Chapter 2
Then after 14 years??? This is the time elapsed from that first visit with Paul and James until his attendance at the Jerusalem Council. I had no idea he was 14 years preaching before that time. Can this be reconciled with the accounts in Acts??? MSB note says the language used refers to these two visits in connection with his case for credibility, and does not exclude other visits that may have taken place - in fact did take place per Acts - in between the two visits he mentions here.
Paul notes the results of the Jerusalem Council, and how that is consistent with what he has continued to teach - that circumcision and the full law of Moses are not prerequisites for Gentiles to be saved, and that in addition to that, the Jerusalem church has authorized him as a sort of chief missionary to the Gentiles while Peter focuses on bringing the circumcised to repentance. His point is that his own role is co-equal with Peter's role. No one questions Peter's authority apparently and Paul here makes the case that he has as much authority and should also be believed and not undermined.
Paul speaks of his altercation with Peter, and uses his "winning" of that confrontation to make a huge point here. He says that both he and Peter are Jews by nature. While with Paul, Peter had begun to associate with Gentiles, even eating with them. This was something Jews just didn't do before the gospel. But Peter sort of "pulled away" from them when some folks from home came to visit. The folks from home were from the Jerusalem church, and likely there were still a lot of Jews associating only with Jews there. This would be accompanied by looking down on Gentiles, and also on Jews who associated with them directly. So Peter had pulled back. Paul's accusation is in this verse:
14 ...I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?" [Gal 2:14b ESV]
That is, both Paul and Peter were born Jews, born as sons of Abraham, and grew up practicing the Law. If it was ok for Peter to set that law aside and associate with the Gentiles - that is, he no longer considered it incumbent on himself to keep the law - then how can he stand there and say that the Gentiles have to keep it. Flawless logic. If these Jews are ok with depending on faith alone for their salvation, then how much more should the Gentiles depend on faith alone.
2021-2, I think it is likely that beyond the above, some in Corinth were saying that Paul couldn't be an apostle because he associated with Gentiles. They would be saying this not only to show that he could not be an apostle, but that he also should have no real credibility for teaching the word. After all, he regularly makes himself unclean by associating with Gentiles. Why, they shouldn't even let him in the church this way, and he does so without any shame or remorse. He does not even recognize the horrible significance of what he is doing as it impacts his disqualification as a teacher. Yes. This is why Paul brings all this up. And then he shows that Peter ended up submitting to Paul's assessment of things, that he, Paul, prevailed in teaching over the unassailably qualified and titled (apostle) Peter.
2021 amplified and expanded - Next he makes the argument that if they follow the teaching of Christ, which is that faith alone saves, and by following that teaching they sin against the Law by not keeping the Law that they are supposed to be keeping, then that makes Christ a teacher of sin, a provoker of sin, because Christ preached "faith alone". Jesus never said that to get to heaven they had to believe in him in addition to keeping the law. He always said they had to believe, and stopped right there. So if keeping the law was necessary, and Jesus never ever said so, then Jesus had taught only a partial salvation, and leaving out the part that he never taught will still condemn one to hell. This is Paul's point. The Judaizers, by insisting that the Law be "put back in", or that it remain a requirement, says that Jesus' own teaching of the gospel was poor and incomplete. By extension, Paul is saying that the gospel he preached to them when he was there is exactly the same as the gospel Christ preached while on earth.
2023 - This same teaching applies to baptism, as below. This might be the best argument ever that baptism is not saving.
(((2024 - Did a quick search. Found this verse: 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. [Mar 16:16 ESV]. Note that this is in those last verses of Mark. It is a quote attributed to Jesus, but is not in historical context. We don't know when Jesus said it. We better be very careful saying that these last verses of Mark are not "binding", not Scripture, not "real", don't belong in the Bible. That leaves us with trying to explain that these were most likely spoken not in answer to "How do you get saved", but more like what Peter does in Acts. And the second argument is that this one place is the only place we see it, and in all the places in the gospels where Jesus is asked directly how to be saved, baptism never comes up. So where we do have the direct question, baptism is never in the answer. And we have no context for this one verse, and to build doctrine on one verse is never a good idea - look at what else is in these verses in Mark 16 and we don't even begin to build doctrine on them because we understand they are single verse doctrines!. BUT, vs 16 is in the Bible and it is in red. Now...does this argument from Paul really give us a parallel type of argument about baptism?)))
(((2025 - The argument is still 100% effective. Jesus said be baptized in Mark 16:16, but that is the only place he ever mentions it. Therefore, if baptism is regenerative, if it is necessary to salvation, then most times - all but one time - Jesus teaching of the gospel was incomplete, and the part he left out every other time is a big enough problem to send the hearers to hell for what he did not bother to tell them. This is the argument. Don't bother at all about 16:16. If forces, we don't even know the context, and second, if added later, it may have been influenced by politics. After all, even the Jerusalem Council left some parts of the Law in the rules.)))
(((2021 - Now let's think about this argument as applied to other things, for instance baptism. I don't know for sure, but I don't recall that there are any "red letters" where Jesus says "baptism". So if Jesus preached faith alone, and never once said baptism too, can't we make exactly the same argument about baptism that Paul did about the Law??? Oh my. This seems like the best argument against regenerative baptism that I have ever heard. I MUST do a study and see if Jesus ever even used the word baptism after the Jordan River. The MSB note doesn't go here. The MSB note points out that Paul has just said he braced Peter about bringing the dietary laws back in. By behaving as if those still apply, Peter was negating Jesus' teaching in Mk 7:19 where Jesus said what goes in won't contaminate, only what comes out. So what you eat - Mosaic Law or not - will not condemn you. So if the Judaizers are right, and you must still obey the dietary laws, then Jesus was teaching his followers to sin. MSB does not broaden the argument to the extent that I did, and say that if Jesus "didn't" say, each time he talked about salvation, that you still had to keep the law in addition to the faith in him that was required, then Jesus was a poor teacher. I have heard and thought before that there are numerous verses about someone asking how to be saved and the answer is either "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ", or "believe and be baptized". So the first version says nothing wrong, it just doesn't say it all - if indeed baptism is required. Paul's argument though, in these verses, is not about what Jesus did not say, but per MSB is about the Judaizer's teaching contradicting what Jesus did say. And that's a lot different. So even though I do still want to do this study, and I want to compile all the verses where someone ever asked Jesus how to be saved and see if Jesus ever included baptism, I will not be able to use this passage in Galatians as a proof text for it.)))
2023 - I am not even sure of my own conclusion above that I cannot use this as proof text. I think the difference is that Jesus DID say that what went in didn't profane the eater, so if you say that in fact it still does, then you make Jesus a liar. Jesus never said anything like "you don't need to be baptized", in which case saying that you do makes Jesus a liar. So the baptism thing is not of the same magnitude as this about the dietary laws. But see next paragraph!
2022 - Reading the paragraph above this year, I disagree with myself once again. I DO think this is a compelling argument against baptismal regeneration. Jesus never ever said that you had to do anything but believe in him to be saved (subject to my studying his words to see if he ever used the word baptism in connection with salvation). Paul's argument is that if circumcision or the Mosaic Law were required in addition to belief in Jesus, then Jesus' teaching of the gospel was in every case incomplete, poor, and insufficient for salvation in the absence of additional information from another source. This would most certainly impugn everything else Jesus ever taught as possibly incomplete also. And Paul says Jesus' presentation of the gospel was NOT incomplete. If it was...it all comes tumbling down. So Paul's argument that an unimpeachable source - Peter - yielded to Paul's view that since the Mosaic Law was not required IN ADDITION TO faith for salvation, either in part or in whole, according to Jesus, THEN the Mosaic Law cannot be a requirement for salvation - else Jesus' teaching was poor and incomplete - and Peter recognized Paul's authority in the matter as equal to his own, so then should the Galatians not only recognize Paul's authority, but should also reject the teaching of the Judaizers that required circumcision, dietary law adherence, keeping feasts, or anything else in the Mosaic Law. And BY EXTENSION, if Jesus NEVER said baptism was required in addition to belief, and you are not willing to say Jesus was a poor teacher, then anyone who teaches that baptism is required for salvation is teaching beyond the gospel that Christ preached. THIS is my argument from now on. I WILL do this research on the words of Jesus concerning baptism. In fact, I'm moving it to the top of the list. (11/19/22 - Jesus never told anyone they needed to be baptized. He used the word on several occasions, particularly when he asked the Pharisees whether John's baptism came from man or from God. They speculate that if they'd said from God, he'd have asked why then, did they not believe John. But they did not say "well then he'll ask why we didn't get baptized". So. Jesus NEVER directly connected baptism with the gospel, and therefore the same argument Paul uses to say that the Law is not connected with the gospel also applies to baptism.
2022 - Reading back through this chapter to find "THE VERSE" on which all this is based, the verse that says if Jesus left it out then either it isn't required or Jesus was a poor teacher, was disappointing. The closest I can get to that is this one: 17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! [Gal 2:17 ESV]. I mean, this is the verse, but it requires some context and some thought before its application to either the Mosaic or to baptism is clear. So this argument that I now see as THE argument is NOT a short answer. It takes time, so don't trot it out in a casual conversation. It is an argument for a serious study.
2023 - Here is the verse:
16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. [Gal 2:16 ESV]. I note, this year, that it specifically says that a person is not justified by "works of the law". The dietary laws were part of the law. Nothing required by the law was required any longer. Only the gospel that said by faith alone is now required. Baptism is not in the law, not any part of the law. Baptism was something else. Yet we still have the principle, we can still claim the principle. If Jesus did not require that ANYTHING from the law of Moses be retained and kept in order to be saved, and if, to the Jews, there was NO LAW higher than the law of Moses, why would Jesus require some "new" ritual such as baptism, in order to be saved? I don't think John "invented" baptism. I think he adopted it, but he was not the first to practice it. There is a verse that says/implies this. I need to find it and put it here. So all these waffles on whether this argument is correct or not have served to deepen my understanding, to take it each time to another level. And where am I this year? If the law of Moses was not necessary to salvation, then nothing "less" than the law of Moses would be required either. I think that is perhaps the best statement of this argument yet.
2024 - And this is still where I am. The argument that I think we can best offer to prove that baptism is not required for salvation is underlined above. And vs 16 says directly that it is not the law, but faith in Jesus Christ. ANYTHING can be rightly put into this quote...so that we can have it read "...by the work of baptism, no one will be justified." Or "...by the annual sacrifice of a lamb AND faith in Christ, no one will be justified." Hmm...that does not read right. As Paul is putting it, the Law can never save you. So why "add" the Law to faith in Jesus Christ? Baptism ALONE cannot save, so we do not need baptism AND faith in Jesus Christ. Neither the Law, nor baptism, nor any other ritual we might think up, nor the 7 things the Catholics add (now there is yet another GOOD argument!) is necessary. The same people who would argue that Baptism is necessary would argue in a heartbeat that none of those Catholic rituals/ordinances are at all necessary. They pick and choose what they add - and it is only baptism that they add.
2023 - And the next verse:
17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! [Gal 2:17 ESV]. I hate to admit it, but the NLT makes this much more clear. It can be figured out from ESV, but is so much easier with NLT:
17 But suppose we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then we are found guilty because we have abandoned the law. Would that mean Christ has led us into sin? Absolutely not! [Gal 2:17 NLT]. IF, "all" you do is have faith in Christ for your salvation - which "cleanses us from all sin", and YET, because we are not following the Law of Moses, then we are still sinners for not following the law, then faith in Christ was NOT enough. Our sins are not all gone, but we continue to sin because we break the law of Moses. Jesus specifically taught that following the law did not save. If it is nevertheless required, in addition to faith, then Jesus not only had it wrong, but his teaching that the law need not be followed made it impossible to be saved. BUT, the way it really works is that "I am crucified with Christ". Since I died, I am dead to the law, and no longer need to serve the law. On faith is required. In my "previous life", obedience to the law was required, but after death, and then "resurrection", it is NOT required. Oh my...and baptism symbolizes this death to the law of works. It shows that we died with Christ, and rose in him, not in the law.
2023 - The paragraph below, starting with "further", is also very important. IF the law could save, Jesus did not have to die. How ludicrous is that whole idea.
Vs 16 ended with "the law cannot justify". So those who follow ONLY the law, are not saved. I think the point here is that IF adherence to the law ((((Something missing here....looks like an accidental deletion...)))
Then he uses the phrase "May it never be!". It is a ridiculous thought, but that is what the teaching of the Judaizers implies. That following after Christ's own teaching leads directly to sin.
Further, Paul says that he was crucified with Christ. He is saying that under the Law, he was found guilty. Once executed, he is dead, and the law has no more power over him. Christ's death made Him beyond the law, and when we are baptized into Christ, we are baptized into his death, which also makes us beyond the Mosaic Law. Then the last point of the chapter...if grace can be obtained by the Law, then why did Jesus have to die? (2021 - This is an amazing point. It all falls apart if God required His son to die on the cross when it was unnecessary from the outset. If people "could" be good enough under the law, then there was no need for Christ to satisfy the law. Men could have been restored to fellowship with God on their own merits. This is a critical point to maintain. The Law could never have saved even one person.) What purpose did it serve if there was another way to be saved? No one can keep the law, therefore the law cannot save (vs 16b...because by works of the law no one will be justified. [Gal 2:16 ESV]). Violation of the Law results in a death sentence. Only by carrying out the sentence can the law be satisfied. Only by Jesus death can it be carried out. And since he died for those who would be saved, then we all who are saved through him have satisfied justice, and now the law has no power over us. We are no longer subject to it.
2022 - In light of Grudem's Chapter 27 on the atonement, I would now say that Jesus died for the violations of the Law by others. They could never go into heaven until THEY paid the price for sin, which is death - not just physical but spiritual. Jesus' death was required to satisfy God's wrath against all men, not to satisfy God's wrath against Jesus. It was a substitutionary death, not an execution for his own sin.
2022 - Paul connects baptism with Christ's death, burial and resurrection, but also with our "position" in God's eyes. Hmm...Jesus may never have said "...and be baptized" , but he most certainly set the example of doing so. AND, Jesus ALWAYS set the example of keeping the whole Law too! So the argument above withstands this very compelling rebuttal!
2024 - No one ever argued that baptism saves - except here - 21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: [1Pe 3:21 KJV]...Hmm. So if you trot out this verse to say baptism saves, THEN you are in the same boat as the Judaizers, who maintained that the Law COULD save if done correctly, and so should be included with faith. They were sort of "covering their bases" by doing both. But they had it wrong in that the Law could never save, and Paul says this explicitly in the last part of Gal. 2. Though they included it just in case, it is not at all the same as faith, because faith alone can save, but the Law alone NEVER could. Nor can baptism alone, and therefore, baptism does not belong in this sentence either. Faith alone saves!