27 Comments

1. 

   Meghan Elkink on January 26, 2010 at 6:47 pm

   Hi Grant, our bible study group with mom is now working through Galatians. We were wondering something – did Paul actually see Jesus on the road to Damascus or a vision of Jesus?

2. 

   Grant on February 12, 2010 at 8:54 am

   Meghan, Sorry to get back to so late. I have been in Bangladesh and India for 3 1/2 weeks. Apparently Paul saw Jesus Himself (one of the requirements for apostleship). Note 1 Co 9:1.

3. 

   Beverly on August 30, 2011 at 6:35 pm

   Are there any Apostles today

4. 

   Grant on August 31, 2011 at 4:08 am

   Beverly, go to this site where I answer your question in the blog below: http://versebyversecommentary.com/1-peter/1-peter-11b/

5. 

   Rhoda Edwards on August 26, 2013 at 9:47 pm

   Hi, just found your site, looks interesting. Will check back soon.

6. 

   Andries on January 10, 2016 at 4:10 am

   LEGALISM AND GALATIANS
   Legalism may be defined as the notion that one is saved by complying with rules and regulations.
   Teachers sometimes say that Galatians was written against legalism, and this might be right, but it was written against a specific form of legalism. Galatians is one of the earliest of Paul’s letters, and in those early days the majority of the church consisted of converted Jews, and the church in Jerusalem, which probably consisted exclusively of Jews, governed church doctrines. Judaism, in the view of many of these Jewish Christians, was the true religion, and Christ—the Jewish Messiah—was part of Judaism. They therefore insisted that Gentile Christians join Judaism through circumcision. They argued:
   “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1).
   “It is necessary to circumcise them (the Gentiles) and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses” (Acts 15:5).
   Perhaps this may be described as legalism, but perhaps this was simply the natural consequence of what these Jews understand as truth. It is important to know that things did not suddenly change when Christ died, and that a Jew who accepted Christ did not immediately start to live differently. He was both a Jew and a Christian, and he continued to do everything that the “Law of Moses” (Acts 15:5) required. Many years after Christ’s death Paul visited Jerusalem (Acts 21:17) and the “elders” said to him:
   “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law” (Act 21:20).
   In their view Christianity was a part of Judaism. It was called “the sect of the Nazarenes” (Act 24:5). “Sect” today has a negative connotation, but Paul said “I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion” (Acts 26:5). The Christians therefore was a sub-group of Judaism, just like the Pharisees were a sub-group of Judaism.
   I would therefore propose that Galatians was not written against legalism in general, but to correct the erroneous view that Christianity is part of Judaism. The main thrust of Galatians is that Jews must not be circumcised (5:2-3; 6:12). Circumcision is the door into Judaism. By preaching against circumcision Paul was keeping Christianity out of Judaism. That is different from preaching against legalism.
   Paul’s main argument against the circumcision of Gentiles is:
   “man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus” (2:16)
   This may rightly be seen as an argument against legalism, but since Paul had to argue like this, one may assume that the Jewish Christians argued the opposite, namely that man is justified by the works of the Law. This Law is specifically the Law of Moses. The Law in Galatians is the Law of Moses (3:17; 4:24, 25; Acts 15:5). This is therefore not an argument against legalism in general, but an argument against the idea that one is justified by complying with the Law of Moses specifically.
   To summarize: Galatians was written to resist the attempts of Christian Jews to bring Christian Gentiles into Judaism. Since circumcision was the door into Judaism, the battle of Galatia was fought in the area of circumcision.
   Paul’s opposition argued that man, to be saved, must keep the Law of Moses. They therefore argued that, to be saved, one must become a Jew. To counter this argument, Paul argued that man is NOT saved by keeping the Law of Moses.
   If we define legalism as the notion that one is saved by complying with rules and regulations, then Paul’s argument should not be seen as an argument against legalism in general. He is specifically arguing against the notion that, to be justified, one must be circumcised and live according to the Law of Moses. It is theoretically possible to still maintain that man must comply with some other rules and regulations to be saved. For instance, in 5:19-20 Paul lists the “deeds of the flesh” and concludes:
   “… those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (5:21)
   Is this a form of legalism? Please refer to the discussion of 5:21 for more information

7. 

   Andries on January 10, 2016 at 6:27 am

   WHY DID PAUL PERSECUTE CHRISTIANS?
   You say: Paul was a foremost exponent of legalism before he came to Christ. He murdered Christians in the name of legalism:
   “For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” (1 Corinthians 15:9-10).
   I think you are wrong. I don’t know much about chronology. But I believe that Peter received his vision (Acts 10) only after Paul was stopped at Damascus (Acts 9). In other words, when Paul persecuted the church the church still consisted only of Jews, functioned as part of Judaism and met every day in the Temple (Acts 5:42), zealous for the Law (Acts 21:20). At that time the church has not yet started to move out of Judaism. In fact, God called and used Paul to get Christianity out of Judaism. That only happened a decade or two later, when Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, seriously got to work.
   I think Paul persecuted the church because of the accusations the church brought in against Judaism:
   “Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now” (Act 7:52)

8. 

   Grant on January 10, 2016 at 7:41 am

   Andries, in answer to your question about “persecution,” read my introduction because your timeline is confused.
   In answer to your fist post:
   First, your definition of “legalism” is reductionistic. The New Testament uses that term in a much broader sense that you indicate.
   Secondly, Galatians was not written primarily to Jews but to Gentiles in Asia Minor (part of Turkey today). There are two theories of the timing of the writing of Galatians (e.g. southern Galatian theory) but in either case Galatians was written very early. But even with this Judaizers had already formed and dogged Paul’s ministry on his mission trips (see major studies on who these Judaizers were). Most believe that these people were believers who dragged their Judaism into Christianity. They tried to accommodate Judaism to their Christianity (as do many evangelicals today in post-conservativism).
   Thirdly, the entire argument of Galatians argues that Christians should not revert into legalism but have a clear understanding of grace. I suggest you read my “Introduction” to get a clearer picture of this. Look at how Paul applies the argument of chapters 1-4 in 5-6 in my outline below. Your notion that “legalism is “saved by complying with rules and regulations” is completely off base and neglects the argument of the entire book. Note part of my outline of the book:
   III. Paul’s practical appeal, 5:1-6:10
   A. Life under the legalism, 5:1-12
   1. Legalism enslaves the believer, 5:1-2
   2. Legalism puts believers in debt, 5:3
   3. Legalism alienates the believer from Christ, 5:4-6
   4. Legalism hinders orientation to grace, 5:7-10
   5. Legalism removes the necessity of the stigma of the cross because man does the doing rather than Christ doing the doing, 5:11-12
   B. License is no justification for falling into legalism, 5:13-15
   C. Life by the Spirit is a life lived under God’s provisions (grace), it is the liberty to live for the Lord, not the liberty to sin, 5:16-21
   D. The Holy Spirit, as over against the law, empowers the believer to live for God, 5:22-26
   E. Grace serves people, 6:1-10.
   1. Grace serves the sinner, 6:1
   2. Grace servers those the burdened person, 6:2-5
   3. Grace serves the leader, 6:6-9
   4. Grace serves all, 6:10
   Fourthly, note how Paul attributes the motives of the legalists in his conclusion of the epistle:
   Galatians 6: 12 As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. 13 For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh.
   It is clear that these people were saved Jews who were attempting to accommodate truth to their viewpoint.

9. 

   Andries on January 11, 2016 at 5:37 am

   Dear Grant, with respect to my comment on persecution, if you maintain that Paul persecuted the church for legalism, then your understanding of legalism is far beyond what I understand the term to mean. I was surprised by your statement that the New Testament uses that term in a much broader sense that I indicate. I immediately checked, and the word does not appear in the Bible. It is one of those words that theologians use to express a concept or concepts they believe they see in the Bible. You seem to include everything that is wrong into that term. With such a soft definition I am not able to work. But thanks anyway for your comments.
   Andries

10. 

    Grant on January 11, 2016 at 6:42 am

    Andries, it is not clear to me what you mean by legalism but I understand legalism as the attempt to gain God’s approval by what one does.
    Note my studies on Paul’s persecution of Christians in light of his legalism (which even went beyond the Mosaic Law) in Galatians 1:13f. Note particularly this passage:
    “or the traditions of my fathers.
    Paul lived for legalism. His tradition was one of religious rules that went beyond the Law of Moses. These rules defied compliance. There was not the slightest orientation to grace in his background. It was a performance and works mindset based on ancestral tradition. All his previous education and prejudices were the polar opposites to grace.”
    Obviously, the term “legalism” is not used in the N.T. “Legalism” is a theological term used to summarize (as all theological terms) the concept of “works of the Law” presented in the New Testament. Legalism insists upon the observation of human regulations, as if one’s fellowship with God were dependent upon that observation. In N.T. times, legalism insisted upon the observation of O.T. rules and ceremony which had been fulfilled in Christ and thus were no longer binding upon the Christian. The letter to the Galatians was written to attack legalism and assert Christian freedom. The Mosaic Law perceived as a rule of life for believers is legalism whether or not it has soteriological overtones. The argument of Galatians is that the law of liberty superseded Mosaic law.

11. 

    Andries on January 12, 2016 at 9:11 am

    Dear Grant

    I am very aware of the ancestral traditions Would you agree to the following explanation:

    –One of the oldest requirements in the Mishnah was that the Jews had to build a fence around the Law of Moses. This means that the Jews had to develop rules and regulations as a wall of protection to prevent noncompliance with the Law. Over their long history they added thousands of rules, for example:
    “…the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders … and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots. “ (Mark 7:3-4)
    “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread” (Matthew 15:2)
    “… why … do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” … in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?” (Col. 2:20-22)
    The Sabbath is a good example. The Old Testament forbids work on the Sabbath, without defining “work”. The Jews added 1600 rules to define “work”. For instance, if you need two hands to tie or untie a knot, then it was not allowed on the Sabbath, but if you can do it with only one hand, it was not considered to be “work”. As one author noted, these traditions were like a mountain (of laws) hanging on a hair (the prescripts in the Scriptures).
    But Christ described the traditions as worthless “precepts of men”:
    “You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: ‘this people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far away from me, but in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'” (Mat. 15:7-9; see also Mark 7:7)
    Christ’s point is extremely important. The Jews developed these rules as a hedge to prevent con-compliance with the Law of Moses, but eventually these traditions had the opposite effect:
    The traditions regulated external deeds, and ignored internal thoughts, feelings and motives. By focusing on external deeds the traditions promoted a culture of self-righteousness, where people strive to earn justification by their own effort, while “their heart is far away from me” (Mat. 15:7-9). They could make a list of things that they must do and avoid, and at the end of the day they could say, like the Pharisee, “God, I thank Thee that I am not as the rest of men, rapacious, unrighteous, adulterers … I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all things–as many as I possess”. Christ declared that this Pharisee went away without being “declared righteous” (Luke 18:11-14).
    The external behaviour-nature of the traditions also allowed the Jews to criticise each other; something in which they specialised.
    Therefore the traditions that were intended to prevent sin eventually served to separate the Jews from God.
    While the Jewish culture focused on external deeds, Paul taught the importance of the internal “heart”-issues, such as love and faith. The Jewish system of “works”, that focuses on external deeds, represents a do-it-yourself religion where people try to earn a right standing before God by own effort. In contrast, “faith” is not visible to the human eye. “Faith” result is deeds, but humans are poor judges of motive. Paul’s teaching that man is justified by “faith in Christ Jesus” (2:16) shifts the focus to the internal state of mind. “Faith” knows that we are unable to meet God’s infinite standards, and throws itself at His feet, trusting in His mercy, like the tax collector in Christ’s story, who “was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!” (Luke 18:13). “This man went to his house justified” (Luke 18:14).

    Andries

12. 

    Grant on January 12, 2016 at 10:51 am

    Andries,
    Early Christian scholarship believed the Mishnah (oral tradition) was characteristic of the practices of Judaism in the time of Christ. However, recent scholarship is more cautious because of the long development of the Mishnah and because recent scholarship has begun to realize that the Judaism in Jesus’ day had a plethora of viewpoints.
    Note this statement from The Dictionary of New Testament Background: “We cannot uncritically cite the Mishnah and the Tosefta for a factual account of the state of the law in the time of Jesus. The Mishnah’s attributions cannot be taken at face value, and the sources of the Mishnah’s law and the state of its conception of the law prior to closure remain questions subject to considerable study. No final answers dictate that a given rule tells us about the law in remote antiquity, or in the first century or only in the early third century, when the document reached closure. And the Tosefta is temporally and logically subordinate to the Mishnah. The Gospels stand closer in time to the first century than do the Mishnah and the Tosefta as we now have them. Nor can we automatically deem as a factual account of first-century times a saying attributed to a first-century authority by a third-century compilation. But at numerous specific points exegesis of the Gospels does find valuable information and even sharp perspective in those documents, just as the Gospels richly contribute to the exegesis of the Mishnah.”

13. 

    andries on January 12, 2016 at 12:22 pm

    Dear Grant

    You define legalism as the attempt to gain God’s approval by what one does. I previously defined legalism as the notion that one is saved by complying with rules and regulations. Are these two definitions not the same? You previously called my definition reductionistic.

    Andries

14. 

    andries on January 12, 2016 at 12:42 pm

    Dear Grant

    I would agree with everything in your comment on the 11th, except for the following:

    (1) You say: Legalism insists upon the observation of human regulations. I would say Legalism insists upon the observation of regulations per se. In Paul’s day, according to Paul’s theology, observance of the Law of Moses was “legalism”.

    (2) One gets the impression from what you write that you assume that, when Paul persecuted the church, the church understood the gospel as Paul would explain it decades later in his letters. I do not think they did, and I also think you do not either. Yes, they had Christ’ teachings, and His teachings focus on internal issues (love & faith), in contrast to Judaism with its focus on external works. But, firstly, Christ did not preach the end of the Law of Moses, did He? It was only Paul that made that clear. Secondly, the Jews made Judaism into a system of works. It was not like that when God gave Him His Laws. Their prophets repeatedly pleaded for circumcision of the heart. Therefore, I believed that, at that time, the church still observed the Law of Moses in its entirety. If that is the case I cannot imagine that Paul persecuted the church for “legalism”.

    (3) You wrote: These rules defied compliance. Not sure what you mean.

    Regards
    Andries

15. 

    Grant on January 12, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    Andries, Re definition of legalism.
    The only thing I meant by reductionistic was that you limited legalism to salvation whereas the main argument of Galatians is that Christians were using legalism as the method of sanctification.

16. 

    Grant on January 12, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    Andries,
    Note my commentary under your comments:
    (1) You say: Legalism insists upon the observation of human regulations. I would say Legalism insists upon the observation of regulations per se. In Paul’s day, according to Paul’s theology, observance of the Law of Moses was “legalism”.

    I would agree but Paul also uses legalism theologically in a broader sense as well.

    (2) One gets the impression from what you write that you assume that, when Paul persecuted the church, the church understood the gospel as Paul would explain it decades later in his letters. I do not think they did, and I also think you do not either.

    The Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) resolved the issue of law vs grace, therefore, some, at least, clearly understood the principle of grace explained later in Galatians. The resolution of the council came down on the side of the grace principle.

    (3) Yes, they had Christ’ teachings, and His teachings focus on internal issues (love & faith), in contrast to Judaism with its focus on external works. But, firstly, Christ did not preach the end of the Law of Moses, did He? It was only Paul that made that clear.

    It depends of what you mean by “the end of the law.” Christ fulfilled the demands of the civil and ceremonial law putting an end to the necessity to have a theocratic national entity and an end to the need for type since Christ is the antitype. The moral law continues unabated.

    Secondly, the Jews made Judaism into a system of works. It was not like that when God gave Him His Laws. Their prophets repeatedly pleaded for circumcision of the heart. Therefore, I believed that, at that time, the church still observed the Law of Moses in its entirety. If that is the case I cannot imagine that Paul persecuted the church for “legalism”.

    This viewpoint is exactly what Paul argues against in Galatians and other books. If you mean that the church continued with the moral law? Then I would agree. Paul persecuted the church because of their commitment to the grace principle found in the principle of justification by faith (salvation in the OT was by faith as well as the NT).

    (4) You wrote: These rules defied compliance. Not sure what you mean.

    By that I simply mean that Paul held the belief that a person is saved by the law, not grace.

17. 

    Andries on January 14, 2016 at 4:47 am

    Dear Grant

    YOU WROTE: It depends of what you mean by “the end of the law.” Christ fulfilled the demands of the civil and ceremonial law putting an end to the necessity to have a theocratic national entity and an end to the need for type since Christ is the antitype. The moral law continues unabated.

    I PROPOSE:

    Firstly, Galatians and Paul’s writings in general make no distinction between moral, ceremonial and civil laws. When Paul says that he has been released from the Law (Rom. 7:6), that he “died to the Law“ (Rom 7:4; Gal 2:19), that the Law was a tutor to Christ (Gal. 3:23-24), that the Law was only given until the Seed would come (Gal. 3:19) then he refers to the entire Law of Moses (Acts 15:1, 5; Gal. 3:17; 4:24). Such a distinction cannot be justified from Paul’s writings.

    Secondly, you make that distinction on the basis of type and antitype, but I would argue that Christ is just as much the antitype of the moral Law.

    It is my view that even the Ten Commandments were nailed to Cross. Let me explain it this way:

    (1) The Ten Commandments were a diluted version of God’s eternal Laws. The Ten Commandments were adaptations of God’s principles to fit Israel’s level of understanding when they came out of idolatrous Egypt. For that reason it was given in a negative format; not do this and not do that. God’s principle is that should love your neighbour like yourself, not that “thou shalt not kill”.

    (2) Christ came to explain God’s eternal laws, which Paul refers to as the Law of Christ (Gal 6:2; 1Cor. 9). Christ has done away with the entire Law of Moses. In the Sermon on the Mount He repeatedly said, “you have heard … but I tell you”. He did not interpret the Law of Moses and the Ten Commandments; he replaced the Law of Moses, including the Ten Commandments, with the Law of Christ. He did not do away with the moral elements of the Law of Moses, but he gave it a much higher meaning; not even look & desire; love thy enemy, turn the other cheek. We are subject to the Law of Christ.

    (3) Our Reformed and Seventh-Day Adventist friends, that wish to retain the Sabbath, may do so, but only on the basis of Christ’s teaching. The fact that the Ten include the Sabbath Commandment implies that it is a moral commandment, but the nature and form we must derive from Christ’s teachings. He said more about the Sabbath than perhaps about all other nine commandments together. Christ changed the Sabbath from a law of idleness into a day of much but different activity; a day “to do good” and a day to do the Father’s work of liberation. It is a better day than the other six.

    In closing, I really appreciate your comments on my comments. It helps me to think these things through.

    Andries

18. 

    andries on January 14, 2016 at 4:51 am

    Dear Grant, please explain to me the difference between the following two statements:
    “man is not justified by the works of the Law” (Gal 2:16)
    “the doers of the Law will be justified” (Rom. 2:13)
    Andries

19. 

    Grant on January 14, 2016 at 6:27 am

    Adries,
    Note my response under your comments:

    “Firstly, Galatians and Paul’s writings in general make no distinction between moral, ceremonial and civil laws.”

    The entire book of Hebrews, as does the complete arguments of Romans and Galatians and other books, argues against your point. For example, the fundamental argument of Hebrews is against observation of the type because the Antitype has come. The motif is Jesus is “better than,” a phrase repeated over and over in Hebrews, the Mosaic ceremonial law. The type cannot take away sin; it can only illustrate the One who truly can.

    “Secondly, you make that distinction on the basis of type and antitype, but I would argue that Christ is just as much the antitype of the moral Law.”

    Nowhere in Hebrews or elsewhere is there the kind of argument you make in Hebrews in the New Testament against the moral law. The moral law is always affirmed in the New Testament. The same cannot be said about the civil and ceremonial law.

    “The Ten Commandments were a diluted version of God’s eternal Laws.”

    Nowhere substantiated in the New Testament. The onus is upon the person who makes the assertion.

    “Christ came to explain God’s eternal laws, which Paul refers to as the Law of Christ (Gal 6:2; 1Cor. 9).”

    You do not offer any adequate exegetical or expositional justification to explain how Christ “replaced” the “entire” Law of Moses

    “The fact that the Ten include the Sabbath Commandment implies that it is a moral commandment, but the nature and form we must derive from Christ’s teachings.”

    Colossians (cf. 2:11ff) hows that the Sabbath was done away as a “shadow” or type because the Antitype has come. Colossians argues this was done because Christ fulfilled both the ceremonial and moral law and making the believer positionally perfect before God forever. Jesus Himself paid for the penalty of the law that we should have paid for it. (To your point, the reason Christ came was to deal with the absolute nature of God. Since God is not a relative being, we cannot deal with our sins relatively. Jesus dealt with them absolutely and thus we have an absolute standing before God because we stand before Him in Christ.

20. 

    Grant on January 14, 2016 at 6:30 am

    Andries, I have already made comments on the verses you request in Galatians and Romans. See those studies in Verse-by-Verse Commentary.

21. 

    Grant on January 14, 2016 at 6:34 am

    Andries, please make your comments under another relevant blog as other people who have made comments in this blog are getting many emails from this particular blog.

22. 

    Andries on January 18, 2016 at 4:28 am

    Grant
    This facility on your website, that one can input your email address when you comment, and get an email when somebody else comments; is that a plugin? Where can I get this plugin?
    Andries

23. 

    Grant on January 18, 2016 at 5:47 am

    Andries, I do no run my site except for the content so I don’t know the answer to your question. James Warkentin is the administrator of my site (a Christian). You can contact him here: http://www.warkensoft.com/

24. 

    andries on January 18, 2016 at 6:12 am

    Grant, Can I ask a personal question? You seem to respond to comments every day and you do it rather comprehensively. How do you do it? Is this your ministry or are you also involved in other work? How many visitors do you have on your website every day and how many comments do you on average respond to each day?
    You also seem to have a massive amount of material on your website. Are you perhaps a lecturer, and these your lecture notes?
    Sorry if my questions are inappropriate.
    Andries

25. 

    Grant on January 18, 2016 at 11:22 am

    Andries,
    I am a speaker and writer for Advancing Indigenous Missions and right now I am preparing to speak to a seminary and then hold a number of pastor’s conferences in Indonesia.

    I am not quite sure how many daily visits but there are over 130,000 daily email subscribers growing at about 2,000 a month.
    Grant

    The number of questions per day differs radically. Maybe as much as 10 per day and sometimes none.

    These are not lecture notes but this site has been running since 1994. That is the reason there are almost 8,000 pages!! 🙂

26. 

    Geoff Codlyn on January 24, 2016 at 2:08 pm

    Bless be GOD for you Dr. Grant, The Lord have free us from the “mongrel gospel” and “mongrel sanctification” in the Pentecostal church. For the last five years I have being listen to verse by verse teaching and now understand that it is Christ deeds, words and death what please the Father for us. I would like to use you notes to teach my friends the bible here in Sun Prairie WI, because the “black Churches” here more about “name it and clam it” or “get you break through” the explain the word of God. I am a black man if you ask why I say black church

27. 

    Grant on January 24, 2016 at 3:10 pm

    Geoff, feel free to use my notes. The only thing I ask is for you to give them out freely (with the exception of printing costs, etc.)
    Thank you for the blessing.