Leon Morris, 1996 Paul s claim that his apostleship is of divine origin as he said it is not through any man. Clearly some in the Galatian churches had belittled Paul and he begins his letter by reminding them of his credentials. Barclay conjectures that some of the Galatians had heard of Paul s life when he had been the most savage of all persecutors of the church; such a man, they would think, could never become a Christian preacher. But God had done what humanity could never do: he had transformed this persecutor and made an apostle out of him. Some people in the church strongly apposed to Paul and he loses no time in his letter in making it clear that he did not owe his position to them or to any human appointment, but to God alone. Paul normally says something complimentary in his opening greeting to a church, but there is here no reference to the faithful brothers on the like. The absence of such an expression probably reflects the difficulties that had arisen between him and the churches of Galatia. He is too deeply distressed for compliments. It is important that these Jewish Christian leaders came to see that God had entrusted Paul with a task that was different from their own. We should not understand the expression (Galatians 2:7) to mean that there were two gospels, a gospel for the circumcision and another for the uncircumcision. The New Testament makes it clear in all its writings that there is only one gospel (1 COR. 15:11). His opponents included the necessity of circumcision as part of the gospel message, but Paul emphatically repudiates that position. In no sense was Peter a rival of Paul; they simply had two different fields in which to preach the gospel. As his Galatian opponents evidently gave a large place to Peter, it was important for Paul to make it clear that there was no significant difference of opinion between the two apostles. They preached the same gospel Paul tells us these three men (Peter, James, brother of the Lord and John) seemed to be pillars, which clearly means that they were seen to be leading men among the Christians. If those 3 supported Paul, then he could not be said to be teaching errors as disastrous as those of which the Galatian Judaizers complained. The pillars gave Paul and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship (v. 9). This expression does not appear to be used elsewhere in the New Testament, but clearly the clasping of the right hands was a gesture of goodwill and approval. The agreement was not simply a working arrangement between diverging interpretations of the gospel, far less a cloak to conceal radical divisions; it expressed a genuine sense of a shared experience and common message and again a degree of recognition on the part of James in particular which has been insufficiently acknowledged in modern study of the period. And we must bear in mind that it did not prevent Paul from preaching to Jews outside Palestine; it was his custom to go to the synagogue when he began work in a new city. Paul s Clash With Peter (GAL. 2:11-14). The problem arose from the fact that strict Jews would not eat at the same table as the Gentiles. There were some foods that the Gentiles ate which were forbidden by the law of the Old Testament. Peter s experience in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10) should have convinced him -1-
that a Christian could eat foods that the Jewish law regarded as unclean and it is consistent with that of Antioch at first he was evidently quite happy to share the table with Gentile believers. Some scholars suggest that the liberal practice in Antioch was having an effect on the church in Jerusalem. Reports that the Jewish Christians in Antioch were not observing Jewish food laws may have been making things difficult for the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. In effect, Peter s practice of eating with non-jews in Antioch is making life more difficult for the Jerusalem church, which has a particular problem of coping with the increasing fervor of Jewish nationalists. So, it is suggested, James sent emissaries to urge the Jewish believers in Antioch to be more careful in their relations with Gentiles. [ MY NOTE: the author is interjecting ideas of what could have happened or what may have happened. Gentiles, especially Gentile converts knew what types of food was forbidden to eat among their Jewish-Christian brethren and would not bring such food(s) to insult their guests or hosts. The author fails to realize, probably because he may be from a Protestant or Lutheran background that the Gentiles themselves are unclean because of cultural differences and their ancestry. Notice Gal. 2; verse 12; Peter and Barnabas feared the circumcised men or the more orthodox Jewish Christians who may have hold the old law of not associating with the unclean like pagan Gentiles and the Samaritans not about unclean foods. Notice that foods was not mentioned, brought up or was the issue! Paul is trying to bond the differences between the orthodox Christian-Jews to these new, pagan Christian converts. The author even recalls the episode that Jesus ate with publicans and sinners which was not a common practice i.e.; those ceremonially unclean. Notice even then with Jesus, that unclean food was not the issue. Yet the author continues on talking more about the practice of such an issue during this time and the reason Paul rebuked Peter. It seems to me the author is leading to confusion and conjecture ideas that unclean food was involved or the main issue when no mention of it is said!] The gospel says nothing about conforming to Jewish food laws. This would not have been serous for Jewish Christians. It would simply mean that they kept on with the dietary habits they had formed in living according to the food laws that had always been part of their whole way of life and that they saw nothing in the gospel that meant they should renounce their lifetime practice. But for Gentiles it was different. They had never kept the Jewish food laws. If they did so now, this could mean only that they saw the keeping of those laws as part of the gospel. This as it was not, and they should not obscure the teachings of the gospel by introducing them. We should not miss the point that what Paul is saying had importance also for Jewish Christians who had continued to observe Jewish food laws. Such observances could not be seen as binding on Jewish Christians any more then on Gentile Christians. The use of foods as well as the practice of circumcision must be reevaluated in the light of the salvation Christ had died to bring. [ MY NOTE: The bible also doesn t mention anything about if one should not smoke cigarettes but is indirectly implied. Again, the author misses the critical point of Paul s message and adds his own conjecture of what happened 2000 years ago! If food was such an important part of the issue like circumcision then you would think Paul and others would talk or explain more about -2-
not bringing such foods to the table or don t insult your host or Jewish-Christians with such detestable foods. But, Paul never says nor talks about such food issues of clean/unclean. In addition, the author mentions the gospel says nothing about conforming to Jewish food laws. That s because that wasn t the issue circumcision for the males were! I m sure the Gentile converts would know about such food laws of the Jews and Christian Jews because both these groups followed and abided in them so I m sure these Gentile converts did not want to insult or start a disturbance among their hosts! How does the author know the Gentile converts never kept the Jewish food laws? I would think they would keep them because of what was mentioned. The author also says they saw nothing in the gospel that meant they should renounce their lifetime practice. Well of course not. The gospel hadn t been written yet. It was in the process or wasn t completed until much later. The author fails to clearly identify Paul s audience in Galatians. These Gentile Christians were known as God-Fearers who did follow and practice Judaism including the food laws just not circumcision. The same premise idea is: if you re invited to a dinner party put on by Mormons, you surly would not bring a bottle of wine or 6- pack of beer. It would cause an offense and am sure many would get up and leave the table or same something about it. PERSONAL EXAMPLE: When I was eating lunch after coming into the church with other brethren, I wanted to be sure I didn t offend and made sure not to order any ham or bacon food as I wanted to adhere to the food laws of God. But, I happened to order a clam chowder with my meal. Right at that time one of the guys at the table told me that clam chowder is unclean. Realizing this, I immediately changed my order. The point is that someone spoke up and corrected me as well as not to offend anyone else at the table. The same could be said about Peter and the Gentile converts. If these converts were bringing unclean food to the table with Peter, he would have said something and I would tend to believe that Paul would have written something about this in his epistles and writings. It wasn t food that was the object of the ordeal but these gentile converts of whom many considered unclean! Peter is a leader and feel he would have spoken up if unclean food was the issue ] It was fundamental to strict Jewish thinking that only those who kept the law of God were righteous all others were sinners. This could apply to Jews and, for example, in the gospels we read of publicans and sinners, Jews who did not keep the law. Jews could have a right relationship to God, but all the Gentiles were seen as necessarily sinners in his sight; how could they be anything else when they did not have the law? What made the Gentiles sinners in the estimation of the Jews was not only that they did not observe the law but also that they did not even posses it and consequently lacked the possibility of obtaining righteousness through it. The Christians, of course, saw themselves as God s covenant people, but that did not mean that in their view they or their converts were under the obligation to keep the law. The council of Jerusalem explicitly rejected the demand that Gentiles believers be required to be circumcised and to keep the law (Acts 15). And Paul sees the saving work of Christ as central, which means that Christians cannot be expected to be circumcised or to uphold the food laws. [ MY NOTE: Amazingly, the author, thus far, has not mention faith without works, is dead from the book of James see also; Matthew 5:17. The author fails to expound on the term -3-
law. The council rejected the demands for the Gentiles to be circumcised, but they also said that said Gentiles need to abstain from blood of meat and idol worshipping among others nothing about rejecting the clean and unclean food laws.] The old Paul is dead; the apostle goes as far as to say, but Christ lives in me (Phil. 1:21). This is a forceful way of making the point that his conversion to Christianity meant a complete change in his way of life. He saw now that upright living could never merit salvation. But at the same time Paul saw Christ is the Savior of all (Gal. 2:18-20). [ MY NOTE: This may mean that Paul now understood his old way of life as a strict Pharisee who adhered to all of the strict code of law and rituals finally realized that many were additional burdens put on by man but not sanctioned by Christ. Paul realized this and so put away the old Paul.] The people who were in error would have held that the cross is important, even if they saw their keeping of the law as what brought about their salvation. Paul will have none of this muddled thinking. The cross is at the heart of the Christian way and the cross means salvation by grace. Anything other than this is not Christian. [ MY NOTE: Obviously, it appears the author is Protestant or Lutheran in beliefs as he quotes and supports much of Luther s sayings. The author uses the cross as his definitive point which is sad because he s using an old Roman form of crucifixion, shame and death to remember Christ by or what stands for Christ a pagan symbol!] Clearly obedience to the law never brings about miraculous happenings and the only other possibility that Paul leaves open is the hearing of faith (Gal. 3:5). The way the Galatian believers should be walking is the way of faith, not the way of conformity to the Jewish law. [ MY NOTE: once again, the author does not expound on which Jewish law he is referring to. There are over 600 specific Jewish laws written. Does he mean all of Jewish laws? Throughout the book, the author is not clear. He also seems to forget that the first Christians were Jewish or from the Jewish background. I ve also noticed the author sticks to various translations of NIV, RSV, NRSV and GNB. It is known that the NIV leaves out many words in the NT and is not an accurate translation.] The law is concerned with doing things; it prescribes conduct. But faith is not concerned with doing things; it means trusting someone. And because scripture speaks of faith as the way to God, salvation cannot be by works. Faith and works may well exist together in the one life s indeed, they should exist together. But faith and works cannot both be the way to salvation. Doing something to merit salvation is one thing; trusting God to do what is needed is quite another. -4-
[ MY NOTE: Again, James did say that faith without works is dead. The author still has not addressed this.] The Judaizers had emphasized the significance of the law; in their eyes it was of central importance that converts should see the law as of divine origin and therefore as binding on all believers. Paul has denied that Christians are under any obligation to seek salvation by keeping the law. If is central to his whole argument that believers are saved by what Christ has done for them, to trust God, to retain a firm hold on the promises god has given them (Gal. 3:21). [ MY NOTE: Author does not mention where Christians are not required to keep the law nor does he explain what part of the law the Christians don t have to keep. Christ said he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill Matthew 5:17. The only point I can see is that the Christians don t have to do certain rituals of the law, i.e.; ritual washings, ritual wares pots/pans and other such rituals that became a burden. I also see the law of sacrifices may be another part of the law they are not obligated to do. Again, the author, like many other writers and scholars do not expound on what the law entails. It seems that many Gentile converts felt they should keep the law of annual sacrifices and possibly what the Judaizers were telling them that they should do. But Paul is saying that since Christ was the ultimate sacrifice then keeping such law sacrifices is no longer necessary; but keeping the faith in Christ.] Many commentators draw attention to an ancient prayer in which the Jewish man gives thanks that God has not made him a Gentile, a slave or a woman. It is in rebellion against such background that Paul affirms that there is neither Jew nor Greek. This means that the great divide between Jew and Gentile that meant so much to the Jews in general is meaningless. The Galatians thought they were making progress in the Christian faith when they embraced the teaching of the Judaizers. Paul saw them as essentially reverting to the lives they had led before they became Christians. The basic teaching of the gospel he preached was that Christ s death took away all the sins of those who trusted him. The lives the converted life they live as their response to what Christ had done for them and not as a way of acquiring merit in the sight of God. The Galatians had evidently lost sight of this and saw the conformity to the laws that the Judaizers taught them as a wonderful advance in the Christian way. Paul saw it as a return to the weak and beggarly elemental principles from which they had made their escape when they first believed. And moreover it meant enslaving themselves once more after they have once been set free (Gal. 4:9). [ MY NOTE: The author here doesn t seem to really clarify the weak and beggarly elemental principles may be more of spirits. This seems to say that the Galatians were reverting back to their pagan practices of a type of worship which involved elemental principles or stars/sky or heavenly worships.] -5-
The particular burden to which his converts were in danger of attaching themselves is that of slavery. This emphasizes the unrewarding way of life which the converts were seeking to undertake. They saw the acceptance of what the Judaizers were offering as the entrance into a more wonderful way of serving God. Paul saw it as a descent into slavery. The multitude of regulations (the Jews found 613 commandments in the Law, the books Genesis to Deuteronomy) or as such that even to remember them all was a burden and to keep them all bordered on the impossible. Small wonder that Paul referred to subjecting oneself to them all as entering into slavery (Gal. 5:1). [ MY NOTE: Interesting to note is the author pointing out the 613 commandments in the Law yet he didn t explain nor gave some examples. Also to note is that Paul never mentions the burden of the Sabbath, Holy Days or even clean/unclean foods because these were not burdensome and the Gentile converts tend to agree or there would be more of a distinct cry out or complaints against them. But one part of the law these Gentiles were saying was a burden; circumcision and rightly so. Author actually mentions one that love thy law but didn t expound on it in his book Psalms 119:165.] Author: was a formerly principal of Ridley College, Melbourne, Australia. He is widely regarded as a leading evangelical New Testament scholar of his generation. Among his numerous commentaries and studies in New Testament are the Gospel According to John, The Gospel According to Matthew, The Gospel According to St. Luke, The Epistle to the Romans, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, The Atonement and New Testament Theology. -6-