Galatians 2 v 17 – 19 - Jesus – Not a servant of self-forfeiture and loss

 ‘But if seeking judicial approval and being made rightwise within His Anointed, we ourselves have been found self-forfeiters, then is His Anointed a servant of self-forfeiture and loss? May it not come into being! 18 Because if I am once more constructing these what I have torn down and demolished, I am standing myself together with being contrary, 19 because I, [ego], by means of law, died to law, in order that I live to God’, (Galatians 2 v 17 - 19).

First, Paul anticipates a potential objection. Peter, Barnabas and other Jews in Galatia had sought judicial approval within the Messiah. But they were now in error, they were ‘not walking straight towards the truth of the gospel’, (verse 14). They were turning back to the written codes of Sinai Covenant law and insisting that male Gentile Christians also had to be circumcised in agreement with that law. The objection that Paul considers is this – If Christians are in error is the Messiah a servant of self-forfeiture? In not advocating circumcision, is the Messiah serving error? 

Paul replies, ‘May it never come to happen!’. So what is the situation with Peter, Barnabas and the Jewish Christians that have ‘shrunk back’? Paul answers by supposing a situation in which it is himself who is in error. He says ‘If I am once more constructing these that I have torn down and demolished…’. In heralding the gospel, Paul has torn down and demolished requirements that exist under the written codes of the Sinai Covenant. This is something that Christian legalists also struggle with. But it is clear that Paul is not demanding that male Gentile Christians had to be circumcised, and this is contrary to what is required under Sinai Covenant law. In the same way he was not insisting that Christians had to engage in making sacrifices, nor was he directing Christians to the Ten Commandments. So he says that if he now changes course and starts to once again insist on, and construct these practices – circumcision, sacrifices and directing to the written codes of Sinai Covenant law – things that he has previously torn down, then ‘I am standing myself together with being contrary’. In other words, ‘If I do this then I am being inconsistent and I am contradicting myself’. 

But if he insists on reinstating these practices that he has previously torn down, this is more than a simple ‘change of policy’ or a ‘U turn’. It contradicts Paul’s position as a Christian. Why? ‘Because I, [ego], by means of law, died to law, in order that I live to God’. This is consistent with what Paul says in Romans 7 v 4, where he says that the Christian’s ‘old self’ is put to death by the law that reveals his self-forfeiture and loss. Christians are placed in union with the Messiah by means of the Breath, and this means that they are crucified with him, but the law is brought to completion by means of the body of the Messiah as the Lamb of God without stain or blemish. The law, by means of the body of the Messiah, is brought to completion, penetrating into those who are placed in union with him becoming free, away from the law, to stand within divine judicial approval within the Messiah. They are roused up to Life with him by means of the Breath. Because they died within the Messiah, the written codes of Covenant law are rendered idle, and they are roused up from the dead as a ‘new self’.

Galatians 2 v 14 – 16 - The Christian challenge to legalists

 ‘But when I saw them not walking straight towards the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of all, ‘If you, being a Jew first of all, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, why are you compelling the Gentiles to live like a Jew? 15 We [are] natural born Jews, and absolutely not from out of ethnic [Gentile] self-forfeiture and no share, 16 but we know that a man is absolutely not judicially approved or made rightwise from out of actions of law, if not by means of persuasion and entrusting Jesus His Anointed. We penetrate towards being faithfully persuaded of Jesus, His Anointed, to the point of obedience, in order that we are judicially approved and made rightwise from out of faith in His Anointed, not by means of law actions, because all flesh will not be judicially approved or made rightwise by means of law works’, (Galatians 2 v 14 – 16). 

Paul was not one to mince his words. He confronted Peter in front of everyone when he saw him acting contrary to the gospel, ‘not walking straight towards the truth of the gospel’. In what way was Peter in error? He was separating himself away from Christians who were Gentiles. But more than this, it would seem that Peter was aligning himself with the assertive, legalistic Jews who had recently arrived, and he was now compelling male Gentile Christians to be circumcised according to divine law. First of all, Paul exposes Peter’s inconsistency. He says, ‘You are first of all a Jew, and under the equality of the gospel you are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew. So why are you now compelling Gentiles to live like a Jew?’ Peter’s approach was a contradiction.

Then Paul, who was himself a Jew, reminds Peter of their heritage and their new position within the Messiah. Unlike Jewish proselytes, Paul and Peter are natural born Jews. They are not from out of the self-forfeiture of Gentiles. Paul and Peter both knew that if an individual is not judicially approved by means of persuasion and entrusting Jesus - God’s Anointed - then they are absolutely not judicially approved from out of his or her labours and efforts to observe the written codes of divine law, such as the requirement to be circumcised.  

Hebrew Christians, like Gentile Christians, penetrate towards being persuaded of Jesus, God’s Anointed, to the point of obedience. This means that Jews, like Gentiles, are judicially approved and made rightwise from out of faith – entrustment to the point of obedience - in His Anointed. Hebrew Christians are not judicially approved or made rightwise by means of law actions, says Paul, because all flesh will not be judicially approved or made rightwise by means of energy and work invested in trying to observe the requirements of the written codes of divine law. Even though Jews possess divine law and have this advantage over Gentiles, God will not judicially approve or make rightwise even one natural born Jewish individual as a result of them labouring and expending their energy in trying to observe the injunctions of divine law. 

Galatians 2 v 12, 13 - Christians and Jewish legalists – The problem stated

 ‘Before some came away from James, he [Peter] was eating with Gentiles. But when they came he shrunk back and separated himself, fearful of those from out of circumcision, 13 and the remainder of Jews also played the part with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away together with their acting the part’, (Galatians 2 v 12, 13). 

Paul states that because of the free gift of the Messiah, when it comes to Christians there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles. Previously, Jews, as God’s chosen ethnic group, separated themselves away from other nations, races and tribes – referred to in Scripture as ‘Gentiles’ or ‘Greeks’. Jews did not eat with Gentiles. But Peter, as a Christian Jew, had embraced what was for him this new equality and so he ate with Gentile Christians. 

But in Antioch, some Jews came away from James, though they were not necessarily authorised by him, (Acts 15 v 24), and they were emphatic in re-emphasising traditional Jewish practices, including Jews not eating with ‘unclean’ Gentile ‘outsiders’. They also emphasised the requirement of Covenant law, that males who were seeking to serve God were to be circumcised. This was originally an instruction to Abraham, patriarch of the Jews, and later this instruction was enshrined in the written codes of divine law. It was the first injunction for Jews and it was also a requirement for Gentile males who sought to embrace the worship and service of YHVH by becoming Jewish proselytes.

So when these rather assertive Jews appeared on the scene, Peter became fearful of them, and he shrunk back and separated himself from eating with Gentiles, contrary to the gospel. Then other Jewish or Hebrew Christians also began to behave in the same way, carried away by this fear and by what their fellow Jews were doing. Even Barnabas was caught up in this. But Paul was not happy with this situation at all.

Covenant law, flesh, set-apart Breath and the promise of God

 I want to continue the discussion about Christians and their relationship to divine law by looking at Paul’s letter to the Galatians. I am concerned to explore the theme of legalism and the Christian’s relationship to Covenant law because a few decades ago I spent some years within a legalistic Christian fellowship. I know from first hand experience how depressing, discouraging and disheartening a legalistic fellowship can be, and how it can lead a Christian to be imprisoned. The legalist’s constant reference to Christians consistently failing to keep the principles and injunctions of what they define as God’s (moral) law can serve to promote an orientation of failure, helplessness and entrapment. Under such teaching, Christians may develop a sense of impotence when serving God moment-by-moment, a sense that they are powerless victims at the mercy of their ungodly fleshly impulses and desires, constantly falling short of what God approves of, and thus incurring God’s displeasure. Such legalistic teaching can lead to a joyless fellowship that can in turn lead to its members criticising and judging one another.

Christian legalists may not completely disagree with this since they propose that the intention of Covenant law is to drive both unbelievers and Christians to entrust the Messiah. This principle is indeed true for ‘outsiders’ or unbelievers’, especially those who are seeking divine approval by their own efforts to keep God’s law. But for those having embraced the Messiah by faith, turning back to efforts to observe divine (moral) law as a means to live a set-apart life is portrayed by both Paul and the writer of the letter to the Hebrews, as a backward step. If pursued enough it risks denying or negating the Messiah. Emphasis on, and regular reference to, divine law leads even Christians to a sense of their pervasive guilt and failure. But legalists propose that this then ‘drives’ Christians (and unbelievers) to the Messiah. That is their ‘dynamic process’ when it comes to living a godly life, but it is not what is presented to Christians by the Apostles.   

Even so, legalism can be very difficult to argue against because its Christian advocates make many appeals and references to Scripture. After all, Covenant law itself is part of Old Testament Scripture. So legalists may imply, or even openly and directly state, that to criticise legalism is to criticise the Word of God itself. Criticism of the legalist dynamic is portrayed as another example of failure. Such critics may have their loyalty to God or even their salvation, questioned. I know. I’ve seen it happen and experienced it myself. And of course, legalists almost always also accuse or warn their critics of supporting liberalism or permissiveness. Thus it is that Christians may be ensnared by these kinds of tactics.

If Paul’s letter to the Romans looks at divine law, flesh and the set-apart Breath, then his letter to the Galatians looks at divine law, flesh and the promise of God to Abraham and his seed. I want to get straight to heart of the theme – namely the arrival of Jewish legalists who insisted that male Gentile Christians should be circumcised according to Covenant law. So I am not going to comment on the early section of Galatians. 

By way of introduction I will give an exceptionally brief overview here of the early part of Galatians. Paul states that there is only one gospel, one good news message. But then he says, ‘I marvel that you are transferring in this manner quickly away from your calling within the Messiah’s free gift into another good message – which is not another…there are some troubling you, desiring to turn and change the good news of the Messiah’, (Galatians 1 v 6, 7). Paul then explains his background and defends his delegated authority as an Apostle, stating that he had received approval from the other Apostles. In other words he is not some eccentric rogue itinerant preacher making up his own good news. It is in chapter 2 v 12 that Paul states the nature of his concern.

New resource - Section-by-section Commentary on the Book of Revelation

 

A complete Commentary on the Book of Revelation is now available HERE. The site offers a section-by-section exploration and Commentary on the Book of Revelation, completely free. It offers an important and relevant resource for personal study or study groups at this present time. 

New series coming soon

 New series on Paul's letter to the Galatians coming soon.

'God's promise in relation to Covenant Law'

Also coming soon, a link to a new website that will have a complete commentary on the Book of Revelation