by Rev. Clinton Chisholm

What was it that so provoked Paul to use such blunt language?  A serious challenge to the heart of the gospel he had preached in Galatia.  He described the troublemakers as intending to “pervert the gospel of Christ” (1.7). He even charges that his senior apostolic colleague Peter and those who imitated his behavior “were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel” (2.14). It is in the context of a public rebuke of Peter that Paul stresses the heart of the gospel and the heart of the epistle, the key verses, 2.15-16, 15 "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” I would suggest that you memorize these verses or have a grasp of them in your own words as well as 3.25 which I prefer in the NIV “Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.”

Now we provide an overview and some clarifying points on the epistle.

In chapter 1 Paul defends his apostolic call in very strong terms. His apostleship did not originate with man nor was it mediated by any man but it was by Jesus Christ and God the Father. (1.1).  He is at pains to show his lack of association with any of the  Apostles in the early days after his conversion (1.15- 2.10).

Of significance here is the fact that Paul still showed that the content of the gospel he preached was identical to that preached by Peter and the others (2.6-10).

Paul also defends the gospel of Christ in 1.6ff. The slight puzzle in the KJV rendition of 1.6-7 is as a result of a play on two Greek words for ‘another’.  The words are allos (another of the same kind = similar) and heteros (another of a different kind = dissimilar). Look at the passage and I’ll point out where each word appears.
“…unto another (heteros) gospel, 7 which is not another (allos)…;”

This heteros gospel Paul regards as bogus and he urges the Galatians to pronounce a curse on anyone who preached anything contrary to the gospel he had already preached to them (1.8). By the repeated mention of certain things we know what the essence of this other gospel that Paul rejected was: justification through circumcision and observance of the Mosaic Law (ancient markers of the people of Israel, 2.16; 3.21; 4.21; 5.2;6.12).  ‘Justification’ is a popular word in the epistle and is a legal term meaning ‘declared righteous, treated as not guilty just as if you had never sinned’ it is to receive special and sufficient spiritual status with God.

In chapter 2, Paul defends the gospel and denounces Peter for walking contrary to that gospel.  In 2.11ff, we find Paul’s account of his public rebuke of Peter.  All of this is happening after Calvary and so Peter contrary to his traditional Jewish upbringing would eat with the Gentiles since he realized that Calvary brought an end to Jewish dietary laws (part of the Mosaic covenant). However when some of Peter’s Jewish friends came to Galatia from James in Jerusalem Peter backed off eating with his Gentile brothers in Christ thereby suggesting by his behavior that Jewish dietary laws really did matter.  For Paul, a private rebuke was not an option because too many people were adversely affected by Peter’s hypocrisy.  Peter had to be set straight publicly (see 2.14-16).

At the end of his argument for the non-necessity of the Mosaic law for righteousness Paul declares in v. 21 “if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."  Put differently if special and sufficient spiritual status came through the law then the death of Jesus was a grand waste of time. But our Lord had to die to provide for us what the Law could not at all provide.

In chapter 3, Paul opens with the charge of folly on the part of the Galatians. To highlight their folly in rejecting the genuine gospel for a law-based justification Paul draws on their experience as Christians and the example of Abraham.  Paul is at his rhetorical best here – he calls them foolish yet assumes the posture of a student in v.2.  His summary point is this, those spiritual benefits which are pivotal to your experience— reception of the Spirit and miracles—came to you by faith in what you heard not by obeying the Law (3.2-5).  Similarly Abraham was declared righteous by putting faith in God’s word to him long before the Mosaic Law came and shortly before he became circumcised (3.6-9). How then could circumcision and law-keeping be necessary for righteousness before God?

Then later in chapter 3 Paul provides, in different ways, description and duration of the Law. Let me summarize then the Mosaic Law’s purpose.  The law was given to reveal the evil of transgressions until Christ.  It was designed to regulate conduct until faith.  It was to act as custodian or slave-guide leading to Christ.  The Mosaic law was to act as a tutor and governor of spiritual minors until sonship. So in stating the purpose of the law Paul also states the duration of the law’s job.  It was never God’s intention for the law to provide salvation or special status before God.  The law was given as a conduct regulator and infant controller until Calvary.

 The key to link the Mosaic law with the 430-year reference in Gal. 3.17 is Ex. 12.40-41.

In 3.26 and 4.1 Paul plays with two Greek words, each meaning offspring or son but with different nuances. The Greek words are huios/huioi = mature son(s), nepios/nepioi = infant(s).  So flowing out of v.25, 3.26 provides the reason why we are no longer under the slave-guide, the law; we are huioi, mature sons because of saving faith in Jesus Christ whereas in 4.1 the infant child (nepios) is in view and that one needs guardians.

In your own time probe the beautiful allegory that Paul builds around Sarah and Hagar in 4.21-5.1.  The bottom line theological point of the allegory is in 4.28 – 5.1.

NKJ 28 “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman."  31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free. Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.”

In chapter 5 Paul provides a sharp contrast between life in the flesh and life in the Spirit.  This is at once to correct any misconceptions arising from the fact that we are no longer under the Mosaic law. Sabbath–keepers think and some other ill-informed Christians might think that once we accept liberation from the Mosaic law we can live anyhow. Not so at all as Paul goes on to explain.  Life in the Spirit is a life of holiness lived by the Spirit’s promptings about things lawful and things inappropriate or inexpedient as well.  There are principles of conduct (commandments) for New Testament believers from Jesus Himself and from His Apostles (see our Lord’s new commandment of love as He loved us, Jn. 13.34-35; 15.12, 17; James 2.8; Gal. 5.14; Rom. 13.9-10; Eph. 4.17-32).

The final chapter in Galatians calls us to show love by being there for those who have spiritual struggles with sin and by assisting those who are weighed down with life’s burdens.

 A final chide of those who are fussy about circumcision wraps up the epistle.

You should know that there are thematic similarities between Galatians and Romans 3-4.

Conclusion

Neither Jew nor Gentile can get special and sufficient spiritual status before God by obeying the Mosaic law.  Those who are mature children of God by faith in Jesus Christ (huioi) are no longer under the supervision of the infant-minder the Law.

Sunday Observance in History >> PDF

©Rev. Clinton A. Chisholm, January, 2008

Recommend this site to a friend