IFRS: training, methodology and implementation practice for companies and specialists...
“I have been crucified with Christ. And it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.”
To better understand this text, let's first clarify what is not in the text.
He doesn't say, "I want to be crucified with Christ." He also does not say: “If only I had been crucified with Christ.” The Scripture says: “I have been crucified with Christ.”
Moreover, the Bible does not say: “Paul was crucified with Christ; Christ lived in Paul; and the Son of God loved Paul and gave Himself for Him.” And although this is true, these words from the Holy Scriptures do not apply to Paul alone. The Bible says: “I have been crucified with Christ. And it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.”
These lines are the solid foundation of the faith of every person on earth. Everyone can confidently say: “He loved me.” "He gave Himself for me." “I have been crucified with Christ.” "Christ lives in me." Read also 1 John. 4:15.
Every person can say with confidence: “I have been crucified with Christ.” One should not guess whether this is so or not, and doubt the truth of this, because this is an undoubted fact. And the statement “I was crucified with Christ” is a recognition of the fact that has already happened: each of us was crucified with Christ. It is true that Jesus Christ was crucified on the cross. The moment this happened, we were crucified; because He was one of us. His name: Immanuel, which means: “God with us”; not “God is with him,” but “God is with us.” If this is so, and His name is “God with us,” then who then was Christ if not “us”? Therefore, when He was crucified, we were crucified.
This truth is mind boggling. Jesus Christ was “us.” He had one flesh and blood with us. He became like us in everything. “Therefore He had to become like the brethren in everything.” Heb. 2:17. Christ “emptied” Himself and became like men. He was the "last Adam." Like the first Adam, the last Adam - Christ was us. With the death of the first Adam, we also died while in him. And when they crucified the last Adam, they crucified us with Him.
As in Adam, all humanity was contained in Christ, and when Christ was crucified, all humanity was crucified; The old, sinful nature of man was crucified with Him. “Knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin.” Rome. 6:6.
Therefore, any soul in this world has acquired the opportunity to say: “I have been crucified with Christ”; my human nature is crucified with Him, so that this sinful body can be put to death, so that henceforth I will no longer be a slave to sin. And it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. “We always carry in our body the death of the Lord Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. For we who are alive are continually being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our mortal flesh.” 2 Cor. 4:10, 11. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.
The great sacrifice made by Jesus Christ for all of us, as a gift of faith to every soul, and not just the basis of our faith. Not only was the wisdom of God revealed on the cross, but the very power of God was revealed to free us from all sin and bring us to the Lord.
Brother and sister, believe it. And accept it. And say with faith: “I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” This is the truth, wisdom and power of God, which saves the soul from all sin.
2,1 Fifth, during Paul's later visit to Jerusalem, the apostles agreed that his gospel was divine (2:1-10). Since the church was founded in Jerusalem and the apostles made this city to some extent their headquarters, then, of course, the Christians there considered their church the “mother church.” Thus, Paul had to dispute the accusation that he was in some way inferior to the Jerusalem apostles because he was not one of them. He responds with a detailed account of his last visit. Jerusalem. We don't know if it's passed fourteen years old from the time of his conversion or from the time of his first visit to Jerusalem.
However, we know that he received a revelation from Christ to go there with Barnabas, who worked with him, and Titus, a Gentile who was converted through the ministry of Paul. The Judaizers insisted that Titus must be circumcised in order to be fully saved. The Apostle Paul did not yield to them, realizing that the truth of the Gospel was under threat. (Later, when Paul himself circumcised Timothy, no important principles were affected. See Acts 16:3.)
E. F. Keeven says:
“Paul saw that circumcision for the sake of justification was not the innocent, insignificant ritual that thoughtless man might have thought it to be. To undergo circumcision was to seek justification in keeping the law, and thus to deny the very foundation of grace.”(E. F. Kevan, The Keswick Week 1955, p. 29.)
2,2 When Paul reached Jerusalem, he He offered there, and especially to the most famous, the gospel, which he preached to the pagans, is it not in vain he struggles or labored.
Why did Paul say especially with spiritual leaders rather than with the entire congregation? Did he want them to approve of his gospel in case he preached something false? Of course not! This is contrary to everything the apostle said. He insists that his message is given to him through Divine revelation. He has no doubt that the doctrine he preaches is true. The real explanation must be found elsewhere. Speaking to the leaders first required simple politeness. It was also desirable that the leaders first be convinced of the truth of Paul's gospel. If they had questions or concerns, Paul wanted to answer them privately. He could then speak before the church, fully supported by the other apostles. When dealing with a large group of people, there is always the danger of being overwhelmed by emotional impulses. Therefore, Paul wanted to first present his gospel especially, in an atmosphere free from possible mass hysteria. If Paul had acted differently, a serious dispute might have arisen, dividing the church into Jews and Gentiles. Then Paul's journey to Jerusalem would have been in vain. This is what he means when he says: "...is it not in vain that I struggle or have labored."
2,3 In general, the issue of enforcement of the law became paramount in the case of Titus. Will the Jerusalem church accept this pagan convert into its congregation or will it insist that he first circumcised?[Circumcision is a minor surgical operation performed on men. When God commanded Abraham and his descendants to make it, it was intended to be a sign of His covenant with them: He would be their God, and they would be His people (Gen. 17:1-11). It was not just a physical sign, but also a spiritual symbol. Abraham was circumcised as a sign of his trust in God (Rom. 4:11). Soon the Jews forgot about spiritual meaning of circumcision and performed it only as a ceremony. Thus, the ritual lost its meaning for God. In the NT, circumcision is no longer commanded because God now gives grace to Gentiles and Jews alike. Early in church history, a group of Jewish believers insisted that circumcision was necessary for salvation. Therefore this group was known as “the circumcision” (Gal. 2:12).]
After much discussion and debate, the apostles decided that circumcision was not necessary for salvation. Paul won an amazing victory. (A fairly complete account of this meeting can be found in Acts 15. It should be studied carefully.)
2,4 The main reason for Paul's visit to Jerusalem becomes clear if we connect the beginning of verse 2 with the beginning of verse 4: "And I walked by revelation... because false brothers sneaking in, coming secretly..." A similar situation previously occurred in Antioch (Acts 15:1-2). Some Jewish teachers from Jerusalem, pretending to be Christians, somehow secretly infiltrated the Antioch church and taught that circumcision was necessary for salvation.
2,5 Paul and Barnabas actively opposed them. Wanting to settle this matter, Paul, Barnabas and others went to Jerusalem to find out the opinion of the apostles and elders there.
2,6 Those who were considered leaders in Jerusalem not assigned to him as an apostle nothing more, nothing was added to his message. This is worth paying attention to. In the previous chapter, Paul emphasized that his contacts with the other apostles were kept to a minimum. Now that he actually consulted them, they recognized that he was preaching the same message as they were. This is quite important! The Jewish leaders agreed that there was no defect in his gospel. Although Paul was independent of them and none of them taught him, yet he preached the same gospel as they did. (Paul does not intend to diminish the importance of the other apostles; he simply states that whatever they ever were- and they were companions of the Lord Jesus in His earthly ministry - this does not give them any supreme right to give him their assessment. God does not perceive a person's personality when it comes to such external differences.)
2,7-8 The apostles in Jerusalem understood that Paul, by unmerited grace, was given the task of bringing the Good News uncircumcised(to the Gentiles), just as Peter was sent to the Jews. Both of them preached the same Gospel, but mostly to different peoples.
2,9-10 Even Jacob, Cephas(Peter) and John, apparently pillars churches, having learned what God did through Paul, submitted to him and Barnabas the hand of fellowship for preaching the Gospel to the pagans. This was not a formal ordination, but an expression of their love and interest in Paul's work. They made only one proposal: that Paul and Barnabas remembered the beggars that Paul and tried to do it exactly.
V. Paul rebukes Peter (2:11-21)
2,11 Paul gives his sixth and final answer to those who attack his apostleship and says that he was forced to condemn the apostle Petra, whom many Jewish Christians considered the chief among the apostles. (This passage actually refutes the idea that Peter was an infallible leader of the church.)
2,12 When Peter first came to Antioch, he ate with the pagans, taking full advantage of their Christian freedom. According to Jewish tradition, he was not allowed to do this. Somewhat later, a group of people came from Antioch to Jerusalem from Jacob. They claimed to represent Jacob, but he later denied this (Acts 15:24). They were most likely Jewish Christians who still clung to keeping the law. When they arrived, Peter stopped associating with the pagans, fearing that news of his behavior would reach the legalistic faction in Jerusalem. In doing so, he denied one of the greatest truths of the gospel: that all believers are one in Christ Jesus and that national differences should not affect fellowship. Findlay says, "By refusing to eat with the uncircumcised, he tacitly affirmed that they, although they had believed in Christ, were still to him 'filthy and unclean,' and that the performance of the rituals of the Mosaic Law conferred greater holiness than justification by faith."
2,13 Peter's example was followed by others, including Barnabas, Paul's co-worker, highly valued by him. Realizing the seriousness of this act, Paul boldly accused Peter of hypocrisy. Paul's rebuke is given in verses 14-21. (Punctuation, including quotation marks, is the editor's own. Some interpreters end the quotation here and view verses 15-21 as given by Paul later explanation what he told Peter.)
2,14 As a Christian, Peter knew that God no longer recognized national differences; he lived like a pagan, ate their food, etc. But by his recent refusal to eat with the pagans, Peter was suggesting that observance of Jewish laws and traditions was necessary for holiness and that pagan believers should live like a Jew.
2,15 Paul seems to be resorting to irony here. Doesn't Peter's behavior betray his long-held beliefs in superiority? Jews and despicable situation pagans? Peter should have known this better, because before the conversion of the pagan Cornelius, God taught Peter not to call anyone abominable and unclean (Acts 10 and 11:1-18).
2,16 The converted Jews knew that matters of law salvation cannot be achieved. The law condemned to death those who could not fully obey it. Thus, everyone was cursed because everyone violated his sacred injunctions. The Savior is here presented as the only true object of faith. Paul reminds Peter that "and we Jews"came to the conclusion that salvation is given faith in Jesus Christ, A not by works of the law. What is the point of Peter bringing the Gentiles under the law? The law told people what to do, but did not give them the strength to do it. The Law was given to convict sin, not to save.
2,17 Paul, Peter and others sought justification in Christ and nothing more. However, Peter's actions in Antioch seemed to show that he was not completely justified and must return to the rule of the law for his salvation to be fully accomplished. If this is so, then Christ is not a perfect Savior and He alone is not enough.
If we go to Him for forgiveness of our sins, and after that we turn somewhere else, then is Christ really the servant of sin? and does not keep His promises? If, having declared that we rely on justification in Christ, we then return to the law (which can only condemn us as sinners), are we acting like Christians? Can we hope that Christ will approve of such actions, which, in essence, turn Him into servant of sin? Paul responds indignantly: "No way!"
2,18 Peter abandoned the entire system of the law for the sake of faith in Christ. He refused to recognize any difference between Jews and Gentiles as far as God's favor was concerned.
Now, refusing to eat with the pagans, he creates again that one day destroyed. By doing this, he makes himself a criminal. Either he was wrong in leaving the law for the sake of Christ, or he is wrong now in leaving Christ for the sake of the law!
2,19 The penalty for breaking the law is death. I am a sinner, I have broken the law. So he sentenced me to death. But Christ paid for breaking the law by dying in my place. Therefore, when Christ died, I died too. He died to the law in the sense that he met all its requirements for righteousness, so I died in Christ for the law.
Christian died to the law; he is no longer associated with him. Does this mean that a believer can now break the Ten Commandments whenever he wants? No, he lives a holy life not out of fear of the law, but out of love for Him who died for him. Christians who want to be under the law because it defines a pattern of behavior do not realize that they thereby expose themselves to its curse. Moreover, they cannot comply with the law in only one way and not be responsible for its full compliance. The only way for us to live for God– is to die for the law. The law will never produce a holy life, nor did God intend it to do so. His designated path to holiness is explained in verse 20.
2,20 The believer is identified with Christ in His death. Not only He was crucified on Golgotha, but also I crucified with Him. This means that in the eyes of God I died as a sinner. This means that as a person trying to achieve or earn salvation through my own efforts, I died. This means that as a child of Adam, as a person condemned by the law, I died. My old, unregenerate, corrupt self was crucified; it no longer has power over my daily life.
This is true of how I appear before God; This there must be This is also true of my behavior.
The believer does not cease to live as a person, as an individual. But the one who died in the eyes of God cannot remain the same as the living one. And it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.
The Savior did not die for me so that I could continue to live as I want. He died for me so that from now on He could live His life in me. Now I live in the human body faith in the Son of God. Faith means trust, the ability to rely on someone. A Christian constantly relies on Christ in his life, yielding to Him, allowing him to live His life in him.
Thus, the rule of the believer's life is Christ, not the law. It's not a matter of effort, but of trust. He lives a holy life not out of fear of punishment, but out of love for To the Son of God, who loved his and who gave himself for him.
Have you been able to commit your life to the Lord Jesus with the prayer that His life may be manifested in your body?
2,21 The grace of God is His unconditional gift of salvation. When a person tries to earn this gift, he thereby deprives it of its meaning.
If a person deserves it or earns it, it is no longer by grace. Paul's last argument is very impressive. If Peter could gain God's favor by keeping the law according to Jewish custom, then Christ died in vain; He literally threw away His life. Christ died because man could not otherwise obtain righteousness, even by keeping the law.
Klau says:
“The greatest of all heresies, which corrodes churches, infects creeds with madness, and makes men’s hearts puffed up with pride, is salvation by works. “I believe,” writes John Ruskin, “that the root of every schism, every heresy from which the Christian Church has suffered, – in an effort to earn salvation rather than receive it. Often preaching is so ineffective because it calls people to work for God rather than to see how God has worked for them."(W. M. Clow, The Cross in the Christian Experience, p. 114.)
Found an error in the text? Select it and press: Ctrl + Enter
Epistle to the Galatians is a book of the New Testament. Contents 1 History 2 Main topics 3 Literature 4 ... Wikipedia
Epistle to the Galatians is a book of the New Testament. History The authorship of the Apostle Paul was unanimously recognized in the ancient Christian tradition; it is certified by Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and others. The message was written ... Wikipedia
I. AUTHOR AND ADDRESSEE Author P.k G. ap. Paul (Gal 1:1; 5:2). He apparently discussed the contents of the message with the brothers who were with him (Gal. 1:2). If the identity of the author is not in doubt, then the question of the addressee has not been finally resolved. Unknown... ... Brockhaus Biblical Encyclopedia
Epistle to the Galatians- Paul, during his second missionary journey, during which he was mostly ill, founded several communities in Galatia (Acts 16:6; 1 Cor. 16:1; Gal. 4:13ff.); during his third trip he visited them a second time... ... Dictionary of Biblical Names
Paul's word to the churches of Galatia. Anathema on those who proclaimed to them a false Gospel. He received his Gospel not from man, but directly from Christ. Describes his conversion and calling...
Paul the Apostle, [chosen] not by men or through man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead, Acts 9:15... Bible. Dilapidated and New Testaments. Synodal translation. Biblical encyclopedia arch. Nikifor.
Am I now seeking favor from people, or from God? Do I try to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ. 1 Thessalonians 2:4 ... Bible. Old and New Testaments. Synodal translation. Biblical encyclopedia arch. Nikifor.
I declare to you, brethren, that the gospel which I preached is not human, 1 Corinthians 15:1... Bible. Old and New Testaments. Synodal translation. Biblical encyclopedia arch. Nikifor.
For I also received it and learned it, not from man, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Acts 26:16 ... Bible. Old and New Testaments. Synodal translation. Biblical encyclopedia arch. Nikifor.
You have heard about my former way of life in Judaism, that I cruelly persecuted the Church of God and devastated it, Acts 9:21... Bible. Old and New Testaments. Synodal translation. Biblical encyclopedia arch. Nikifor.
And he prospered in Judaism more than many of my peers, being an immoderate zealot of my fatherly traditions... Bible. Old and New Testaments. Synodal translation. Biblical encyclopedia arch. Nikifor.
B. Recognition of Paul as an Apostle (2:1-10)
As Paul continues to defend his apostolic authority and his gospel in chapter 2, his main focus is not on its source but on its content. Then, if in the first chapter he emphasized his independence from the other apostles, here he shows that the basis on which they act unites them.
Gal. 2:1. There is much debate about the nature of the visit that Paul made to Jerusalem with the Jewish believer Barnabas and the Gentile believer Titus. The book of Acts records five visits by Paul to Jerusalem after his conversion: 1) a visit he made from Damascus (Acts 9:26-30; Gal. 1:18-20); 2) a visit during a famine (Acts 11:27-30); 3) his visit to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-30); 4) the apostle’s visit to Jerusalem at the end of his second missionary journey (Acts 18:22); 5) Paul's last visit there, which ended with his taking into custody in Caesarea (Acts 21:15 - 23:25).
Theologians are generally divided as to whether the visit to Jerusalem mentioned in 2:1 was one that Paul undertook in response to the famine there, or whether it refers to his attendance at the Council of Jerusalem. Based on the fact that it was typical for the apostle to list by name all those in power, including church leaders with whom he communicated, it is not clear why he did not do this in in this case, if you came to Jerusalem for the council? And if he made his second visit there to participate in the council (Acts 15), then why does he not mention here the decisions of this council? So, most likely, we are talking about Paul’s visit to Jerusalem in connection with the famine that began there.
Gal. 2:2 So, for the second time, Paul visited Jerusalem by revelation. In other words, he went there at the command of God, and not because the elders of the Jerusalem church commanded him to come or “challenged him on the carpet” for preaching among the pagans. By revelation, Paul may have been referring to Agabus's prophecy regarding the coming famine, which prompted him and Barnabas to go to Jerusalem to offer help to the believers in that city (Acts 11:27-30).
At the same time, Paul took the opportunity to privately discuss with the other apostles the content and nature of his gospel to the Gentiles. This does not mean that Paul needed their approval or clarification of this truth, for it was revealed to him by God. Rather, he wanted to find out how consistent the Gospel preached by the “most famous” was with her.
After all, if it turned out that the leaders in Jerusalem insisted on the need for circumcision for Gentile converts and their fulfillment of other requirements of the law, then the work of the Apostle Paul among them might have been “in vain.” The point, of course, is not that the apostle was bothered by any doubts or fears regarding the truth of the Gospel, which he had been preaching for 14 years (Gal. 2:1), he was afraid of something else - that his ministry in the past and present could be declared by the Judaists to no avail.
Gal. 2:3-5. Now it becomes clear why Paul took Titus with him to Jerusalem. It was a kind of test. Will the Jerusalem apostles insist that he also undergo the rite of circumcision, being a pagan believer? Paul knew that God accepts everyone who believes in Jesus Christ, both Jew and Gentile, without making any distinction between them, and that the church should do the same. And so he makes it clear that this truth was confirmed in Jerusalem, since they did not force Titus, although a Greek, to be circumcised.
However, this victory did not come easy. The "false brethren" insisted that Titus be circumcised (compare 2 Pet. 2:1). Undoubtedly these were Judaizers, whose main thesis is stated in Acts. 15:1 “Unless you are circumcised according to the ceremony of Moses, you cannot be saved.” These false brothers were like spies or a “fifth column” penetrating the enemy’s camp in search of his weak points. They “sneaked in,” that is, without being invited, they secretly entered a private meeting of the apostles.
Their goal was twofold: to spy on our freedom in Christ (the word kataskopesai, translated as “to spy,” is found in the New Testament only here). That is, with bad intentions, they wanted to “speep” whether the apostles really felt free from the law of Moses and from the ideology of legalism arising from it.
In addition, they sought to re-enslave the believers, in other words, to again impose on them the bonds of law and ceremonial rites. They especially insisted on circumcising Titus. However, Paul was adamant because the truth at issue was the truth of the gospel as it was preached to the Galatians and the Christian church as a whole. To circumcise Titus would be to devalue him by preaching the gospel of salvation by faith alone and to proclaim that it is also necessary to fulfill the law in order to be accepted by God. Thus, the discussion was about the very essence of the gospel truth, and therefore Paul “did not yield even for an hour.”
Gal. 2:6. In the English Bible, the ending of this verse sounds slightly different: “and these people (“famous”) added nothing to my gospel.” Having finished with Titus, Paul concludes his account of the conference with the apostles by stating that they did not add anything to his gospel (they did not charge me with anything more) - in the sense that they did not offer to correct anything for Paul or change in his teaching, but acknowledged that he received it from God, and confirmed that it was true and complete.
But why does it seem that Paul spoke about some of the Jerusalem leaders as if he wanted to belittle them? In verse 2 (English text) he writes about them as “those who seem to be their leaders,” and in verse 6 (English text) as “Those who seem to be very significant there”; in verse 9, he finally calls them by name - James, Cephas (i.e. Peter) and John, adding: revered by the pillars.
In light of the fact that Paul's purpose at this point in the letter was to emphasize his unity with the other apostles, the best explanation for this tone seems to be that the Judaizers, wanting to discredit Paul, extolled the Jerusalem elders in every possible way, and now, with some irony, Paul declares that he does not intend to to revere the past or present merits and positions of James, Peter and John. They supported Paul's gospel and accepted him as their equal.
Gal. 2:7-9. Moreover, James, Peter, and John recognized the fact that Paul was commissioned by God to preach the gospel to the uncircumcised, as Peter was to the circumcision. Thus, the Apostle Paul struck a blow at the Judaizers, declaring that the leaders in Jerusalem approved of his ministry among the pagans.
It should be noted that Peter and Paul preached the same gospel - just to two different groups of people and in different circumstances. God granted both Peter and Paul to succeed in preaching; from this, the apostles concluded that He had endowed them with equal powers. As if sealing this, James, Peter and John gave Paul and Barnabas the hand of fellowship - as a sign of agreement and mutual trust, and also for the information of all present that they welcome this division of the corpse, according to which the Jerusalem apostles are appointed to preach the gospel to the Jews, and Paul is appointed to carry the gospel message to the Gentiles.
Gal. 2:10. The only thing the apostles found necessary was to warn Paul to remember the poor, which he tried to do exactly, Paul notes. It was his concern for the poor that brought him, who wanted to help them, to Jerusalem (Acts 11:29-30). This same concern prompted Paul (during his third missionary journey) to organize the collection of freewill offerings for the needy in the Jerusalem church (1 Cor. 16:1-3).
Donations of this kind would not only alleviate human suffering, but would also confirm that Gentile Christians truly care about their fellow Jews. Which, in turn, would help strengthen unity and increase love between believers and would prevent the emergence of disagreements between them, such as those that poisoned the atmosphere in the Galatian churches.
C. Paul's rebuke of the acknowledged head of the apostles (2:11-21)
From this final episode related by Paul, it is clear that he even found it necessary to confront Peter, the recognized head of all the apostles, when he, by his behavior, risked compromising the gospel they preached. The difference between this section and the previous one is striking.
Gal. 2:11. When Paul visited Jerusalem, Peter and the other apostles “gave him the hand of fellowship,” but when Peter came to Antioch, Paul personally confronted him. It is not known exactly when Peter visited Antioch. The Acts of the Apostles is silent about this, but it can be assumed that his visit there took place shortly after Paul, Barnabas and Titus returned to that city from Jerusalem.
One way or another, Peter’s behavior in Antioch led to a sharp clash between the leaders of Christianity. Paul felt he had an obligation to rebuke and condemn Peter for his actions, thereby defending the gospel and again demonstrating both his independence from and equal standing with the other apostles.
Gal. 2:12. Arriving in Antioch, Peter discovered that local believers, both Jews and former pagans, were gathering together for meals without observing Jewish food laws. Because of the revelation Peter received in the house of Simon the tanner (Acts 10:9-15,28), the head of the apostles felt entitled to eat with the pagans, which became his custom. And this, while it lasted, served as strong evidence of the unity of Jews and pagans in Christ. But a gap arose between them when a group of Jews arrived in Antioch from Jerusalem. These people were outraged by Peter's behavior.
They came from Jacob and belonged to the party that insisted on the necessity of circumcision, but it is doubtful whether Jacob took the same position and supported them. Nevertheless, Peter was influenced by their presence, and he gradually, but clearly, began to hide and withdraw from the pagans. The grammatical form of the Greek phrase shows that Peter's "retreat" was gradual; Maybe at first he skipped one meal a day with them, then two; or perhaps he began to eat food with pagans, but ended the meal only with Jewish Christians.
By doing this, Peter seemed to be teaching that the church of Christ was divided into two parts: Jewish and pagan. Which would be heresy. But why did Peter create this gap? Of course, not because his theological concept had changed, but simply out of fear. Once, after his sermon to the pagan Cornelius, Peter courageously defended himself before the Jerusalem church leaders (Acts 11:18), but this time he capitulated to his Jewish friends.
Gal. 2:13. Peter's hypocrisy entailed the hypocrisy of the "other Jews" and even Barnabas. The pressure on him must have been strong if he too sided with the hypocrites, because Barnabas was from Cyprus, where paganism reigned, and it was there that he participated in Paul’s missionary work, trying to convey the good news to the pagans. And now all of them - Peter, other Jewish Christians and Barnabas - turned out to be guilty of hypocrisy, because, confessing and teaching that in Christ they are one with the pagans, they refuted this truth by their behavior.
Gal. 2:14. Pavel's reaction was quick and decisive. Since Peter was a hypocrite publicly, it was also necessary to expose him publicly. In addition, he and others did not directly act with him according to the truth of the Gospel, that is, they denied in practice the truth that, on the basis of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Jews and pagans who believe in Him have the same access to God. That is why Paul asked Peter a question in front of everyone: If you, being a Jew, live like a pagan and not like a Jew, then why do you force the pagans to live like a Jew? Of course, it was a sharp, stinging denunciation. How Peter reacted to him is unknown. What is clear is that he was condemned. He acted contrary to his own convictions, betrayed Christian freedom and cast a stain on his brothers in faith. Such behavior required a severe rebuke.
Gal. 2:15. How far did Paul go in his rebuke? Are his remarks directed directly at Peter limited to verse fourteen or continue to the end of the chapter? There is some debate about this. But since it is impossible to determine this with certainty, one can only think that in reproaching Peter, Paul did not limit himself to one sentence. The verses after 14 thus develop the idea of the discrepancy between Peter's behavior and his own beliefs. At the same time, these verses are a solemn transition to and introduction to chapters 3 and 4, in which Paul defends the key doctrine of his gospel - justification by faith.
Paul is speaking to those of Jewish origin, including Peter and himself, who, despite the advantages given to them from above, received salvation by faith. Why is it necessary to impose the bonds of the law on “Gentile sinners” (Paul’s words regarding Peter’s actions sound ironic) if they are also saved by faith in Christ?
Gal. 2:16. In this verse, one of the most important in the letter, the word justify is used for the first time; This is a legal term, borrowed from judicial practice, which means "to declare right, justified." The term opposite to it in meaning is “to condemn, to declare guilty.” But how can a sinful person be justified before a holy God? Paul answers this implied question by stating, first in a negative form, that a person is not justified by the works of the law, and then in a positive form: but only by faith in Jesus Christ.
This decisive statement, proclaimed not only by Paul, but by Peter and the others, is therefore introduced by the word “We” (verse 15): We know. From Paul's further explanation it appears that the said doctrine was tested by him on personal experience, as a result of which he was convinced of its truth. The verse ends by repeating the statement with which it begins, namely, that by the works of the law no one will be justified (compare Gen. 15:6), which speaks of justification by faith.
Gal. 2:17-18. Paul's opponents objected to this, apparently reasoning like this: since the principle of justification by faith makes the Law unnecessary, this leads to a sinful life. A person, they say, can believe in Christ and, having received salvation, live for his own pleasure, without worrying about doing good deeds. Paul vehemently rejects such an opinion, noting: if we ourselves turn out to be sinners, this does not mean that Christ serves sin.
On the contrary, if a person, having trusted Christ for his salvation, returns again to the law, then the latter only reveals a sinner in him, in other words, a violator of this law or a criminal. This is exactly how we should understand verse 18. Although Paul speaks here in the first person, it is clear that he had in mind Peter, who, by avoiding communication with the pagans, testified that he was returning to the law, that is, “building again what that he destroyed."
Gal. 2:19-20. Paul then emphasizes the difference between himself and Peter in their approach to the law. Paul describes the process of transformation of a person who came to God by believing in Christ using the concepts of death and resurrection. This concept is present in both verses, and both speak of the believer's union with Christ in His death and His resurrection. First of all, Paul states that through the law he died to the law.
The law requires that the one who breaks it be put to death, but Christ died for all sinners. Thus, the law put Him to death and all those who were united to Him through faith, leaving the latter free to “belong to another” (no longer to the law, but “to Him who rose from the dead”) in order to live for God (Rom. 7:4).
In Gal. 2:20 Paul expands on the meaning of the previous verse. The Apostle “died to the law” because he was crucified with Christ; and he gained the ability to “live for God” because Christ lives in him. The main thing for understanding this verse is to understand what it is - the union of the believer with Christ. The teaching about this is based on such places of Holy Scripture as Rome. 6:1-6; 1 Cor. 12:13, which explains that believers are baptized with the Holy Spirit into Jesus Christ and into the Church, which is the assembly of all true believers.
Thus united to Christ and united in Him, they participate in His death, burial and resurrection. That is why Paul could write: “I have been crucified with Christ” (literally: “I have been crucified with Him and continue to be crucified with Him”). This means death in relation to the law. And this also determines the change in a person’s view of himself: And it is no longer I who live... the self-righteous and proud Saul died.
Then: death with Christ put an end to Paul's exaltation of himself; He left it to another to become the center of his life, namely Jesus Christ. However, it was not by his own strength that Paul was able to live a Christian life, but Christ himself dwelt in his heart: but Christ lives in me. However, this does not mean that Christ automatically works in the life of the believer; the point here is to live a renewed life by faith in the Son of God.
It is faith, and not works or keeping the law, that allows the power of God to manifest itself in the life of a believer. And this faith, according to Paul, has its basis in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who loved me and gave Himself for me (according to other translations - “us” and “for us”). In other words: “If He loved me so much that He gave His life for me, then His love is sufficient to live in me.”
Gal. 2:21. Summing up Peter's rebuke, Paul states: I do not reject the grace of God. This is a clear hint that Peter and those who followed his example rejected this grace. The essence of grace is that God gives people what they themselves do not deserve (compare Rom. 4:4). To insist on justification or sanctification through works is to nullify the effect of God's grace. Moreover, such insistence implies that Christ died in vain. If righteousness could be achieved by fulfilling the law, then the Cross would turn out to be an empty gesture, the greatest mistake in the universe.
III. Doctrinal Section: Statement of Justification by Faith (Chapters 3-4)
In the first two chapters Paul established the heavenly origin of both his apostleship and his gospel. Then he turns to the Galatians, who were tried to convince that faith in Christ, as the main condition for a person’s acceptance by God, must be supplemented by deeds in accordance with the Law of Moses. According to Judaism, the Christians of Galatia would have been more sanctified and more fully saved if they had obeyed the law. Paul argued that to try to supplement the work of Christ is to substitute for it. There is only one way of salvation - by faith in Jesus Christ, and only by faith.
Here is a flaming soul, here is an invigorated mind, here is a heart warmed with love for God! "Hedgehog, - speaks, - Now I live, I live by faith". Do not think, that is, that I do anything for the sake of real life: although I am clothed in flesh and subject to bodily needs, I live by faith in Christ; despising everything present, ignoring everything out of hope in Him, I directed my soul towards Him. Then, so that you know the greatness of his love, he says: “I live by faith the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me”. Look how immensely great his gratitude is! What are you saying, blessed Paul? A little earlier you said: “Who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up to eat for us all”; and now you say: "who loved me", and you appropriate the universal benefit to yourself alone? Yes, he says. Although He made a sacrifice for the entire human race, yet, out of my love for Him, I appropriate to myself everything that He has done. This is what the prophets usually did; and they said: "Oh my God"(Ps.21:2, 118:28, 142:10) ; although (God) is the God of the entire universe, it is characteristic of love to attribute to itself that which is common property. "Son, - speaks, - God's love for me". What are you saying? Did He really love you alone? No, he says; He loved the entire human race, but I owe Him gratitude as much as if I were the only one loved by Him. “And the one who betrayed himself for me”. Well, was He crucified for you alone? Doesn't He Himself say: “When I am lifted up (from the earth), I will draw everyone to me”(John 12:32) ? And didn’t you yourself say that He gave himself for us all (1 Tim. 2:6)? Exactly so, he says; By saying this, I do not contradict myself, but satisfy my love. But look, he teaches us something else with his words. Above he said that the Father “he betrayed us all to eat it”(His son); and here he says: (Son) "I gave myself over to eat". There (he said this) to show the unanimity and equality of the Father and the Son, and to make an indication of the economy (of our salvation), which is why he says in another place: “being obedient even to death”(Phil. 2:8), in all such places preaching about the economy (salvation). And here he used the expression: "betrayed himself", in order to show that (the Son) accepted suffering voluntarily, and not out of necessity and not under compulsion; that He endured the cross according to His will and desire to arrange the salvation of the entire human race.
Discourses on the book of Genesis. Conversation 34.
St. Ambrose of Milan
and it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life that I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.
This means: I am not the one who was fed from the earth (Gen. 3:17), I am not the one who was grass, for all flesh is grass (Ex. 40:6), but Christ lives in me, i.e. the living Bread that came from heaven lives (John 6:32-33), wisdom lives, mercy lives, righteousness lives, resurrection lives.
About heaven.
St. Feofan the Recluse
But I live not as one, but Christ lives in me: and as I now live in the flesh, I live by faith the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.
I died, he says, but not in order to be dead, but in order to live a different life, a more perfect one. I have been crucified with Christ; and Christ, alive and on the crucifixion, filled me with His life: he began to live in me. Now it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. This is not moral only in the sense that I am completely devoted to Him and dedicate everything to Him - thoughts, feelings, deeds, words, everything on the outside, as well as on the inside; I don’t make plans for anything for myself, everything is for Him - so it’s as if I don’t exist, but only He exists in me, and pleasing Him is my only concern: but in fact, essentially, He is in me. I matched with Him, and He matched with me. I was grafted into Him like a wild olive tree, and He filled me with His life. He works all things in me, directing everything to the glory of God and the salvation of me and others. From Him is the excitement, from Him is the strength. It does not happen that a personality disappears; but in such a way that the soul consciously and freely surrenders itself to the all-action of Christ. And He acts omnipotently in the soul, according to desire, seeking and loving perception of His omnipotence; so in fact it turns out that the soul itself acts. For cleave unto the Lord, there is one spirit with the Lord(cf. 1 Cor. 6:17). By faith Christ dwells in hearts (see: Eph. 3:17), and what He promised is fulfilled: “you are in Me and I am in you” (see: John 15:4). Hence: whatever a believer does that is truly valuable in the eyes of God, he does not do without Him (see: John 15:5). Without Him no one can do such things.
Ecumenius writes: “For this reason Christ lives in me, that in me there is nothing displeasing to Him. Or this: he lives in me, influencing, dominating, being everything to me.” Saint Chrysostom depicts this and the other side of this mystery of life in Christ in more detail: “saying: I live for no one- pointed to the way of life that follows baptism, by which the ouds are killed. What does it mean: Christ lives in me? That, he says, is that I do nothing that is displeasing to Christ. For just as by life he does not mean common life, but sinful life, so by death he means liberation from sins. For it is impossible to live for God otherwise than by dying to sin. So, just as Christ died in the body, so I died to sin. Kill the scum, speaks, your evils, even on earth, fornication, uncleanness, passion(cf. Col. 3:5). Also: our old man will be crucified with Him(Rom. 6:6), that is, in the font of baptism. - Now, if you remain dead to sin, you will live and live to God; and if you rise again to sin, you will lose this life. But Paul is not like that: throughout his whole life he remained dead to sin. Look how strict and pure his life is, and above all others, marvel at this blessed soul! He didn't say: I live, but Christ lives in me. Who dares to dispute the truth of what was said? Although he devoted himself entirely to Christ, abandoned everything temporary and did everything according to His will, he did not say: therefore I live for Christ, but, what is much more important, Christ lives in me. For just as sin, when it dominates a person, it already lives in him and controls his soul according to his will: so, when, after killing him, a person does what is pleasing to Christ, such a life of his is no longer the life of a person, but of one living in him, that is, Christ acting and ruling over it.”
And now I live in the flesh. This is a conclusion from the previous one. - To live according to the flesh means to live carnally, sensually, in lusts; and to live in the flesh means to live in the body, visible to everyone, in this life. The apostle draws the attention of those listening to him to how he carried himself or behaved visibly for everyone, and says, as it were: that if I visibly conduct myself this way and that way for everyone, that is, I am free from all the obligations of the law, I do not make sacrifices, I don’t take baths, I don’t observe the Sabbath or holidays, and I don’t count circumcision itself as anything - that I live like this now, apparently, is because I live by faith of the Son of God; I don’t rely on anything else but Him, I placed all the hope of salvation on Him, in the unshakable confidence that He will forgive my sins, and correct my life, and bring me into His eternal Kingdom. I live by this faith; it constitutes the entire structure of my inner life. Legal sacrifices and all the prescriptions of the law had value because they represented Christ, the Son of God. Now, when the Son of God came and gave Himself for us, all the Old Testament rites lost their meaning. We must abandon the law and cling to Christ by faith: which is what I do. I counted everything in my mind, so that I might gain Christ, and I live by faith alone in Him. The Son of God, who loved us, came to earth and gave Himself for us, and became our Advocate, and the Propitiator of God’s truth, and the Giver of God’s grace, which gives us new life. This I accept and assimilate to myself by faith and I don’t want to know anything else. That is why I live the way you see me living, that is, in complete detachment from the law! Here, according to the remark of Saint Chrysostom, lies a strong reproach to those to whom Pavlov’s speech was addressed. He seems to say to each of them: “Christ loved you so much that he gave Himself; and, when you had no hope of salvation, he led you to such a great and such a high life; and you, having received such benefits, again turn to the old.”
Saint Chrysostom also draws special attention to why Saint Paul assimilates the salvation of all, accomplished by the Lord, to himself alone. “What are you doing, Pavle? Why do you appropriate to yourself what is common to all and attribute to yourself only what has been done for all people? For you did not say: who loved us, but: who loved me. And the Evangelist says: God love the world so much(cf. John 3:16); and you yourself say elsewhere: Who did not spare His Son, but gave Him up to eat - not for you, but for us all(cf. Rom. 8:32). Why is he saying this here? He imagined all the hopelessness of human nature and the inexpressible care of Jesus Christ for us, and what He freed us from, and what He gave us, and, imagining all this, he was completely enveloped in the flame of love for Him; that's why he says so. For the Prophets often call the God common to all theirs, saying this: God, my God! To you in the morning(cf. Ps. 62:2). In addition, he showed by this that each of us owes the same just gratitude to Christ as we would have owed even if He had come for him alone. For He would not have refused to accept such intercession for one; because he loves each person individually as much as the whole world. Moreover, although the sacrifice was made for everyone and was sufficient for the salvation of everyone; however, only those who believed took advantage of her benefit.”
The Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Galatians, interpreted by St. Theophan.
St. Ephraim Sirin
and it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life that I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.
Right John of Kronstadt
and it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life that I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.
Cleanse your mind, your heart - and then understand, man, how sublime the apostle’s speech is. This is how sin, or the flesh, the world and the devil, need to die, so that we live in this world as if it were not us, but Christ; so that all of our sinful, former man would perish and a new, grace-filled, model of man would live - Christ, that if we live in the flesh, we would live only by the faith of the Son of God. But do we live by faith? No, we do not live: our passions are not life. Our worries and troubles about the world are not life. We live on the earth and for the earth. But the faith is holy, but is our connection with heaven? She's gone. We sow to the flesh, and therefore it is no wonder if we reap incorruption.
Diary. Volume II. 1857-1858.
Blzh. Augustine
and it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life that I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.
So, the spirit of man, clinging to the Spirit of God, resists the flesh (Gal. 5:17), i.e. against himself, but also for his own sake. Such impulses, natural for a person, be it flesh or soul, due to perceived weakness, are restrained in order to achieve salvation, so that a person living contrary to nature could say: And it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. After all, where I am not I, there I am happier, because if some bad impulse arises in my former nature, which I, serving with my mind the law of God (Rom. 7:25), resist, then I can say: it is no longer I who do This
