The Galatian Suppositions

[Netchaplain]

When Paul wrote galatians, Galatians 1:6 was Paul saying that many of the Galatians had adopted the Law (bewitched) This is not a Greek phrase of possibility, but of something that actually took place.

Appreciate your input, and "bewitched" is a bit of a strong usage, but I still think if it were more than just an influence ("bewitched") it would be phrased something like "have not" or "will not," instead of "should not obey the truth." Especially considering Paul in the following verse reminding them that were saved by faith, and not works.

It's clear the Galatians were deceived enough to contemplate the error, but the Epistle to me presents only confirmation that they remained in the faith of the Gospel of Christ.

 

[GracePeace]

Gal 5:7 "Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?" Myself, I'm looking also at the conclusion of Galatians in Chapter 6, and it never shows them as having chosen to accept the false works teaching, for they never made it to the point of circumcision, without which the Law could not have been followed.

Gal 6:12 Those who are trying to force you to be circumcised want to look good to others. They don’t want to be persecuted for teaching that the cross of Christ alone can save. v13 They only want you to be circumcised so they can boast about it and claim you as their disciples. (NLT)

"You observe days" and "whoever has been circumcised" means many had indeed bought into the lie and fallen from grace--for which reason Paul was "in pangs of labor until Christ be formed in you again". Why "again"? They had deserted God, been severed from Christ.

 

[GracePeace]

When Paul wrote galatians, Galatians 1:6 was Paul saying that many of the Galatians had adopted the Law (bewitched) This is not a Greek phrase of possibility, but of something that actually took place.

Stop using logic. Words do not have meaning here. Superimposition of a predetermined narrative will show us the truth here!

 

[Netchaplain]

"You observe days" and "whoever has been circumcised" means many had indeed bought into the lie

Paul was declaring this to every man there whether Jew or Gentile (Gal 5:3) who were already circumcised. I would think this would exclude these Gentile Christians, considering in the last Chapter that the Judaizers were still "desiring" them to be circumcised (Gal 6:13).

 

[GracePeace]

Paul was declaring this to every man there whether Jew or Gentile (Gal 5:3) who were already circumcised. I would think this would exclude these Gentile Christians, considering in the last Chapter that the Judaizers were still "desiring" them to be circumcised (Gal 6:13).

LOL So Christ was of no avail to Paul because he was circumcised? What a mess. Dump Calvinism.

 

[GracePeace]

I would think this would exclude these Gentile Christians, considering in the last Chapter that the Judaizers were still "desiring" them to be circumcised (Gal 6:13).

Nope, Paul says he confronted this very same error before (Gentiles living under Law) in Gal 2 (where Peter was misleading the Church).

The obvious reality was that the teaching hadn't yet completely overtaken the Church--some had been bewitched some had not (yet).
This common sense reading just by chance comports with the precedent cited (when Peter was not walking according to the truth and was misleading the Church some Gentiles had submitted to the falsehood and received circumcision and some had not).

 

[Netchaplain]

Nope, Paul says he confronted this very same error before (Gentiles living under Law) in Gal 2 (where Peter was misleading the Church).

The obvious reality was that the teaching hadn't yet completely overtaken the Church--some had been bewitched some had not (yet).
This common sense reading just by chance comports with the precedent cited (when Peter was not walking according to the truth and was misleading the Church some Gentiles had submitted to the falsehood and received circumcision and some had not).

I think we've covered enough to establish our personal understanding on this issue. Thanks for your input!

 

[GracePeace]

I think we've covered enough to establish our personal understanding on this issue. Thanks for your input!

Thanks!

 

[Netchaplain]

Thanks!

I don't know if this is any interest to anyone, but the reason Paul rebuked Peter is shown in the proceeding verse 12. He still had yet to learn the oneness of all Christians, as I'm certain was the case for the rest, because Paul had to show them what Peter didn't get in his vision and communication with the Lord in Acts 11.

 

[GracePeace]

I don't know if this is any interest to anyone, but the reason Paul rebuked Peter is shown in the proceeding verse 12. He still had yet to learn the oneness of all Christians, as I'm certain was the case for the rest, because Paul had to show them what Peter didn't get in his vision and communication with the Lord in Acts 11.

Nope, he didn't need to "learn" anything. He knew he was being a "hypocrite". It explicitly states he erred because he feared the Jewish believers--"the fear of man brings a snare".
Irrespectively, Peter was not walking according to the truth and was misleading the Gentiles and causing them to live under the Law... but not all had been convinced, just as we see here in Galatians (some had begun observing Torah prescribed days and had gotten circumcised and some had not).

 

[Netchaplain]

Nope, he didn't need to "learn" anything. He knew he was being a "hypocrite". It explicitly states he erred because he feared the Jewish believers--"the fear of man brings a snare".
Irrespectively, Peter was not walking according to the truth and was misleading the Gentiles and causing them to live under the Law... but not all had been convinced, just as we see here in Galatians (some had begun observing Torah prescribed days and had gotten circumcised and some had not).

The only issue I saw was related to the "custom" (not in the Law) of not eating with Gentiles. You may already know, but when Peter was told, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common," it was primarily in reference to the Gentiles also receiving the Spirit of God (Act 11:17).

Of course, the overall issue is that of mixing Law with the faith in the Gospel of Christ, which was Paul's most often conflictions, and which still continue in ignorance among them not differentiating between the two dispensations.

 

[GracePeace]

The only issue I saw was related to the "custom" (not in the Law) of not eating with Gentiles. You may already know, but when Peter was told, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common," it was primarily in reference to the Gentiles also receiving the Spirit of God (Act 11:17).

Of course, the overall issue is that of mixing Law with the faith in the Gospel of Christ, which was Paul's most often conflictions, and which still continue in ignorance among them not differentiating between the two dispensations.

If that's all you saw you haven't read it. It specifies Gentiles were submitting to circumcision.
Also it's not just a "custom" of not eating with Gentiles, that was because they were observing the Law which forbids eating certain foods--precisely the same error being addressed in Galatia.

 

[Netchaplain]

If that's all you saw you haven't read it. It specifies Gentiles were submitting to circumcision.
Also it's not just a "custom" of not eating with Gentiles, that was because they were observing the Law which forbids eating certain foods--precisely the same error being addressed in Galatia.

We'll just be seeing this Epistle differently, but I've learned it best to check wit the Bible commentator community for accuracy, which many do not do.

 

[GracePeace]

We'll just be seeing this Epistle differently, but I've learned it best to check wit the Bible commentator community for accuracy, which many do not do.

I double-checked, and I was wrong : it was in Jerusalem that it was explicitly stated that the Gentile believers were being convinced to receive "circumcision" (the same error being dealt with all throughout the epistle), but the incident I'd raised was the one in Antioch.

That said, however, the issue Paul had with Peter is laid bare in the following verses : "“If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? We who are Jews by birth and not Gentile “sinners” know that a man is not justified by works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.”

So, just as I've said, Peter, by not eating with Gentiles in the presence of the Jewish Christians, was attempting to appear to live "under Law" to win the approval of the Jewish Christians--the unintended consequence, however, was that he was causing the Gentiles to "live like a Jew". In case there is any uncertainty as to what is meant by "live like a Jew", it is defined for us : "justified by works of the Law". As I've already explained, again, this is precisely the same issue being addressed in the Galatian Church in this epistle (Galatians 5:3, 4).

 

[BloodBought 1953]

Absolutely :
1) These had heard the Gospel, and had begun by receiving the Spirit by hearing with faith, but were then trying to be perfected by works of Law (Gal 3:1-5). This is why Paul says they were "deserting [God] Who calls you in the grace of Christ" (Gal 1:6) which is the same as "fallen from grace severed from Christ" (Gal 5:4)--they'd been with God but were then deserting God by means of disbelief with respect to God and belief with respect to a "persuasion" that did "not come from [God]" (ie, a false gospel).
If not, Galatians 5:7 makes no sense : "You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth." "Ran" refers to faith--"I have run my race. I have kept the faith." They had formerly had faith in God, they had obeyed the truth, but they were now erring and believing in lies, and had fallen from grace.
2) As far as Paul's "confidence in the Lord", what it doesn't mean is "the Lord told me you would persevere so I have confidence". This "in the Lord" is the same as "Children, obey your parents in the Lord" and "they may marry, only in the Lord"--this refers to a spiritual position a person is in--Paul's "confidence in the Lord" means he's being supplied with confidence by grace and he is acknowledging and glorifying God for the grace--just like when he says "what I am I am by the grace of God" "I was abundant in labors above them all yet not I but the grace with me."
As for the intended effect of his statement "I am confident... you will", it's just a way of speaking encouragingly to them--"I know you did wrong, but I know it was a mistake and that you will now return to the right."
That said, from what I understand, history seems to show that the Judaizers won out--from what I've been told, no other correspondences with that church are preserved, no mention is made of them afterward, and Paul makes no travels to the Church.
3) As opposed to what many Reformed want to insist, what Galatians DOES NOT say is "justification is not by the works of the Law, therefore just believe". What is Paul's argument here? It doesn't deal with going from unregenerate to regenerate, it deals with going from imperfect to perfect--"are you now seeking to be perfected by the flesh?" (Gal 3). What this is teaching is that, even with the best of intentions, we can get "how to live before God, be sanctified, be spiritually perfected" so wrong that it is tantamount to a denial of the Gospel. Notice that when the Galatians are led away from "works of the Law" they are never led to "faith in Jesus"; rather, they are led to "serve one another through love" and "faith which works through love" and "love is the fulfillment of the entire Law". This is about "how Christians are supposed to serve God" not "how to get saved". Now, the fact that Paul describes this "after salvation" activity as "you who seek to be justified" (they are seeking "justification") is just a proof that the Reformed understanding of the term is deficient. In other words, they are not seeking to "get saved", or "go from unsaved to saved", they are seeking "perfection" and "sanctification" and "maturity"--THIS is described as "justification".
So, what does "justification" mean?
Well, we know that Romans 2 speaks of a coming judgment at which only those who do the Law will be "justified" and repaid with eternal life (he then cites the Gentile believers--they are partakers of the New Covenant, the Spirit writing God's Law on their hearts (Jer 31:31-34)--as examples of such men). "Well, doesn't Paul militate against 'works of the Law' for justification?" The problem is not that the Law is unspiritual (it is spiritual and holy and good Ro 7), the problem is that it "relies on sinful flesh" (Ro 8:3)--but we do not nullify the Law by faith (Ro 3:31), rather we "fulfill the righteous requirement of the Law" (Ro 8:4) so that we can qualify, even without knowledge of the Law (Ro 2:14), as "doers of the Law" (Ro 2:13). Galatians 6:6-10 says the same--good deeds are seeds that will yield the harvest of eternal life "in due time".
There's another, perhaps more "full-orbed", so called, view on what "justification" means--the New Pauline Perspective. It teaches that "justification" is a term which describes "belonging to the family of Israel, the nation slated to be justified, vindicated, in the sight of the nations, at the eschatological judgment".

Either way, the Reformed view is truncated, deficient, Scripturally anemic and clumsy, ignorant.

So, what does "justification" mean?

Absolutely :
1) These had heard the Gospel, and had begun by receiving the Spirit by hearing with faith, but were then trying to be perfected by works of Law (Gal 3:1-5). This is why Paul says they were "deserting [God] Who calls you in the grace of Christ" (Gal 1:6) which is the same as "fallen from grace severed from Christ" (Gal 5:4)--they'd been with God but were then deserting God by means of disbelief with respect to God and belief with respect to a "persuasion" that did "not come from [God]" (ie, a false gospel).
If not, Galatians 5:7 makes no sense : "You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth." "Ran" refers to faith--"I have run my race. I have kept the faith." They had formerly had faith in God, they had obeyed the truth, but they were now erring and believing in lies, and had fallen from grace.
2) As far as Paul's "confidence in the Lord", what it doesn't mean is "the Lord told me you would persevere so I have confidence". This "in the Lord" is the same as "Children, obey your parents in the Lord" and "they may marry, only in the Lord"--this refers to a spiritual position a person is in--Paul's "confidence in the Lord" means he's being supplied with confidence by grace and he is acknowledging and glorifying God for the grace--just like when he says "what I am I am by the grace of God" "I was abundant in labors above them all yet not I but the grace with me."
As for the intended effect of his statement "I am confident... you will", it's just a way of speaking encouragingly to them--"I know you did wrong, but I know it was a mistake and that you will now return to the right."
That said, from what I understand, history seems to show that the Judaizers won out--from what I've been told, no other correspondences with that church are preserved, no mention is made of them afterward, and Paul makes no travels to the Church.
3) As opposed to what many Reformed want to insist, what Galatians DOES NOT say is "justification is not by the works of the Law, therefore just believe". What is Paul's argument here? It doesn't deal with going from unregenerate to regenerate, it deals with going from imperfect to perfect--"are you now seeking to be perfected by the flesh?" (Gal 3). What this is teaching is that, even with the best of intentions, we can get "how to live before God, be sanctified, be spiritually perfected" so wrong that it is tantamount to a denial of the Gospel. Notice that when the Galatians are led away from "works of the Law" they are never led to "faith in Jesus"; rather, they are led to "serve one another through love" and "faith which works through love" and "love is the fulfillment of the entire Law". This is about "how Christians are supposed to serve God" not "how to get saved". Now, the fact that Paul describes this "after salvation" activity as "you who seek to be justified" (they are seeking "justification") is just a proof that the Reformed understanding of the term is deficient. In other words, they are not seeking to "get saved", or "go from unsaved to saved", they are seeking "perfection" and "sanctification" and "maturity"--THIS is described as "justification".
So, what does "justification" mean?
Well, we know that Romans 2 speaks of a coming judgment at which only those who do the Law will be "justified" and repaid with eternal life (he then cites the Gentile believers--they are partakers of the New Covenant, the Spirit writing God's Law on their hearts (Jer 31:31-34)--as examples of such men). "Well, doesn't Paul militate against 'works of the Law' for justification?" The problem is not that the Law is unspiritual (it is spiritual and holy and good Ro 7), the problem is that it "relies on sinful flesh" (Ro 8:3)--but we do not nullify the Law by faith (Ro 3:31), rather we "fulfill the righteous requirement of the Law" (Ro 8:4) so that we can qualify, even without knowledge of the Law (Ro 2:14), as "doers of the Law" (Ro 2:13). Galatians 6:6-10 says the same--good deeds are seeds that will yield the harvest of eternal life "in due time".
There's another, perhaps more "full-orbed", so called, view on what "justification" means--the New Pauline Perspective. It teaches that "justification" is a term which describes "belonging to the family of Israel, the nation slated to be justified, vindicated, in the sight of the nations, at the eschatological judgment".

Either way, the Reformed view is truncated, deficient, Scripturally anemic and clumsy, ignorant.

So, what does "justification" mean?

Not sure .....But I heard a story about a man who saw himself as Sinner and simply turned to God for Mercy and Forgiveness —- He cried out with a Contrite Heart, “ Lord , have Mercy on me , a Sinner”
......Jesus said that man went home ‘ Justified” ........I figured out once that if it worked for “that” guy, it should work for me also.....it did......

“ Justification” means that you are seen by God as “ Just as if I’ve Never Sinned” .....In Reality I am the True Chief of Sinners, But God takes my Faith in His Son and Counts it as Righteousness....Amazing Grace is what it all amounts to.....Get ya some by Resting in the Gospel Of Grace —- 1Cor15:2-4.......

 

[GracePeace]

So, what does "justification" mean?

Not sure .....But I heard a story about a man who saw himself as Sinner and simply turned to God for Mercy and Forgiveness —- He cried out with a Contrite Heart, “ Lord , have Mercy on me , a Sinner”
......Jesus said that man went home ‘ Justified” ........I figured out once that if it worked for “that” guy, it should work for me also.....it did......

“ Justification” means that you are seen by God as “ Just as if I’ve Never Sinned” .....In Reality I am the True Chief of Sinners, But God takes my Faith in His Son and Counts it as Righteousness....Amazing Grace is what it all amounts to.....Get ya some by Resting in the Gospel Of Grace —- 1Cor15:2-4.......

Romans 2:6-16 says there is a day of judgment coming at which time only doers of the Law will be justified and repaid with eternal life. Paul then cites believing Gentiles as examples of men who will be justified in response to their being doers of the Law (by means of the Spirit writing the Law of God on their hearts, in accordance with the New Covenant promise in Jeremiah 31:31-34).

 

[FHII]

Paul was admonishing the Galatian Churches by informing them that the admixture of the Law with the Gospel of Christ was an attempt by the false teachers to “pervert” the Gospel of Christ (1:7), and nowhere in this Epistle does there exist any conclusions that suggests the Galatian Christians accepted and followed them. Since this Epistle is absent of any confirmation of such, the phrase “soon removed” can be understood in the sense of only considering their enticement. Therefore, the meaning of “you are fallen from grace” (5:4) can be paraphrased as “it would be as though you have fallen from grace.”

Very interesting... Never thought about it that light. However, while I agree that Paul saw a chance to correct it (praise God for correction), they were seriously in danger and leaning that way.

Consider verse 5:7-8

Galatians 5:7-8 KJV
Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? [8] This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.

They did run well (past tense and in context were not currently running well). Someone did hinder them and currently they were not obeying the truth. It was a persuasion not given by God.

They were not a lost cause, but they were on the wrong road.

Since this Epistle is absent of any confirmation of such, the phrase “soon removed” can be understood in the sense of only considering their enticement.

Because of what I have noted, I must respectfully disagree. I do not believe they were fully persuaded and thus not a lost cause. However, yes they were doing those things Paul warned them not to do.

More evidence:


Galatians 3:1 KJV
O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

It didn't say who is trying to bewitch you. The "poison" had been injected and was taking its toll already. Yet, the damage was reversible and the spread to full corruption hindered.

 

[GracePeace]

Very interesting... Never thought about it that light. However, while I agree that Paul saw a chance to correct it (praise God for correction), they were seriously in danger and leaning that way.

Consider verse 5:7-8

Galatians 5:7-8 KJV
Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? [8] This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.

They did run well (past tense and in context were not currently running well). Someone did hinder them and currently they were not obeying the truth. It was a persuasion not given by God.

They were not a lost cause, but they were on the wrong road.

Because of what I have noted, I must respectfully disagree. I do not believe they were fully persuaded and thus not a lost cause. However, yes they were doing those things Paul warned them not to do.

More evidence:


Galatians 3:1 KJV
O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

It didn't say who is trying to bewitch you. The "poison" had been injected and was taking its toll already. Yet, the damage was reversible and the spread to full corruption hindered.

So glad someone has some common sense! LOL

It seems it takes a PhD in theology to miss what is apparent.

 

[BloodBought 1953]

Oops....sorry....

 

[BloodBought 1953]

Romans 2:6-16 says there is a day of judgment coming at which time only doers of the Law will be justified and repaid with eternal life. Paul then cites believing Gentiles as examples of men who will be justified in response to their being doers of the Law (by means of the Spirit writing the Law of God on their hearts, in accordance with the New Covenant promise in Jeremiah 31:31-34).

From Paul Ellis....” escape to Reality”...

The good news of heaven declares that everything comes to us as a free gift from our heavenly Father. But the bad news of earth says you better work baby, because there’s no such thing as a free lunch!

Your choice is grace or works. Either the favor of God is given or earned, but it can’t be both.

The gospel that Jesus revealed and Paul preached proclaims it’s grace from start to finish. How then are we to explain these verses which suggest you must work to be blessed?

Jesus Paul
Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evilwill rise to be condemned. John (5:28-29) God will repay each person according to what they have done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. (Rom 2:6-8)
.

If these were the only verses in the Bible you could build a whole religion on the importance of doing good or being blessed through good works, and many have. Such a message appeals to our sense of right and wrong but it’s a cursed message that promotes self-trust and self-righteousness.

Let’s start with the words of Jesus who said “those who have done good will rise to live.” That’s very clear. There’s no ambiguity. If you “done good” you will live, but what does it mean to do good? Jesus tells us a few verses earlier:

I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. (John 5:24)

Doing good, as Jesus defines it, is hearing and believing Jesus. Nothing more, nothing less.

“That can’t be it. It’s too simple. There must be some work that God requires from me.”

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” (John 6:29)

Want to impress God? Then be impressed with Jesus. Want to do something good with your life? Then drop your cheap sacrifice and marvel at his infinitely sublime one.

Being persuaded that Jesus is who he says he is, and living from that persuasion, is the most productive thing you can do with your life. The seed of God’s word is fruitful. It will grow and bear a harvest all by itself. But we can certainly hinder that process through doubt and unbelief. Trying to make things happen is one of the most destructive things you can do. So don’t do it. Labor to enter his rest and stay there.