The Galatian Suppositions

[Ronald Nolette]

I agree, but the wrong was demonstrated by what did, which is not what he taught:

Barnes, Gal 2:14 "The fault was not that he taught error of doctrine, but that he sinned in conduct. Inspiration, though it kept the apostles from teaching error, did not keep them necessarily from sin. A man may always teach the truth, and yet be far from perfection in practice. The case here proves that Peter was not perfect, a fact proved by his whole life."
Galatians 2 - Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

this Galatian 2 verse is not connected to what was happening with the comment of bewitching! He rebuked Peter for his person al sin, but Gal. 3:1 is directed to the church as a whole in Galatia.

 

[Netchaplain]

The problem with your argument here is that this was a clearly Gentile church.

Hi, and thanks for tour reply! I believe the Galatian churches being Gentile believers were vulnerable to being approached by the "false brethren" (Gal 2:4). Gentiles, not being part of the Law like Paul was were easily persuaded. More than likely the Judaizers knew this and attempted to discredit the Gospel Paul was preaching, which was only a few years after he had begun this work in them (he was revisiting them to check on their status of growth in Christ).

1. That there was a significant Jewish presence in the church at all, which cannot be proven, and

2. That if there was, Paul was suddenly addressing them more exclusively.

Unless we're discussing different issues, the Judaizers were "brought in" unknowingly to the congregations.

If Paul knew exactly who these Judaizers were because they were already present within the Galatian congregation among them, he would not have asked them, "Who has bewitched you?" He would have known already, and would been addressing them in the letter.

Who do you mean by "addressing them," the believers or the deceivers?

 

[Hidden In Him]

Hi, and thanks for tour reply! I believe the Galatian churches being Gentile believers were vulnerable to being approached by the "false brethren" (Gal 2:4). Gentiles, not being part of the Law like Paul was were easily persuaded. More than likely the Judaizers knew this and attempted to discredit the Gospel Paul was preaching, which was only a few years after he had begun this work in them (he was revisiting them to check on their status of growth in Christ).

Agreed.

Unless we're discussing different issues, the Judaizers were "brought in" unknowingly to the congregations.

Yes, or simply allowed in.

Who do you mean by "addressing them," the believers or the deceivers?

The deceivers, if they were already permanently part of the congregation. Instead it reads more like they were people creeping in to mislead, but not regular members of the Galatian church.

 

[Netchaplain]

this Galatian 2 verse is not connected to what was happening with the comment of bewitching! He rebuked Peter for his person al sin, but Gal. 3:1 is directed to the church as a whole in Galatia.

I agree, I mixed the issues. Thanks for the heads-up on # 56!

 

[FHII]

but I think the issue of knowing the outcome is important, and that there is enough Biblical support to determine a conclusion.

Do tell...

 

[Netchaplain]

Yes, or simply allowed in.

Could have been, but I would think "being brought in" has the sense of some of them knowing them from recently meeting them in Christian conversation somewhere. Regardless, the church was "unaware" they were false brethren trying to discredit Paul's teachings (Gal 1:7).

The deceivers, if they were already permanently part of the congregation. Instead it reads more like they were people creeping in to mislead, but not regular members of the Galatian church.

Good point, but I wouldn't think there was much time-lapse from the time they came in to the time Paul made his second visit to them, otherwise, possibly the situation may have progressed farther along enough to realize their false doctrine.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Good point, but I wouldn't think there was much time-lapse from the time they came in to the time Paul made his second visit to them, otherwise, possibly the situation may have progressed farther along enough to realize their false doctrine.

I agree. Obviously enough time had lapsed for several to be seriously effected by it, yet not enough where the full import of its implications would have settled in yet, which Paul was now bringing to light.

 

[Netchaplain]

I agree. Obviously enough time had lapsed for several to be seriously effected by it, yet not enough where the full import of its implications would have settled in yet, which Paul was now bringing to light.

Good comment!

 

[GracePeace]

Just want to mention that the only wrong Peter was in concerned him not eating with the Gentiles (Gal 2:12); as "the Jews did (Gal 2:14). This was not written in the Law but rather added for tradition. Like many other additions which weren't in the Law and were only "traditions of men" (Mat 15:9).

1. I've already addressed the issue of not eating with Gentiles and it being a matter of keeping the Law and it not merely being a tradition or custom--you are erring by conflating what was done here with what was denounced in Matthew 15:9, according to what I've already shared--you can go ahead and respond to that when you please.

2. Nope, according to Galatians 2:11-16, Peter was also guilty of "fearing man", of "hypocrisy" (and leading others into the same hypocrisy), of "not walking in accordance with the truth"--in addition to spreading the false doctrine of "justification by works of the Law".

 

[Netchaplain]

1. I've already addressed the issue of not eating with Gentiles and it being a matter of keeping the Law and it not merely being a tradition or custom--you are erring by conflating what was done here with what was denounced in Matthew 15:9, according to what I've already shared--you can go ahead and respond to that when you please.

2. Nope, according to Galatians 2:11-16, Peter was also guilty of "fearing man", of "hypocrisy" (and leading others into the same hypocrisy), of "not walking in accordance with the truth"--in addition to spreading the false doctrine of "justification by works of the Law".

I don't think we're within like enough understanding to continue discussing these issues. I fail to see how Peter's bad example of not eating with the Gentiles was related to the Law. There were no dietary ordinances in the Law concerning who they ate with, only what they ate.

 

[GracePeace]

I don't think we're within like enough understanding to continue discussing these issues. I fail to see how Peter's bad example of not eating with the Gentiles was related to the Law. There were no dietary ordinances in the Law concerning who they ate with, only what they ate.

I've already explained it and I've linked you to that explanation. You are not wanting to respond to that information because it destroys your false beliefs. It's really that simple.

 

[Netchaplain]

I've already explained it and I've linked you to that explanation. You are not wanting to respond to that information because it destroys your false beliefs. It's really that simple.

Just using the Word and nothing but the Word. We may be apart from one another in our understanding, but probably not in our "willing and desiring of His good pleasure" (Phl 2:13), because He works this in everyone reborn. Wishing you well and God's blessings!

 

[GracePeace]

Just using the Word and nothing but the Word. We may be apart from one another in our understanding, but probably not in our "willing and desiring of His good pleasure" (Phl 2:13), because He works this in everyone reborn. Wishing you well and God's blessings!

So your idea of a "discussion" (this is a "discussion" forum) is ignoring knowledge. Interesting. All right, enjoy your ignorance--I just hate to think others are being misled. I hope they read thoroughly and find the answers I've provided.

 

[Netchaplain]

So your idea of a "discussion" (this is a "discussion" forum) is ignoring knowledge. Interesting. All right, enjoy your ignorance--I just hate to think others are being misled. I hope they read thoroughly and find the answers I've provided.

Nothing personal and no offense taken, but when offense enters into the communication, I cannot continue to support it.

 

[GracePeace]

Nothing personal and no offense taken, but when offense enters into the communication, I cannot continue to support it.

Well you already checked out long ago.

Just for the sake of the readers :

One very simple reason why we can tell that what Peter was doing in Antioch really was leading believers into the heresy of being "under Law" (that this was not, as "NetChaplain" wants, in spite of the facts, to insist, a mere issue of "custom") was because when he was rebuked he was rebuked for making Gentiles believe they could be justified by the works of the Law. What did Paul teach that Peter was guilty of doing? Making Gentiles think they could be justified by the works of the Law. So what was Peter doing? Making people think they could be justified by the works of the Law. So Peter was doing that. This was not a mere issue of "custom". End of story.

 

[CadyandZoe]

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.”

“Whosoever of you are justified by the law” - On the supposition that any of you are justified by the Law; or if, as you seem to suppose, any are justified by the Law (Act 13:39; Gal 3:11; 5:4). The apostle does not say that this had in fact ever occurred; but he merely makes a supposition. If such a thing should or could occur, it would follow that you had fallen from grace. – Albert Barnes (1798-1870)
Galatians 5 - Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

The following is to show that though some of the Galatian believers were deceived (“bewitched” – 3:1) enough to at least consider accepting the error, it never became acceptable to them:

Gal 1:6: “So soon removed” is Paul’s reproving them here and it seems fair enough to carry the sense that they were only considering the false doctrine; which is shown below, that no conclusion is ever made that they did so.

Vs 7-9: One wouldn’t think the Galatian disciples would give false teachers much heed after Paul let them know that they were teaching a perverted doctrine, which was to attempt an admixture of the two dispensations of law and grace (which would doctrinally detract from both).

2:5: So “that the truth of the Gospel might continue with you” displays that they have yet to follow them.

3:1: “That ye should not obey the truth”; if this was in a conclusive sense, it could have been stated, “that you do not obey the truth, instead of “that you should not.”

Vs 2-5: Paul establishes they have the Holy Spirit by asking the redundant questions, which I think exemplifies indecisiveness, esp. considering the statement, “if it be yet in vain,” of which clearly shows (in my opinion) the undecided position of these believers.

Gal 4:9: The phrase, “why do you want to go back again” (NLT), only establishes a “desire” and not a completed action.

V 11: “Unless I have labored for you in vain,” is also demonstrative of an inconclusive position, which could otherwise be, “I have labored in vain.”

V 12: Establishes that though they were saved (had the Spirit – 3:2), he was urging them you to become like him, which I believe was to mature in Christ – v 19.

V 21: Again, “ye that desire to be under the law” indicates an inconclusive position.

Gal 5:1: Paul admonishing them to remain or “stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free” is indicative they have not yet turned to the false teaching. Same for v 2, “if ye be circumcised,” instead of “since you are circumcised.”

V4: A hyperbolic phrase, as one cannot “fall from grace” any more than one can be justified by the Law (3:11)!

V 7: “That you should not obey the truth” would be “that you do not obey the truth!

V10: “I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded.” Confirming evidence that they have not capitulated their Christion position.

Gal 6:12: “They constrain you to be circumcised,” instead of “they have constrained you to be circumcised.”

V13: They “desire to have you circumcised,” and not they “you were circumcised” (most of those in the churches in Galatia were Gentile Christians, and so were not circumcised).

I disagree with your premise that the "false gospel" was an admixture of law and grace. In reality, the false gospel was the attitude that those who keep the law are different than other men. Jesus spoke about this in his parable of the Pharisee and the tax gatherer. Luke 18:10-14 Take note of Paul's reaction to Peter, who stopped eating with the Gentiles when the men from James came to visit. Peter, through his actions, "was not straightforward about the truth of the gospel." The idea that keeping Moses makes one different than other men is the basis for the charge that these men were bringing a false gospel. The truth of the Gospel is this: all men stand condemned before a righteous God, and therefore all men are the same in that regard. To suggest otherwise is contrary to the gospel message.

Paul was not critical of law practice as such. Law practice doesn't necessarily lead to separatism, but when it does, it results in a distorted gospel message, which is the actual subject of Paul's epistle to the Galatians.