From the Albert Barnes Bible Commentary:
THE DESIGN OF THE EPISTLE
It is easy to discern from the epistle itself that the following
circumstances existed in the churches of Galatia, and that it was
written with reference to them.
(1)
That they had been at first devotedly attached to the apostle
Paul, and had received his commands and instructions with
implicit confidence when he was among them, chap.4:14,15; Comp.
chap.1:6.
(2)
That they had been perverted from the doctrine which he taught
them soon after he had left them, chap.1:6.
(3)
That this had been done by persons who were of Jewish origin and
who insisted on the observance of the Jewish religion.
(the whole Old Covenant - Keith Hunt).
(4)
That they claimed to have come directly from Jerusalem, and to
have derived their views of religion and their authority from the
apostles there.
(5)
That they taught that the apostle Paul was inferior to the
apostles there; that he had been called more recently into the
apostolic office; that the apostles at Jerusalem must be regarded
as the source of authority in the Christian church; and that,
therefore, the teaching of Paul should yield to that which was
derived directly from Jerusalem.
(6)
That the law of Moses were binding, and were necessary in order
to be justification. That the rite of circumcision especially was
of binding obligation; and it is It is probable (chap.6:12)
that they had prevailed on many of the Galatians to be
circumcised ......
(7)
It would seem, also, that they urged that Paul himself had
changed his views since he had been among the Galatians, and now
maintained the necessity of circumcision, chap.5:11. Perhaps they
alleged this, from the undoubted fact, that Paul, when at
Jerusalem, (Acts 21:26) had complied with some of the customs of
the Jewish ritual.
(8)
That they urged that all the promises of God were made to
Abraham, and that whoever would partake of those promises, must
be circumcised as Abraham was. This Paul in answers,
chap.3:7; 4:7.
(9)
That in consequence of the promulgation of these views, great
dissensions had arisen in the church, and strifes of an unhappy
nature existed, greatly contrary to the spirit which should be
manifested by those who bore the Christian name.
From this description of the state of things in the churches of
Galatia, the design of the epistle is apparent, and the scope of
the argument will be easily seen.
of Galatia. Of this state of things the apostle had been
undoubtedly apprized, but whether by letters, or by messengers
from the churches there, is not declared. It is not improbable,
that some of his friends in the churches there had informed him
of it, and he immediately set about a remedy to the evils
existing there.
1.
The first object, therefore, was to show that he had received his
commission as an apostle, directly from God. He had not received
it at all from man; he had not even been instructed by the other
apostles; he had not acknowledged their superiority; he had not
even consulted them. He did not acknowledge, therefore, that the
apostles at Jerusalem possessed any superior rank or authority.
His commission though he had not seen the Lord Jesus before he
was crucified, he had, nevertheless, derived immediately from
him. The doctrine, therefore, which he had taught them, that the
Mosaic laws (observing all the Old Covenant as before Jesus came
- Keith Hunt) were not binding and that there was no necessity of
being circumcised, was a doctrine which had been derived directly
from God.
In proof of this, he goes into an extended statement, (chap.1) of
the manner in which he had been called, and of the fact, that he
had not consulted with the apostles at Jerusalem, or confessed
his inferiority to them; of the fact that when they had become
acquainted with the manner in which he preached, they approved
his course, (chap.1:24; 2:1-10;) and of the fact that on one
occasion, he had actually been constrained to differ from Peter,
the oldest of the apostles, on a point in which he was manifestly
wrong, and on one of the very points then under consideration.
2.
The second great object, therefore, was to show the nature and
design of the law of Moses (the entire Old Covenant with all its
laws - Keith Hunt)
and to prove that the peculiar rites of the Mosaic ritual, and especially
the rite of circumcision, were not necessary to justification
and salvation:
and that they who observed that rite, did in
fact renounce the Scripture method of justification; make the
sacrifice of Christ of no value, and makes slaves of themselves.
This leads him into a consideration of the true nature of the
doctrine of justification, and of the way of salvation by a
Redeemer.
This point he shows in the following way :-
(1)
By showing that those who lived before Christ, and especially
Abraham, were in fact justified, not by obedience ritual law of
Moses, but by faith in the promise of God, chap.3:1-18.
(2)
By showing that the design of the Mosaic ritual (and indeed the
Old Covenant as a whole - Keith Hunt) was only temporary, and
that it was intended to lead to Christ, chap.3:19-29; 4:1-8 (and
to a New Covenant which does not contain many rites and even many
laws of the Old Covenant. See my studies on "Living by Every Word
of God - How?" - Keith Hunt).
(3)
In view of this, he reproves the Galatians for having so readily
fallen into the observance of these Customs chap.4:9-21.
(4)
This view of the design of the Mosaic law (the design of the
whole Old Covenant with all its laws and rites - Keith Hunt) and
of its tendency, he illustrates by an allegory drawn from the
case of Hagar, chap.4:21-31.
This whole discourse is succeeded by an affectionate exhortation
to the Galatians, to avoid the evils which had been engendered;
reproving them for the strife existing in consequence of the
attempt to introduce the Mosaic rites (those who were teaching
them to be under the whole Old Covenant with every law it
contained, and especially physical circumcision, as a way to
justification and salvation, without and apart from the sacrifice
of Jesus Christ - Keith Hunt) and earnestly entreating them to
stand firm in the liberty which Christ had vouchsafed to them
from the servitude of the Mosaic institutions, chapters 5 and 6
(the false servitude of trying to gain and maintain salvation by
obedience to ALL the Old Covenant laws, rituals, rites,
ceremonies, a justification by works and not by faith - Keith
Hunt).
The design of the whole epistle therefore is to state and defend
the doctrine of justification, and to show that it did not depend
on the observance of laws of Moses (all laws contained in the Old
Covenant - Keith Hunt).
In this general purpose, therefore, it accords with the design of
the epistle to the Romans.....
The argument, if I may so express myself is MORE **JEWISH**
It is more in the Jewish manner; is designed to meet a Jew in his
own way, and is, therefore, somewhat more difficult for all to
follow.
Still it contains great and vital statements on the doctrines of
salvation and, as such, demands the profound and careful
attention of all who desire to be saved, and who would know the
way of acceptance with God.
End of quotes from Albert Barnes
..............
A few years ago there was a religious conference of "Christian"
and "Jewish" Ministers and Rabbis. It was large enough to be
mentioned on the Canadian evening TV National News. It was stated
that the Jewish leaders claimed to the Christians present that
they were just as much children of God as the Christians were,
even though not accepting Christ as their savior and as the
Messiah.
And this is the fact of Jewish orthodox teaching and belief. They
believe that they have salvation and will inherit eternal life by
being obedient to the Old Covenant, and have no need of having
Jesus Christ as a part of being justified and saved, or having
what Christians call the New Testament writings.
The Canadian TV report did not state how the "Christian" leaders
answered.
This was the situation in Galatia, certain ones had come among
them after Paul preached Jesus as the Son of God and as the
sacrifice for justification. Paul taught that justification was
by having faith in the sacrifice of Christ, a justification and
being saved by grace through faith in Jesus' death and shed blood
for human sins. Certain ones were now telling the Galatians that
Paul was wrong and justification and salvation did not need
Christ, but it was by observing all the Old Covenant laws and
rites, and by being physically circumcised. Paul answers this
teaching and argument in the letter he wrote to the churches of
Galatia.
We must also remember that Paul did take the opportunity in
writing this letter to also address other issues of importance
that were "Christian issues" in general and not "Jewish" in
nature. For a large percentage of his readers in the churches of
Galatia were Gentiles, and they had been led astray back into
many Gentile ways and practices that were far from the ways that
Christ Jesus taught and lived and wanted His disciples to follow.
This we see in part from chapters 4 and 5.
Keith Hunt
............
September 2003
The Book of GalatiansOutline of chapters 1 and 2 Compiled and Written
by
Keith Hunt
Paul opens up immediately, probably in contrast to those who
claimed differently, that he was an apostle, one sent out, not by
the authority of human men, nor through the workings of any human
organization, but directly through Jesus Christ, and God the
Father. He sends greeting from all the brethren who were with
him, unto the churches (plural) in Galatia. He wishes them grace,
favor, and peace, from God the Father and from Jesus the Lord.
In mentioning Christ he gives emphasis again (he certain did
it when among them in preaching the Gospel) that it was He who
died for our sins, so we could be delivered from the present evil
world. It was then as he told them when among them, that sins
could not be forgiven through anything in the Old Covenant, or
even the Old Covenant as a whole, whichever laws you obeyed, for
as he had no doubt explained to them before, the forgiveness of
sins, being justified, cannot be earned through following any
set of laws, as they were now being told by some who had come
among them, ones that he was now going to speak against in no
uncertain manner (verse 1-5).
He told them that he marvelled, he was astonished, at how
SOON they had been led astray into another "gospel" or "good
news" - some were preaching to them what they considered good
news, which was not really "gospel" or good news, but was a
perversion of the gospel of Christ. They probably taught that
people could still acknowledge Jesus as a prophet of God, but not
that it was through His death and shed blood that individuals
are justified or forgiven their sins, but rather through obeying
all the Old Covenant regulations including circumcision.
Paul here pulled no punches, he laid it all down on the
table, and said to them that if anyone, even an angel from
heaven, came and preached any other "good news" to them, that was
DIFFERENT than what he had preached to them, then that individual
should be cursed. He repeated it, just to make the point really
hit home to them, anyone preaching differently than his preaching
should be cursed. And he told them that he was not out to please
men or gain their favor per se, for if he preached to please men,
what they wanted to hear, then he would in many respects be
displeasing to God, and would not be a true servant of Christ
(verses 6-10).
He restates that his preaching the good news did not come
from men's minds or a theological organization of man's devise.
He had not been taught the good news he preached from a
theological school of men, but DIRECTLY from the REVELATION of
Jesus Christ. He does not go into any detail as to the HOW of
this revelation, only that it did happen, that he was taught the
good news directly by Jesus (we may get some information as to
the WHEN this happened in the following verses).
He reminded them that they had heard about his past life in
the "Jews' religion" (what we often call Judaism today) and how
he had persecuted the Church of God. He did profit in certain
human ways in the Jews' religion, even above many of his equals,
for he was more zealous in observing the traditions of the
fathers of the sect of Judaism he belonged to, than others. We
find in other letters of Paul that he was a Pharisee and
belonged to that particular sect of Judaism (see Acts 26:5 and my
studies called "Jesus and Paul - Pharisees?")
Verse 15 and 16 are interesting for it makes Paul a chosen
vessel by God from the womb of his mother. Some modern
translations put it like this: "But God had special plans for me
and set me apart for His work even before I was born He called me
through His grace, and showed His Son to me that I might tell the
Good News about Him to those who are not Jewish.
Paul possibly found this out when being taught personally by
Christ.
He goes on to tell them that at his conversion he did not
advise or help in religious matters from anyone. He tells them
that he did NOT go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles
before he was converted to Christ. But he went right away to
Arabia and later back to Damascus. It is more than likely that
this is the time he was taught by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
It was after 3 years that he went up to Jerusalem and met with
Peter for 15 days, but did not meet with any other of the
apostles, except with James, the physical brother of Christ.
He tells them after this he went to areas of Syria and
Cilicia, and none of the churches in Judea had met him, they
only heard about him, and they praised God, for he that had at
one time persecuted Jesus' followers was now preaching the same
faith that he once tried to destroy (verses 11-24).
All of this first chapter of the letter of Galatians is to
lay a solid foundation as to the truth he had taught the
Galatians and the truth he would once more present to them in
the remaining dialogue of his letter to them.
CHAPTER TWO
Paul further lays a foundation of his authority in Christ
and the correctness of what he had taught them, that his teaching
was well known by the apostles at Jerusalem. He tells them that
14 years had passed after his first visit to Jerusalem with two
of the apostles, Peter and James. He says he went because God
showed him that he should go. He took Barnabas and Titus with
him. He met with the believers and in private told the leaders
there what he taught and preached to the non-Jewish people. He
did not want his work to be wasted, by being out of line (though
he knew he was not being taught of Christ personally, yet some no
doubt would say he was simply making that claim, when it was not
so). He tells them that Titus even being a Greek was not
compelled by those leaders in Jerusalem to be circumcised. He
goes on to say that those leaders, after hearing from him and
what he taught and preached, did not change anything in the Good
News he proclaimed. All admitted that he had obviously been given
by God the task of preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles just as
Peter had been given by God to preach to the Jews.
He names James, Peter, and John, who all understood that God
had indeed given Paul this special commission to the Gentiles,
and so they fully accepted him and Barnabas. Those men agreed
that he and Barnabas (and others like Titus) should go to
those not Jewish and they (Peter, James, John) to the Jews. All
they requested was that Paul would remember (help and serve) the
poor, which he tells them he was already doing (verses 1-10).
He yet further proves his authority in Christ, by relating
to them the fact of the time when Peter came to Antioch, where
Paul was living, and how he openly corrected Peter to his face,
because he acted incorrectly and hypocritically when certain Jews
came from Jerusalem, sent by James to Antioch. Paul was showing
them that he had the right to correct any person or apostle IF
they were in serious error that was contrary to the truth
and Gospel of Christ.
The reader can find all the DETAILS about all I've skimmed
over in the first two chapters of Galatians in most of your
in-depth multi-volumed Bible Commentaries.
WE NEED NOW GET TO THE MAJOR SECTIONS OF THE LETTER OF
GALATIANS CONCERNING THE LAW, JUSTIFICATION, AND THE WAY TO
SALVATION.
FROM BARNES' NOTES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT
CHAP.2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me....
Paul introduces this case of Titus undoubtedly to show that
circumcision was not necessary to salvation. It was a case just
in point. He had gone up to Jerusalem with express reference to
this question. Here was a man whom he had admitted to the
Christian church without circumcising him. He claimed that he had
a right to do so; and that circumcision was not necessary in
order to salvation. If it were necessary, it would have been
proper that Titus should have been compelled to submit to it. But
Paul says this was not demanded; or if demanded by any, the point
was yielded, and he was not compelled to be circumcised. It is
to be remembered that this was at Jerusalem; that it was a case
submitted to the apostles there; and that consequently the
determination of the case settled the whole controversy about the
obligation of the Mosaic laws on the Gentile converts. It is
quite evident from the whole statement here, that Paul did not
intend that Titus should be circumcised; that he maintained that
it was not necessary; and that he resisted it when it was
demanded, vers. 4,5.
Yet on another occasion he himself performed the act of
circumcision on Timothy, Acts 16:3. But there is no inconsistency
in his conduct. In the case of Titus it was demanded as a matter
of right and as obligatory on him, and he resisted the principle
as dangerous. In the case of Timothy, it was a voluntary
compliance on his part with the usual customs of the Jews, where
it was not pressed as a matter of obligation, and where it could
not be understood as indispensable to salvation. No danger would
follow from compliance with the custom, and it might do much to
conciliate the favour of the Jews, and he therefore submitted to
it. Paul would not have hesitated to have circumcised Titus in
the same circumstances in which it was done to Timothy; but the
circumstances were different; and when it was insisted on as a
matter of principle and of obligation, it became a matter of
principle and of obligation with him to oppose it......
CHAP.2:4 ... To spy out our liberty which we have in Christ
Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage.
In the practice of the Christian religion. The liberty
referred to was, doubtless, the liberty from the painful,
expensive, and onerous rites of the Jewish religion. See
chap.5:1. Their object in spying out the liberty which Paul and
others had, was, undoubtedly, to be witnesses of the fact that
they did not observe the peculiar rites of the Mosaic system (all
and everything in the Old Covenant, and especially circumcision
and other rituals - Keith Hunt) to make report of it; to insist
on their complying with those customs, and thus to secure the
imposition of those rites on the Gentile converts (insistence
that the whole Old Covenant be practiced and performed as before
in past centuries - Keith Hunt). Their first object was to
satisfy themselves of the fact that Paul did not insist on the
observance of their customs; and then to secure, by the authority
of the apostles, an injunction or order that Titus should be
circumcised, and that Paul and the converts made under his
ministry should be required to comply with those laws ...
End Quote from Barnes
CHAP. 2:4
Although the CONTEXT would suggest that the bondage Paul here
talks about would be that of CIRCUMCISION (having to be
circumcised in the flesh to be saved (as these false teachers
taught) and the liberty that of, not having to be physically
circumcised to acquire justification. There is I believe a deeper
truth here implied by Paul.
Can physical circumcision really be looked upon as bondage?
Millions still practice it today for health reasons and think it
not a bondage. As for the sacrificial system and rites that
Israel had, did they not comply with the instructions God gave to
Moses? Yes they did. Was their system any more demanding than
some of our denominations? Were the Israelites really under heavy
bondage to sacrifice when the populous as a whole did not have to
practice it daily, but only when they went up to Jerusalem? Was
the Priesthood under great bondage in performing the duties of
the Tabernacle? Not any more than those who enjoy a good living
working in our "Animal Slaughter Factories."
The liberty Paul here says Christians have as opposed to those of
the circumcision part, must be understood in the light of their
teaching as contrasted to that of Paul's teaching. Namely, the
WAY TO JUSTIFICATION. They taught justification by ones OWN
EFFORTS and deeds, WORKS of law - the way to EARN salvation. Paul
taught that way was death and indeed bondage, as NONE could be
justified by observance of ANY law - law makes no provision for
grace, it only states a penalty for its violation. As all have
sinned (Rom.3:23) and the wages of sin is death (Rom.6:23).
It would be bondage indeed that "neither our fathers nor we were
able to bear" (Acts 15:10) to try to justify oneself through
physical circumcision or ANY OTHER work of ANY law which DENIED
the need for the justifying work of Christ's death on the cross.
But yet this is what was being taught by those of the
circumcision party, and Paul says to those Galatians who would
believe their teaching, they would be brought into bondage.
What greater bondage could there be than for weak fleshly man to
suppose he could somehow earn his forgiveness with God by the
performance of anything!
The bondage mentioned here by Paul cannot possibly be referring
to the 10 Commandments as such. Having liberty to disregard them
and being in bondage if you try to keep them. Never does Paul
refer to the 10 Commandments as "bondage." The opposite is true.
Paul calls them "holy, just and good" they are "spiritual" and he
said "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man" (Rom.
7:12,14,22).
James was inspired to say that the 10 Commandment law was "the
law of LIBERTY" (James 2:12).
When we have REPENTED of our sins (which is the breaking of the
law of God - 1 John 3:4; Rom.7:7) and have set our heart and
attitude to obey the Lord and His commands, we have truly found
liberty. For only such individuals will have met the condition to
come under God's grace through Jesus Christ (Psalm 103:17,18; Ex.
20:6). See this fully explained in my in-depth study called
"Saved by Grace."
These false teachers were coming into the churches of Galatia and
contradicting the teaching of Paul. They "down played" the
sacrifice of Christ, while admitting He (Christ) was a good man,
a preacher of God, but did not uphold the truth that forgiveness
of sins and justification with God could ONLY come through the
life and death, shed blood on the cross, of this man called Jesus
Christ, and by accepting Him as personal Savior. These false
teachers were teaching people that it was by observing the WHOLE
Old Covenant, as it had been practices for centuries, that was
the way to justification with God, and especially having to be
circumcised.
................
TO BE CONTINUED
The Book of Galatians
Justification
CHAP. 2:16
Knowing this that a man is not justified by the works of the law,
but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus
Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and
not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no
flesh be justified.
ALBERT BARNES' NOTES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT
.... The object of Paul here seems to be to show, that as they
had believed in the Lord Jesus, and thus had been justified,
there was no necessity of obeying the law of Moses with ANY VIEW
to JUSTIFICATION. The thing had been fully done without the deeds
of the law, and it was now unreasonable and unnecessary to insist
on the observance of the Mosaic rites......
I have stated in various places what I conceive to be the
true doctrine on this important subject. It may be useful,
however, to throw together in one connected view, as briefly as
possible the leading ideas on the subject of JUSTIFICATION, as it
is revealed in the gospel.
(1) Justification is properly a word applicable to courts of
justice, but is used in a similar sense in common conversation
among men. An illustration will show its nature.
A man is charged, e.g., with an act of trespass on his
neighbour's property. Now there are two ways which he may take to
JUSTIFY himself, or to meet the charge, to as to be regarded and
treated As innocent. He may (a) either deny that he performed the
act charged on him, or he may (b) admit that the deed vas done,
and set up as a defence that he had a right to do it. In either
case, if the point be made out, he will be just or innocent in
the sight of the law. The law will have nothing against him, and
he will be regarded treated in the premises as an innocent man;
or he has justified himself in regard to the charge brought
against him.
It is not that the righteousness of the Lord Jesus is
transferred to his people. Moral character cannot be transferred.
It adheres to the moral agent as much as colour does to the rays
of light which cause it. It is not true that WE died for sin, and
it cannot be so reckoned or imputed. It is not true that WE have
any merit, or any claim, and it cannot be so reckoned or imputed.
All the imputations of God are according to truth; and he will
always reckon us to be personally undeserving and sinful.
But if justification be none of these things, it may be
asked, what is it? I answer, ***It is the declared purpose of God
to regard and treat those sinners who believe in the Lord Jesus
Christ as if they had not sinned, on the ground of the merits of
the Saviour***
.....Justification has RESPECT to the law, and to God's future
dealings with the sinner. It is an act by which God determines to
treat him hereafter as a righteous man, or as if he had not
sinned. The ground or reason of this is the merit of the Lord
Jesus Christ; merit such that we can plead it as if it were our
own. The rationale of it is, that the Lord Jesus has accomplished
by his death the same happy effects in regard to the law and the
government of God, which would be accomplished by the death of
the sinner himself .....
He has taken our place, and died in our stead; and he has
met the descending stroke of justice, which would have fallen on
our own head if he had not interposed .....
The law has been fully obeyed by one who came to save us,
and as much honour has been done to it by his obedience as could
have been by our own; that is, it as much shows that the LAW is
WORTHY of OBEDIENCE, to have it perfectly obeyed by the Lord
Jesus, as it would if it were obeyed by us. It as much shows that
the law of a sovereign is worthy of obedience, to have it obeyed
by an only son, and an heir to the crown, as it does to have it
obeyed by his subjects. And it has as much shown the EVIL of the
VIOLATION of the LAW to have the Lord Jesus suffer death on the
cross, as it would if the guilty had died themselves.
......And an impression as deep has been made of the EVIL of SIN
by the sufferings of the Lord Jesus in our stead, as if WE had
suffered ourselves. He endured on the cross as intense agony as
we can conceive it possible for a sinner ever to endure .....
He stood in the centre of the universe. The sun grew dark,
and the dead arose, and angels gazed upon the scene, and from his
cross an impression went abroad to the farthest part of the
universe, showing the tremendous effects of the VIOLATION of LAW,
when not one soul could be saved from its penalty without such
sorrows of the Son of God. In virtue of all this, the offender,
by believing on him, may be treated as if he had not sinned; and
this constitutes JUSTIFICATION. God admits him to favour as if he
had himself obeyed the law, or borne its penalty .....
The character of God is thus revealed. His mercy
determination to MAINTAIN his law is evinced. The truth is
maintained; and yet he shows the fullness of his mercy, and the
richness of his benevolence .....
(2) Charges of very serious nature are brought against man by
his Maker. He is charged with VIOLATING the LAW of God; with a
want of love to his Maker; with a corrupt, proud, sensual heart;
with being entirely alienated from God by wicked works; in one
word, with being entirely depraved. This charge extends to all
men; and to the entire life of every unrenewed man. It is not a
charge merely affecting the external conduct, not merely
affecting the heart; it is a charge of entire alienation from God
- A charge, in short, of total depravity. See, especially Rom. 1;
2; 3.
That this charge is a very serious one, no one can doubt.
That it deeply affects the human character and standing, is as
clear. It is a charge brought in the Bible; and God appeals in
proof of it to the history of the world, to every man's
conscience, and to the life of every one who has lived; and on
these facts, and on his own power in searching the hearts, in
knowing what is in man, he rests the proofs of the charge.
(3) It is impossible for man to vindicate himself from this
charge. He can neither show that the things charged have not been
committed, nor that, having been committed, he had a right to do
them. He cannot prove that God is not right in all the charges
which he has made against him in his word; and he cannot
prove that it was right for him to do as he has done. The charges
against him are facts which are undeniable, and the facts are
such as cannot be vindicated. But if he can do neither of these
things, then he cannot be justified by the law. The law will not
acquit him. It holds him guilty. It condemns him. No argument
which he can use will show that he is right, and that God is
wrong. No works that he can perform will be any compensation for
what he has already done. No denial of the existence of the facts
charged will alter the case; and he must stand condemned by the
LAW of God.
In the legal sense he cannot be justified; and justi-
fication, if it ever exist at all, must be in a mode that is a
departure from the regular operation of law, and in a mode which
the law did not contemplate, for NO LAW makes any provision for
the pardon of those who violate it. It must be by some system
which is distinct from the law, and in which man may be
JUSTIFIED on different principles than those which the law
contemplates.
(4) This other system of justification is that which is
revealed in the gospel by the faith of the Lord Jesus. It does
NOT consist in either of the following things:
(A) It is not a system or plan where the Lord Jesus takes the
part of the sinner against the law or against God. He did not
come to show that the sinner was right, and that God was wrong.
He admitted most fully, and endeavoured constantly to show, that
God was right, and that the sinner was wrong; nor can an instance
be referred to where the Saviour took the part of the sinner
against God, in any such sense that he endeavoured to show that
the sinner had not done the things charged on him, or that he had
a right to do them.
(B) It is not that we are either innocent, or are declared to be
innocent. God justifies the "ungodly," Rom.4:5. We are not
innocent; we never have been; we never shall be; and it is not
the design of the scheme to declare any such untruth as that we
are not personally undeserving. It will be always true that the
justified sinner has no claims to the mercy and favour of God.
(C) It is not that we cease to be undeserving personally. He
that is justified by faith, and that goes to heaven will go there
admitting that he deserves eternal death, and that he is saved
wholly by favour and not by desert.
(D) It is NOT a declaration on the part of God that WE have
wrought out salvation, or that WE have any claim for what the
Lord Jesus has done. Such a declaration would not be true, and
would not be made.
End quotes from Albert Barnes' Bible Commentary
..............
And there friends is the truth of the matter on JUSTIFICATION as
taught in the Bible and especially the New Testament, or New
Covenant.
TO BE CONTINUED
The Book of GalatiansPaul continues to expound Salvation
FROM BARNES' NOTES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT
CHAP.2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might
live unto God.
....and that the meaning is, that by contemplating the true
character the law of Moses itself; by considering its nature and
design; by understanding the extent of its re requisitions,
he had become dead to it; that is, he had laid aside all ex-
pectations of being justified it. This seems to me to be the
correct interpretation; Paul had formerly expected to be
justified by the law. He had endeavoured to obey it. It had been
the object of his life to comply with all its requisitions, in
order to be saved by it, Phil.3: 4-6. But all this while he had
not fully understood its nature; and when he was made fully to
feel and comprehend its spiritual requirements, then all his
hope of justification by it died, and he became dead to it. See
this sentiment more fully explained in the Note on Rom.7:9.
End quote from Albert Barnes
KEITH HUNT:
I am reminded how Paul used the same type of expression when
writing to the church at Rome (chap.7:4). He explained to them
(v.5-11) that when he fully understood what the law was saying to
him - namely, "you have sinned by transgressing my commands and
your fruits of doing so have earned for you the penalty of the
law, he realized that death was his sentence. Although, he knew
the law of God was holy, just and good, when the consciousness of
the perfect law came to his mind, he realized that because he had
not attained to its perfectness, he was under its penalty of
death (ROM 6:23). He knew the law was saying "I claim your life -
you must die." But he explained to those in Rome (see chap.5:8)
that Jesus died in our stead - He took the penalty of the law for
us. When Jesus was crucified it was as if all sinners were
crucified.
The law's claim on our lives was met through the death of Christ.
We sinners are now dead to the law's penalty by the body (death)
of Jesus. So we can walk in the new life of not serving sin, but
"as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as
instruments of righteousness unto God" (Rom.6:13)
Through the law we find the knowledge that we are sinners and
sentenced to death, but we also as said, have had, in God's great
mercy, our death sentence carried for us by the Son of God, who
loved us and gave himself for us "that whosoever believeth in Him
should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).
Through the Saviour (which the law - the five books of Moses and
the Old Covenant) had repeatedly pointed towards, we had died.
The law is saying, to all repentant believers in the justifying
work of Jesus, "you have died - the penalty of death that I
demanded for your sins has been met - you are dead to me."
So, Paul could say in Gal.2:20 that he was crucified with Christ,
nevertheless he lived, yet not him (the old man of sin: Rom.6:6)
but Christ lived in him. He could now truly say he was "dead to
the law, that I might live unto God." Not that he was free to
wilfully sin and break the law of God through faith in Jesus, for
he himself told those in Rome that he delighted in and served the
law of God, and that through faith we ESTABLISH the law. (Rom.
7:22).
ALBERT BARNES:
CHAP.2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if
righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
.....For if righteousness come by the law. If justification can
be secured by the observance of ANY law - ceremonial or moral -
then there was no need of the death of Christ as an atonement.
This is plain. If man by conformity to ANY law could be justified
before God, what need was there of an atonement? The work would
then have been wholly in his OWN power, and the merit would have
been HIS. If follows from this, that MAN CANNOT be justified by
his OWN morality, or his armsdeeds, or his forms of religion, or
his honesty and integrity. If he can, he needs no savior - he can
save himself.....
They have no deep sense of guilt. They confide in their own
integrity, and feel that God OUGHT to save them. Hence they feel
no need of a Savior; for why should a man in health employ a
physician? And confiding in their OWN righteousness, they REJECT
the GRACE of God, and despise the plan of justification through
the Redeemer. To feel the deed of a Savior, it is necessary to
feel that we are LOST and ruined SINNERS; that we have NO MERIT
on which we can rely; and that we are entirely dependent on the
MERCY of God for salvation. Thus feeling, we shall receive the
salvation of the gospel with thanksgiving and joy, and show that
in regard to us Christ is not "dead in vain".....
CHAP.3:2,3. This only would I learn of you, received you the
Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are
you so foolish having begun in the Spirit, are you now made
perfect by the flesh ?
.....'Received ye the Spirit.'
The Holy Spirit. He refers here, doubtless, to ALL
manifestations of the Spirit which had been made to them, in
renewing the heart, in sanctifying the soul, in comforting them
in affliction, and in his miraculous agency among them. The Holy
Spirit had been conferred on them at their conversion, (compare
Acts 10:44; 11:15) and this was to them proof of the favour of
God, and of their being accepted by him.
'By the works of the law.'
By obeying the law of Moses or of ANY law. It was in no way
connected with their obeying the law. This must have been so
clear to them that no one could have any doubt on the subject.
The inestimably rich and precious gift of the Holy Spirit had NOT
been conferred on them in consequence of their obeying the law.
'Or by the hearing of faith.' In connexion with hearing the
gospel, requiring faith as a condition of salvation.....
'Are ye so foolish!'
Can it be that you are so unwise? The idea is, that Paul
hardly thought it credible that they could have pursued such a
course. They had so cordially embraced the gospel when he
preached to them, they had given such evidences that they were
under its influence, that he regarded it as hardly possible that
they should have so far abandoned it as to embrace such a system
as they had done.
'Having began in the Spirit.'
That is, when the gospel was first preached to them. They
had commenced their professedly Christian life under the
influence of the Holy Spirit, and with the pure and spiritual
worship of God. They had known the power and spirituality of the
glorious gospel. They hall been renewed by the Spirit;
sanctified in some measure by him and had submitted themselves to
the spiritual influences of the gospel.
'Are you now made perfect.'
Tindal renders this, 'ye would now end.' The word here used
means, properly, to bring through to an end, to finish; and the
sense here has probably been expressed by Tindal. The idea of
perfecting, in the sense in which we now use the word, is not
implied in the original. It is that of finishing, ending,
completing; and the sense is, 'You began your Christian career
under the elevated and spiritual influences of Christianity, a
system so pure and so exalted above the carnal ordinances of the
Jews. Having begun thus, can it be that you are finishing your
Christian course, or carrying it on to completion by the
observance of those ordinances, as if they were more pure and
elevating than Christianity? Can it be that you regard them as an
advance on the system of the gospel?'
'By the flesh'.
By the observance of the carnal rites of the Jews, for so
the word here evidently means. This has not been an uncommon
thing. Many have been professedly converted by the Spirit, and
have soon fallen into the observance of mere rites and
ceremonies, and depended mainly on them for salvation. Many
CHURCHES have commenced their career in an elevated and spiritual
manner, and have ended in the observance of mere forms. So many
Christians begin their course in a spiritual manner, and end it
'in the flesh' in another sense. They soon conform to the world.
They are brought under the influence of worldly appetites and
propensities.....
End quotes from "Barnes' Notes on the New Testament"
KEITH HUNT:
3:2
The way to receive GOD'S SPIRIT was given IMMEDIATELY by Peter on
the 1st DAY of the start of the New Testament Church of God, (see
Acts 2:38; 5:3-2; Notice also - Luke 13:3,5; Mark 1:14,15;
Luke 4:16-19; Isaiah 55:1-3,6-9; 56:1-7; 58:13,14; 59:1-15;
57:15; 66:1-2; 53). We have seen how Paul was COMBATTING those
who were preaching JUSTIFICATION by your own WORKS. Being
CIRCUMCISED in the FLESH was one of those works that was said to
be necessary to be saved (Acts 15:1-6). Some were saying that
performing the LAW of Moses - the Old Covenant and physical
CIRCUMCISION was all that was required to get favor and
justification with God, and be saved. They were teaching a
justification and salvation WITHOUT the need of the shed
blood of Christ - without a REDEEMER, a Saviour! They were
teaching a salvation WITHOUT having to have FAITH in a redeemer -
namely Jesus Christ.
CHAP. 3:3
BY THE FLESH: Specifically referring to those who taught that
physical circumcision was necessary to justification and being
saved (See Acts 15:1-6).
3:7-9, 16
The way of JUSTIFICATION (the forgiveness of sins and being
declared righteous) and salvation had been declared by God to
Abraham 430 years before the OLD COVENANT was established.
God the Father had determined LONG BEFORE the OLD COVENANT was
given, that the way to JUSTIFICATION was going to be through a
REDEEMER - a Saviour who would come from Abraham's seed and die
for the sins of all mankind. It was NOT going to be through a
person WORKING at DOING something and EARNING God's favor and
forgiveness.
The way of JUSTIFICATION had been FORMULATED BEFORE the
foundation of the earth - 2 Timothy 1:9; I Peter 1:18-20.
CHAP. 3:9
THEY WHICH BE OF FAITH: As Paul said later to the Ephesians,
"For by GRACE are you saved, through FAITH and that not of
yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not of works, least any man
should boast." (Eph.2:8,9).
No amount of performance at anything, no works of law, any
law - ceremonial or moral can forgive or justify sins already
done, as Albert Barnes so well understood. And as he has
elsewhere stated, the design of law is not to forgive but to
condemn. So none can be saved through law, unless one would never
break the law - never sin. That Paul says has never ever been
done except by one man - Christ Jesus (see Romans 3:23; Hebrews
4:14,15).
It was obvious then, to Paul, that all others can only be saved
by GRACE, the corner stone of which is FAITH - faith to believe
that Jesus did live, die and was resurrected, to secure
justification for all who will repent of sin and believe. This
was ever the only way of salvation - there was never any other
way, and Paul shows this from the example of Abraham who lived
BEFORE the Old Covenant was ever entered into and given to
Israel. Abraham was saved through FAITH not by circumcision or
any ceremonial rites or any deeds of law, but by BELIEF in the
promise of God that of his seed would come the Saviour of mankind
- the one who would bear the sins of the world, thus securing
justification for all who would be of the same FAITH as Abraham.
We do well to take heed to what the word of the Eternal gives us
as to the KIND of faith Abraham had. The father of the faithful
had a LIVING - ACTIVE faith. It was evidenced in his loving
obedience to all that the Lord commanded him (see James 2:10-26;
Genesis 26:5).
ALBERT BARNES' NOTES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT
CHAP.3:6,7,9 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted
to him for righteousness. Know you therefore, that they which are
of faith, the same are the children of Abraham ... So then they
which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
'Even as Abraham believed'
See this passage fully explained in the Notes on Rom.4:3.
The passage is introduced here by the apostle to show that the
most eminent of the patriarchs was not saved by the deeds of the
law. He was saved by faith, and this fact showed that it was
possible to be saved in that way, and that it was the design of
God to save men in this manner. Abraham believed God, and was
justified, before the law of Moses was given. It could not,
therefore, be pretended that the law was necessary to
justification; for if it had been, Abraham could not have been
saved. But if not necessary in his case, it was in no other; and
this instance demonstrated that the false teachers among the
Galatians were wrong even according to the Old Testament.
'Know ye therefore' etc.
Learn from this case. It is an inference which follows, that
all they who believe are the children of Abraham.
'They which are of faith.'
Who believe, and who are justified in this manner.
'Are the children of Abraham.'
Abraham was the 'father of the faithful,' The most
remarkable trait in his character was his unwavering confidence
in God. They who evinced the same trait, therefore, were worthy
to be called his children. They would he justified in the same
way, and in the same manner meet the approbation of God. It is
implied here, that it was sufficient for salvation to have a
character which would render it proper to say that we are the
children of Abraham. If we are like him, if we evince the same
spirit and character, we may be sure of salvation.
'So then they which be of faith.'
They whose leading characteristic it is that they believe.
This was the leading trait in the character of Abraham; and this
is the leading thing required of those who embrace the gospel,
and in the character of a true Christian.
'Are blessed with faithful Abraham.'
In the same manner they are in interested in the promises
made to him, and they will be treated as he was. They are
justified in the same manner, and admitted to the same privileges
on earth and in heaven.....
End Quotes from Albert Barnes
..............
TO BE CONTINUED
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment