Galatians
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 04. 2022
- Audio teaching by David Guzik on Galatians 2:11-14!
In this section of Paul's letter, we hear about the reason for Paul’s public rebuke of the apostle Peter.
Here is a link to David Guzik's commentary on Galatians 2: enduringword.com/bible-commen...
Pastor David Guzik, for several days I have been debating in my head what really went on between Paul and Peter. I understood the surface of the situation, but not the real underlying problem.
I don't go to church. I depend entirely on the Holy Spirit to guide me to the truth, and when I can't grasp it on my own, the Holy Spirit places an online teacher in my path to clear the matter up. That's not as easily accomplished as one might think. The internet is 6 million miles long, but only a few inches deep, so stumbling across the truth oftentimes isn't easy.
This morning, I found your teaching on the subject and I know the Holy Spirit brought me here. I no longer have any questions or doubts about the situation between Paul and Peter, everything is clear, and I'm at rest with it.
Thank you for putting it into a perspective that I could understand and grasp fully. I look forward to searching through your other teachings. May God bless you and yours, and may He continue to use you to clarify His almighty word...
THAT IS WHY PAUL WROTE IN :
1 CORINTHIANS 7:17-24 , " 17.But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
18Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
19Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
20Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
21Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
22For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.
23Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
24Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.
EVERYONE COMING INTO THE FAITH ; CIRCUMCISION OF HEART/SPIRIT THROUGH JESUS CHRIST ; REMAIN AS HE COME INTO THE FAITH : THE ISRAELITES UNDER THE CIRCUMCISION OF FLESH/BODY , AND THE GENTILES NOT UNDER THE CIRCUMCISION OF FLESH/BODY .
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 the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
THE LAW THAT PAUL IS TALKING ABOUT IS THE SIN SACRIFICE LAW OF ATONEMENT , OR THE LAW OF ANIMAL SACRIFICE , NOT THE LAW , OR COMMANDMENTS OF THE FATHER : YOU MUST REPENT WITH A SORROWFUL HEART ( MIND ) AND BELIEVE BY OBEDIENCE ; WHICH MEANS THAT YOU START OBEYING THE COMMANDMENTS OF YOUR MEDIATOR JESUS CHRIST ; WHICH ARE THE LAWS E RECEIVED FROM THE FATHER .
FOR BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW OF ANIMAL SACRIFICE SHALL NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED
( HEBREWS 10:1-4 , " 1.For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins ". )
17.But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
( ROMANS 3:27-31 , " 27.Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
29Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
30Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law " . )
18.For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
DANIEL 9:27 , " 27.And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
19For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
ROMANS 7:4 , " 4.Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
THE LAW THAT PAU IS TALKING ABOUT IS THE LAW OF ANIMAL SACRIFICE , NOT THHE LAW OF THE FATHER .
20.I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
ROMANS 6:1-4 , " 1.What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
21.I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
AGAIN , THE LAW PAUL IS TALKING ABOUT IS THE LAW OF ANIMAL SACRIFICE , NOT THE LAW OF THE FATHER .
THE CHURCH IS THE COVENANT BETWEEN THE FATHER AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL ; IT WAS IN THE WILDERNESS AT THE TIME OF MOSES .
ACTS 7:37-38 , " 37.This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
38This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
BELIEVING GENTILES ARE GRAFTED INTO THE COVENANT ; NOT UNDER THE FATHER LAWS , BUT UNDERSTAND THAT THEY MUST KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS TO GET SALVATION .
JESUS CHRIST IS THE MEDIATOR OF THE COVENANT , HEAD OF THE CHURCH ; KING OF ISRAEL .
SHALOM !
@@messengerisrael3817 HALLELUYAH HALLELUYAH HALLELUYAH!
The truth of the gospel is that it is not a licence to sin.
Amen
Thank you 🙏
Thank you for this great commentary. I comprehend better with the humorous visuals ie(Peter with his bib on). Why did Paul have Timothy circumcised?
Thank you for your kind words and support! I'll add this to a list of Q&A questions - Join Pastor David every Thursday for a Question & Answer live stream right here on CZcams! (12PM Pacific, 3PM Eastern, 7PM GMT)
In galatians 2:11
Peter is Κηφᾶς in the Greek.
I don't speek greak and my Catholic family member, who I'm ministering to, is cleaming this is not st. Peter but another Peter.
Can someone help me indeed?
More grace 🙏🏼
This is indeed the same Peter as the Apostle Peter (or St. Peter to Catholics)
The reason for the confusion is because the individual known originally as Simon, was renamed "Cephas" by Jesus in John 1:42 (KJV):
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
Cephas is the latinized Aramaic word/name given to Simon (כיפא : Kefa-Rock ). Aramaic is the language Jesus and His disciples spoke. But when the Gospel was written in Koine Greek, for a wider Greek audience, the Aramaic word "Cephas" would not have a double meaning for those who didn't know Aramaic - so the word/name is sometimes translated to Petros (Greek for stone, anglicized as Peter) so the double meaning is preserved, and other times only transliterated as Κηφᾶς (the original Cephas, but spelled with Greek letters: Kephas)
Here is an excerpt from a more in depth forum discussion on the subject:
"Paul might have used kepha to emphasize St. Peter's role (as his name signifies) as the Rock or leader of the Church (such as emphasizing that he had to even rebuke the 'Rock' of the Church, when it was called for)."
christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7188/why-does-paul-call-peter-cephas-in-his-writings
I too was surprised at Peter after God showed him what He has cleansed let no man call common, then led him to the Gentiles who were all filled with the Holy Spirit in front of Peter. It was Peter himself who said Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
He then stood up to the Jewish Christians when he got back who accused him because he’d gone into the home and eaten with the Gentiles.
This time in Antioch would have been a good time for Peter to share that again and stand up to the Jewish Christians.
Yeah, I dont get why there was such a division or what caused Paul to say that Peter messed up some how.
Only thing that Peter could have mess up was the fact he went to James and the brethren which came from Jerusalem, instead of sitting with the Jews still.
Peter said he was ok to hang with gentiles because of the sheet of animals from heaven.
But Paul rebuked him for Peter getting up and going back to sit with Jews. It seems that was the only error called out as hypocrisy.
God still wants us to eat clean food. The sheet was about people not food. ✅📖🕊️
@@lightoftheworld5455 the sheet was about People but God used animals for a reason. Jesus Himself said it’s
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Of course eating clean and healthy is good for us, but there’s no judgment for it.
Think of the people that can’t afford to eat healthy but have no choice but to eat what they can get or for some what they can find.
It doesn’t make them any more or less to God and they’re certainly not judged for it.
And when Paul and Barnabas went to the apostles and elders about circumcision of the gentiles, this is what was decided for gentiles.
that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
@@lightoftheworld5455 I think the problem with Peter sitting with the Jews from Jerusalem was more about he was acting like he wasn’t supposed to be eating with Gentiles when he had been all along.
I think if he’d just went to sit with friends, Paul wouldn’t have called him out. But it seems as if he snubbed the Gentiles he’d been eating with already and put on a front for the men of Jerusalem.
Peter was accused by Paul of sin eating with Pagan Gentiles, and in a manner that was a known sin to eat, like a Pagan sacrifice. The circumcision would accuse him of sin as Paul did, so he hid in embarrassment, as he treated grace as a licence to sin which the circumcision complained about. A Jew by nature would know eating Pagan sacrifices was a sin, but a normal practice of Pagan Gentiles.
I have a Ytube video series called 'Myths in so-called Christianity', for NT truth, and this matter is dealt with.
This not the gospel versus circumcision, but that even circumcision like Peter treated grace as a licence to sin.
If that were the case, Paul would not have went on to ask Peter why does he compel the Gentiles to live as the Jews do?
He wouldn’t have reminded him that he can’t be saved by the law and that if he insists on applying the law, he himself would be under condemnation.
There is no myth it. The scripture is clear.
@@janeecejjf2001 Why did Peter sin like a Gentile whilst compelling the Gentiles to live as Jews?
The Jews are compelled not to sin, so Jews by nature would not sin as they are compelled not to, but Peter was found to be sinning by the circumcision who had the same law. They knew Peter had sinned, maybe eating meat sacrificed to idols, and in his embarrassment Peter separated from the Gentiles, as he was not walking according to the gospel truth. But Paul also knew in the new covenant it was still a sin, and as there was no more sacrifice to atone for sins, he would have to repent.
We find that many, even Peter thought because he was under grace he did not have admit his sin, Paul shared his burden by calling him out. As those sin and fall from grace they go back under the law of sin and death.
@@janeecejjf2001 Let me add separately that Paul and Peter remained as Jews with the law no written in their hearts, the law still there but with a commitment to never sin, but the confusion Galatians tries to deal with is that there was forty years of transition to the new covenant before the Temple was destroyed. However Peter against the nature of a Jew committed sin, and Paul goes to repeat no man is justified by the works of the law, as those works are sins. That is the subject of my #1 Ytube video.