Random Scripture Galatians 2:16 (Jesus Christ, reject, Messiah, hell, genesis)

[nutshell]

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of law, but by faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the fath of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Similar to the other random scripture thread, I opened my scriptures, my eyes fell on this verses, and now I'd like to discuss it. Before I give my opinion, I'd like to hear what others have to say about this scripture. Thanks!

[cturne]

This verse tells me that it is impossible for me to be saved by works - and that only through faith in Jesus will I be saved.

[may]

Originally Posted by nutshell

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of law, but by faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the fath of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Similar to the other random scripture thread, I opened my scriptures, my eyes fell on this verses, and now I'd like to discuss it. Before I give my opinion, I'd like to hear what others have to say about this scripture. Thanks!

(Galatians 3:19) Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator................. no longer is it the law that we are declared rightous but it is faith in Jesus who is the seed. so if ones think that the law is the only way to be declared rightous they are wrong .

[michel]

From:- http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~load...Pentecost2.htm

Pentecost 2: 13 June Galatians 2:15-21
Our passage begins immediately after Paul has reported his conflict with other Christians in Antioch in 2:11-14 and must be read in the context of Paul's wider concerns in Galatians. Christian preachers had come into Galatia (in Asia Minor, present day Turkey) insisting that Gentiles who joined the faith must be circumcised. Paul had not taught that. Paul reports in Gal 2:1-10 that those whom he had somewhat reluctantly called the "pillars" of the church (2:9; 2:6), James and John and Cephas, had accepted that Gentiles need not be circumcised and had not insisted that Paul's companion, Titus be circumcised.

But then, later, Peter seems not to have understood the implications of that concession. Peter with other Jewish Christians had welcomed both Jewish and Gentile Christians as part of the church in Antioch in Syria and shared meals with them. James also seems to have understood the matters differently. People coming from James' church in Jerusalem had arrived in Antioch and insisted that the Christian Jews should not be eating together with the Gentile Christians. This outraged Paul who refused to recognise such a distinction between Jews and Gentiles. Paul was even more upset that Peter and even his companion Barnabas were persuaded to toe the Jerusalem line.

To us it looks like downright discrimination and we naturally tend to side with Paul. Most of us reading this material are probably Gentiles. How dare there be such a distinction!? Yet in some ways one could argue that those whom Paul scolds were taking a consistent position which was quite defensible. Paul is effectively associating the attitudes of those who were preaching circumcision in Galatia with the approach of those who had insisted on separation in Antioch. Peter and Barnabas (and to some extent, James, if he lurks behind the event) seem to be less sure of their own position and are open to the charge of inconsistency and hypocrisy (perhaps a bit harsh). Those, however, who upset the situation in Antioch and those who were now causing trouble in Galatia will have maintained a defensible and consistent stance: Christ came not to change scripture or its laws, the Word of God, but to add something. He was after all fulfilling the Jewish hope for a Messiah. The Messiah was not meant to demolish the Law but to make it victorious and effective.

This was a consistent position. Such people found it very difficult to understand why one should set aside what scripture commanded about circumcising Gentiles. Nothing within Genesis 17 suggests that the law was anything other than permanent. Those guilty of setting it aside laid themselves open to the charge of tampering with the Word of God - or, even worse, winning adherents through watering down scripture. The same would apply to food laws. Paul was confronted with the power of a first century fundamentalism, which insisted that scripture was inviolable and infallible.

On the other hand Paul was not jettisoning the scripture. He appeals to it regularly. His argument is that Jesus is the one who brings us into a right relationship with God (justifies us) and this offer of a right relationship stands in its own right. It is not dependent on our fulfilling the requirements of biblical law first or as well. It is a matter of accepting the offer of that relationship - believing it is offered and saying yes to the offer and so entering a new relationship with God. This applied whether one was a Jew or Gentile. Because this is the case, it is invalid to make distinctions between Jews and Gentiles. We are all sinners, that is, people needing such a relationship, including forgiveness. Therefore we must not discriminate against Gentiles. If God accepts them, we should, too. We should eat with them. we should not insist that they be circumcised. There is a note of sarcasm where Paul begins our passage in 2:16 declaring that he is among "the Jews" and not the Gentile "sinners" - he rejects such discrimination because we are, in fact, all sinners!

Paul has to meet the objection that his approach dismisses the biblical law and represents Christ as doing the same. It makes Christ into an enemy of the Bible, because it suggests Christ rejects what the Law requires. Christ seems like a servant not of goodness but of sin (2:17). The arguments must have been fierce. Many Christians found Paul's approach totally unacceptable. Paul counters by saying that if what he is saying is true, then any attempt to reintroduce the Law and its demands as the way to be right with God is to transgress God's will. Here we have charge and counter charge: "Paul, you make Christ a servant of sin" (2:17); "No, I don't" says Paul. "When you come with all your biblical demands, you are the ones who are transgressors!" (2:18). Is any reconciliation possible?

I hope the above helps............

[Terrywoodenpic]

Originally Posted by michel

From:-

On the other hand Paul was not jettisoning the scripture. He appeals to it regularly. His argument is that Jesus is the one who brings us into a right relationship with God (justifies us) and this offer of a right relationship stands in its own right. It is not dependent on our fulfilling the requirements of biblical law first or as well. It is a matter of accepting the offer of that relationship - believing it is offered and saying yes to the offer and so entering a new relationship with God. This applied whether one was a Jew or Gentile. Because this is the case, it is invalid to make distinctions between Jews and Gentiles. We are all sinners, that is, people needing such a relationship, including forgiveness. Therefore we must not discriminate against Gentiles. If God accepts them, we should, too. We should eat with them. we should not insist that they be circumcised. There is a note of sarcasm where Paul begins our passage in 2:16 declaring that he is among "the Jews" and not the Gentile "sinners" - he rejects such discrimination because we are, in fact, all sinners!

Thanks for that Michael

I think it shows Paul Coming to a turning point.
He seems to have decided at that time. that Christians are not bound so much by the Jewish Law, Than by Jesus's teachings and that they apply to everyone equally.

Terry______________________-
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.