Breaking Free from Legalism: The True Gospel of Galatians 2

Paul's teachings on Galatians 2

The true gospel vs. legalism

The law and faith in Christ

Rebuilding the old system of law vs. living by faith

The Apostle Paul was directly taught by the resurrected Jesus, but was not a rebel. He cooperated with the apostles before him. Was the commandment to be circumcised still valid in the flesh, that is, in the letter of the law? Is there a spiritual application of the law of circumcision? Are works of the law and good works of obedience to Christ different things? Does the law define true righteousness? Let's find out in Galatians 2. Where did Paul go to double-check his teachings about the law and the gospel? Then after 14 years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas. taking Titus along with me. Did God inspire this journey? Why did he confine his conversation to church leadership? I went up according to a revelation and presented to them the gospel I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those recognized as leaders so that I might not be running or have run the race in vain. Was the commandment to be circumcised still valid in the flesh, that is, in the letter of the law? But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. Is there a spiritual application of the law? When you came to Christ, you were circumcised, but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision the cutting away of your sinful nature Did false brethren want to enslave Christians Yet it was a concern because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy on our freedom, which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us. Did Paul give in to these legalists? We didn't give in to them for a moment so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. Was Paul impressed by titles or positions in the church? But from those who seemed to be something, whatever they were, it makes no difference to me. God shows personal favoritism to no man, for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. Were there different targets in their outreach ministry? Instead, they saw that God had given me the responsibility of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as he'd given to Peter the responsibility of preaching to the Jews. For the same God who worked through Peter as the apostle to the Jews also worked through me as the apostle to the Gentiles. Did they accept them as co-workers? And when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, those who were reputed to be pillars, gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision. Was there a reminder of something important? is this far less quibbling over minutiae than some Christian discussions. They asked only that we would remember the poor which was certainly something I was willing to do Was Peter corrected on a point When Peter came to Antioch, I told him face to face that he was wrong. He used to eat with Gentile followers of the Lord until James sent some Jewish followers. Peter was afraid of the Jews and soon stopped eating with the Gentiles. He and the others hid their true feelings so well that even Barnabas was fooled. Jesus told us to go to our brother alone when correcting a major fault. But our elders in a very different position. Our elders to be publicly corrected. Why? But those elders who are sinning, you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning. What was Paul's specific correction of Peter? But when I saw that they were deviating from the truth of the gospel, I told Cephas in front of everyone, If you who are a Jew live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel Gentiles to live like Jews? What specific point was Paul leading up to? How are we justified? are works of the law and good works of obedience to Christ different things. We who are Jews by nature are not sinners of the Gentiles, 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. Does that mean that we can freely sin? But if while seeking to be justified in Christ we ourselves have also been found sinners Is Christ then a servant of sin Far from it How would Paul prevent being a sinner By obeying the law all over again or something else? Was he dead to the law? Rather, I am a sinner if I rebuild the old system of law I've already tore down. For when I tried to keep the law, it condemned me. So I died to the law. I stopped trying to meet all its requirements so that I might live for God. How are we then to live? I've been crucified with Christ. It's no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. And the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God. who loved me and gave himself for me. Does the law define true righteousness? I don't reject the grace of God. For if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nothing. Paul was directly taught by the resurrected Jesus, but was not a rebel. He cooperated with the apostles before him. The commandment to be circumcised is still valid in a spiritual manner. Works of the law and good works of obedience to Christ are different things. The apostles agreed with Paul that going back to the letter of the law does not make us righteous. In fact, rebuilding the legalistic bondage of the law makes us sinners and slaves. The law is good, but it no longer defines righteousness. Faith does. Do you have faith? You decide.

Playlist coming soon.