Mid-Week Lenten Vespers, 2021
February 24, 2021
Pastor Gregory L. Jackson
https://video.ibm.com/channel/bethany-lutheran-worship
Bethany Lutheran Worship, 7 PM Central Time
The Hymn #523 Why Should Cross and Trial Grieve Me
The Order of Vespers
p. 41
The Psalmody
Psalm 24
p. 128
The Lections
The Passion History
The Sermon Hymn #345 Jesus Lover of My Soul
The Sermon – Luther’s Galatians,
Chapter 2
The Prayers
The Lord’s Prayer
The Collect for
Grace
p. 45
The Hymn #554 Now Rest Beneath Night's Shadows
Selection
- Understanding Luther’s Galatians Chapter 2
Bold
– Scripture, Print – Luther, Box - GJ
1. Then fourteen years after I went up
again to Jerusalem.
Paul taught
justification by faith in Christ Jesus, without the deeds of the Law. He
reported this to the disciples at Antioch. Among the disciples were some that
had been brought up in the ancient customs of the Jews. These rose against Paul
in quick indignation, accusing him of propagating a gospel of lawlessness.
Great dissension
followed. Paul and Barnabas stood up for the truth. They testified: “Wherever
we preached to the Gentiles, the Holy Ghost came upon those who received the
Word. This happened everywhere. We preached not circumcision; we did not
require observance of the Law. We preached faith in Jesus Christ. At our
preaching of faith, God gave to the hearers the Holy Ghost.” From this fact
Paul and Barnabas inferred that the Holy Ghost approved the faith of the
Gentiles without the Law and circumcision. If the faith of the Gentiles had not
pleased the Holy Ghost, He would not have manifested His presence in the
uncircumcised hearers of the Word.
Unconvinced, the Jews
fiercely opposed Paul, asserting that the Law ought to be kept and that the
Gentiles ought to be circumcised, or else they could not be saved.
When we consider the obstinacy with which Romanists
cling to their traditions, we can very well understand the zealous devotion of
the Jews for the Law. After all, they had received the Law from God. We can
understand how impossible it was for recent converts from Judaism suddenly to
break with the Law. For that matter, God did bear with them, as He bore with
the infirmity of Israel when the people halted between two religions. Was
not God patient with us also while we were blindfolded by the papacy? God is
longsuffering and full of mercy. But we dare not abuse the patience of the
Lord. We dare no longer continue in error now that the truth has been revealed
in the Gospel. The opponents of Paul had his own example to prefer against him.
Paul had circumcised Timothy. Paul defended his action on the ground that he
had circumcised Timothy, not from compulsion, but from Christian love, lest the
weak in faith should be offended. His opponents would not accept Paul’s
explanation.
When Paul saw that the
quarrel was getting out of hand he obeyed the direction of God and left for
Jerusalem, there to confer with the other apostles. He did this not for his own
sake, but for the sake of the people.
GJ
- Luther, below – “the Holy Ghost had come upon the Gentiles in response to the
simple preaching of faith in Jesus Christ.” Objective Justification advocates
preach the forgiveness and salvation of the world before
and without faith in Jesus Christ.
1. With Barnabas, and took Titus with me
also.
Paul chose two
witnesses, Barnabas and Titus. Barnabas had been Paul’s preaching companion to
the Gentiles. Barnabas was an eye-witness of the fact that the Holy Ghost had
come upon the Gentiles in response to the simple preaching of faith in Jesus
Christ. Barnabas stuck to Paul on this point, that it was not necessary for the
Gentiles to be bothered with the Law as long as they believed in Christ.
Titus was
superintendent of the churches in Crete, having been placed in charge of the
churches by Paul. Titus was a former Gentile.
2. And I went up by revelation.
If God had not ordered
Paul to Jerusalem, Paul would never have gone there.
2. And communicated unto them that gospel.
After an absence of
fourteen years, respectively eighteen years, Paul returned to Jerusalem to
confer with the other apostles.
GJ
– The errorists should explain how Paul taught Objective Justification (never
writing the words) and rejected Justification by Faith (the words he repeatedly
chose)! The OJ professors and pastors seldom - if ever - say the dread words –
Justification by Faith. However, Luther did, just as Paul did through the Holy
Spirit. Luke recorded this in Acts.
2. Which I preach among the Gentiles.
Among the Jews Paul
allowed Law and circumcision to stand for the time being. So did all the
apostles. Nevertheless, Paul held fast to the liberty of the Gospel. On one
occasion he said to the Jews: “Through this man (Christ) is preached unto you
forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things,
from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” (Acts 13:39.) Always
remembering the weak, Paul did not insist that they break at once with the Law.
Paul admits that he
conferred with the apostles concerning his Gospel. But he denies that the
conference benefited or taught him anything. The fact is he resisted those who
wanted to force the practice of the Law upon the Gentiles. They did not
overcome him, he overcame them. “Your false apostles lie, when they say that I
circumcised Timothy, shaved my head in Cenchrea, and went up to Jerusalem, at the
request of the apostles. I went to Jerusalem at the request of God. What is
more, I won the indorsement of the apostles. My opponents lost out.”
The matter upon which
the apostles deliberated in conference was this: Is the observance of the Law requisite unto
justification? Paul answered: “I have preached faith in Christ to the Gentiles,
and not the Law. If the Jews want to keep the Law and be circumcised, very
well, as long as they do so from a right motive.”
2. But privately to them which were of
reputation.
This is to say, “I
conferred not only with the brethren, but with the leaders among them.”
2. Lest by any means I should run, or had
run, in vain.
Not that Paul himself
ever thought he had run in vain. However, many did think that Paul had preached
the Gospel in vain, because he kept the Gentiles free from the yoke of the Law.
The opinion that obedience to the Law was mandatory unto salvation was gaining
ground. Paul meant to remedy this evil. By this conference he hoped to
establish the identity of his Gospel with that of the other apostles, to stop
the talk of his opponents that he had been running around in vain.
3. But neither Titus, who was with me,
being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
The word “compelled”
acquaints us with the outcome of the conference. It was resolved that the
Gentiles should not be compelled to be circumcised.
Paul did not condemn
circumcision in itself. Neither by word nor deed did he ever inveigh against
circumcision. But he did protest against circumcision being made a condition
for salvation. He cited the case of the Fathers. “The fathers were not
justified by circumcision. It was to them a sign and seal of righteousness.
They looked upon circumcision as a confession of their faith.”
The believing Jews,
however, could not get it through their heads that circumcision was not
necessary for salvation. They were encouraged in their wrong attitude by the
false apostles. The result was that the people were up in arms against Paul and
his doctrine.
Paul did not condemn circumcision
as if it were a sin to receive it. But he insisted, and the conference upheld
him, that circumcision had no bearing upon salvation and was therefore not to
be forced upon the Gentiles. The conference agreed that the Jews should be
permitted to keep their ancient customs for the time being, so long as they did
not regard those customs as conveying God’s justification of the sinner.
The false apostles were
dissatisfied with the verdict of the conference. They did not want to rest
circumcision and the practice of the Law in Christian liberty. They insisted
that circumcision was obligatory unto salvation.
As the opponents of
Paul, so our own adversaries [Luther’s, the enemies of the Reformation] contend
that the traditions of the Fathers dare not be neglected without loss of
salvation. Our opponents will not agree with us on anything. They defend their
blasphemies. They go as far to enforce them with the sword.
Paul’s victory was
complete. Titus, who was with Paul, was not compelled to be circumcised, although
he stood in the midst of the apostles when this question of circumcision was
debated. This was a blow to the false apostles. With the living fact that Titus
was not compelled to be circumcised Paul was able to squelch his adversaries.
4,5.
And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to
spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us
into bondage: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that
the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
Paul here explains his
motive for going up to Jerusalem. He did not go to Jerusalem to be instructed
or confirmed in his Gospel by the other apostles. He went to Jerusalem in order
to preserve the true Gospel for the Galatian churches and for all the churches
of the Gentiles.
When Paul speaks of the
truth of the Gospel, he implies by contrast a false gospel. The false apostles
also had a gospel, but it was an untrue gospel. “In holding out against them,”
says Paul, “I conserved the truth of the pure Gospel.”
Now the true Gospel has
it that we are justified by faith alone, without the deeds of the Law. The
false gospel has it that we are justified by faith, but not without the deeds
of the Law. The false apostles preached a conditional gospel.
So do the papists. They
admit that faith is the foundation of salvation. But they add the conditional
clause that faith can save only when it is furnished with good works. This is
wrong. The true Gospel declares that good works are the embellishment of faith,
but that faith itself is the gift and work of God in our hearts. Faith is able
to justify, because it apprehends Christ, the Redeemer.
Human reason can think
only in terms of the Law. It mumbles: “This I have done; this I have not done.”
But faith looks to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, given into death for the sins
of the whole world. To turn one’s eyes away from Jesus means to turn them to
the Law.
GJ - The false teachers
reverse what Paul and Luther taught. The Objective Justification fanatics lay
hold of universal forgiveness and make faith in Jesus irrelevant. Faith in
Christ has nothing to do with their divine declaration of forgiveness.
Secondly, their subjective justification is not faith in Christ, but trust in
the truth of universal forgiveness.
True faith lays hold of
Christ and leans on Him alone. Our opponents cannot understand this. In their
blindness they cast away the precious pearl, Christ, and hang onto their
stubborn works. They have no idea what faith is. How can they teach faith to
others?
Not satisfied with
teaching an untrue gospel, the false apostles tried to entangle Paul. “They
went about,” says Paul, “to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus,
that they might bring us into bondage.”
When Paul saw through
their scheme, he attacked the false apostles. He says, “We did not let go of
the liberty which we have in Christ Jesus. We routed them by the judgment of
the apostles, and we would not give in to them, no, not an inch.”
We too were willing to
make all kinds of concessions to the papists. Yes, we are willing to offer them
more than we should. But we
will not give up the liberty of conscience which we have in Christ Jesus. We
refuse to have our conscience bound by any work or law, so that by doing this
or that we should be righteous, or leaving this or that undone we should be
damned.
GJ - The following
paragraph demonstrates two basic truths about Luther. First of all, he always
equated the Gospel with Justification by Faith. Secondly, he did not surrender
to the Calvinist-Pietist error of turning the Atonement into universal
forgiveness and salvation before and without faith. Their twisted notion of faith
is nothing more than making a decision for world absolution without faith. That
concept is alien to the Scriptures, Luther, and the Book of Concord.
Since our opponents
will not let it stand that only faith in Christ justifies, we will not yield to
them. On the question of justification, we must remain adamant, or else we
shall lose the truth of the Gospel. It is a matter of life and death. It
involves the death of the Son of God, who died for the sins of the world. If we
surrender faith in Christ, as the only thing that can justify us, the death and
resurrection of Jesus are without meaning; that Christ is the Savior of the
world would be a myth. God would be a liar, because He would not have fulfilled
His promises. Our stubbornness is right, because we want to preserve the
liberty which we have in Christ. Only by preserving our liberty shall we be
able to retain the truth of the Gospel inviolate.
Some will object that
the Law is divine and holy. Let it be divine and holy. The Law has no right to
tell me that I must be justified by it. The Law has the right to tell me that I
should love God and my neighbor, that I should live in chastity, temperance,
patience, etc. The Law has no right to tell me how I may be delivered from sin,
death, and hell. It is the Gospel’s business to tell me that. I must listen to
the Gospel. It tells me, not what I must do, but what Jesus Christ, the Son of
God, has done for me.
To conclude, Paul
refused to circumcise Titus for the reason that the false apostles wanted to
compel him to circumcise Titus. Paul refused to accede to their demands. If
they had asked it on the plea of brotherly love, Paul would not have denied
them. But because they demanded it on the ground that it was necessary for
salvation, Paul defied them, and prevailed. Titus was not circumcised.
6. But of those who seemed to be somewhat,
whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me.
This is a good point in
Paul’s refutation. Paul disparages the authority and dignity of the true
apostles. He says of them, “Which seemed to be somewhat.” The authority of the
apostles was indeed great in all the churches. Paul did not want to detract
from their authority, but he had to speak disparagingly of their authority in
order to conserve the truth of the Gospel, and the liberty of conscience.
The false apostles used
this argument against Paul: “The apostles lived with Christ for three years.
They heard His sermons. They witnessed His miracles. They themselves preached
and performed miracles while Christ was on earth. Paul never saw Jesus in the
flesh. Now, whom ought you to believe: Paul, who stands alone, a mere disciple
of the apostles, one of the last and least; or will you believe those grand
apostles who were sent and confirmed by Christ Himself long before Paul?”
What could Paul say to
that? He answered: “What they say has no bearing on the argument. If the
apostles were angels from heaven, that would not impress me. We are not now
discussing the excellency of the apostles. We are talking about the Word of God
now, and the truth of the Gospel. That Gospel is more excellent than all
apostles.”
GJ
- Sadly, too many clergy begin with the majesty of their own leaders, some
recently dead, others revived for every single argument. From that seemingly
infallible authority, in effect - they deduce error, blame the Scriptures for
those errors, and denounce those who expect to start from the Book of the Holy
Spirit, the Bible.
6. God accepteth no man’s person.
Paul is quoting Moses:
“Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the
mighty.” (Lev. 19:15) This quotation from Moses ought to shut the mouths of the
false apostles. “Don’t you know that God is no respecter of persons?” cries
Paul. The dignity or authority of men means nothing to God. The fact is that God
often rejects just such who stand in the odor of sanctity and in the aura of
importance. In doing so God seems unjust and harsh. But men need deterring
examples. For it is a vice with us to esteem personality more highly than the
Word of God. God wants us to exalt His Word and not men.
There must be people in
high office, of course. But
we are not to deify them. The governor, the mayor, the preacher, the
teacher, the scholar, father, mother, are persons whom we are to love and
revere, but not to the extent that we forget God. Least we attach too much
importance to the person, God leaves with important persons offenses and sins,
sometimes astounding shortcomings, to show us that there is a lot of difference
between any person and God. David was a good king. But when the people began to
think too well of him, down he fell into horrible sins, adultery and murder.
Peter, excellent apostle that he was, denied Christ. Such examples of which the
Scriptures are full, ought to warn us not to repose our trust in men. In the
papacy appearance counts for everything. Indeed, the whole papacy amounts to
nothing more than a mere kowtowing of persons and outward mummery. But God
alone is to be feared and honored.
I would honor the Pope,
I would love his person, if he would leave my conscience alone, and not compel
me to sin against God. But the Pope wants to be adored himself, and that cannot
be done without offending God. Since we must choose between one or the other,
let us choose God. The truth is we are commissioned by God to resist the Pope,
for it is written, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)
We have seen how Paul
refutes the argument of the false apostles concerning the authority of the
apostles. In order that the truth of the Gospel may continue; in order that the
Word of God and the righteousness of faith may be kept pure and undefiled, let
the apostles, let an angel from heaven, let Peter, let Paul, let them all
perish.
6. For they who seemed to be somewhat in
conference added nothing to me.
The Apostle repeats: “I
did not so confer with the apostles that they taught me anything. What could
they possibly teach me since Christ by His revelation had taught me all things?
It was but a conference, and no disputation. I learned nothing, neither did I defend
my cause. I only stated what I had done, that I had preached to the Gentiles
faith in Christ, without the Law, and that in response to my preaching the Holy
Ghost came down upon the Gentiles. When the apostles heard this, they were glad
that I had taught the truth.”
GJ
- The Formula of Concord Article, #3, the Righteousness of Faith, ought to
assure people that Martin Chemnitz and his associates also taught Justification
by Faith. But, that article too has been abused and picked over to claim that
the Righteousness of Faith - in the Bible, Paul, Luther, and the Book of
Concord - is actually world righteousness before faith.
The LCMS-ELS-WELS applauded this papalist pratfall when delivered by ELS Pastor David Jay Webber and
seconded by WELS District President Jon Buchholz. "Our Righteousness
before God... Is Revealed in the Gospel. On this Righteousness Faith
Relies." WELS Essay File, 2015.
If Paul would not give
in to the false apostles, much less ought we to give in to our opponents. I
know that a Christian should be humble, but against the Pope I am going to be
proud and say to him: “You, Pope, I will not have you for my boss, for I am
sure that my doctrine is divine.” Such pride against the Pope is imperative,
for if we are not stout and proud, we shall never succeed in defending the
article of the righteousness of faith.
If the Pope would
concede that God alone by His grace through Christ justifies sinners, we would
carry him in our arms, we would kiss his feet. But since we cannot obtain this concession,
we will give in to nobody, not to all the angels in heaven, not to Peter, not
to Paul, not to a hundred emperors, not to a thousand popes, not to the whole
world. If in this matter we were to humble ourselves, they would take from us
the God who created us, and Jesus Christ who has redeemed us by His blood. Let
this be our resolution, that we will suffer the loss of all things, the loss of
our good name, of life itself, but the Gospel and our faith in Jesus Christ—we
will not stand for it that anybody take them from us.
7,
8. But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto
me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; [For he that
wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same
was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.]
Here the Apostle claims
for himself the same authority which the false apostles attributed to the true
apostles. Paul simply inverts their argument. “To bolster their evil cause,”
says he, “the false apostles quote the authority of the great apostles against
me. I can quote the same authority against them, for the apostles are on my
side. They gave me the right hand of fellowship. They approved my ministry. O
my Galatians, do not believe the counterfeit apostles!”
What does Paul mean by
saying that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto him, and that
of the circumcision to Peter? Did not Paul preach to the Jews, while Peter
preached to the Gentiles also? Peter converted the Centurion. Paul’s custom was
to enter into the synagogues of the Jews, there to preach the Gospel. Why then
should he call himself the apostle of the Gentiles, while he calls Peter the
apostle of the circumcision?
Paul refers to the fact
that the other apostles remained in Jerusalem until the destruction of the city
became imminent. But Paul was especially called the apostle of the Gentiles.
Even before the destruction of Jerusalem Jews dwelt here and there in the
cities of the Gentiles. Coming to a city, Paul customarily entered the
synagogues of the Jews and first brought to them as the children of the
kingdom, the glad tidings that the promises made unto the fathers were
fulfilled in Jesus Christ. When the Jews refused to hear these glad tidings,
Paul turned to the Gentiles. He was the apostle of the Gentiles in a special
sense, as Peter was the apostle of the Jews.
Paul reiterates that
Peter, James, and John, the accepted pillars of the Church, taught him nothing,
nor did they commit unto him the office of preaching the Gospel unto the
Gentiles. Both the knowledge of the Gospel and the commandment to preach it to
the Gentiles, Paul received directly from God. His case was parallel to that of
Peter’s, who was particularly commissioned to preach the Gospel to the Jews.
The apostles had the
same charge, the identical Gospel. Peter did not proclaim a different Gospel,
nor had he appointed his fellow apostles. They were equals. They were all
taught of God. None was greater than the other, none could point to
prerogatives above the other. To justify his usurped primacy in the Church the
Pope claims that Peter was the chief of the apostles. This is an impudent
falsehood.
8. For he that wrought effectually in
Peter.
With these words Paul
refutes another argument of the false apostles. “What reason have the false
apostles to boast that the Gospel of Peter was mighty, that he converted many,
that he wrought great miracles, and that his very shadow healed the sick? These
reports are true enough. But where did Peter acquire this power? God gave him
the power. I have the same power. I received my power, not from Peter, but from
the same God, the same Spirit who was mighty in Peter was mighty in me also.”
Luke corroborates Paul’s statement in the words: “And God wrought special
miracles by the hands of Paul, so that from his body were brought unto the sick
handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil
spirits went out of them.” (Acts 19:11, 12.)
To conclude, Paul is
not going to be inferior to the rest of the apostles. Some secular writers put
Paul’s boasting down as carnal pride. But Paul had no personal interest in his
boasting. It was with him a matter of faith and doctrine. The controversy was
not about the glory of Paul, but the glory of God, the Word of God, the true
worship of God, true religion, and the righteousness of faith.
9. And when James, Cephas and John, who
seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to
me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the
heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
“The fact is, when the
apostles heard that I had received the charge to preach the Gospel to the
Gentiles from Christ; when they heard that God had wrought many miracles
through me; that great numbers of the Gentiles had come to the knowledge of
Christ through my ministry; when they heard that the Gentiles had received the
Holy Ghost without Law and circumcision, by the simple preaching of faith; when
they heard all this they glorified God for His grace in me.” Hence, Paul was
justified in concluding that the apostles were for him, and not against him.
9. The right hands of fellowship.
As if the apostles had
said to him: “We, Paul, do agree with you in all things. We are companions in
doctrine. We have the same Gospel with this difference, that to you is
committed the Gospel for the uncircumcised, while the Gospel for the
circumcision is committed unto us. But this difference ought not to hinder our
friendship, since we preach one and the same Gospel.”
10. Only they would that we should remember
the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
Next to the preaching
of the Gospel, a true and faithful pastor will take care of the poor. Where the
Church is, there must be the poor, for the world and the devil persecute the
Church and impoverish many faithful Christians.
Speaking of money,
nobody wants to contribute nowadays to the maintenance of the ministry, and the
erection of schools. When it comes to establishing false worship and idolatry,
no cost is spared. True religion is ever in need of money, while false
religions are backed by wealth.
11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I
withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Paul goes on in his
refutation of the false apostles by saying that in Antioch he withstood Peter
in the presence of the whole congregation. As he stated before, Paul had no
small matter in hand, but the chief article of the Christian religion. When
this article is endangered, we must not hesitate to resist Peter, or an angel
from heaven. Paul paid no regard to the dignity and position of Peter when he
saw this article in danger. It is written: “He that loveth father or mother or
his own life, more than me, is not worthy of me.” (Matt. 10:37.)
For defending the truth
in our day, we are called proud and obstinate hypocrites. We are not ashamed of
these titles. The cause we are called to defend, is not Peter’s cause, or the
cause of our parents, or that of the government, or that of the world, but the
cause of God. In defense of that cause we must be firm and unyielding.
When he says, “to his
face,” Paul accuses the false apostles of slandering him behind his back. In
his presence they dared not to open their mouths. He tells them, “I did not
speak evil of Peter behind his back, but I withstood him frankly and openly.”
Others may debate here
whether an apostle might sin. I claim that we ought not to make Peter out as
faultless. Prophets have erred. Nathan told David that he should go ahead and
build the Temple of the Lord. But his prophecy was afterwards corrected by the
Lord. The apostles erred in thinking of the Kingdom of Christ as a worldly
state. Peter had heard the command of Christ, “Go ye into all the world, and
preach the Gospel to every creature.” But if it had not been for the heavenly
vision and the special command of Christ, Peter would never have gone to the
home of Cornelius. Peter also erred in this matter of circumcision. If Paul had
not publicly censured him, all the believing Gentiles would have been compelled
to receive circumcision and accept the Jewish law. We are not to attribute
perfection to any man.
Luke reports “that the
contention between Paul and Barnabas was so sharp that they departed asunder
one from the other.” The cause of their disagreement could hardly have been
small since it separated these two, who had been joined together for years in a
holy partnership. Such incidents are recorded for our consolation. After all,
it is a comfort to know that even saints might and do sin.
Samson, David, and many
other excellent men, fell into grievous sins. Job and Jeremiah cursed the day
of their birth. Elijah and Jonah became weary of life and prayed for death.
Such offenses on the part of the saints, the Scriptures record for the comfort
of those who are near despair. No person has ever sunk so low that he cannot
rise again. On the other hand, no man’s standing is so secure that he may not
fall. If Peter fell, I may fall. If he rose again, I may rise again. We have
the same gifts that they had, the same Christ, the same baptism and the same
Gospel, the same forgiveness of sins. They needed these saving ordinances just
as much as we do.
12. For before that certain came from James,
he did eat with the Gentiles.
The Gentiles who had
been converted to faith in Christ, ate meats forbidden by the Law. Peter,
visiting some of these Gentiles, ate meat and drank wine with them, although he
knew that these things were forbidden in the Law. Paul declared that he did
likewise, that he became as a Jew to the Jews, and to them that were without
law, as without law. He ate and drank with the Gentiles unconcerned about the
Jewish Law. When he was with the Jews, however, he abstained from all things
forbidden in the Law, for he labored to serve all men, that he “might by all
means save some.” Paul does not reprove Peter for transgressing the Law, but
for disguising his attitude to the Law.
 |
| Lectures on Galatians - We saw Jaroslav Pelikan every Sunday at church. |
