem anyone Were that the case, then salvation would be a matter of credit and not of grace. Just as Paul told the Ephesians, “Not by works, so that no one can boast.”[12] So he repeats it here in verse sixteen.

Spurgeon goes on to point out that the Apostle is very adamant about this point; indeed, he thunders it out again, and again, and again.[13] He denies that salvation could ever depend on our good works. If one could achieve salvation by the good works then grace is no longer a factor. Any works involved are God’s Works once a person is born again. They are not done to benefit the person but to bring glory and honor to God as a way of saying “Thank you, Lord, for saving me.”

When put another way, Spurgeon compares grace and works to fire and water: Just as water extinguishes a fire, so works extinguishes grace. The grace and mercy of God need no help from a person’s good works.  When we sing the song “Jesus Saves,”[14] it means the He does it all or not at all. He is the Author and Finisher of our faith,[15] and good works must not rob Him of His due praise. So, says Spurgeon, sinner, you must either receive salvation freely from the hand of Divine Giving or else you must earn it by your own unassisted merits, which, unfortunately, is utterly impossible.[16]

In another place, Spurgeon makes it clear that those who feel their religion is either represented by Ishmael (Islam) or by Isaac (Judeo-Christian), will never worship together in an ecumenical setting. The principles upon which these religions rest never mingle. They cannot even call Allah and Yahweh as referring to the same deity. No one is saved in part by self, and in part by God. While one attempts to earn their salvation by works, the other depends on the love and mercy of God. The resurrection and glories of heaven are not given as a prize, they are a gift from God as part of His promise that if they believe in His Son as the Lord and Savior they will be saved. That’s why Spurgeon feels that for the Christian, what Paul says here in verse twenty should be taken as their confession of faith.[17]

The Biblical Illustrator, complied by Joseph S. Exell (1849-1910), contains a very direct and clear statement on how impossible it is for anyone to vindicate themselves from the charge that they are unjustified before God, no matter how many religious and moral laws they obey or how many ceremonies they participate in. No one proved that the things they are charged with doing do not count, or that their right to perform them exists. They cannot prove that God is not right in all the charges He made against them in His Word, and they cannot prove that it was right for them to do as they did. The charges against them are facts which are undeniable, and the facts are such as cannot be justified.

[1] Matthew Poole: On Galatians, op. cit., Kindle Location 376-388), Kindle Edition

[2] John Bengel: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., pp. 14-15

[3] Psalm 143:2

[4] See Romans 3:28, 4:1-25

[5] Joseph Benson: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[6] Heinrich Meyer: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 84

[7] Peter Lange: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[8] William Anderson O’Conor: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[9] A concessive clause is a clause which begins by saying “although” but then introducing the opposite at the end. For instance, “Although he is quiet, he is not shy.”

[10] A causal clause states the reason or basis for the action of the main verb. For instance, “Lend me three loaves, because my friend has arrived from a journey” (Luke 11:16)

[11] Hovey, Alvah: On Galatians, op. cit., pp. 32–33.

[12] Ephesians 2:8-9 – NIV

[13] See Romans 3:20; 9:16; 11:6; Galatians 2:21; 3:21; 5:4, 6

[14] Jesus Saves, written by Priscilla J. Owens, published in 1882

[15] Hebrews 12:2

[16] Charles Spurgeon: The Spurgeon Sermon Collection, Salvation Altogether by Grace, Sermon No. 421, on Sunday, July 29, 1866, at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington, England, Vol. 2, p. 453

[17] Charles Spurgeon: According to Promise, The Parting, pp. 24-25

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXXII)

All of this talk about submitting oneself to another, especially believers to unbelievers, led to Aquinas answering the question: “Whether it was fitting for the Son of God to assume human nature of the stock of Abraham?”[1] Aquinas points to Paul’s words here in verse fifteen which in one translation reads that “Jewish sinners were different than Gentile sinners.” And since Adam was a Gentile, if the Anointed One wished to assume His human nature from Gentile sinners, He should assume it came from the Gentiles rather than the stock of Abraham, a righteous man.[2] It is obvious that Aquinas equated Abraham as being a “Jew.” But Abraham was a Gentile from Mesopotamia. Jews are descendants from Judah, the son of Jacob.

If we go back to Jacob, all of the descendants of his twelve sons were called “Israelites.” And before that, the descendants of Abraham were called “Hebrews.”[3] According to the Jewish Encyclopedia the terms “Hebrews” and “Israelites” describe the same people, stating that they were called Hebrews before the conquest of the Land of Canaan and Israelites afterward. The word “Hebrew” means, “cross over,” or “pass-through.” In the Bible, it referred to those who wandered in order to find shade and water. In other words, they were “wanderers.”

Martin Luther also sees Paul’s argument here as a defense of Jews who believed in the One True God as opposed to the Gentiles’ many false gods. Furthermore, Jews compared to Gentiles looked more civilized, because the Gentiles were lawless with no good works. Their being righteous before God dated from their birth and circumcision. Because of the Jewish religion, they were believers naturally. However, none of this truly made them right in the eyes of God.

Apparently, Peter forgot that just because they exercised such advantages, they were not to think of themselves as righteous before God. None of these prerogatives spelled faith in the Anointed One, which alone justifies a person. That doesn’t 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.

John Calvin shares some of the various views on what Paul says here in verse fifteen that were prevalent in his day. Some say that Paul is stating this in the form of an objection, anticipating what might be urged on the other side, that the Jews possessed higher privileges; not that they boasted of being an exemption from the law. How absurd that they to whom the Law was given should make this their boast. However, Calvin sees it as an attempt on the part of the Jewish believers of retaining some points of distinction between them and the Gentiles. Calvin says that he does not outright reject this view, and yet, as will be seen later on, he does not adopt this view in its entirety. Others, consider that it is Paul himself who uses this argument, “If you were to lay upon the Jews the burden of the law, it would be more reasonable, because it is theirs by inheritance.” But neither does he approve of this view.

Calvin then proceeds to the second part of Paul’s speech which begins with a sense of anticipation. The Gentiles differed from Jews in this respect: Gentiles were “unholy and profane,”[4] while the Jews, being holy, so far as God chose them for His people, might contend that this made them superior. Paul skillfully anticipated an objection, so he turns to the opposite conclusion. Since the Jews themselves, with all their advantages, were forced to submit themselves to faith in the Anointed One, how much more necessary was it that the Gentiles should look for salvation through faith?

Then Calvin shares what he thinks Paul is trying to say here to Peter and the others Jews present in Antioch: We, who appear to stand out above all others – we, who, by means of the First Covenant enjoy the privilege of being close to God,[5] found no method of obtaining salvation but by believing in the Anointed One. Why, then, should we prescribe another method to the Gentiles? For, if the law proved necessary for salvation to those who observed its enactments, it certainly benefited the Jews to whom it was given on Mt. Sinai. But when we relinquish it and surrendered ourselves to the Anointed One for salvation, why must the Gentiles be forced to observe and practice the Law in order to find salvation?[6]

But Calvin offers his view on this subject. To him, Peter’s actions were not only hypocritical and demeaning but also an attack of Justification by Faith. How could he do something that might cause others, including the Gentiles, to return to the Law once again looking for promises of justification through good works? Because of the promises made by God through the Anointed One, the promises offered in the Law are all invalid and ineffectual. Did not God in His goodness sent the Gospel to our aid, since the condition on which the Laws promises depended, and under which only they were to be performed the Law could not provide. Still, however, the aid which the Lord gives does not need good works to justify our right standing with God.

Even with the many who were dedicated to them, God still showed enough patience to let everyone learn that the Anointed One alone is the fulfillment of righteous works. For the Apostle Paul, after making it clear that he, and the other Jews, were aware that “a person is not justified by the works of the law,” but must “believe in Jesus the Anointed One,” to receive what they desired. However, once justified by the Anointed One they were not to stop doing the good works that the Anointed One commanded. But they must remember, they were not doing them to get to the Anointed One but because the Anointed One got to them. For Calvin, this is the message of verse sixteen here in Galatians.[7]

Catholic theologian Cornelius à Lapide (1567-1637 AD), reveals the division between Catholics and Protestants on justification and helps us better understand why Martin Luther and John Calvin broke with the Catholic tradition. Lapide says that the Protestants wrongly neglect the force of between faith and works. That they translate what Paul says here to mean that a person is justified only by faith in the Anointed One alone. And even if the Apostle Paul did say that [8] yet he would not support the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone. For Lapide, the works that are excluded are those of the Law, not the works of hope, fear, charity, and penance which spring from faith as daughters from a mother.[9]

Dutch Reformer Jakob Arminius focuses on Paul’s lecture of Peter’s actions being equal to demanding that Gentile believers be made to practice the same obligations under Jewish moral law for their justification in being called children of God. That included circumcision, rites, rituals, ceremonies, feasts, etc. So, it seems to him that sinners required a simple process in order to become saints because all that’s required to gain entrance into this Christian way is to admit their sins, their disgraceful state, ask for forgiveness and then by faith expect redemption.

But for those who as believers also sin, we must be careful to not lump them in with unbelievers just because they made a mistake, or repent again for some of the sins for which they were forgiven. The Anointed One died only once on the cross and need not die again. So, the Grace of God makes it possible to receive forgiveness from Him without requesting that we be reborn again, which is as impossible for a child of God as it is for a human child.[10]

But Arminius sees another side to Paul’s argument here, and that is his determination to eliminate any chance for believers to be persuaded that justification is obtained through obedience to the Law of Moses for whatever reason.[11] That’s because justification is attributed to faith, not because it is that very right standing with God can make the rigid and severe judgment of God unnecessary, although good works are pleasing to God; but because, through the judgment of mercy triumphing over justice, it obtains pardon from sins, and is graciously imputed for righteousness.

Arminius continues by saying that justification may be defined this way: “It is the means by which a believer’s sin is brought before the throne of grace through the door which Jesus opened by being our atonement sacrifice.”[12] That’s where our just and merciful heavenly Judge deems it justified through grace to retain the repentant believer’s position of being right with Him, not because of anything they did but in the Anointed One alone. It is this grace according to the Gospel that justifies salvation to all who believe to the glory of God, to anything they brought to persuade Him to do so. [13] [14]

Believers are now a matter of most concern for Paul; those called into the fellowship of Jesus the Anointed One, and into being an heir to the inheritance which the Anointed One purchased for His followers with His own blood of which He alone is constituted as the Dispenser of Grace to those who obey Him.[15] Yet, no matter how perfect and efficient our actions and ministry may be as a result of the gifts that the Spirit gave, yet there needs to be some action on the believer’s part so that all who claim Jesus the Anointed One as their Lord and Savior are counted as members of the one true congregation.[16]

This then gives the congregation the right to exclude doubters, apostates, hypocrites, and those heretics who do not hold the Anointed One as the head of His spiritual body.[17] Arminius says as Protestants, however, are allowed to make a distinction between those not baptized by immersion, those who were excommunicated by the church, and those who bring division, and according to the virtues of each case, be affirmed as either belonging to the church or not.[18]

[1] Ibid. Part (3)-Question (4)-Article (6), p. 79

[2] Ibid. Part (3)-Question (4)-Article (6)-Objection (3), p. 79

[3] Genesis 14:13

[4] 1 Timothy 1:9

[5] Deuteronomy 4:7

[6] John Calvin: Cabinet, On Galatians, op. cit., p. 24

[7] John Calvin: Institutes, Vol. 3, Ch. 17, p. 834

[8] Ephesians 2:8-9

[9] Cornelius à Lapide: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 248

[10] Galatians 2:15, 16, 21; Matthew 9:13; 11:28; Romans 8:28-30

[11] Romans 3:20, 28; John 5:24; Psalm 143:2; Romans 3, 4

[12] Hebrews 4:16

[13] Romans 3:24-26; 3, 4, 5, 10, 11.

[14] Jakob Arminius: op. cit., Vol. 1, Disputation 10, para. 12, p. 539

[15] Hebrews 5:9

[16] Acts of the Apostles 2:41

[17] Ephesians 1:22

[18] Jakob Arminius: op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 539