Heavenly Deception in Washington, D.C.
A verse-by-verse explanation of the chapter.
An overview of the principles and applications from the chapter.
Tying the chapter to life with God.
Historical, geographical, and grammatical enrichment of the commentary.
Suggested step-by-step group study of the chapter.
Zeroing the chapter in on daily life.
“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”
Thomas Jefferson
In chapter 2, Paul informs the Galatian Christians: I am a true apostle, and two proofs demonstrate that my gospel of grace is true. First, it is true because the apostles and leaders in Jerusalem approved my gospel of grace and authenticated my apostleship. Second, my gospel of grace is true because I confronted and corrected the apostle Peter when he was showing preference to the Judaizers and their false system of legalism. Such a bold and uncontested act validates my apostolic authority and message.
Heavenly Deception in Washington, D.C.
In 1974, The Church of Latter-Day Saints completed a tabernacle in Kensington, Maryland. For nighttime interstate travelers around the Maryland perimeter of Washington, D.C., the surreal appearance of this beautiful, gothic structure bathed in celestial light is a familiar sight. Adorned with lofty spires and the statue of an angel, it appears to the uninitiated to be an aweinspiring Christian building. A first hint comes when you realize its subtle architecture includes no crosses. The doctrinal differences between Mormonism and Christianity are just as subtle but still real and immensely important. Just as their buildings bear no crosses, so their faith has no central role for the cross of Christ.
Mormons will tell you that they believe in Jesus, yet they do not believe that he is the only way of salvation, and they believe things that are contrary to what Jesus taught. They believe that ultimately humans will become divine. They do not believe the Bible is God's final and authoritative revelation of himself to us. They do not claim the Bible is infallible. They do not believe in a literal heaven and hell. Jesus taught these things. Since Jesus claimed to be the Truth, one must choose between the credibility of Jesus and the credibility of Mormon doctrine. One cannot completely trust both.
They claim to believe in Jesus, but then they teach that Jesus Christ is not enough. One must, Mormon doctrine teaches, do other things in addition to believing in Jesus. Males control the eternal fate of the family. At age twelve, boys begin to advance through the ranks of the Aaronic priesthood, attaining the offices of deacon, teacher, and priest. Then, in the Melchizedek priesthood, males can advance through the offices of elder, high priest, patriarch, seventy, and apostle. These offices afford the male, and presumably his family, higher and higher degrees of exaltation in the afterlife. This means people reach only degrees of glory, never having any type of eternal punishment. All achieved through Jesus “plus.”
In Paul's day the Judaizers said the same things: “Believe in Jesus Christ, but we have something wonderful to add to what you believe.” They preached “the gospel plus Moses.” In our day these counterfeits of the gospel of grace preach “the gospel plus” their extra-biblical beliefs, their religious organization, their rules, regulations, and special revelations. In response to such false teachings that go beyond the gospel of grace, Paul said in Galatians 1:8, if anyone should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
Paul continues defending the gospel of grace in chapter 2. He defends his apostleship and message by presenting two authenticating interactions: (1) his approval by the Jerusalem leaders, and (2) his correction of Peter's legalism—both of which substantiated the gospel and his apostleship.
The Fight for Freedom
MAIN IDEA: Paul proves that he preached the true apostolic gospel because his message was endorsed by the Jerusalem leaders (2:1–10) and because he exercised apostolic authority by rebuking and correcting Peter (2:11–21).
Paul's Apostolic Authority and Message Endorsed (vv. 1–10)SUPPORTING IDEA: The leaders in Jerusalem endorsed the gospel Paul preached and affirmed his apostleship.
2:1. In Galatians 2, Paul continues to defend himself. Apparently, his critics had not only attacked the authority of his gospel but had also said he was a renegade, opposed to and independent from the apostles in Jerusalem. After responding to their first charge, he responded to the second charge by pointing out that the Jerusalem apostles had, in fact, endorsed his message. They affirmed that he was part of their team. Many scholars believe this meeting with Paul and the Jerusalem apostles was the Jerusalem Council meeting recorded in Acts 15. Paul is accompanied at this meeting by Barnabas and Titus. Titus, being a Gentile, was a test case to see if the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem would require him to be circumcised.
2:2. Paul's second trip to Jerusalem following his conversion was in response to a revelation. The purpose of this meeting with the Jerusalem apostles was to clarify the apostles' position on the Christian's relationship to the Jewish law. Jerusalem did not force Paul to come to them for their official stamp of approval. God sent Paul to Jerusalem to bring unity in the mission of the church. If the leaders in Jerusalem sided with the legalistic, false teachers who required Gentile Christians to be circumcised and keep the whole law, then Paul said he would have run my race in vain. It would be futile for him to preach a grace message if the Jerusalem leaders preached a legalistic one. He talked to those who seemed to be leaders. Paul's reference to these leaders becomes more clear in verses 6 and 9.
2:3–5. The purpose for bringing Titus to Jerusalem is now revealed. Titus was a test case to see if the Jerusalem leaders would allow a Gentile to be a Christian without being circumcised. The false teachers (Judaizers) said he must be circumcised and Paul adamantly said, “No!” Paul knew that both Jews and Gentiles were accepted into the church by faith alone in Jesus Christ. Paul won this battle, for Titus was not … compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. The Judaizers wanted to make Christians slaves by requiring them to observe the Old Testament laws' rules and ceremonies, especially circumcision. Paul stood absolutely firm because the truth of the gospel was at stake. To impose circumcision on Titus would be to deny that salvation was by faith alone and to affirm the law as the means to God's acceptance.
2:6. The Jerusalem leaders added nothing to his message. They recognized that it was from God. They approved its truthfulness and completeness. They endorsed Paul and received him as a fellow apostle. We do not know Paul's tone of voice here as he spoke of those who seemed to be important. We do not know if he was simply acknowledging his lack of information or whether there is a subtle “put-down” in his voice. He may have been making the point to the Judaizers that his authority for what he preached came from God, and therefore, he was not intimidated by the Judaizers who, to bolster their own bluster, appealed to the Jerusalem apostles as their authority. It need not have been a slight of the apostles themselves, however. They may have been totally unaware of the controversy between the Judaizers and Paul.
2:7–9. Several times Paul refers to the leadership in the Jerusalem church. In verse 2, he refers to “those who seemed to be leaders.” In verse 6, he refers to “those who seemed to be important.” In verse 9, he talks of those reputed to be pillars. Each time, the reference seems to be, according to our modern American intuition, more indignant. We sense a rising temperature in Paul's rhetoric. We ought not to jump to this conclusion, however.
On the one hand, Paul may have been voicing his dissatisfaction and even indignation with the leadership of the church in Jerusalem over several issues. First, he may have been angered by those who wanted Titus to be circumcised, feeling that the leadership of the apostles was inadequate on this issued. Or he may have been put off by Peter's handling of the Jew/Gentile controversy (see vv. 11–14). Paul may have felt that the leadership, whom he now names as the apostles Peter, James, and John, had caved into pressure from the Judaizers and legalists in the church.
On the other hand, his indignation may have been directed solely at the Judaizers working among his beloved Gentile churches. The Judaizers may have tried to diminish Paul's authority by emphasizing the apostolic authority of Peter, James, and John. In doing so, they could support their own opposition to Paul's teaching, tearing him down by lifting up the Jerusalem apostles. Indignant at the Judaizers' presumption and opposition, Paul may have been saying, “You claim that these Jerusalem apostles are the big shots around here. Well, listen up. My authority comes from God and is just as valid. I'm just as much a leader as they are.”
James, Peter, and John recognized that God had called Paul to take the gospel to the Gentiles just as he had commissioned Peter to take it to the Jews. The approval of the Jerusalem leadership silenced the false teachers' accusations that were seeking to discredit both Paul and his message. The acceptance and approval of the Jerusalem leaders was sealed when they extended to Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. Paul knew that his words had not convinced the Jerusalem apostles of his ministry. Rather, they saw God's grace in his ministry.
2:10. The apostles only request was that Paul remember the poor who were among the Jewish believers in Jerusalem. The Jerusalem leaders may have surmised that after their approval of Paul's ministry to the Gentiles he would not feel a responsibility to aid the poor in the Jerusalem church. On his third missionary journey, however, Paul raised a large offering from the Gentile Christians for the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:1–3). Such giving promoted love and unity among the Gentile and Jewish Christians.
Paul's Authority and Message Illustrated (vv. 11–21)SUPPORTING IDEA: Paul was a true apostle because he admonished and corrected Peter's accommodation of the false teachers. Only a true apostle could rebuke and correct Peter.
The Lapse of Peter (vv. 11–13)
2:11. Having presented his acceptance by the Jerusalem leaders, Paul turns to an incidence that illustrated his apostolic clout. He exercised his apostolic authority with the strongest church leader—Peter. Paul's authority as an apostle is confirmed through this correction of Peter. In this section, Paul comes to Antioch and corrects Peter, the leader of the Jews, because he was clearly in the wrong by giving the appearance that he was siding with the false teachers. By assuming the authority to correct Peter, Paul shows his authority and the truth of his message of grace.
2:12. Peter, a Jew, was eating and fellowshipping with the Gentiles. When some of the Judaizers (the circumcision group) arrived, Peter began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles. He was afraid of what the Judaizers would think. Peter thought by avoiding the Gentiles he would not offend James's legalistic, judaizing friends. By identifying with them, Peter was promoting their false, legalistic beliefs. Peter by his actions was compromising grace. These men were probably not sent by James, an apostle and the half brother of Jesus, but were probably part of his church in Jerusalem.
2:13. The other Jews, including Barnabas, joined Peter in standing with the Judaizers and ostracizing the Gentiles. They were guilty of hypocrisy because they were professing to be one with the Gentiles, yet by their actions they denied their oneness. The pressure must have been intense because even Barnabas, who was from Cyprus—a Gentile center—succumbed. He had been with Paul on a missionary journey to reach the Gentiles.
The Correction by Paul (vv. 14–21)
2:14. Paul knew he had to confront Peter before his actions damaged the church. Therefore, Paul reprimanded Peter publicly in front of them all for supporting division between the Jews and Gentiles. Such segregation went against the truth of the gospel that Jew and Gentile were equal and one in Christ. Paul uses a rhetorical question in this verse to reprimand Peter: “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile. Now you want the Gentiles to live like Jews. What kind of inconsistency is that?”
2:15. It is inconsistent and illogical for privileged Jews by birth, who rejected the keeping of their very own law as the way to salvation, to now burden the Gentiles with the keeping of that very same law. The phrase Gentile sinners was probably spoken in irony. Quite often, the Jews could not mention Gentiles without calling them “Gentile sinners.” Yet, in Paul's eyes, the sinners were the Judaizers, not the Gentiles, Christian believers in his church.
2:16. Verse 16 is one of the most important verses in Galatians because in it Paul states the content of the gospel of grace. This is the first time Paul uses the word justified which means “to declare righteous.” Justification is the act of God, whereby he declares the believing sinner righteous in Jesus Christ. Negatively, Paul says a man is not justified by observing the law. Stated positively, justification is by faith in Christ Jesus. Negatively, Paul has rebuffed the false teachings of the Judaizers which Peter had supported by his behavior in Antioch. Positively, he has presented the true, grace path to righteousness.
2:17. The opponents to this message of grace argued that if people aren't under law then they will freely sin. They reasoned that people could believe in Christ but then live as they wanted and by their sinful actions make Christ a promoter of sin. Paul answers this accusation with an emphatic, “No!” Grace leads to freedom from sin's slavery to obey God, not license to disobey him.
2:18. A person who rebuilds (that is, returns to) the law after believing in Christ will find himself a lawbreaker. No one except Jesus can keep the law perfectly. So to put one's relationship with God on a legalistic basis is to make oneself a lawbreaker.
2:19. In verses 19–20 Paul teaches about the transformation that occurs in believers. He is continuing to correct Peter for cowering to a legalistic system that is powerless to change lives. Paul uses the death and resurrection motif in each verse. First, Paul states through the law I died to the law. Paul may have meant by this that, when he tried to live up to the law, he saw that it was impossible. He saw that the penalty for failing to live up to the law was death. Seeing his clear condemnation according to the law drove him into the arms of grace, to rely on Jesus to save him.
Or he might have meant that, when he saw that the law was insufficient to save him, he turned his back on the law and made it no longer of any influence in his life.
Or he might have meant that the law demanded death for sin. Christ died because he took our death penalty upon himself. By believing in Christ, his death pays for the death that the law required of us. Because I am united with Christ by faith, the law killed not only him but all who are joined to him by faith. Therefore, the believer has died to the law. Since we have died, the law must acquit us of further punishment. So through fulfilling the law by dying in Christ, we are now free from the law.
Whatever Paul meant, the result is that he no longer is under the jurisdiction of the law. It is powerless over him.
2:20. Now Paul expands upon verse 19. He died to the law (v. 19) by being crucified with Christ. He lives for God (v. 19) because Christ lives in him. Believers are in union with Christ. We are united with him in his death, burial, and resurrection. Thus, we died with him to the law (see Rom. 6).
Again, we are uncertain as to what Paul meant by I have been crucified with Christ. It certainly did not mean that he was physically crucified. Dead people don't write letters. In what sense was he crucified? He may have used the sentence as a figure of speech, referring to the effects of Christ's death which every believer experiences. It might be reworded, “I have been as good as crucified, since the results of Christ's crucifixion count for me.”
Or he may have referred to a sense in which every believer is required to endure a similar experience of spiritual crucifixion to the desires of self. We put to death our own plans to follow Jesus. It might be reworded, “I have crucified my right to self-control in life, in the same way that Christ was crucified physically. He gave up his right to physical life; I gave up my right to self-life.” Or he may have referred to some sense in which the believer, because he is “in Christ” is seen by God as having actually died. He may have been referring to the union between the believer and Jesus, when the believer in Jesus experiences, spiritually, everything Jesus experienced. More will be said of these options in the “Deeper Discoveries” section of this chapter.
Whatever Paul meant about having died in Christ, the point is that his death severed him from the requirements of the law. Therefore, for Peter and the Judaizers to go back to the law is to visit the graveyard. Paul goes on to say that he can live for God because Christ lives in him. Finally, Paul says that faith is the principle that unlocks the life of Christ in the believer. The more we exercise faith in Christ the more he is free to live through us. The more we are obedient to the Scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit, the more our life approximates what Jesus would do if he were in our shoes. In that sense, the life he lives, he lives by faith in the Son of God.
2:21. Now Paul presents his conclusion. The false-teaching Judaizers were voiding the grace of God by adding the works-oriented law to the work of Christ. Therefore, Paul says I do not set aside the grace of God (as the legalists did), for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing! If humans could be right with God by obeying the law, why would he send his Son to suffer and die on a cross? Paul concludes his correction of Peter by showing the utter absurdity of turning back to the law. The very reason Christ died on the cross to pay for sin was because the law could not remove sin or impart righteousness. Grace provides what the law was powerless to provide—righteousness.
MAIN IDEA REVIEW: Paul proved that he preached the true apostolic gospel because his message was endorsed by the Jerusalem leaders and because he exercised apostolic authority by rebuking and correcting Peter.
The gospel is like a pure stream. Those who drink from it receive eternal III life; but when people add requirements to salvation that are unnecessary, the stream gets dirty. The false teachers in Galatia were polluting the gospel by requiring the Christians to obey Jewish law, especially circumcision in addition to believing in Christ. Many today would have us return to trying to earn God's favor through following rituals or obeying a set of rules. Whenever anyone tries to earn their salvation, they are falling into the bondage of legalism. Legalism pollutes the stream, changing it from a pure, life-giving stream to a bitter, deadly-toxic stream. When we try to earn God's favor or eternal life, we are drinking from a deadly stream.
PRINCIPLES
Two bank robbers in Sangus, Massachusetts, walked into a small delicatessen, pulled out their guns, and demanded all the money in the cash register. The owner stashed all the money into a brown bag and laid it on the counter. Nervously, they grabbed the bag and fled. Later, in a safe place they opened the bag to divide their haul only to be completely surprised. The bag contained two pastrami sandwiches and a slice of baklava. They couldn't believe it. In their nervous haste they picked up the wrong bag.
In the area of legalism and grace it is also easy to “pick up the wrong bag.” Legalism's bag has written on it “do.” Legalism has within it a long list of deeds one must do to be saved. It offers spiritual sandwiches that are low in nutriments.
Pastor and author Max Lucado gives a similar assessment of legalism when he writes:
A legalist believes the supreme force behind salvation is you. If you look right, speak right, and belong to the right segment of the right group, you will be saved. The brunt of responsibility doesn't lie within God; it lies within you. The result? The outside sparkles. The talk is good, and the step is true. But look closely! Listen carefully. Something is missing. What is it? Joy. What's there? Fear. (That you won't do enough.) Arrogance. (That you have done enough.) Failure. (That you have made a mistake.) Legalism is slow torture, suffocation of the spirit, amputation of one's dreams. Legalism is just enough religion to keep you, but not enough to nourish you. So you starve. Your teachers don't know where to go for food, so you starve together. Your diet is rules and standards. No vitamins. No zest. Just bland, predictable religion (Max Lucado, He Still Moves Stones, Dallas: Word Publishers, 1993, 128–29).
In contrast to legalism stands grace. The bag of grace has written on it the word faith. Under “faith” is written John 3:36, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life.” In contrast to legalism, grace has no rules, code, or ritual. It is an invitation directly from the heart of God simply to believe and receive. It has no price tag. Paul states in another passage, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Eph. 2:8–9).
Yes, legalism and grace are the two bags that rest on the counter of life. While the legalists may claim that their bag is full of wealth, in all reality, it is just an old bag with some dry, spiritual pastrami and baklava. The good news is that the wealth is found in grace. The bag of grace is full of forgiveness, joy, and eternal life. Which bag have you picked up? Which bag is in your possession? Legalism or grace? It will be a sad surprise to reach heaven's gate to find that your bag is full of worthless legalism. It will be a sad plight to enter eternity utterly destitute. All religion, apart from grace, is worthless legalism. Beware! Which bag is yours?
O Lord, the apostle Paul risked everything to maintain the purity of the gospel. Thank you that righteousness is in Christ and not the law. Help me to understand what it means that I am crucified with Christ. Thank you that my old sinful self died with Christ on the cross. Thank you that the new me arose with him from the grave. Give me strength not to go back to the graveyard and rummage around in the dead bones of sin. Give me the strength to live by faith because you have loved me sacrificially on the cross and continue to love me deeply today. For I pray in the wonderful name of the resurrected Christ, Amen.
A. Right hand of fellowship (v. 9)
Fellowship translates the word koinonia. Koinonia means “association,” “fellowship,” or “close relationship” (BAGD, 439). You have fellowship or partnership with those with whom you have commonality. We speak of fellowship over coffee or a meal. No closer Christian fellowship compares to participating in spreading the good news to unbelievers about Christ. Shaking the right hand was a sign of friendship and trust (BAGD, 174). Ralph Earle adds: “Not only were James, Peter, and John displaying a good spirit of Christian fellowship towards Paul and Barnabas, but they were shaking hands as partners in a business enterprise. Wisely they decided on a distribution of labor. The first three were to minister to Jews; the latter two were to go to the Gentiles” (Word Meanings in the New Testament, vol. 4, 185).
Paul uses the word dikaioo for justified with the meaning of “to be pronounced and treated as righteous” (BAGD, 197). It is a judicial act of God by which he recognizes a person as righteous and declares a person free from guilt and punishment. The result is that a person is brought into a right relationship with God.
Paul, likewise, uses pistis for faith, emphasizing the idea of trust. Faith in just anything will not do. The object of one's faith is paramount. Biblical saving faith places its entire hope and trust for salvation in Christ's completed work on the cross. We are righteous now in God's eyes if we are trusting in his Son, not in ourselves.
Leon Morris declares:
It was common to the religions of the day, as it has been common to other religions throughout history, that they put their emphasis on what people did. People must offer sacrifice; they must honour their deity, and so on. But Christians had the revolutionary idea that nothing the worshiper could do could bring salvation. That came as a free gift from God or it did not come at all. All the sinner can do is trust Christ for this world and the next (Leon Morris, Galatians, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996, 86).
Also, Morris believes:
It is plain from the New Testament teaching throughout that justification comes to the sinner by the atoning work of Jesus and that this is applied to the individual sinner by faith. That God pardons and accepts believing sinners is the truth that is enshrined in the doctrine of justification by faith (Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. Walter Elwell, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984, p. 443).
“Christians are justified in the same way Abraham was, by faith (Rom. 4:16; 5:1). Human works do not achieve or earn acceptance by God” (“Justification,” HBD, 830).
C. Crucified with Christ (v. 20)
One may ask how could Paul have been crucified with Christ? Was Paul dead? Was he nailed, physically, to the cross on the same day Jesus was? Of course, the answers to these questions must be, “No.” Paul was not a Christian the day Jesus was crucified. Nor was he hung on a cross that day. He may well have been nowhere near Golgotha—the hill of crucifixion. So in what way was he crucified with Christ?
The phrase can mean one of two things. It can be a figure of speech, in which case the words symbolize another truth other than physical crucifixion. Or it can be a literal crucifixion in a mystical sense. Let's look at both possibilities.
If it is a figure of speech, it might mean that Paul (and by implication, all believers) received the benefit of Christ's crucifixion. Because Christ was crucified and died spiritually in our place, we do not have to die spiritually. So, the phrase, “I have been crucified with Christ,” really means “Christ's crucifixion counts for me, so that it is the same as if I had been crucified when Christ was crucified.”
Alan Cole, in the Tyndale Commentary, prefers a “figure of speech” understanding of this phrase:
This is a simple statement of Paul's relation to the law. It stands for a complete change in his way of looking at all things—a “reorientation of thought,” to use modern jargon. He means that, as the death of Christ marked a total change in the relationship of Christ to all things…so it did for Paul. The cross was, for Christ, a complete break with this life. In one sense every human death is such a break, although there was a deeper sense in which it was true of Christ. He had perfectly fulfilled the law; we have utterly failed. But for both law is now no more. Henceforth, Paul is dead to all claims of the law to be able to commend him to God (Galatians, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983, 82).
If the meaning is mystical, it might mean that Paul (and by implication, all believers) actually participated somehow in Christ's death and resurrection because of the mystical union that believers have with the Lord. John MacArthur states: “In both Romans and Galatians, Paul is referring to the fact that when a person exercises faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, he is placed in transcendent spiritual union with Christ in the historical event of His death and resurrection, in which the penalty of sin was paid in full” (John McArthur, Galatians, Chicago: Moody Press, 1987, 59).
James Boice also prefers this option. “[Paul] may be referring to an actual participation of the believer in Christ's death and resurrection conceived on the basis of the mystical union of the believer with the Lord (cf. Rom. 6:4–8; Col. 2:12–14; 3:1–4). This … view is the hardest to understand, but it is the one involved here” (James Boice, Galatians, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976).
What does it mean to be “in Christ”? It means to be so united to Christ that all the experiences of Christ become the Christian's experiences. Thus, his death for sin was the believer's death; his resurrection was (in one sense) the believer's resurrection; his ascension was the believer's ascension, so that the believer is (again in one sense) seated with Christ “in the heavenly realms” (Eph. 2:6). Because of the verb tense Paul used, he cannot be speaking of a present experience of Christ's crucifixion … but rather to Christ's death itself. He died with Christ; that is, his “old man” died with Christ. This was arranged by God so that Christ, rather than the old Paul, might live in him.
We may not know exactly which meaning Paul had, even though we may have our opinions. We do know the implications. We are dead to the law. Before we knew Christ, the law had a claim on us. The law was perfect and revealed to us that we were not perfect. Because we were not perfect, the law declared that we were dead, cut off, alienated from God. However, because we have been crucified with Christ, we died, either actually in some mystical way or as a figure of speech.
Because we died, we are no longer under the jurisdiction of the law. A person is only obligated to the demands of the law as long as he is alive; but when he dies, the demands of the law are severed. We do not have to die in the future because of our sin, as the law demands, because we have died in Christ. Spiritual death has been eliminated, and we are now alive in Christ.
D. I no longer live, but Christ lives in me (v. 20)
“I no longer live” is a figure of speech meaning that “I no longer have control of my thoughts, words, and deeds. I submit them to the will of God so that, as nearly as I can determine, the thoughts, words, and deeds are not the ones I would choose but the ones Jesus would choose if he were in my shoes.”
“But Christ lives in me” is a simple statement of fact. Christ through the Holy Spirit, now lives in Paul. As a result, the indwelling God convicts, illumines, and leads Paul to do the things Jesus would if he were in Paul's shoes.
E. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God (v. 20)
This statement affirms life on earth in the physical body but describes a new kind of life, a life available only because of Jesus' resurrection. It means that Paul trusts the conviction, the illumining, the leading of Christ who lives within. By faith, he tries to be obedient and faithful to all he should do. Only such devotion and obedience to the living Christ can truly be called living.
A. INTRODUCTION
B. COMMENTARY
C. CONCLUSION: THE WRONG BAG