1:1¹ ^Traditionally, “apostle”; emissary is what
1:1² ^Făther may be used in two senses. The Almĭghty our Făther includes Făther, Sŏn, and Spĭrit. But in the context of being Yĕshūa̒’s Făther is not meant in such a general sense, as shown by the words “who raised him from the dead.” (See Meyer). According to Romans 1:4, Paul includes the Spĭrit. So We may say that Făther here includes both Făther and Spĭrit. They act together in sending the Sŏn as well as raising him. See Isa. 48:16.
1:2† ^A point often overlooked, that what Paul writes is shared and subscribed to by the faithful who were with him.
1:2‡ ^The term
1:3† ^The
1:4† ^He gave himself, because the Law required a punitive penalty to be paid for sin, in the case of the unrepentant the second death. But in the case of the repentant a substitute was allowed. Yĕshūa̒ paid the penalty because the Law could not be abolished. By paying our penalty, Mĕssiah agrees with the validity of the Law. He pays the penalty of all the faithful, even those born after his resurrection, and thereby shows the validity of the Law after his resurrection.
Whosoever denies the validity of the Law also denies the validity of its requirement and provision for removing the penalty of sin through Mĕssiah.
There are many, wishing to be free of the contradiction produced by rejecting the Law, who say that the moral law is still valid, but the ceremonial law is abolished. There are no Scriptures making such an arbitrary distinction of applicability. A few texts, falsely called translations are mistranslations and misinterpretations to justify their point.
Dispensationalists believe that all the Law is abolished, and that only what is restated in the New Testament is valid. Reformed theology teaches that only the ceremonial Law is abolished. The Messianic Faith teaches that none of the Law is abolished, and that all of it is valid (cf. Mat. 5:17-19). The Dispensational and Reformed doctrines often produce the evil fruit of condemnation against those who practice more than their limited subset of the Law. The hypocrites among them practice their limited subset, and then accuse anyone doing more that they are trying to be saved by works. The Messianic Faith, of the other hand, tolerates ignorance of not knowing the whole Law (so long as they know Mĕssiah) and condemns only the condemners who clearly do not understand that the grace of Mĕssiah is for those who don’t know the Law as well as those who do.
1:6† ^I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting him, who called you in the loving kindness of Mĕssiah, to a different good news,†: The different good news replaced fidelity or faithfulness to the Almĭghty as the condition of salvation with the performance of specific rituals, or a philosophical means of perfection derived from Gnosticism. Any particular commandment can be ritualized and marketed as the means of salvation. It has been done to circumcision, baptism, the sacred name, and many other commandments, including the Sabbath. The litmus test of a false gospel is not the keeping of a commandment, but general lack of faithfulness displayed in those believing in the salvific efficacy of the particular command, condemnation of those ignorant of the commandment, total focus on the one commandment as the means to salvation, which they will say that only they who keep it will be saved, taking no account of ignorance or false teaching about it.
The teachers of false gospels generally do not pick obvious moral commandments to ritualize for salvation, but neglected or misunderstood commandments. Or they make up new commands, or pervert old ones, such as the Essenes did to the Calendar. The reason they pick up on specific points is that they cannot be proved better than others by a general analysis of their fruit. So they cannot attract the adulation and followers they desire. Therefore, they introduce their own particular standard which best allows them to condemn others and make a sect out of their point of view. It is a way of taking power and control over others to enslave them.
We should also watch out for the true good news being accused of being a false good news by the lawless party. Generally, such teachers reduce faith (fidelity, loyalty, commitment, faithfulness) to mere belief, and then they charge anyone pointing out that the Scripture does not mean mere belief with heresy. This is because they have reduced the good news to a theological system which only requires one to believe certain items, and that actual repentance from sin is not a condition of salvation. Probably the exemplar of this teaching is the final evolution from the ancient Gnostic heresy of the dispensational Calvinism taught by Lewis Chafer.
1:12‡ ^This was not just on the Damascus road, but in time Paul spent in the word and study. The Spĭrit led him to understand the Torah and Prophets, and particularly Hab. 2:4, “This righteous one shall live by his faithfulness.”
1:13¹ ^Barnes: “How that beyond measure - In the highest possible degree; beyond all limits or bounds; exceedingly. The phrase which Paul uses here (καθ ̓ ὑπερβολὴν kath' huperbolēn), by hyperbole, is one which he frequently employs to denote anything that is excessive, or that cannot be expressed by ordinary language.”
1:13† ^While Paul started out at the feet of Gamli̱ē̕l, but he did not heed his advice (cf. Acts 5:34-40; 7:58). At the time of Yĕshūa̒, Jewish ideas about the nature of the Almĭghty were unsettled. There was line of tradition developing that Gŏd could not become a man, but there was also still an ancient understanding of Scripture that Yăhwēh did appear as a man, or as the Mĕssenger of Yăhwēh. The appearance of Mĕssiah caused a rapid evolution of Jewish opposition to the truth that the Mĕssiah would be both man and Almĭghty, and subsequently to the traditional definition of heresy and blasphemy. Along with this went a rapid evolution of teaching against Messianic prophecy. Paul found himself at the center of this rapid development when things came to a head in Acts 7. He joined the more radical party that was fast gaining political support against the advice of Gamli̱ē̕l. The High Priest, no doubt, being of the party of politically connected Sadducees, no doubt opposed the Hillelite Gamli̱ē̕l. By Acts 9:1-2, Paul obtains letters from him declaring loyalty to Mĕssiah Yĕshūa̒ a punishable heresy, usually by flogging or imprisonment (cf. Acts 8:3).
We must, therefore, understand
Barnes states, “In the Jews' religion - In the belief and practice of Judaism; that is, as it was understood in the time when he was educated. It was not merely in the religion of Moses, but it was in that religion as understood and practiced by the Jews in his time, when opposition to Christianity constituted a very material part of it. In that religion Paul proceeds to show that he had been more distinguished than most persons of his time.”
1:14¹ ^Paul is speaking subjectively of is prior conduct. He believed that he was being zealous for the ancestral traditions of the Jews when in fact he was betraying them. The Perūshi̱m that opposed Yĕshūa̒ had laid the ground work for a rapid change in Jewish Religion to oppose Mĕssiah, picking up on developing philosophies to counter true interpretation of who Mĕssiah would be. Paul fell in step with this new development. So it was not zeal for ancient correct tradition, but zeal for a minor stream of tradition that was suddenly found useful to the opposition and billed as the correct tradition. Understanding the matter this way will help us avoid making the mistake of anachronistically projecting later Judaism onto Paul as if he had been a student of a long standing tradition of Judaism opposed to Mĕssiah. There was no such Judaism going back further, except the usual seeds of heresy which only sprung forth in opposition to the revelation of Mĕssiah.
Of course one school of Perūshi̱m (which was the majority) added many traditions to the Law. This was the school of Shammai. Barnes states: “A large part of the doctrines of the Pharisees depended on mere tradition; and Paul doubtless made this a special matter of study, and was particularly tenacious in regard to it. It was to be learned, from the very nature of it, only by oral teaching, since there is no evidence that it was then recorded. Subsequently, these traditions were recorded in the Mishna, and are found in the Jewish writings. But in the time of Paul they were to be learned as they were handed down from one to another; and hence, the utmost diligence was requisite to obtain a knowledge of them. Paul does not here say that he was zealous then for the practice of the new religion, nor for the study of the Bible. His object in going to Jerusalem and studying at the feet of Gamaliel was doubtless to obtain a knowledge of the traditions of the sect of the Pharisees. Had he been studying the Bible all that time, he would have kept from the fiery zeal which he evinced in persecuting the church, and would, if he had studied it right, been saved from much trouble of conscience afterward.”
Meyer correctly absolves Paul of a direct attack on the Torah here: “τῶν πατρικῶν μου παραδόσεων [my paternal traditions]: endeavouring with zealous interest to obey, uphold, and assert them. The πατρικαί μου παραδόσεις, that is, the religious definitions handed down to me from my fathers (in respect to doctrine, ritual, asceticism, interpretation of Scripture, conduct of life, and the like), are the Pharisaic traditions (comp. Matthew 5:21; Matthew 15:2; Mark 7:3); for Paul was Φαρισαῖος (Php 3:5; Acts 26:5), ΥἹῸΣ ΦΑΡΙΣΑΊΩΝ (Acts 23:6). If Paul had intended to refer to the Mosaic law, either alone (Erasmus, Paraphr., Luther, Calvin, and others) or together with the Pharisaic traditions (Estius, Grotius, Calixtus, Morus, Koppe, Flatt, Winer, Usteri, Rückert, Schott, Olshausen, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, “the law according to the strict rule of Pharisaism,” comp. Möller), he would have named the law either by itself or along with the traditions (Acts 21:20; Acts 22:3; 2Ma 4:2); but by μου he limits the ΠΑΤΡΙΚᾺΣ ΠΑΡΑΔΌΣΕΙΣ to the special elements resulting from his [family’s] descent, which did not apply to those who were in different circumstances as to [family] descent; whereas the law applied to all Jews. Comp., as parallel, Acts 26:5. That Paul had been zealous for the law in general, followed as a matter of course from προέκοπτ. ἐν τ. Ἰουδαϊσμῷ; but here he is stating the specific way in which his own peculiar προκόπτειν ἐν Ἰουδαϊσμῷ had displayed itself—his Pharisaic zealotry. It would have been surprising if in this connection he had omitted to mention the latter.”
Meyer continues: “πατρικός, not found elsewhere in the N.T., means
1:15† ^Before Mĕssiah came, Jews were looking for the Mĕssiah. The opposition was not organized, and many Jews were faithful, and believed everything necessary to salvation. This statement need mean no more than that Paul is asserting that before his joining with the emerging party of evolving Judaism opposed to Mĕssiah, that he had in fact been born to parents walking in the truth.
The passage may have reference to Paul’s status as a Jew, or his circumcision, or he may have been firstborn and have been redeemed with an offering (cf. Exodus 13:11-13.), or possibly all of these items. There is nowhere a divine statement that Paul was chosen to be an especial emissary before birth or from birth like Yoḥanan or Yermeyahū was, other than a general sense that all the sons of Yisra’ēl are appointed representatives of the Almĭghty. Paul is fond of stating a corporate (group) predestination of Gŏd’, which is generally a divine designation or intent that is non-deterministic with respect to individuals. Calvinistic impositions on this passage contradict Torah. See Deut. 8:1-2.
1:16¹ ^Paul had aborted his inheritance as a Yisra’ēli̱ by going astray from Yăhwēh’s purpose. The revelation on the road was in hopes that he would return to the divine plan for his life.
1:18† ^AD 36-39.
1:18¹ ^Peter’s Hebrew name.
2:1¹ ^Greek: διὰ. The sense is an extension of the previous three years to fourteen, such that the inception date is Paul’s conversion. Paul does not use the Greek word μετἀ, which properly means
“In the introduction of the Codex Brixianus (
“The
Meyer remarks in the introduction to Acts, “According to 2 Cor. xi. 32, Damascus, when Paul escaped thence to betake himself to Jerusalem (ix. 24-26), was under the rule of the Arabian King Aretas. The Arabian king became master of Damascus according to Josephus in the year AD 37 after the death of Tiberius in March. In the second year of Caligula (
The resulting chronology:
AD 34 Ascension of Messiah AD 36 Conversion of Paul AD 38 Flight from Damascus (adjusted 2015) AD 39 First visit to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18) AD 44 Second visit to Jerusalem (Acts 11) AD 49 Third visit and Acts 15 Council AD 57 Paul’s arrest
2:1† ^These 14 years are an extension of the three years already mentioned, they are AD 36 - 49. Paul means an inclusive count of 14 years from his conversion in AD 36. The date of the council was in the late spring of AD 49. Meyer defends the identification of Acts 15 with Gal. 2, “We must, on the other hand, assume that
2:2¹ ^Meyer states, “According to Acts 15:2, he was deputed by the church of Antioch to Jerusalem; but with this statement our κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν does not conflict (as Baur and Zeller maintain): it simply specifies a circumstance having reference to Paul himself individually, that had occurred either before or after that resolution of the church, and was probably quite unknown to Luke. Luke narrates the outward cause, Paul the inward motive of the concurrent divine suggestion, which led to this his journey; the two accounts together give us its historical connection completely. Comp. Acts 10, in which also a revelation and the messengers of Cornelius combine in determining Peter to go to Caesarea.”
The revelation must have amounted to merely a command to go up to Jerusalem, as Paul sill puts the way he taught the good news before the emissaries for their confirmation.
2:2‡ ^What Paul was concerned about was teaching the non-Jews the good news and the need to be faithful without at the same time insisting that the measure of true faithfulness or repentance meant a full understanding of Torah, and compliance which Jews took for granted. He was concerned that he might lower the test of real faithfulness too far, and he could only best know by consulting those who had been with Yĕshūa̒. He knew he was probably right, but was only seeking confirmation to stay lingering doubts. His fears were small fears, and he wanted them put to rest.
2:3¹ ^Of course the text leaves open that he volunteered to be circumcised at some later time, and under different circumstances. We should note that even though Timothy was circumcised by Paul (Acts 16:3), he is called a disciple, and his mother faithful before he was circumcised. It is not relevant to the theology of the matter that his mother was Jewish, because Paul teaches that A̕v̱raham was saved before his circumcision, and then applies the case to non-Jews. The sons of Yisra’ēl also went uncircumcised in the wilderness, but they were not condemned for it, and the commandment was only enforced when they later entered the land. If the Almĭghty had meant to condemn over the issue of circumcision, he would not have taken them across the Jordan. There is the strange case of Exodus 4 and Mōshēh’s son. This was probably because Mōshēh was supposed to be the leader and set the example for Yisra’ēl, and may explain where Paul drew the line also. It seems those fully involved in his ministry were all circumcised. According to the circumcision commandment, the uncircumcised person is cut off because they have broken the covenant. But it appears that “cut off” means different things depending on the circumstance of the disobedience. It appears that in the main it means cut off from the land of Yisra’ēl, as in fact, it was upon coming to the land that it was enforced. We may expect a similar condition to apply to non-Jews returning to the land.
2:4¹ ^Compare Acts 15:1 and 15:5. It appears from 15:5 that those requiring circumcision for salvation are missing from the conference. But they are found among the party in 15:5, mixed with those who just want firmer enforcement.
2:4² ^A lot of people talk about the bondage of the law, but they have not read the Torah. Really keeping what is written from the heart results in life and deliverance and liberty. Real bondage is created by the teaching that baptism saves, because it keeps people from realizing that Gŏd is looking for faithfulness and not a ritual stamp of approval. Also, generally people who are in bondage do not see that they are in bondage! Only the bright light of truth can make the chains visible. False doctrine creates a false fear of the Law. That fear is bondage, and needs the true light of the true nature of the Law shined on it.
2:4‡ ^Those whom Paul calls the
In principle, the council decided that perfection was not needed for salvation, but that sanctification would occur through the general principle of fidelity to Mĕssiah, and such fidelity that is within the capacity of people that naturally error unintentionally, or due to circumstances.
A remarkable number of so called Messianics insist that Christians are not saved, or cannot be saved, until they keep they law as perfectly as they claim to. And rather than measuring the matter by evidence of fidelity to Mĕssiah and his commandments, circumstance, and the understanding of the persons being examined, they measure the persons being examined by the standard of perfection which condemns all, and if they applied it to themselves truthfully, would condemn them too. They have failed to recognize that the Almĭghty grants a great measure of grace, mercy, and loving-kindness in bringing us to become more loving, gracious, persons. The standard they impose, if one observed their lives closely enough, will prove to be a hypocritical standard.
The lawless Church has not escaped the heresy of legalism, as they suppose. A remarkable number of Christians believe that baptism is as necessary for salvation as the Jews in Acts 15:1 believed circumcision was. And that becomes the whole standard, and judging a matter by real faithfulness goes by the wayside. So the world is filled with numerous baptized Christians who believe they have been washed to salvation, but they evidence no faithfulness to Mĕssiah or his commandments in any sort of way that demonstrates they have risen above sinful worldliness.
If some Christians have faith in ritual perfection or saving sacraments, others have faith in perfectionistic philosophies. These philosophies also take the focus off of the need or requirement to be faithful while living in a state of forgiveness (in which one is now saved). Fidelity is not perfectionistism, but simply whole hearted loyalty to Gŏd. He has stated ways we can show this in the Torah. Nōaḥ was blameless (whole hearted), but he was not perfect, as the account will show. Philosophical perfectionism takes the form of the theological construct of imputed righteousness as taught by Luther and Calvin, or by a mystical righteousness infused at baptism in the Catholic Church. Some Protestants also have adopted the Catholic doctrine! They believe their hearts are inwardly perfect, and that what appears to be sin in their lives is no reflection of their hearts. But theological, or philosophical perfection is not faithfulness. Yes, a person can be saved in spite of these errors, but these errors cause many others to think that sin does not matter, and so they become faithless.
There does remain a final deliverance from sin when we receive our new bodies. Then we will become perfect. But unlike the theological philosophies described above, this righteousness is not the basis of acquittal. It is simply the final gift of Gŏd to us because he loves us. And all this is simply said so that you may be as faithful as you can be while you wait for perfect righteousness.
2:5† ^Codex Claromontanus (D 06) and some Latin texts omit the words “to whom … not,” as well as some of the “Fathers.” (D* itd,e Irenaeuslat Tertullian Ambrosiaster Greek and Latin mssacc. to Victorinus-Rome Victorinus-Rome Pelagius Latin mssacc. to Jerome Augustine Primasius Latin mssacc. to Cassiodorus, Claudius.) It is hard to explain the dropped words as an accident. It seems to me that some regarded Paul’s circumcision of Timothy a compromise, and also his Nazarite vow, and therefore reasoned that Paul kept up an observance of the Law as a compromise for a time, no doubt misunderstanding 1Cor. 9:20-22. They therefore did not think Paul’s opposition to any compromise at this point credible, because they did not truly understand what he opposed. The main anti-law apologetic for the observations of Paul’s lawkeeping was that only Jews were allowed to keep the Law during a transitional period. So they softened the statement by deleting the negative, and made it so that Paul partially submitted.
I should also observe that lawless Gnostics were not happy with the Council’s decree. In the first place, it forbade partaking in idol-sacrifices, which is something Gnostics thought they had the freedom to do. And ultimately the Gnostics succeed in transforming the Passover into the
There is an alternative to the view expressed above, and that is the aforementioned texts also omit the words “to them” so that it reads, “For an hour we yielded in submission, so that...” This then would mean that they submitted to the decree, but not to the false brothers. For the reasons stated above, this was unacceptable to the Gnostic scribes. Marcion retained the “not” and omitted “to whom”: Not for an hour we yielded submission, so that.... This would allow the Gnostics the ability to deny that Paul and Barnabas had submitted to the decree! Taking “to them” out of the picture breaks the connection to the false brothers in the previous verse and opens the text to easier manipulation. Taking “not” out of the text provides an an anti-law apologetic for why Paul did compromise and keep the Law.
2:6† ^The circumcision party was of two wings, a wing that wanted it for salvation (Acts 15:1), and a wing that simply wanted strict enforcement with non-Jews (Acts 15:5). The heretical party, which Paul addressed in vs. 5, did not voice their opinion at the council. The strict party did. The strict party was incorrect about hasty enforcement of the commandment for a number of reasons. 1. obeying a command before it is properly understood leads to outward compliance without understanding. This is as good as breaking the commandment. 2. The non-Jews were generally not in the land, which covenant circumcision was a sign of, so until they came to the land circumcision was of lesser importance. 3. Circumcision was widely understood as turning a non-Jew into a Jew. This would effectively erase the house of Yisra’ēl unless first the inheritance of the house of Yisra’ēl was explained and understood. Otherwise those of Jewish descent would dispossess the inheritance of the house of Yisra’ēl when the latter returned to the land (cf. Ezekiel 37), and since the commandment concerns the land, the effect would be to undo the meaning of the sign. 4. Hasty circumcision can be exploited by the radical party wanting it for salvation. 5. Promoting any commandment over faithfulness in general as a replacement for faithfulness is the same doctrine that the radical party taught. This takes the form of, keep this one command ________ (fill in the blank), and Gŏd will count you as perfectly righteous in his sight, and therefore save you. This false doctrine is widespread.
In this verse, those who seemed to be important were those of the stricter party admitted to the council, and not those of the radical party
2:9‡ ^The three emissaries named sided with Paul and neither the radical party in vs. 5 or the strict party in vs. 6. However Ya‘aqōv (a.k.a. James) and Peter did not wholly understand the matter, and this would cause problems later, and not with the radical point of view, but with the strict point of view, which eventually would align itself with a wholly premature apocalyptic expectation of the restoration of Yisra’ēl. In other words, the two emissaries expectation of allowing circumcision non-enforcement was agreed to
2:11† ^What happened since the days of Cornelius? What happened after the Council was that the strict party pushed a nationalistic agenda of the restoration of Jewish Yisra’ēl which omitted the inclusion of non-Jewish Yisra’ēl. Their agenda united with religious Jews that did not accept Mĕssiah, and therefore became political. We see these very same forces at work today, whereby the non-Jews is totally excluded, or the non-Jew is forced to become Jewish by being circumcised.
The circumcision party, both radical wing and strict wing, of the Nazarenes united with the unbelieving Jews, and the result was the destruction of Temple and Jewish presence in the land via the two revolts. This was because they put a kingdom now theology ahead of the good news of the Kingdom. The salvation of souls is more important than the day of judgment. A lot of Christians do not understand this, and a lot of Messianics do not either (Jewish and non-Jewish). Things are dangerously close to repeating the results of AD 70 and 135. There are those entities that would rather see the whole nation destroyed than the good news go forward. And to do this they will promote the hope of the physical kingdom in a way to exclude it. The Almĭghty’s agenda is more powerful, and that is where the real hope is.
The translation, “stood condemned” supplied by the ESV and NAS is clearly due to translators not understanding the subject matter. The KJV’s “was to be blamed,” is a much superior reading. I have picked “prejudiced” from the LSJ Lexicon, because Peter’s new position was an alliance with the strict party for political and apocalyptic reasons, and this was prejudicing his treatment of the non-Jews.
The chronology of the matter is important. The North Galatian view is probably the most correct. The letter was written just before Romans, in which Paul’s theology is more fully explained in a patient matter less like the crisis in Galatia. Galatians was written about AD 55, perhaps while he was at the school of Tyrannus or at Ephesus. The strict party needed some years to recoup its loss at the Council in AD 49, and certainly Peter would not flip flop so soon after the council as suggested by the other views. The viewpoint that this all took place before the council in chronologically impossible. There is only space in the chronology for the 14 years already mentioned in Gal. 2:1. Perhaps the biggest reason that Paul does not mention the decree of the Council is that he had already delivered it sometime before, and it was well known, and it was now some years later when members of the radical party had upset the Galatians, whose zeal to convert new disciples to their point of view was probably greater than the strict party. They managed to lessen the relevance of the decree by the passage of time and apocalyptic expectations less connected to Jewish nationalism. It is likely that they also introduced sectarian calendar perversions to the Galatians at the same time (cf. Gal. 4:10).
2:12† ^A.K.A. James. It it is not certain that James has here changed his position from that the the Council, but certainly that some of his associates thought he had, or that his position had been weakened enough for them to go behind his back, and to influence the weaker character of Peter. In the years since the council the nationalistic party was gaining ground, as is evident from Paul’s AD 57 trip to Jerusalem, and his subsequent arrest detailed in Acts 21-22. James appears to side with Paul on that occasion also, but he urges Paul to prove his fidelity by taking on another Nazarite vow, to put to rest the rumors. Of course one cannot expect all the the faithful Jews among the people of the land to understand Paul’s strategy with the house of Yisra’ēl (a.k.a. Gentiles). And James is caught in the position of having a constituency that does not understand the Gŏd’s grand strategy. Clearly, the radical party, the strict party, and the unbelieving Jews all combined their political capital against Paul when he made his speech in the Temple. And when the subject of non-Jews and the good news came up, a riot ensued.
2:12‡ ^The radical party and the strict party are now lumped under one term because they have a common political agenda.
2:13† ^The hypocrisy is because they had already decided that non-Jewish converts were faithful even when uncircumcised, but even more so for Peter, because he had set the precedent of eating with non-Jews when he announced the good news to Cornelius. This is not a matter that was accepted by Judeans generally, but the zeal for their exclusionary practice was now being imported to Antioch.
2:14† ^ὑπάρχων ἐθνικῶς: live like the nations. Paul uses the present tense here, because Peter had just been disregarding Jewish traditions regarding non-Jews before the men arrived “from” James. The present is historical in the immediate past.
2:14‡ ^Are compelling the nations to become Yehūdi̱m? In Paul’s view the nations were the house of Yisra’ēl (cf. Ezek. 37), and therefore any circumcision which turned them into the house of Judah was an improper circumcision. That was just one issue on his plate. It explains his choice of words. The message that the strict party was sending to the non-Jews was that they would not get to hear the good news or any teaching unless they first became Jewish. This carrot and stick approach put the cart before the horse for the sake of the misguided nationalistic zeal in Judea, which was a nationalism not according to the plans and purposes of the Almĭghty (cf. Mat. 21:43; Mat. 2), but which was doomed to defeat so complete that it can only be regarded as divine disapproval. The nations should confirm their faithfulness to Mĕssiah by obeying his commandments, without confusing the matter with being Jewish. The nations are to be fellow heirs, and not under the little finger of Rehoboam. They are equal tribes of Yisra’ēl. Of course there is no bar to joining the tribe of Judah if one so wishes, but doing so does not just gain Torah, it also gains Jewish and Rabbinic tradition, with which one has to put up with as a distinction of belonging to that tribe, and other Jews might not think you belong if you don’t follow enough traditions (cf. 1Cor. 9:20-22). It would be better that non-Jews who have not been born to this culture not have to learn it. It is not equal to obedience to Mĕssiah, which is the more important thing that everyone has difficulty with to begin with. Jews are entitled every bit to their cultural expression as are non Jews. There is more than one way to observe the commandments in faithfulness to the word.
The term ἰουδαΐζειν is often explained as
The issue is much like baptism. Roman Catholics say one must be baptized to be saved. These people compel converts to Catholocise. But truly, to Catholocise destroys the principle of faithfulness since it makes salvation a matter of denominational acceptance and status. This is exactly how Paul viewed the sect teaching circumcision was necessary for salvation. They were saying that Jewish status and acceptance as a Jew was necessary. Paul did not oppose either the law of circumcision or baptism. But he did oppose becoming Jewish as a means of salvation, and likewise, if he were around today, he would oppose Catholicising, because they are teaching the heresy that baptism is necessary for salvation.
So the same old heresy of denominational legalism and teaching that one must belong to the sect to be saved, evolved from the doctrine of the false teachers among the Jews into the doctrine of baptism in the Church of Rome. While speaking against the Roman baptism, the reformers did not speak against the observance of the commandment itself. To claim then that Paul is speaking against the commandments under the term “to become Jewish” is hypocritical coming from Protestants or Catholics, since they themselves either practice the heresy Paul was condemning, or they distinguish the heresy from the commandments.
2:15† ^At this point, Paul breaks off his address to Peter, and expands on the point for the Galatians, though we may assume that he explained the the same ideas to the Assembly at Antioch. Paul’s statement is a question. This appears from the fact that the words “who are” or the equivalent force are an interpretation rather than the literal sense, which goes: “We by nature Jews, and not from the nations sinners,” and it can be seen at once that whether it be a question or a statement is a matter of the tone of voice, and not of an interpretation by English translators where the verb should be interpolated. If it is a statement, it is Pauline sarcasm raising the point that Jews are sinners too. If it is a question, it is calling Peter to consider that Jews are in fact imperfect sinners also, just like the nations, a point that Paul drives home in Romans 3.
The point being made is that the starting point of Jews and non-Jews has to be taken into account in regards to whether or not they are judged faithful, and not a standard of perfection, to which even Jews cannot attain. The standard of perfection, ironically, is something that the Church has re-erected in its own way, because they assume that the Almĭghty requires absolute perfection for salvation. This view suggests that in the final analysis Gŏd is unmerciful, and that somehow he can be compensated for the loss caused to him by sin. These two ideas evolved into the mistaken notion that the death of Mĕssiah is a positive compensation for sin that makes it as if it had not occurred, as if the results of lawlessness can be erased. But the death of Yĕshūa̒ does not pay a compensatory penalty. It pays a
Few people stop to consider that when a murder occurs and the killer is put to death that now two people are dead, and that the punishment of the murderer does not undo the fact that the first person is still dead. Capital punishment, therefore, is what I mean by punitive punishment. There are compensatory penalties with some types of wrongs, such as the thief that must repay what he has stolen. The point is that the death of Yĕshūa̒ does not restore perfection. There is no such thing as substitutionary repentance, or substitutionary righteousness. If we are to look for restorative measures in what Mĕssiah did, then we have to look to the power of the resurrection working through a people ready to receive it and cooperate with it.
2:16a† ^ וְיָעְדנוּ כִּי אֶת־צֶדֶק לֹא יִמָּלֵא לְאִישׁ מַעֲשֵׂי הַמָּסוֹרָה, אִם־לֹא בֶּאֱמוּנַת יֵשׁוּעַ הַמָּשִׁיחַ.
I have supplied a Hebrew translation of the Greek for this verse and the following due their their extreme importance. First, the practical summary:
What are the traditional works Paul is speaking of? These fall into several categories, 1. traditional misinterpretations of the Torah, and 2. traditions added to the Torah, 3. any other tradition or philosophy by which someone thinks to fulfill Gŏd’s justice apart from the real Torah. A man cannot wipe away the due penalty of sin by his works. Neither Torah or Yeshūa̒ teaches such a means of satisfying divine justice.
Rather than fill the text up with notes, they will all be gathered here. There are two traditional views of justification, that taught by Augustine and the Church of Rome, and the reactionary doctrine of the Protestants. The gnosis of the Gnostics was that they had to attain union with their primordial self that was beyond this creation, and therefore was perfect. The Catholic doctrine is similar in that the soul is infused with the grace of justification (which they call imputation of righteousness), so as to make it spotless. What then appears on the outside to be sin, according to Rome, is only an appearance, and does not taint the innocence which is said to be attained through baptism. This idea is but a barely modified gnosis. The Gnostics preferred not to use ritual to impart the union, but mediation on their doctrine, to gain the knowledge (mystical and experiential) of reconnection to the primordial self that was perfect. This gnosis, is the knowledge that one’s soul is perfect, and therefore that outward sin cannot spoil it.
Of course such doctrine is wholly inadequate to change the real world. People who believe they are perfect do little to live more righteously. Therefore, Christendom is only sanctified by accident, or by true doctrines that cannot help but peek through when the Scripture is present, even when misunderstood. The Gnosis is really a false doctrine, the mystery of iniquity floating just beneath the surface of an appearance of godliness.
Justification according the the Protestant reaction is removed to a purely legal application, whereby it is called
The sacrifice of Yĕshūa̒ pays the punitive penalty for sin, and thereby is forgiveness of sin, and the right to inherit eternal life. It does not impart inward righteousness or legal perfection to the faithful. Righteousness is gained by repentance and good works. It is gained by the faithful cooperating with Mĕssiah’s work to sanctify his people through his commandments. And it proceeds in the power of the resurrection, which is really divine power that is imparted to the faithful to enable them to change. This work of the Spĭrit requires the cooperation of the the human will, and the willingness of the faithful to endure the suffering that is heaped on obedience by the world. This process is the imputation of righteousness. In the final act, at the second coming, we call perfect imputation (or counting) of righteousness eschatological. The final fulfillment is in the eschatological third day. Until then, only mind and body can be disciplined so far as a mortal body can be.
The words translated, “justice will not be fufilled,” may be more literally rendered, “will not be justiced,” or as some Lexicons put it “brought to justice,” “done justice.” By these words, Paul is mainly concerned to say what is not true about the
The Greek words ἔργων νόμου, translate traditional works. The better Lexicons kept on the back shelf of the translators library, BDAG, Liddel, Thayer, all say that
The point is that the divine punitive justice is not fulfilled or satisfied by any sort of works on our part, whether they belong to the actual Torah or just to some traditional perversion of it.
Let us now move to the phrase, “faithfulness of Mĕssiah.” The KJV put “faith of Christ,” and the modern versions changed this to “faith in Christ,” however the Greek texts have not changed. What has changed is the interpretation. The NET version has returned to the sense “faithfulness of Christ,” and Daniel Wallace’s grammar supports this sense ably. The faithfulness of Mĕssiah is summed up in his death to pay the penalty for sin. A good place to look for the definition
2:16b† ^ גַּם־אֲנַחְנוּ הֶאֱמַנּוּ בַּמָּשִׁיחַ יֵשׁוּעַ לְמַעַן צֶדֶק יִמָּלֵא לָנוּ מֵאֱמוּנַת הַמָּשִׁיחַ וְלֹא מִמַּעֲשֵׂי הַמָּסוֹרָה כִּי מִמַּעֲשֵׂי הַמָּסוֹרָה לֹא יְמַלֵּא צֶדֶק כָּל־בָּשָׂר.
How is justice fulfilled for us by the faithfulness of Messiah? Messiah laid down his life to wipe away our penalty of sin. For the Almĭghty has decreed that the penalty for sin is death. Therefore, he has mercy on the repentant, who love him and keep his commandments, and he pays their penalty for them. By paying the penalty, Messiah fulfills justice for us. He fulfills the divine justice which cannot be fulfilled by traditional works.
The words rendered, “affirm faithfulness” might also be put, “confirm
2:17‡ ^Everyone who has their penalty paid by Mĕssiah first must submit that they are found guilty. The charge Paul anticipates, because the penalty is freely paid, is that more sin will be encouraged.
2:18† ^Will more sin be encouraged? If the person accepts the payment and responds correctly with repentance, then no. If on the other hand the guilty plea is withdrawn, and not accepting the free payment of the penalty, the person thinks he can compensate Gŏd, then he has just proved the mystery of iniquity. Protestant doctrine has a sly way of withdrawing the guilty plea, which is accordingly replaced with an acquittal. On the basis of
2:19† ^כִּי אֲנִי עַל־יְדֵי מָסוֹרָה לְמָסוֹרָה מָתִּי, לְמַעַן אֶחְיֶה לֵאלֹהִים.
The tradition being opposed here is the notion that good works compensates the Almĭghty. Judaism did evolve such ideas. It is implicit in the pursuit of perfection combined with the condemnation of others less perfect, as is plain in the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax-collector. Paul discovered that the traditions of his school were dead because they could not produce righteousness, but only pride an arrogance. We may then regard the first use of the word tradition here as the correct tradition, namely the Law and the Prophets through the eyes of messianic prophecy and the death and resurrection of Mĕssiah on the third day. The second use of the word refers to all the oral teaching that contradicts the truth.
He has to reject his traditions just to be able to live in true repentance, and to gain true forgiveness. And we may say that along with many Jews, a good number of Protestants and Catholics also need to reject their legalistic systems of perfection.
2:20‡ ^To be crucified (or executed) with Mĕssiah means that Paul is giving the legal point of view on his life. He is accounted to have died, and to have paid the penalty. He does not mean he is literally dead. He expands on this in Romans 7. He moves on to the point that the power of the Spĭrit is working the life of Mĕssiah into his life.
2:21† ^לֹא אֲמָאֵס אֶת־חֶסֶד הָאֱלֹהִים, כִּי אִם צֶדֶק עַל־יְדֵי מָסוֹרָה, אָז הַמָּשִׁיחַ מֵת לַשָּׁוְא.
Justice through tradition in the vulgar is getting one’s own justice vs. seeking Yăhwēh’s justice. In Messiah the penalty of sin is paid. Without Messiah various traditional lies, rituals, or practices are substituted. Messiah died so that our sins could be forgiven, i.e. pardoned.
Does righteousness come via the Torah? Of course it does! See Deut. 6:25. That is why Paul is not talking about personal righteousenss here, but divine justice against sin. Δικαιοσύνη means “justice,” צֶדֶק, tsedeq. Νόμος means what is the “status quo,” or the “norm” or “custom.” Just remember this, that what goes by the name of Torah, תּוֹרָה, is often just tradition, מָסוֹרָה masōrah. That which is handed down, or is the custom, or is the status quo, or is delivered from the pulpit or the Rabbi is often contrary to the loving-kindness of Messiah, חֶסֶד ḥesed.
3:1† ^Some people still do not get it, that Mĕssiah died to pay our penalty, so that we can be saved, and therefore they propose to reinterpret his death so that they can pay part of the penalty themselves, or so they can be counted perfectly righteous and not need the penalty to be paid. Some elements of the Church even taught that only past sins were forgiven, and that perfection was required after initial forgiveness.
3:2¹ ^Or “a hearing of faithfulness,” but this phrase can also mean “faithful hearing.” The report is the story of Mĕssiah’s faithfulness, but this is received by faithfully listening to the message, which means confirming one’s faithfulness via repentance. Our faithful response is not a pretension of either perfection or compensation. It is the expected loving response to Yăhwēh’s love.
3:3† ^The deceivers taught that perfection was the key to salvation, and some of the Galatians believed them. This doctrine lives on in the philosophy of the Catholic and Reformed doctrines of “justification by faith,” as this justification is claimed to render one perfect in Gŏd’s estimation. Once again, while Gŏd wishes for us to aim at perfection, he does not require anything more than wholehearted faithfulness. And by aiming at it, we are not aiming at something required for salvation, because a perfect status is not the ground of salvation.
The theologians might counter that they are perfected in the legal books, or the inner soul, which is not the flesh. But it is the flesh, because it is the sinful nature that produced these doctrines. It is a sinful desire (a fleshly one) to desire a good estimation that is undeserved. Our hope is in the certain promise of forgiveness of sin, and not perceived perfection. For we wait for the righteousness that is by faithfulness (Gal. 5:5). There are many who will never understand this because they were never converted in the first place. There are many who will understand this, but who will prefer the comforts of their traditional theology, and will never admit to the the truth that their Church has taught chief doctrines as false doctrine.
3:4† ^You may suspect that it was in vain when they start condemning anyone who points out their errors. But we always hope that people are mistaken rather then truly sliding into unbelief.
3:5† ^E̕lōhi̱m does expect a faithful response to the good news, which we never claim to be perfection, or for the purpose of replacing the good news. This is what is meant by “faithful listening.” See note on the previous usage.
3:6‡ ^The fundamental meaning of the Hebrew text in Gen. 15:6, the root אמן is
3:7† ^Paul often referred to the
3:8‡ ^Paul may still be referring to cooperative faithfulness, but the promise to A̕v̱raham concerned his seed, the Mĕssiah. The nations (a.k.a. E̕phrai̱m) are blessed through Yĕshūa̒. And the principle part here is Yĕshūa̒’s faithfulness.
3:9¹ ^A lot of translations illegitimately render “believer,” but the word is the same as faithfulness, just in a different part of speech, and likewise the translation “believe” (for the verb) is a departure from the original sense, that is often exploited into believe only without any fidelity shown via obedience.
3:10† ^ The traditions Paul is speaking about do not uphold the Torah. They deny it. That’s why he can apply the curse.
The passage is quoted from Deut. 27:26, “Cursed is that one which does not confirm the words of this Law, to do them. And all the people will have said A̕maen.‡” The sense is to uphold or confirm the Law to do it, and is speaking mainly about faithless rejection of the Torah. Theologians, however, have assumed a doctrine of perfection for salvation for ancient Yisra’ēl on the basis of these words, and their books and discourses are stuffed full of phrases about how one has to keep the law perfectly or be condemned. Their first apologetic to anyone who keeps a significant part of the Law that they reject (such as Sabbath), is that it implies your are a legalist, and that no legalist will be saved because no legalist can be perfect.
The words of the curse passage have been mistranslated to imply that one who does not
They say this even though they have invented their own philosophy of divine perfection, since they assume that perfection is required in the eyes of Gŏd for salvation. Paul’s statement ought to be recast as, “For as many as are seeking to fulfill justice from a philosophy of perfection are under a curse.” Why? Because that their philosophy is not what the cross means. It is a rejection of the Scriptural basis of salvation, and replaces it with a teaching of gnosis (knowledge falsely so called).
3:11† ^ Paul did not have the advantage of italics. He means both Gŏd’s faithfulness and our faithful response.
3:13‡ ^The house of Yisra’ēl rejected the Law and practiced idolatry and worshiped false gods, or they became rebels and practiced immorality. And first they had to reject the Law and turn away from repenting. For this reason they came under the curse. Mĕssiah offers a way to return for those who repent of these things and again uphold his Law.
3:12‡ ^So, the tradition is not from faithfulness but, He who practices the commandments will live by them.‡. Tradition here is νόμος, which corresponds to the norm or the status quo. Paul is applying Yĕshūa̒’s statement, “I say to you, that unless your righteousness abounds above that of the scribes and Perūshi̱m, you will not enter the kingdom of the heavens” (Mat. 5:20). Their righteousness was that of tradition, and not faithfulness to the commandments in spirit or truth (John 4:23). I will speak of Christianity in a bit, but first I speak of Judaism. Because Judiasm has not accepted the faithfulness of Mĕssiah, but it has drifted farther and farther away as the centuries have passed into a religon of the Rabbis neglecting the commandments of Gŏd. The hand washing rituals have expanded. Kosher laws include not ever eating with a non-Jew. The Sabbatical year has been forgotten, and the Jubilees realigned. The Chronology of Scripture has been dumped overboard in favor of an apologetic against Mĕssiah. New moons are not new moons anymore. Scripture has been misinterpreted on a massive scale according to the traditions of the Rabbis from the meaning of Yōm Kippūri̱m to the neglect of Yōm Terūah, and even abandoning of the timing of a day as it was reckoned by priests in the Temple. This is just the tip of a huge massive iceberg of what is wrong with Judaism, and how it has gone far wide of knowning Scripture and following the commandments of Gŏd. The reason that Judaism cannot break free of the traditions it has created for itself is that it is stuck in its own nomos, it own status quo, its own social norm, and it has not affirmed faithfulness to Mĕssiah Yĕshūa̒ whose burden is light, and whose yoke is easy, and if they confirm their faithfulness to Mĕssiah, then he will deliver them from their inability to break away from tradition and to really keep his laws in Spĭrit and in truth. And then it will really be true, “He who practices the commandments will live by them.” The days are coming when the Almĭghty will again make a distinction between his people who are really walking in faithfulness to him, and those who commitment is to tradition.
Now we can say similar about Christianity. Christianity is also stuck in its own tradition (νόμος), its own nomos. Everyone knows that Christmas and Easter are man made traditions, and every other custom (νόμος) invented by the Church. Let us detail these traditions: exaggeration of the Lord’s Supper outside of the Passover. Reinterpretation of the mode and meaning of immersion (baptism). (They can call these things canon law, but they are just traditions). The false signs and wonders of the Charasmatic movement. The moral rot caused by a grace only gospel that has totally abandoned Gŏd’s moral laws. We all know what churches are voting for today. They are voting to join the world in its worst immoralities. I could go on and on. Why have they so fallen into their own social nomos? Because they have thought that they can pay lip service to Mĕssiah with their doctrine of believe only. Their faithfulness is no faithful commitment to Mĕssiah in spirit and truth, because as soon as they hear Gŏd’s commandment, they run the other way into their traditions yelling, grace only, grace only!
So then, the νόμος is not from faithfulness, by faithfulness, or of faithfulness! It is counter to faithfulness. In anyone wants to be saved then they will truly confirm their faithfulness to Mĕssiah, accepting his forgiveness, and repent of their νόμος contrary to the Torah of the Almĭghty. And then you righteousness will exceed that of the Pharisees and the Bishops. Seek and you will find. Knock and it will be opened. Ask and it will be answered.
Technical note: I have discussed the meaning of
3:15† ^Brothers, I am saying that according to man, in the same way, as with a humanly established covenant, no one is setting aside or adding modifications.† First I give the summary, and then I will quote the proof of the explanation which is lengthly. Scholars have observed that generally speaking a covenant may be added to, amended, modified, or revoked in the Greek and Roman world, so long as it is done legally. But there was one type of covenant that could not be revoked, in which the donor gifted his property to an heir while he was still alive. A covenant of this nature was irrevocable. Paul has made it clear that the covenant with A̕v̱raham has the nature of a promised gift while the donor (Yăhwēh) was still alive, i.e. before the death of Mĕssiah. We can only call Paul’s use of this device in Greco-Roman law, which was also adopted by the Jews, a human institution, which Paul indicates by saying, “humanly established covenant.” His argument, therefore, is an illustration, and not proof of the irreconcilability of the promise from the standpoint of Torah. Paul had no fear of being challenged on his assumption, because the promise was irrevocable in the national sense and revocable in the individual sense. He is speaking, of course, about the national validity of the promise for the faithful.
Paul uses an human example from Greek and Roman Law, also adopted by the Jews, to illustrate the possibility of an irrevocable covenant. Rather than explain the whole matter from Torah of national irrevocability, and individual revocability, he settles for a human example to illustrate what Torah says in a much more complex way. The Galatians would understand the simpler point faster. And Paul is only implying that formal proof for this exists in the Torah.
What this shows then is that the promise cannot be changed, amended, or nullified. On the other hand, the legal code given at the time of Mōshēh could be amended or renewed and amended, so long as it is done legally. The Law specifically says that the sons of Yisra’ēl may not add or subtract from it (cf. Deut. 12:32 [13:1]). Further, renewed, or newer covenants may contain additions, or they may subsume former covenants into the newer covenant. But these modifications can only be made by the Almĭghty, and not by men. What Paul is saying, is that however the Almĭghty amends or renews his covenant, the promise made at the beginning is irrevocable. So far, as we have the word of Gŏd himself, the codes as standing in the Law and Prophets are not revoked (cf. Mat. 5:17-19), and after this the voice of Gŏd has not been heard on the matter.
First came the promise, and then the covenant at Sinai, and this was amended with the additional covenant given on the plains of Mōa̕v̱, and then by various prophetic instructions concerning the Temple, which were by prophetic revelation. Paul’s point is that none of which follows changes the promise, because the promise has the nature of an unchangeable covenant.
The above summary (and application) is based on the remarks in the
“The disposition of one’s goods at death by means of a will or testament was a legal practice of long standing in the Greco-Roman world, with the term διαθήκη being often used for such a legal instrument. It was always possible however, both in Greek and in Roman jurisprudence, for the testator to revoke or alter his will. As early as 1921 Burton could say with assurance, “it is now well established that both Greek and Roman wills were revocable by the maker” (
Greco-Egyptian testaments were revocable. The right to revoke a will was provided by the insertion of a special clause. The first testament could not be revoked by the drawning up of a new one. The revocation of the first had to be made either in the form of a special clause in the new testament, or by a separate legal act, or by the withdrawal of the document from the notaries (i̱, 204; cf. the more amply documented work of H. Kreller,
“Several examples of official documents dealing with the revocation of a will are, in face, extant in the papyri—chiefly POxy 106, 107, and 601, which date from the early part of the second century A.D.”
“There was, however, another means for the disposition of property within the family in the Greco-Roman world, the
“As for Jewish jurisprudence, Yaron has shown how at least by the time of the Tannaim (mid-second century through third century A.D.) Judaism had taken over both the διαθήκη type of testamentary disposition of property and the μετὰ τὴν τελευτήν type of gift. In so doing, the Jewish leaders were able to fill a vacuum in the inheritance laws of Scripture and make the disposition of property within the family much more flexible: the former, the testamentary type of disposition that took effect at death, was revocable by the testator during his life but could not be drawn up in a way to circumvent the inheritance laws of the Torah; the latter, the gift type of disposition that took effect immediately after being attested, was irrevocable, but also was not bound by Torah legislation at the testator’s death. The reason for the Jewish acceptance of this latter type of instrument was, no doubt, precisely because of its ability to circumvent the inheritance laws of the Torah, even though it irrevocably bound the donor. Important rabbinic texts spelling out the distinction between these two types of inheritance laws are
“Building on Yaron’s work, Ernst Bammel has highlighted the distinction in rabbinic writtings between inheritance
The term διαθήκη is the most general term and can stand for a will, testament, or covenant of any sort. Paul’s context shows that the promise is a gift, and that it was made while the maker lived. So his context fits the nature of the irrevocable gift before the donor dies.
3:17† ^
The law cursed the transgressor (Num. 15:30-31; Deut. 27:26), and this can be called the
3:18¹ ^or “what was customary,” or “convention.” The Greeks could push the definition of νόμος as far as social convention and even tradition.
3:19¹ ^Then why the norm of transgressions?¹ It was set forth (until the seed should come, which had been promised). There is a remarkable degree of variation in ancient texts concerning the words τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν προσετέθη. Codex Claromontanus (VI cent.) replaces “transgressions” with “traditions” (παραδοσεων). P46 (ca. 200) replaces the same word with “practices” πραξεων. The word χάριν is deleted in P46 F G it; Irlat Ambst Spec. Προσετέθη is shortened to ετέθη also. These changes appear to be intentional because the scribes had difficulty with understanding the text or did not accept what the original said. As the usual translations stand, the text is now unacceptable, “It was added on account of transgressions until the seed should come” because it gives a
Note it has been brought to my attention that in BW 9.0 the CNTTS apparatus shows P46 omitting χαριν and προσετεθη, and therefore the note on this verse has been revised, and the original reading put in the margin. See below. This is a very early mss, and the earliest nearly complete Paul. The doubt about these words is a huge disconfirmation of the lawless translation, “It was added for the sake of transgressions...” We are certainly lacking a whole and certain answer in this part of the text. And until we do, translations and explanation will have to remain tenative.
One way of reading the text without the word χαριν is “Why then the norm of transgressions? It was added until the seed should come....” This then is the thesis of Rom. 10:4, “Mĕssiah is the end of the norm for justice for everyone affirming faithfulness.” This would then mean that P46 is right in omitting the word, but incorrect in omitting the next word. P46 is backed up by the other two manuscripts in the first case, but not in the second.
Finally, it is possible that the original word χαριν was χαρις and it was meant to be the word “grace,” which better explains the deletions and alterations. The text would then read, “What about, then, the norm of the transgressions. Grace was added until the seed should come....” It seems unlikely that there would be a need for the changes if the text had stood without χαριν. Even so, I am now putting this reading in the margin.
And it does appear Paul wanted to say there was a gracious passing over of transgressions, which is the same idea he teaches in Romans 3:25: διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων. The Hebrew word for grace חֶסֶד, which I usually render loving-kindness, however in this case “grace” so that the teachers who teach “grace” should take note that 1. there was grace before the cross, and 2. that the grace in passing over sin ends when the sins’ penalties are paid by the substitute. 3. It is not the Law that ends but the grace of overlooking a penalty, and then 4. the cross ends the need for the faithful to pay their own death penalty. 5. The passage teaches that the seed paid the penalty of transgressions committed as defined by the Torah, and not by any other Law.
3:19† ^Then why the norm of transgressions?¹ It was set forth (until the seed should come, which had been promised). The “law of transgressions,” refers to Lev. 16, where the high priest was commanded to confess all the transgressions of Yisra’ēl onto the second goat, to be carried outside the camp, into the wilderness. This passage is the only place where a provision is made in the overall law for dealing with transgression and iniquity on behalf of the repentant and faithful in a positive way. The Rabbis represent the passage as the total solution for transgressions (serious sins vs. unwitting sins), and therefore represent Mĕssiah as unnecessary. Paul is therefore dealing with the question, “What about the law of (dealing with) transgressions?” The phrase is used like specific codes in the law, i.e. “the law of Passover,” or “the law of circumcision.” Paul’s answer is that judgment of the transgressions was passed over by grace, and this grace was demonstrated in the Yom Kippurim ceremony.
By noting this Paul deals with the major Jewish objection to the need for Mĕssiah’s offering.
The envoys refer to the men who led the goat and sent it into the wilderness. They are the go betweens. While the Yōm Kippūr ceremony still goes on, the
3:20† ^ Paul uses the word “One” to refer to the Yahad brotherhood, only to deny that their priests are the mediator of transgressions. Messiah is the true mediator, that is, he completes the messianic type.
This, of course, is my opinion on the passage. Meyer states: “The numerous different interpretations of this passage—and it has had to undergo above 250 of them—have specially multiplied in modern times: for the Fathers of the Church pass but lightly over the words which in themselves are clear, without taking into consideration their difficulties in relation to the general scope of the passage.” The involvement of
3:21† ^Restore life (ζῳοποιῆσαι). This means to
For this reason justice that is predicated on the concept of compensating the Almĭghty is impossible. The only payment that he accepts is the punitive penalty of death, which in his loving-kindness, he allowed Mĕssiah to pay on our behalf, an exception to the general rule of death for those who would repent and be faithful.
3:22‡ ^Or
3:23† ^Paul refers to Mĕssiah’s faithfulness here, per his teaching on Hab. 2:4, “the just shall live by My Faithfulness (cf. LXX).” The Hebrew text says, “his faithfulness” and can be taken two ways. But the faithfulness that is revealed is that of the Almĭghty Sŏn, whose was appointed to die for our sins, and in carrying out this task he made the forgiveness of our transgressions possible. By rising from the dead he secured our sanctification through his resurrection power.
As Paul says
3:24‡ ^The sense is that the punitive justice assigned to the sinner, in the case of repentance, is paid on behalf of the sinner by Mĕssiah, and the payment is reckoned to satisfy the punitive justice against sin of the faithful person. It may be pointed out that in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, the terms for justice and righteousness are expressed by one term in each language, whereas in English we use two terms, justice and righteousness. The term justified bears the Catholic or Protestant theological interpretation, even though usages in English may be found where it means to administer justice, and implies nothing about the person said to be justified being proved right or acquitted. Paul almost always uses the passive (e.g. δικαιωθῶμεν), which may be literally glossed, in this passage, “so that
3:26¹ ^P46 omits τῆς. Paul has switched the focus to our faithful response in this verse and the next.
3:27¹ ^The middle voice is translated as reflexive here. The aorist may also be taken as timeless, “clothe yourselves.” The immersion is a sign of the cleansing of repentance.
3:28¹ ^Salvation; being delivered from the penalty of sin, and from sinfulness.
3:29† ^The promise regards the land of Yisra’ēl as well as the spiritual blessings of sons. By using the word seed, Paul is declaring that non-Jews obtain a status equal to Jews.
4:1† ^This means an heir of eternal life, the kingdom of Gŏd, and the land of Yisra’ēl. The destiny of the heir is to be made righteous, being sanctified by Yăhwēh’s commandments until Yĕshūa̒ returns to make complete what is not possible in this mortal body.
4:1‡ ^Slave here means the lost, who are enslaved to sin, who have no hope of redemption.
4:2† ^In the analogy, these guardians and managers are for the good of the heir, and to see that the heir survives to receive the inheritance, to see that the heir learns the things necessary to the governing of his inheritance, and learns the spiritual wisdom that goes with the inheritance. By this figure, Paul means the Law and the Prophets, and all the words of Gŏd through his emissaries.
4:2¹ ^No one knows the day or hour of his coming. It appears from the context that he has a specific day in mind, or age of adulthood, as in the case of the analogy.
4:3† ^Paul switches to a direct statement to indicate the status of those who are not heirs, which go into a similar analogy. It is easy to miss the transition here and to attribute the negative statements of this verse to the Law, but it would not be what Paul meant to say. He is discussing the status of two groups, the heirs, and the slaves to sin.
4:3¹ ^νήπιοι. See LSJ. The same word is used in 4:1, but from the context it would appear to mean childish, or infantile. Paul is suggesting irresponsibility in this case, whereas in the former, he is suggesting immaturity.
4:3‡ ^Also elemental forces, or elements of nature regarded superstitiously as controlled by spirits. The bondage is to the sin nature, and the principles of the world are the desires of the flesh, and the things the nations pursue based on their unbiblical world views.
4:4¹ ^Conception of Yĕshūa̒ X.1, 3 BC, and birth VII.1, 2, BC.
4:4-5† ^Paul has now combined the redeemed from both sources into one category, those converted from the lost and those born from the faithful. He states that Mĕssiah put himself under the norm (νόμον, BDAG 3rd def. 1), by which he means its prescribed judgment against the faithful, which means he volunteered to suffer the judgment of the Law and Prophets for the sins of the repentant. And this was to redeem the faithful who were under the status quo, which is to say those subject to the ordinary penalty of the Law for sin, which is the final death of the sinner. The death of Mĕssiah effects a change in the application of the penalty of the Law from the sinner to Mĕssiah.
Paul’s use of
In the second use of
4:6‡ ^The son is destined to inherit eternal life. Christians with the Gnostic Worldview (Augustine and Calvin) will argue that they have eternal life now based on predestination and their belief in the impossibility of falling from grace through willful apostasy. The Open Theist Worldview, on the other hand, is that which corresponds to Scriptural revelation. It is argued by them that the present tense use of the verb ἔχω means that one has eternal life now. However, John uses the present subjunctive in John 3:16, “may have” and Dan. 12:2 says about the righteous that, “these shall awake to life everlasting.” The explanation of the present tense in John 3:36 conforms to the English, “is going to have (or inherit) everlasting life.” See Daniel B. Wallace, Grammar, pg. 536, D. Futuristic Present. His key to identification is to supply “is soon going to, is certainly going to, will.” Of course, those with the Gnostic Worldview will find all manner of fault with these details I have supplied based on their presupposition. Therefore, one should not argue with them about grammar, but simply point out that their presupposition requires them to misunderstand it and find loopholes. Paul presents eternal life in this passage as something that we are an heir to (cf. 4:1).
4:8† ^Paul returns to describing the condition of the lost, and in particular the former lostness of the Galatians, who apparently were pagan idolaters before coming to faithfulness.
4:9† ^Paul does not mean they will return to the same exact superstition as before in the eternal sense, but to superstition in principle, which of course, takes a newer form to deceive them. Paul represents the deception as the same in principle, or by the same worldly spirits.
What leads to a new form of enslavement is the unrealistic pursuit of perfectionism, based on the fear that one might not make it because all the i’s are not dotted, or the t’s crossed. The good news is not truly understood. This point of view leads to a re-enslavement worse than the original in which things most obviously imperfect to an outsider are accepted by them as the perfect doctrine, partly because the mind suffers from fear, and also fear prevents real thinking or change. Therefore, when they are taught obviously false doctrines, they are unable to change from them, as doing so only proves that they are imperfect and unworthy! Obviously false doctrines are evidence of the cult enslavement.
4:10‡ ^Paul is most clearly referring to some sort of calendar heresy, and most likely to a Christian version of the Essene Apocalyptic Cult. A large number of Jews were Essenes, and they taught their own calendar system opposed to that of other Jews. In theory their year began with the first Wednesday after the spring equinox:
FIRST MONTH SECOND MONTH THIRD MONTH
S M T W R F S S M T W R F S S M T W R F S
1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
26 27 28 29 30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31
FOURTH MONTH FIFTH MONTH SIXTH MONTH
S M T W R F S S M T W R F S S M T W R F S
1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
26 27 28 29 30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31
SEVENTH MONTH EIGHTH MONTH NINTH MONTH
S M T W R F S S M T W R F S S M T W R F S
1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
26 27 28 29 30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31
TENTH MONTH ELEVENTH MONTH TWELFTH MONTH
S M T W R F S S M T W R F S S M T W R F S
1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
26 27 28 29 30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31
Their year had 364 days. The discrepancy with the actual length of the year, 365.25 days, was explained by claiming that in the end times (which they believed had come) that the sun and moon had gone out of their courses. This apocalyptic doctrine allowed them to justify their calendar deviations. They promoted the mathematical symmetries of their calendar as correct and true Torah observance. This same calendar is found in pseudo-Enoch, Jubilees, at Qumran, and other places. These books had a great influence on the Church of the second century, many Christians even treating pseudo-Enoch as Canonical even though it promotes the same completely heretical calendar.
The year was divided into four quarters of 91 days each. The first two months of each quarter were 30 days long, and the third was 31 days. Like the Roman calendar, their new moons were not intended to track the real new moon. Their scientific ignorance was sufficiently justified by claiming the moon did not know its course, which was blamed on the powers of the heavens.
Now on other matters of observance, the difference between these Jews and others was not so large. The Essenes kept the same Sabbath as other Jews, and generally the same calendar dates for the principle feasts, though seldom did the feast days line up with the Scriptural calendar used by other Jews.
The reason that Paul brings up the calendar issue, in specific, is because it the largest outward sign of the fact that the Galatians were falling into heresy. The Qumran sect produced works like MMT (4Q394-398, 4Q397-399) which begins describing the heretical calendar, and then moves onward to a legal section, where it says, “These are some of our words concering the Law of God, that is some of the works that we reckon as justifying you.” These are not just works that are counted as righteousness, but they are works that are specially counted as meriting a status of perfect righteousness. This philosophy evolved into the Church of Rome in the doctrine of baptism.
Even if Paul’s opponents are somewhat different than the classic Essenes, they had to be very much like them in philosophy. Qumran gives us a snapshot of the Essenes much earlier then their evolution during the time of Paul. Significant branches adopted Christianity, and being more evangelistic, and having more scattered communities, they were able to infiltrate closer to the frontiers of Paul’s preaching.
There are many days in the Essene Yahad calendar that have no equivalence to the Scriptural calendar. The Yahad’s new moon days were not new moons, yet they tracked them and observed them. The four 91 day seasons of their calendar did not track real seasons, but established an artificial schematic. The four seasons are not of equal length. Rather than discover the truth, they have apocalyptic excuses for the differences. Assuming that the Yahad’s calendar is the closest analogue to which we may compare Paul’s statement, the
The Essenes in turn described the Scriptural Calendar, as the Pharisees understood it, and the rest of the Jews, as heresy. We should not be surprised then that the natural evolution of the legalistic system of justification by works evolved into the Church of Rome, melding with Gnosticism more firmly, and the anti-Jewish propensity of non-Jews. This then produces the Catholic system of holy days based on the Roman Calendar. Neither should we be taken aback that they have reinterpreted Paul’s remarks on the calendar out of context, and have applied them to their rejection of Torah, namely the Sabbath, the feast days, and the sabbatical and Jubilee years. Neither should be be surprised that the most arrogant heresies spring up from within the ranks of those calling themselves Gŏd’s people.
4:11† ^ There were cults like the Essenes then, and there are cults like them now, who put on a cloak of spirituality and Torah piousness to deceive people about the appointed times. The lunar sabbath heretics teach that the sabbath is not the seventh day. They teach that it is the 1st, 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th days of a month. Their teachers are intellectually dishonest with the scriptures, and their followers are deceived, and as Paul points out, if someone falls into this error, then labor over them is in vain, because their doctrine to be classed with the superstitions of idolatry and paganism, to which faulty thinking they have returned, because they are too busy being perfect to learn the truth.
4:14† ^The parallelism here correctly suggests the Messenger of the Almĭghty is the same as Mĕssiah Yĕshūa̒.
4:17† ^Perfectionistic cults condemn and excommunicate others, or they say others are lost because they do not observe the way they do. By this measure they keep their own converts from leaving, and they attract new ones, who mistake their arrogant claims for spiritual piety and deeper knowledge of the truth. The cult is almost always concerned with a small set of favorite doctrines or practices.
4:21† ^ There are two laws. One is the real law of freedom, and the other is called law, but it is just tradition, and it leads to slavery. Paul uses the Greek word νομος, which also means the “status quo.” The Greeks used this word when they were talking about any “custom” that was accepted as the “norm”, or what people assumed was law. The Hebrew equivalent to the word is נוֹמוֹס nōmōs, which was borrowed from Greek into later Hebrew, because Biblical Hebrew did not have an equivalent term, and BH is objective in its use of terms. Greek on the other hand adopted a subjective view. What was law in Greek, was what anyone claimed was law, and then you disagreed with their law, you still called it law. What you meant was it was their tradition. Scripturally, there is only one law, and everything else is heresy or corrupt tradition, by which terms heretical views deserve to be called.
The Greek view of law was relativistic. Every law was simply a social convention or a norm. Of course it was known what laws the Galatians wanted to be under. They wanted to follow a perverted calendar. They wanted to be circumcised for the wrong reason. They wanted to be counted perfectly righteous via certain works. All these things, the Galatians had been led to believe were the law. If Paul had been speaking or writing English, he would never have used the word law to refer to them, because for the most part, what is called law in English is legitimate by implication. However, the time may come, when lawlessness so affects the West that people will begin to regard the civil law as arbitrary and having no connotation of legitimacy, which it can only derive from the divine Law.
Nomos means tradition or custom. There is relative tradition which is manmade, and there is divine tradition that comes from the Almĭghty. Paul signals the difference in this text by placing the definite article before his second use of nomos. Thus: “Tell me, you who want to be under tradition, do you not listen to the [divine] Tradition?” The Galatians thought they were listening to the divine tradition. Just by asking the question, Paul implies that they were not listening to the divine tradition. It therefore follows that Paul did not mean the legitimate understanding of nomos by the first use of the word in the verse.
The anti-Law doctrine always represents the first use of nomos in the verse as designating what the Law actually says. Therefore, when they get to the words “do you listen to the Law,” they are reduced to pleading a contradiction in the Law, namely that of admitting that that Gŏd commanded the Law to be observed, and then trying to defend Paul’s citing of the Law that it should not be observed because it is supposed to lead to slavery. Their argument is self contradictory, and also contradicts the Law, because keeping the Law is encouraged because it leads to life, and not to death (cf. Deut. 30). It follows then, that Paul is only passing judgment on what the Galatians think is the law, which is really the tradition of men, and not the Law of Yăhwēh.
Yet Christians, time and again, because they are unstable and lawless, wrest Paul’s words out of context, to their own destruction, just as Peter stated.
4:24† ^ διαθῆκαι. The usual Greek meaning is a will or testament, a disposition of goods after someone dies. It specifies an inheritance. In that sense Paul uses it here, and not in the biblical sense of a covenant. Paul’s illustration here is a drash (a homily), and not a theological proof. He is saying that the traditions are inherited lies. He adopts the Jewish point of view that the oral tradition was given from Mt. Sinai in order to disparage it with his homily.
4:25† ^ Paul means the present city is in bondage. We could also say that the Mt. Sinai is in bondage because it was under the control of the Nabateans at the time, who were at war with Judea. Likewise it is under control of Saudia Arabia today, and could be said to be in bondage. Paul meant that Jereusalem is in the bondage of false teaching against Messiah, and false teaching of traditions in the name of Torah.
4:24‡ ^ The Jews believe that Gŏd gave two Torah’s, both from Mt. Sinai. One was the written Torah. The other was the oral torah. By claiming both were from Mt. Sinai, they were claiming the authority of both tradition and the written Torah. Paul appears to be adopting this point of view in order to disparage the oral tradition.
The two wills are the Law of Yăhwēh and the oral law of tradition. One leads to life and freedom (Deut. 30), and the other to death and slavery.
The Essenes also had their version of oral tradition. In fact, it was impossible to understand Essene doctrine without their oral teaching, which they believed was handed down, and in common with other Jews, they would have believed this oral tradition went back to Mt. Sinai. So when a teacher disparages the law from Mt. Sinai, one has to ask which one, the real written Torah, or the fictitious oral torah. Only if the Jews did not seriously believe there were two torahs would we have a problem understanding Paul. But a lot of non-Jews might misunderstand if they were far from the context of the letter, and understand nothing of typical Jewish doctrine. Paul knew that those disturbing the Galatians were of Jewish extraction, and they justified their tradition by claiming it was from Mt. Sinai. The homily plays along with this notion, and allegorizes according to their folly.
4:26† ^ The new Jerusalem, which will take the place of the present city.
4:30† ^The meaning is thus implied by Paul: cast out the traditions, and follow the real Torah. The real Torah leads to life in Mĕssiah. The tradition leads to rejection of Mĕssiah, and rejection of the good news.
5:2† ^I read the subjunctive here as “if you must” or “if you should” denoting an obligation in this context to receive it for salvation. See Daniel Wallace on the use of the subjunctive to indicate an obligation. Paul is not opposing circumcision in an objective sense because he had no problem with circumcision in other circumstances. This is perfectly analogous to the Catholic or Lutheran insisting on infant baptism because without it the new born will go to Hell if it dies. If one’s hope is in baptism, then Mĕssiah’s death for the forgiveness of sins does not really mean much. So in such a context, and with such teaching, the ritual is properly opposed.
5:3‡ ^Paul is merely teaching the logical result of their theology of justification, because it assumes that perfection is necessary (cf. Gal. 3:3). If perfection is necessary, then full compensation is required, and the sinner is in the red (debt) with respect to the standard no matter what. Of course Paul’s opponents would argue that keeping particular commands compensates the whole debt, like Rome does baptism, or Reformed theology counts faith (really a gift imputed in their view from the merits of Christ), but then what did Mĕssiah pay for? The more clever perfectionists have linked the ritual or the philosophy with the cross by theological reasoning. But the key step requires a leap of reasoning that defies reason. And that is the implication that compensation for sin is possible in the first place. Paul is about to shoot down the whole idea in vs. 5.
The ordinary person is obligated to do about 150 of the 600 or so commandments, since the other commands apply to other classes, priests, kings, judges. That is not the issue here. The issue is whether there is a
N.T. Wright speaks about final justification as if the present justification is based on an eschatological divine looking forward to the future when the faithful are perfected, and then that justification is based on works. This is remarkably similar to Catholic doctrine, which says that Gŏd looks at the immaterial soul in a person and which is transformed to perfection. But it is not far from the Protestant doctrine of forensic imputed righteousness. The Catholic doctrine involves personal works, and so is legalist. The Protestant doctrine puts all the works on Christ, and so is lawless. Nevertheless, it still is calling for compensation. So both these theologies satisfy the compensatory debt by rationalization, but they have removed the unreality of it from inspection by putting it inside the soul or on the heavenly books.
Since the whole debt was forgiven at the cross, Gŏd is not looking for further compensation. To suggest he is actually denies the power of Yĕshūa̒’s death and the power of the Almĭghty to simply forgive what cannot obviously be paid back. Yĕshūa̒ paid the punitive part of the penalty, but even this was commuted from the faithful to him by mercifully structuring the laws of atonement. So while I say the compensatory debt is forgiven, I don’t say that it was actually compensated. The punitive debt is paid, indeed, but even that is not the sort of payment that is ordinary. It is a substitutionary one. It serves to demonstrate the wrath of Gŏd, and to uphold the Law at the same time.
5:4† ^Either by ritual, particular commands (as in MMT) or by philosophy, which was the method of the Gnostics. Either way Gŏd is simply turned into a trader to transacts the business of atonement, and pure mercy and loving-kindness are pushed out the door.
The doctrine of
5:4‡ ^This clearly contradicts the predestination heresy. It is possible for a person to turn away from a true understanding of Mĕssiah’s death, and this often happens via the higher philosophical teachings on justification, which often simple Christians never understand. And it is good that they don’t. What they understand is that Mĕssiah paid their penalty and forgave them. And truly believing this they respond correctly by obeying him as best they know. The false teachers in the Church have been forced to allow this, so that the tares and the wheat exist together, because the truth is clearly stated in Scripture in many places that have not been corrupted by reinterpretation. They cannot teach their error without letting the truth slip through also. Therefore, the false theology of justification has been harmlessly aimed at many a true Christian who do not understand it. But it is really the agenda of the mystery of iniquity.
I realized about 12 years ago when I was debating on a board (ca. 2003) that the whole paradigm of justification that is being taught is exactly the same as teaching that that Christians are acquitted of sin, and that the truth is that we are pardoned. When I pointed this out, a Pastor had nothing but condemnation for my words.
5:5‡ ^For we through the Spĭrit, by faithfulness, eagerly await the confident expectation of righteousness.‡ First Paul tells us how we wait for righteousness. We do it by faithfulness, which is to say, living in the here and now to the best of our human ability in a mortal body, and in sinful circumstances. He also tells us that we have to
Paul’s point expressed in the usual translation is: “by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.” But the reformers taught that present faith is counted as perfect righteousness as soon as a person
5:6¹ ^I had been taking this conjunction as the limiting variety (unless, if not, without) for some years until I puzzled over the inclusion of “uncircumcision” in the sentence. Also I was thrown for a loop by the word ἰσχύει which BW 8.0 lists as “to be strong, able” in the NAS pop-up. My other NT dictionaries were not too informative, and I did not catch on until I noticed the word was missing in Paul’s parallel statements (Gal. 6:15, 1Cor.7:19), which explain the present text. I had to go to Liddell and Scott for clarity on ἰσχύει, which is here translated “has force.” Paul is saying that circumcision or uncircumcision has no legal force in respect to salvation. This is explained more in the other note. Thus τι ἰσχύει = “has any (legal) force.” Mistranslated: NIV, NLT, ESV, KJV, HCSB Correct: NASB, ISV, NET. The point is to get away from having Paul suggest that some where claiming positive value for uncircumcision. They were not. They were claiming negative value for uncircumcision. Paul simply is saying uncircumcision has no effect. It has no legal force in respect to salvation.
5:6‡ ^The previous clause is addressed to the issue of salvation, therefore, we expect the rejoinder clause to also address salvation. Paul clearly states here that what counts is “faithfulness working through love”! This is not perfectionism, but it is abiding in his word, which is his commandments. Gŏd expects our faithful response to his faithfulness.
5:6† ^For in Mĕssiah Yĕshūa̒ neither circumcision has any force nor uncircumcision, but¹ faithfulness working‡ through love.† Paul cannot have meant to oppose any value of circumcision absolutely. This is made plain by Acts 16:3 and Romans 3:1-2. He is only opposing its legal force for gaining the perfect merit by which his opponents define salvation, or its legal force in making a person a Jew, which his opponents considered a saved status. That kind of circumcision he would say is not according to faithfulness, and not according to the commandment. Transgression makes that kind of circumcision uncircumcision (cf. Rom. 2:25).
What Paul is saying is that circumcision has no legal force in saving a person, in view of the doctrine of the Rabbis, that one who is circumcised is accounted to have kept all the commandments, or by keeping the one commandment gains the merit of keeping them all. Similarly, uncircumcision does not condemn a person. An apt analogy would be stated (with Rome in view): “neither baptism has any force, nor unbaptism, but only faithfulness working through love.” Baptism does not impute the merits of faith to one’s account, nor remove the guilt of original sin, nor infuse perfect righteousness into the soul, nor create faith in the heart. And not being baptised does not damm one to hell. Therefore, in view of these horrible doctrines, Paul urged a delay of circumcision until the convert had walked in faithfulness a while (cf. Rom. 4:9ff; 1Cor. 7:18-19). Likewise, in view of Rome’s doctrine and the Lutheran doctrine, it might be wise to delay baptism until the false doctrine is disposed of, and faithfulness understood. The danger is that a convert will be circumcised or baptized under a false definition, or understanding of it. That danger must be removed first as it is fatal poison to the good news of Mĕssiah. For the good news does not require the merit of perfection, but the death of Mĕssiah for forgiveness, and our confirming our faithfulness to him in repentance.
It may be that uncircumcision had positive value for certain Jewish Gnostics. Among the Jews were was a school of thought that taught Jewish religion should be Hellenized or synthesized with Greek culture, and among these were Jewish Gnostics (who later contributed to Christian Gnosticism) of two schools. One taught that perfection was attained through the ritual, and the other taught that perfection was attained by knowing the correct philosophy of salvation. For the one school, the proof of perfection was in going through the ritual (a.k.a circumcision or later baptism). For the second school, proof in the belief of the correct doctrine was through negating the commandment, at least enough to prove to oneself that they believed the doctrine. The Jewish Gnostic believed that salvation was realized by perceiving the perfection of their immortal soul detached from the material. And the proof of this was to regard the material as not-relevant to salvation. Therefore, to undo a circumcision, was to them, evidence that one understood the doctrine. These were the legalist and lawless parties. One tried to be perfect by an outward philosophy of legalism. The other asserted their perfection by committing sins to prove to themselves that faithfulness to commandments is irrelevant to salvation, and that only the philosophy (or doctrine) counted. Hellenistic Jews, in general, embraced the new-Judaism (as taught by the Hellenists) by forsaking their circumcision, because they had adopted a humanist philosophy that they should be the same as the nations. Therefore, they rejected things that marked them as Jewish. They thought that by being rid of differences they would be acceptable to God (and the gods). Given the proximity of Hellenizing school, and their philosophies.
5:11† ^Paul is conceding here that he still teaches circumcision! But he cites the concession in the words of his opponents who twist it slightly using the word “prolcaim,” thus melding their position (proclamation for salvation) with the mere fact that Paul still teaches it. This is proven by his action in Acts 16:3 and statements in Romans 3:1-2. He therefore cannot have been justly persecuted for teaching lawlessness. Rather he was charged with lawlessness as slander (by others), and truly persecuted because of the good news of Mĕssiah. It was because he would not agree with his opponents corruption of the good news by exaggerating the role of circumcision.
His opponents had tried to argue to the Galatians that Paul still
The evangelical commentators theology teaches that Paul was persecuted because he rejected circumcision as a commandment on the basis that it was abolished by the cross. They postulate that the statement was only an allegation that Paul still proclaimed (and merely taught) circumcision. If that were the case, then Paul would be justly charged with lawlessness, and being persecuted for it would not be a legitimate defense.
The cross offends the doctrine of perfectionism, both the ritual and later philosophical versions. It does not offend receiving the forgiveness offered by an imperfect repentance and abiding in the commandments via an imperfect faithfulness.
5:11‡ ^The did not simply reject the death of Mĕssiah. Rather, they probably nullified it by their interpretation, much the way Rome claims to have the good news, yet they nullify it by their teaching on baptism. Similarly, Protestantism claims to have the good news, but they too, much of the time, nullify the good sense of it by claiming that men obtain a standing of perfect righteousness with Gŏd because they perform the
5:12† ^Paul aims his condemnation at the false teachers and not at the Galatian sheep being misled. Some may indeed have been circumcised refraining from condemning themselves before or condemning others who had not done it. Paul’s words are not for them, but only those who have accepted the false teaching of a perfected status.
5:13† ^This means freedom from condemnation. The false teachers were excommunicating or condemning all outsiders to their doctrine who were not circumcised. This is much like sacred Name folks who condemn other believers for not using the sacred Name correctly. Ironically, they themselves, often do not know the Sacred Name correctly! The fleshly nature naturally wishes to justify itself as spiritually better than other men, which is arrogance. Such is only for Gŏd to judge, or for Gŏd’s word, but they condemn those who do not fit into their camp because to condemn others is the way pride justifies itself. The flesh desires to boast in knowing the commandments through a condemnation of others. It wants to say, “Thank Gŏd I am not like that tax-collector!”
5:14¹ ^The usual translations “fulfilled” leave the reader with a notion of one principle satisfies the whole. This is not the case. Firstly, the command to love one’s neighbor is of secondary importance to the greatest commandment, which is to love the Almĭghty. Second, in first century Greek, the verb πληρόω often meant to complement. The complement is something which completes the whole. Loving the neighbor is an essential part of the Law, and it applies here, because those who were getting circumcised thought they were perfected (cf. Gal. 3:3), but the imperfect flesh in them condemned the imperfect. Being deceived about their own imperfect state caused them to hate their neighbor.
5:18‡ ^Paul has defined here how an imperfect faithfulness operates. The Spĭrit convicts the heart to obedience so that the flesh that is still in everyone who is faithful does not have its way. And then the faithful listen to the Spĭrit. He who listens to the Spĭrit is not under condemnation. The
5:21‡ ^I have warned you before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of the Almĭghty. Paul outlines practices that the Spĭrit indeed will not let any believer indulge in without becoming guilty. There is a minimal test if a brother in in the faith. The brother who practices these things cannot be judged faithful. And they must be warned that they will be lost unless they repent.
6:12‡ ^The persecutors were the radical party mentioned in Acts 15:1, and the strict party which wanted to see non-Jews turned into Jews before admitting them to an inheritance in Yisra’ēl. Both parties were present in the Temple in Acts 21. On the question of Jewish nationalism, the radical party, the strict party, and the unbelieving Jews were all on the same political side. Their emissaries persecuted Paul in one degree or another, though perhaps not as much as the unbelieving Jews. The point is that they wanted to compromise with Jewish Nationalism, even at the cost of sacrificing the full truth of the good news. We see this exact same trend in Messianic Judaism which is sending non-Jews away from Torah unless they are prepared to become Jews. It is quite obvious that the average Messianic Jew is still not prepared to accept non-Jews as the house of Yisra’ēl on an equal basis. They are afraid they will be persecuted by the Rabbis and also by the lawless Church if they accept that.
All the emissaries eventually saw matters Paul’s way, though Gŏd had to do some dealing with Peter to get him to come around, but the average Jewish faithful person who accepted Mĕssiah never became very comfortable with accepting non-Jews on an equal basis, and the non-Jews misunderstood much because of the teaching of the Pharisees tradition, and anti-Semitism increasing from the growing Gnostic movement.
6:13‡ ^In this case Paul had to be correct, because they were following a sectarian calendar (cf. Gal. 4:10).
6:15† ^For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a renewed¹ creation.† See note on 5:6. Circumcision does not merit the keeping of all the commandments, and uncircumcision of a new convert does not condemn him. By analogy: baptism does not merit the grace of salvation, and unbaptism does not cause demerit unto damnation. Being circumcised or baptized are no danger to the faithful, but obedience, since the faithful realize they are signs of the faithful commitment they had before obeying the commandment. But to a new convert facing competing doctrines from Rome or the Rabbis, they are dangerous.
6:15¹ ^Paul explains this more fully in Romans 12:12 with the words τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοὸς, “the renewal of the mind.” This is also parallel to “faithfulness working through love” in 5:6. What must not be assumed into Paul’s works is the Gnostic idea of spiritual perfection. The imperative in Romans 12:2 and the explanation of 5:6 serve to prevent this, as well is Paul’s hope for them in 6:18.
Paul’s καινός is also explained by ἀνακαινώσεως in Titus 3:5, “and renewal by the Holy Spirit.” It is evident to this extent that renew and new are both used to mean
6:16‡ ^And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them—even upon the Yisra’ēl of the Almĭghty.‡ The key to this text is the word καὶ, translated here “even.” Called explanatory. Friberg, “to explain what preceded
Even upon the Yisra’ēl of the Almĭghty. Paul’s aim here is to once again say that the non-Jews who confirm their faithfulness to Mĕssiah really are counted and included as the seed of A̕v̱raham (cf. Gal. 3:29). Part of the circumcision argument made by his opponents clearly would be the claim that anyone uncircumcised is “not Yisra’ēl.” The opponents, by denying this status, deny salvation to the non-Jew. It is, of course, to be observed, once again, that many men of Yisra’ēl were uncircumcised leading up to the re-circumicison of the nation at Gilgal on the plains of Yeri̱ḥō. Are we then to deny them the status of being Yisra’ēl before they reached the land? This is Paul’s argument, and his canon. The faithful are saved, and part of the nation before they are circumcised, just as the faithful are also part of the assembly of Yisra’ēl before they are immersed. This is just as he argues in Romans 4. Paul’s canon is the rule of faithfulness, and not blowing one minor commandment all out of shape for non-Jews who live under exilic circumstances from the land. Anyone who is uncircumcised can do so in accordance with Paul’l canon when they feel right about it, and not under compulsion from the doctrine of the heretics which is like unto the Catholic doctrine of baptism. Universal circumcision will only be enforced when all Yisra’ēl returns to the land following the precedent given in Yehōshū‘a.
Additionally by recognizing the status of the non-Jew with the faithful commitment as Yisra’ēl before circumcision, it is made plain that being circumcised does not make a person Jewish. For the non-Jew is already returned to the house of Yisra’ēl. Therefore, Paul’s canon is not replacement theology. Rather it preserves both the house of Yehūdah, and the house of Yisra’ēl in their unique tribal status according to the prophecy of Ezekiel 37 and Paul’s discourse on the book of Hosea in Romans 9.
Dispensational theology wishes to make two classes here, namely Gentiles and Israel so as to keep Israel and the Gentiles separated. This interpretation many Messianic Jews wish for also, namely those refusing the recognize the existence of the house of Yisra’ēl. But Paul’s designation of the non-Jews as the seed of A̕v̱raham and heirs according to the promise forbid that conclusion, as well as Ezekiel 37 and the two sticks prophecy, and Paul’s argument in Romans 9:22-26. The Dispensationalists have completely missed the mystery of the kingdom (cf. Eph. 3). Generally these two groups charge that identifying the non-Jew with Israel is replacement theology. But this charge has never been true (in this case) because either it has been responded to by 1. saying that the Church is
Heinrich Meyer remarks:
“But according as καί is taken either as
The Expositor’s remarks: “καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ: yea upon the Israel of God. καί is not properly copulative here, but intensive. Those who walk by the rule of the Spirit are declared to be indeed the true Israel of God.” Also the
“And upon the Israel of God.—The benediction is addressed, not to two distinct sets of persons (“those who walk by this rule”
John Gill, “and upon the Israel of God; which is a further description of the persons, for whom he prays for these blessings; and is not to be understood by way of distinction from them, but as an amplification of their character; and as pointing out the Israel, by way of emphasis, the Israel, or Israelites.”
6:18† ^An unusual form of Greeting used in 2Tim. 4:22 and Phil. 1:25. The Greeting is addressed to he faithful in Galatia, those who abide by the ruling in vs. 15-16. The new creation is the restoration of the spirit, parallel also to faithfulness working through love in 5:6. See also Titus 3:5. Paul is hoping for them the continuation of their sanctification by the work of the Spĭrit in their spirits, through the presence of the loving-kindness of A̕dōnai̱ Yĕshūa̒. Romans 12:2 shows that