Book of Galatians Law vs Grace with Firsts and Seconds including God's Promise and discussion of Faith compared to Mosaic Law
Book of Galatians Law vs Grace with Firsts and Seconds including God's Promise and discussion of Faith compared to Mosaic Law

Argumentation - The Book of Galatians

Chapters 1 & 2
  

Galatians, Chapter 1.;

1:1. Paul, an apostle, (messenger) (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

Within the first verse we have Paul making a significant point, he states that he is an apostle.
Paul is not just utilizing this word in respects to it referring solely as being a personal title or designation, he is also stating that he is a “messenger”.
Apostle is derived from the Greek masculine noun “ἀπόστολος”, transliterated as “apostolos”.
Apostolos is primarily defined as “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders.

He also states that he “was not appointed as a delegate to deliver this message by any group of people, or by any human authority”, but by Jesus Christ Himself and by God the Father.
I will comment further on this after verses 1:11,12., where Paul addresses this again.

1:2. And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:

1:3. Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

1:4. Who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

1:5. To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Next within the following two (2) verses, Paul doesn’t beat around the bush, but gets right to the point by expressing his astonishment and concern that he has for the churches of Galatia by utilizing the word “marvel”, (thaumazō; astonished out of one's senses; awestruck).

Paul is expressing his shock and he is exasperated and says to them, “that they have not only abandoned the Gospel that he had taught them, but by doing so, they are also deserting Father God Who had called them to that Gospel”.

1:6. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him (Father God) that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

1:7. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

The English “removed” in verse 6 is derived from the Greek verb “μετατίθεσθε”, transliterated as “metatithēmi”. It is defined in context as meaning to “desert, to transpose (two things, one of which is put in place of the other), to fall away or desert from one person or thing to another."

Therefore in verse 6. Paul is saying; That the Galatians are guilty of deserting and falling away from Father God, and from the Grace of Christ that He had called them to, by putting something in place of the other.

As well In verse 6, Paul clearly states that what the Galatians have turned to and had begun to practice is a different gospel.
The English “another” in verse 6 is derived from the Greek adjective “ἕτερον”, transliterated as “heteros” which is defined as, “another: i.e. one not of the same nature, form, class, kind, and different.”

In verse 7 the “another” is derived from the Greek adjective “ἄλλο”, transliterated as “allos” which is also defined as “another or other”.

Although both “heteros” and “allos” can be translated into the English “another”, they have a difference in meaning which must be understood to establish the correct context.
Heteros expresses a qualitative difference and denotes "another of a different sort.
Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes "another of the same sort."

For example within John 14:16., Yeshua promised to send "another Comforter", allos - "another like Himself", NOT heteros - "another of a different sort".

Thus within verses 6 and 7 Paul is saying; That the Galatians are guilty of deserting and falling away from Father God, and from the Grace of Christ that He had called them to, because they have substituted a different gospel in place of the True Gospel that he had preached and had taught them initially.

Paul also says within verse 7, that there are “some that trouble you” (tarassō; to perplex the mind of one by suggesting scruples or doubts) and that those that are doing so “pervert” (metastrephō; to turn around or distort) the True Gospel of Yeshua.

(Paul refers to this again further on within the same Book where in Galatians 5:8,9. he says, “This persuasion cometh not of Him [Father God] that calleth you. A little leaven [sin] leaveneth the whole lump. [batch or group].)

Therefore Paul is saying to the Galatians in verses 6 and 7;
“I am shocked and astonished that you are deserting and falling away from Father God, and from the Grace of Christ that He had called you to. You have listened to others who have perplexed your mind and taught you to substitute this different, perverted and distorted version of the gospel, in place of the True Gospel of Yeshua that I had taught you to follow!”

It is here that I would like to remind everyone of 1 Peter 4:17,18.;                               
For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely (molis; something happening with great difficulty, hardly, very rarely) be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?”

Paul now defends the Truth of the Gospel of Yeshua that he preaches, and condemns anything, be it themselves, an angel from heaven or any individual or individuals, that dares to preach anything else with a curse.

1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed . ( anathema; without hope of being redeemed, doomed to destruction).

1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Now, if we actually comprehend what Paul has just stated above, we can logically conclude the following;

There are NOT a variety of different “gospels” in which to choose from. There is only ONE!
It is through this Gospel that God has called us to, that we obtain and share in the glory of our Lord Yeshua The Messiah.
2 Thessalonians 2:14.;
Whereunto He called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

As well, the following verses, (for just a few) do more than imply that there is only ONE Gospel.
Ephesians 4:4-6.;
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in ONE HOPE of your calling;
One Lord, ONE FAITH, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”

1 Corinthians 12:13.;
“For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”

John 10:16.;
“And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be ONE FOLD, and ONE SHEPARD.”

And if you happen to deviate from that ONE TRUE GOSPEL, evidently, there are consequences.
Where some of those consequences have already been expressed.

The Galatians believe and have faith in Yeshua, and they have also been born of the Spirit, (Galatians 3:2. and 5.) yet Paul says that by participating in this different gospel they have deserted and fallen away from Father God and from the Grace of Christ that He had called them to, (vs. 1:6.).

Question; If Grace is unconditional, how is it possible to not only desert and fall away from Father God, but also from the Grace of Yeshua?
If this can happen by practicing a different gospel, then “ Graceis logically conditional”.

And if deserting and falling away from Father God isn’t tragic enough, we are also only saved by the Grace of Christ

Ephesians 2:5-9.;
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come He might shew the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

… So, deserting and falling away from the Grace of Christ by participating in a different gospel, (when we are only saved by that same Grace), would be a disastrous consequence.

The Galatians being “born again” through their faith and belief in Yeshua, received through God’s Grace, the promise of forgiveness by His blood, the promise of justification and His free gift of righteousness, vindication, reconciliation, and salvation, as well as the promise of the Holy Spirit.

Question; Is Paul also saying, that the promises that we receive through the Grace of Yeshua, can be lost?
If we can desert and fall away from Father God and from the Grace of Christ that He had called us to by practicing a different gospel, then wouldn’t we also be deserting and falling away from the things that this Grace provides?
Paul addresses this question with more clarity further on within this epistle.

As well, just to further drive home the significance of this One True Gospel that Paul was taught by Yeshua, he also places a curse on anything, be it themselves, an angel from heaven, or any other man that preaches a different gospel, that they be without hope of being redeemed and doomed to destruction., (vs. 1:8,9.).

Therefore it is critical, for all of us to understand what Paul is conveying within this epistle.

We can also logically conclude, that out of all of the peoples of the earth, the only ones that would have introduced the necessity to be circumcised, would have been Jews.
Thus, it would have been a Jewish individual or individuals that had preached this different, perverted and distorted version of the gospel and perplexed the minds of the Galatians.

These Jewish believers, (or who had professed to believe) had erroneously swayed and convinced the Galatians, that the Mosaic Law of bondage, was somehow compulsory within Yeshua’s New Second Covenant of freedom and liberty.
As we diligently proceed to examine the verses of this Book in minute detail, (especially when we come to verses 4:21. through 5:1.) the truth of that last statement should become abundantly clear.

Paul then continues after voicing this curse, by posing two questions in the first person.

1:10. For do I now persuade (peithō; seek approval and obey) men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? (areskō; in context - to accommodate one's self to the opinions desires and interests of others) For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
(If my aim was to please man, I would not be Christ’s bondservant.)

By posing these questions as he did, Paul is basically asking the Galatians those same questions.
Do “they” seek the approval and desire to obey men or God?
Do “they” wish to accommodate themselves to the opinions and interests of men, or of God?
Because if “they” do wish to simply please men, then they shouldn’t be a bondservant of Christ.

Having posed those questions, (leaving the Galatians to ponder over them and conduct their own self-evaluation) Paul now conveys to them again, just as to “how and from Who” he received this One True Gospel.
By doing so, he is not only validating the legitimacy of the Gospel that he preaches, but he is also posing another question to them.
Which between the two, would have more Divine legitimacy?
The gospel that they heard from other men? Or the Gospel that they heard from him?

1:11. But I certify you, (gnōrizō; to gain and have thorough knowledge of ) brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is NOT after (kata; according to, by way of) man.

1:12. For I neither received it of man (paralambanō; in context – from men as instruction as teachers), neither was I taught it (didaskō; instructed in doctrine by man), but by the (dia; by the means of)revelationof Jesus Christ.

Like in Galatians 1:1. Paul reiterates in verses 11 and 12 that the Gospel of Yeshua that he was chosen to preach, (Acts 9:15.) was not “received” from or according to man’s instruction and that he also wasn’t “taught it” by man, but that he received this Gospel by the means of “revelation” from Yeshua Himself, (2 Corinthians 12:1-7.).
Paul is an Apostle - a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders, and sent by Yeshua and God the Father to relay Their message of truth.  

The translated English “revelation” was derived from the Greek feminine noun “ἀποκαλύψεως” transliterated as “apokálypsis”.
Apokálypsis in this context would refer to Paul receiving “knowledge that had previously been unknown” to him, being defined as “laying bare, making naked, a disclosure of truth, instruction, concerning things before unknown.

With Paul expressing again, that he wasn’t taught this Gospel by man, but that he was instructed in truth regarding things that were previously unknown to him by Yeshua Himself, means that the Gospel of Yeshua is different than Judaism .

For we know that Paul, (when still in his youth and called Saul) was clearly taught and instructed in all aspects of the Jews’ religion by a man named Rabbi Gamaliel in Jerusalem.

This is stated within Acts 22:3., where Paul himself states; “I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up (anatrephō; to nourish, promote growth with the predominant idea of forming the mind) in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught (paideuō; to be instructed or taught to learn) according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, (the Mosaic Law) and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

So, after expressing again as to “how” and from “Who” he had received this One True Gospel, which should also clarify as to which of the two gospels, (man’s or Yeshua’s) has more Divine legitimacy, Paul now proceeds to retell the Galatians of what they already knew about his former conduct and life as Saul. But why does Paul take this stroll down memory lane here? What purpose does it serve?

It serves to further demonstrate to the Galatians, the legitimacy of the Gospel that he preaches.
How he once conducted his life one way in the past, then by Divine Intervention, he makes a 180 degree turn around in the opposite direction.
This miracle and his 180 degree turn around story, substantiates the Gospel that he preaches.

1:13. For ye have heard of my conversation (anastrophē; behaviour, manner of life, conduct, and figuratively, a change of outward behavior from an "up-turn" of inner beliefs) in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

Within verse 13 Paul also makes a bold distinction between Judaism and the “church of God”.
As per John 14:6. and with Paul making this distinction, one could reasonably conclude, that those of the Jewish religion that don’t believe and have faith in Yeshua, are not a part of the Church (ekklēsia; assembly, or congregation with rights of citizenship) of God.

Saul was a Jew, a Pharisee that practiced Judaism and he observed the Mosaic Law.
He was given the authority to persecute Christian’s by the High Priest, (Acts 8:3., 9:1,2., 22:5.) and became in essence like a “bounty hunter”.
He was given this authority because there were some fundamental doctrinal differences between Judaism and what he now as Paul, refers to as the “Church of God”.

One difference of course would be the faith and belief in Yeshua as being the promised Messiah.
Saul didn’t share that belief until he had his own encounter with the Divine, but now as Paul he does.
Question; Could there be more doctrinal differences between Judaism and the Mosaic Law and the Church of God and the Gospel, other than the faith and belief of Yeshua being the Messiah? Paul continues speaking of his former life as Saul

1:14. And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

The English “profited” is derived from the Greek verb “προέκοπτον” or “prokoptō” and is defined in context, “figuratively and intransitively, to advance, to grow, increase, proceed, or profit”.

The translated “Jews’ religion” is from the Greek masculine noun “Ἰουδαϊσμῷ” or “Ioudaïsmós” defined as, “the Jewish faith and worship, religion of the Jews, Judaism”.
Being from the Greek root verb “ἰουδαΐζειν” or “Ioudaḯzō”, “to live as the Jews, being one who observes the ritual law of the Jews”.

The “traditions” is derived from the Greek feminine noun “παραδόσεων” transliterated as “paradosis” where within this context it would be defined as,
A - objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching. B - of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence.”

So above within verses 13 and 14, Paul is reminding the Galatians of what they had heard about him in the past. How when he was Saul, and kept the Mosaic Law, that he used to be like a bounty hunter that persecuted the Church of God with the intention to destroy it completely.
And in doing so, he increased in notoriety amongst the peers of his age group within the nation of Israel since he demonstrated his zeal to defend and uphold Judaism, and more vehemently contended for it, than any of his peers did.

Remember “why” Paul is retelling the Galatians of his previous conduct and life as Saul, (before his 180 degree turn around in the opposite direction) that he had after his encounter with the Divine on the road to Damascus. He is not only establishing the legitimacy of the Gospel that he preaches, but by expressing what he does, he is also expressing what he believed at the time.

In voicing his former conduct as Saul, he is also expressing what his motivation consisted of.
The “why” he was able to defend and vehemently contend for the Mosaic Law and Judaism.
It came from his heartfelt belief that the Mosaic Law and Judaism was simply God’s only truth.

At the time, Saul believed and was thoroughly convinced, that it was this “Way” that believed that Yeshua was somehow the promised Messiah, that had perverted and blasphemed this truth.
And because this was contrary to what he had been taught to believe, in his mind, it then gave him licence to persecute these followers and to kill and destroy them.

Now we come to verses 15 and 16 which I believe, have not been fully understood in context by many.
Paul has just retold the Galatians of his previous behaviour and conduct as Saul, and how he gained notoriety amongst his peers within the nation of Israel, because he demonstrated his zeal to defend and uphold Judaism more vehemently than any of his peers did.
But now Paul writes the following…

1:15,16. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Many appear to understand that when Paul says “who separated me from my mother's womb” that he is somehow referring to his “literal birth”.
Yet this being “separated”, is associated to God calling Saul by His grace to reveal ( apokalýptō; to make known, disclose, to uncover, lay open what  has been veiled or covered up) regarding the truth of His Son to him.

This is Saul becoming aware of WHO Yeshua really is.
What had been veiled and covered up regarding Yeshua being the actual Promised Messiah has now been revealed to him.
This obviously did not occur, at the time of his literal birth.

The English “separated” derived from the Greek verb “ἀφορίσας” or “aphorizō” is defined in this context as, “to mark off from others by boundaries, to limit, divide and sever and to appoint and set apart for some purpose ”. (Again, see Acts 9:15. within the Introduction.)

The “mother’s womb” above, the Greek feminine nouns rendered “κοιλίας μητρός” or “koilía mḗtēr”, are to be understood figuratively, as being a metaphor, as “mother” is to be also understood within Galatians 4:26..

The “mother’s” or “mḗtēr”, being defined metaphorically as, “the source of something, the motherland”, or Saul being separated from Judaism and the Mosaic Law, having been called by God to the Grace of Yeshua.
The “womb” or “koilía” being also defined as, “the innermost part of a man, the soul, heart as the seat of thought, feeling, choice”, or in other words, “what a man’s belief consists of.”

Rather than Paul referring to that of his literal birth, he is instead referring to when Yeshua called him as Saul on the road to Damascus, (Acts 9:1-22.) and his subsequent “new second spiritual birth”, (John 3:3-6. & Acts 9:17,18.) as a believer who now has Faith in Him.

To expand on what Paul is saying in verses 15 and 16;
But when it pleased God, Who by severing me from my former heartfelt belief in Judaism and the Mosaic Law, (which had been my source of belief and my mother’s womb from birth) and Who called me by His grace, by making known the truth of His Son in me, (which had been formerly veiled and covered up) so that I could now be set apart and appointed for the purpose of preaching Him among the heathen;

Would not the “immediately I conferred (prosanatíthēmi; converse, communicate, consult, or to take one into counsel) not with flesh and blood” and the following verse of 1:17. simply confirm the above?

1:17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

How, if “mother’s womb” in verse 15 is referring to Paul’s literal birth, would it be possible for him as Saul, to immediately or straightaway - converse, communicate, consult, or to take one into counsel with any flesh and blood human, being a new born infant?

How, if “mother’s womb” in verse 15 is referring to Paul’s literal birth, would it be possible for him as Saul to make the choice to not seek that consultation with the apostles in Jerusalem, but travel to Arabia instead, being a new born infant?

As well by all scholarly accounts, Yeshua was more than likely born between 6 and 4 B.C., whereas Saul was supposedly born around A.D. 5. Yeshua didn’t start His preaching until sometime around A.D. 27-29 and His death on the cross didn’t take place until approximately A.D. 30-36.
So there were NO apostles when Saul was born!

(For those that are not aware, B.C. does denote “Before Christ, however A.D. does not solely stand for “After Death”.
A.D. stands for the Latin phrase anno domini, which means “in the year of our Lord.”)

I believe that if the correct context is understood, that Paul is actually referring to being separated from Judaism and the Mosaic Law, and is instead referring to his “new second creation spiritual birth” and the Grace that is found in the liberty and freedom of Yeshua.

To substantiate this separation from Judaism and the Mosaic Law even further, there is what Paul writes next.

1:18. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Take notice of what Paul says within the bold type of verses 18 above. We don’t know how long Paul stayed in Arabia, or in Damascus after he returned, but Paul did NOT go to Jerusalem for at least a period of three years, where Saul as a zealot for the Mosaic Law certainly wouldn’t have done this.   

If Paul actually observed, taught, or was a proponent of the Mosaic Law as some believe, he was quite the hypocrite. Because in not returning to Jerusalem for a period of three years, he had broken God’s commandment of Exodus 23:14-17. of the Mosaic Law a total of 9 times.
(Not to mention the fourteen years of absence regarding Temple attendance that is mentioned within Galatians 2:1.. Paul includes these time frames within this epistle because they are relevant to Galatians 4:10.)

Note: Many Bible versions record within Acts 18:21. that Paul had stated that he was going to attend a feast(ἑορτή heortē) in Jerusalem, (Ἰεροσόλυμα - Hierosolyma).

However, the Morphological Greek New Testament text does not record Paul saying that at all.
The actual verse is rendered as;
“ἀλλὰ ἀποταξάμενος καὶ εἰπών πάλιν ἀνακάμψω πρὸς ὑμᾶς τοῦ θεοῦ θέλοντος ἀνήχθη ἀπὸ τῆς Ἐφέσου”

This in turn would be transliterated as;
“alla apotaxamenos kai eipōn palin anakampsō pros hymas tou Theou thelontos anēchthē apo tēs Ephesou”

And translate into English as rendered as;
“But taking leave of them and saying again I will return to you God willing he set sail from Ephesus”

There is no mention of either a “feast” or “Jerusalem” within the text.

And if you were to continue to read within the following verses, you would see that Luke recorded exactly what this journey consisted of.
In Acts 18:22., Paul had sailed from Ephesus and landed in Caesarea, where after greeting the church that was there, he went down to Antioch.
In Acts 18:23., after Paul had spent some time in Antioch, he went to the region of Galatia and Phrygia, to strengthen the disciples that were there.
In Acts 19:1., after Paul had passed through the upper regions, (Galatia and Phrygia), we have him returning to Ephesus.

Where after three months of Paul attempting to reason with and persuade the Jews in the synagogue that was in Ephesus, (Acts 19:8.) he then left and took those that were with him to the school of Tyrannus where they all stayed for a period of two years, (Acts 19:9,10.).
By what is recorded within the actual text, no feast in Jerusalem” was ever kept by Paul in this instance.
(Notice as well the two year time frame within Acts 19:10. which also breaks Exodus 23:14-17.)

1:19. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

1:20. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

1:21. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;

1:22. And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:

1:23. But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

1:24. And they glorified God in me.


Galatians Chapter2.;

Now Paul, after chastising the Galatians for practicing a different gospel that would have come from a Jewish individual, and verifying that the Gospel that he teaches is from Yeshua and the only true one, and in speaking about his own conversion to the faith and belief in Yeshua, transitions more specifically to speaking of the Mosaic Law.

2:1. Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
(Notefourteen years breaks Exodus 23:14-17.)

2:2. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

2:3. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled (anagkazō; believed it was NECESSARY) to be circumcised:

2:4. And that because of false brethren (pseudadelphos; a false brother, deprived of Christian knowledge) unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out (kataskopeō; and plot against) our liberty (eleutheria; liberty, freedom, to do or to omit things having no relationship to salvation) which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage (the Mosaic Law):

Above Paul includes himself as having “liberty” by using “our”, (hēmōn; our, we, us) and “we have”, (echomen; to have, hold, own and possess).

2:5. To whom we gave place by subjection, (eixamen tē hypotagē; did not yield submission to) no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

So, who is Paul referring to above as being “false brethren” in this instance?
Isn’t he referring to those that came to the Council at Jerusalem to “plot against the Liberty that we have in Christ Jesus”?
Isn’t what Paul is describing here, all recorded by Luke within the Book of Acts?

If we go to Acts 15:1. Luke tells us, that while Paul and all of the rest of the brethren were in Antioch, “certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
And that after an argument regarding this occurred, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas and some of the others should go to Jerusalem to receive the answer to this question from the Apostles and Elders there.                                                           
Acts 15:5. says, “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful (dei; necessary need of, duty, in reference to what is required to attain some end) to circumcise them, and to command (paraggellō; to command, order, charge) them to keep the law of Moses.
These are the same individuals that Paul refers to as being “false brethren” in Galatians 2:4..

In verse 2:4., Paul includes himself as being in liberty, but accuses those that state that the Mosaic Law is necessary in Yeshua’s Gospel of Truth, as being false brethren, that only desired to place everyone into bondage, (or the Mosaic Law).
And he states in verse 2:5., that they didn’t yield or submit to these false brethren claims regarding the need for circumcision or the Mosaic Law for even one hour, so that the TRUTH of the GOSPEL might continue with all who believe and have faith.

Paul was a Pharisee, from the tribe of Benjamin. He is obviously a Messianic believer in Yeshua too. But if he believed the same as these Pharisee’s regarding the Mosaic Law, wouldn’t he be calling himself a false brother as well?

2:6. But of these who seemed to be somewhat (the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem), (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person: (or, God shows no partiality to man.)) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

2:7. But contrariwise, when they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision (Gentiles) was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the circumcision (non-believing Jews) was unto Peter;

2:8. (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, (non-believing Jews) the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

2:9. And when James, Cephas (Peter), 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 (Gentiles), and they unto the circumcision (non-believing Jews).

2:10. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

Next we have the argument that occurred between Paul and Peter.
Paul includes this narrative immediately after defending the “Liberty and Freedom that we have in Yeshua” and after condemning the claims, “that it is necessary to be circumcised and to keep the Mosaic Law” that were made by who he refers to as “false brethren”.

Notice however that the reason for the following conflict, is in no way relevant to the act of circumcision.
It is instead regarding Peter’s and the rest of the believing Jews, “demonstrated behaviour”.

Paul confronts Peter because he and all of the rest of the Jewish believers, including Barnabas, (who all knew better than what they had demonstrated) feigned to be influenced by the group of individuals that had come from James and Jerusalem, rather than simply walking in the Spirit in Faith, and demonstrating the truth of Yeshua’s Gospel.  

Notice as well in the following, “not once” does Paul refer to those that had come from James, as being brethren.
Instead he refers to them as being,“the circumcision”.
Paul normally reserves this designation when he is speaking of non-believing Jews that still follow and religiously observe the Mosaic Law.
(i.e. Galatians 2:7,8,9. above.)

2:11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood (anthistēmi; opposed, confronted) him to the face, because he was to be blamed (kataginōskō; to find fault with, blame, to accuse, or condemn).

2:12. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew (hypostellō; to draw back, withdraw one’s self, of those who from timidity hesitate to avow what they believe) and separated himself, (aphorizō; from others by boundaries) fearing (phobeō; to fear, be afraid of) them which were of the circumcision.

2:13. And the (rest of the) other Jews (who also previously ate with the Gentiles) dissembled (synypokrinomai; to join in acting the hypocrite, in pretending to act from one motive, whereas another motive really inspires the act) likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away (synapagō; to yield or submit one's self to lowly things) with their dissimulation (hypokrisis; hypocrisy, the acting of a stage player).

2:14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly (orthopodeō; walking or acting correctly) according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being (hyparchō; began first as) a Jew, (yet) livest after the manner of Gentiles, and NOT as do the Jews, why compellest (anagkazō; to necessitate, force, urge or compel) thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews (ioudaïzō; imitate, to adopt Jewish customs and rites, to Judaize)?

There is a significant amount of information provided within verse 2:14..
This condemnation that Paul heaps upon Peter and those that are listening, has far more to do with the Mosaic Law, rather than any of the Jewish customary traditions of separating themselves from the Gentile people as a whole.
This can be substantiated by Paul introducing the topic of Mosaic Law in verse 16.

However let’s look at what Paul actually says within 2:14..
Paul is chastising Peter, (and the other Jewish believers) for not walking uprightly.
Their demonstrated behaviour was doctrinally wrong, and was contrary to the truth of the Gospel.

Paul says that Peter lived just like the Gentiles did before these men from James arrived, and that he didn’t live like a Jew.
This would mean that Peter, (and the rest of the believing Jews) DIDN’T observe the Mosaic Law. They lived instead as the Gentiles lived, and these Jewish believers shared in a loving brotherhood with their fellow Gentile believing brethren, by walking in the Spirit by Faith and as One New Man.

But now they are separating and creating a divide between themselves, and Paul condemns Peter of forcing, and compelling the Gentiles to now imitate the circumcision.

In a more contemporary language, what Paul is basically saying to Peter is;

Peter, though you were naturally born as a Jew, and grew up believing in the Mosaic Law as our means for justification and righteousness, but had no problem whatsoever living in the manner and customs of the believing Gentiles before these men from James came, how can you justify your behaviour?
Aren’t you now by living as the unbelieving Jews do, by observing the Mosaic Law like we did in the past, compelling the Gentiles believers to also observe the Mosaic Law, and to live like the unbelieving Jews do as well?
What type of example are you demonstrating to our fellow brethren, as to how to live and walk in the truth of the Gospel?

Where, after asking that question to Peter, Paul now starts a new paragraph and makes the following statements regarding their “new found knowledge” as “born again of God’s Spirit, new second creations” and the Mosaic Law....

2:15. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

2:16. 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.

2:17. 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.

2:18. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

2:19. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

Before commenting on the above five verses I would like for all of us to understand something of significant importance.
In the New Second Covenant text, within all of the highly recognized versions of the Bible, the Greek masculine noun “νόμος “ transliterated as “nomos”, is simply translated into English as the word “law”.

(Whereas, within the publications of those that may perhaps be proponents of the Mosaic Law within Yeshua’s New Second Covenant, “nomos”, is simply translated into English as the word “Torah”.)

Unfortunately both translations are INADEQUATE and do not encompass the breadth of “LAW”.

Let’s have a quick look at “Torah”….
Many people associate and limit the word Torah to be referring specifically to the Mosaic Law.
Yet all of those that do so, severely diminish its scope.
Because those individuals are also unaware that the Book of Genesis provides a vast amount of Torah, that predates the Mosaic Law.

What exactly is Torah?
Torah the Hebrew “תּוֹרָה” transliterated as “tôwrâh” is defined primarily in its noun form, as Divine “Direction, Instruction and Teaching”, (or what would constitute as Law).  
Tôwrâh is derived from the Hebrew root verb “יָרָה” transliterated as “yârâh”, which is primarily defined as to “shoot an arrow and to hit the mark”.
Together then, tôwrâh can be understood and defined in respects to the Divine, pointing or leading to show, to direct, to teach and instruct, or to lay the foundations to “hit the mark”.

By that definition, the first recorded tôwrâh” issued to man within Scripture would be the Commandments that God spoke in Genesis 1:28,29. which are thousands and thousands of years before the revelation of the Mosaic Law upon Sinai.

Though Father God’s tôwrâh (direction and instruction) is also included within the New Second Covenant text, (See Deuteronomy 18:15., 18,19., John 3:34., 8:26.,28. & 47., 12:49,50., 14:10.,24., 17:8. & Hebrews 1:1,2.), the aspect of this tôwrâh that is relevant to the above five verses, would be what God has provided us within the Book of Genesis. (i.e. Amos 3:7.)

Let’s look at verse 2:19. again for a moment.
For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

Questions: What “law” is Paul referring to in the 1st. instance, where “through that law” he has died to a “law”?
Are the two laws above different from one another?
Here’s a hint, the English “through” was derived from the Greek “διά” transliterated “dia” which is a primary preposition denoting, “a channel or by reason of, on account of”, or what would be the result that was caused by, “the means of an act”.

Answers: Within the 1st. instance, the “law” that Paul is referring to, has direct relevance to Abraham and Isaac and God’s tôwrâh Covenant of PROMISE. It is “through” the manifestation of Yeshua as the SEED of PROMISE, that Paul has died to the 2nd. “law” or Mosaic Law.
(See Romans 7:1-6.)

Hence Galatians 3:16-18.;
Now to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of One, And to thy Seed, which is Christ.
And this I say, that the Covenant (of Promise), that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the (Mosaic) law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the Promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the (Mosaic) law, it is NO more of Promise: but God gave it to Abraham by Promise.

Further to the above, God states this tôwrâh Promise to Abraham in Genesis 22:18.;
And in thy Seed (Yeshua) shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.” (i.e. the scope of Amos 3:7. here, and for the next three entries.)

God states this tôwrâh Promise to Isaac in in Genesis 26:3,4.;
Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy Seed (Yeshua) shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.

And God states this tôwrâh Promise to Jacob in Genesis 28:14.;
And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy Seed (Yeshua) shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

Now consider this, when God spoke through Yeshua and said within Matthew 5:17….
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”, we as man have a tendency to think of only one (1) “law”, that being the Mosaic Law.
However, He also fulfilled, (plēroō - to render full, i.e. to complete by means of performance, to execute) ALL of Father God's tôwrâh as well.   
Yeshua fulfilled Genesis 3:15. He fulfilled the Promises that God had made to Abraham, and all that Isaiah and the other prophets had said in respects to Him being the Suffering Servant, His crucifixion and all of His Finished Work as well. Yeshua fulfilled everything that had been written about Him that He was supposed to fulfill during His first manifestation as the Promised Messiah. (again, i.e. Amos 3:7.)

Therefore, when we are reading God’s Word, and we come across the word “law” within the New Second Covenant text, it is our responsibility, to not limit the scope of that word, without first taking into consideration, all that it would entail.    

Speaking of Yeshua also fulfilling the Mosaic Law….
If Yeshua as a Man, was born under the Mosaic Law (Galatians 4:4.) yet was declared to be withoutblemish” or “spot” and as being “without sin”,
(2 Corinthians 5:21., Hebrews 4:15., 7:26,27., 9:14., 1 Peter 1:19., 2:22., and 1 John 3:5.) the only possible way He could have attained those “designations” is by first fulfilling whatever was applicable, required and necessary to fulfill, in respects to the Mosaic Law as God The Father had intended for man to fulfill it.

As well, Yeshua as Man, being God in the flesh, was the only Man that understood the depth, scope and breadth of the corpus of Mosaic Law, (Matthew 5:21-47.) and was therefore, the only Man ever capable of fulfilling the Mosaic Law, perfectly and with the exact same precision that God Himself would fulfill it, (Matthew 5:48.).

Furthermore, if Yeshua is the replacement for RIGHTEOUSNESS, (from Deuteronomy 6:25. based upon mere man’s performance, to Romans 10:4. based upon Yeshua’s performance) then He is also the replacement for the Mosaic Law, and He can’t redeem (Galatians 3:13. & 4:5.) “us” from a Father God Commanded obligation like the Mosaic Law, without first fulfilling its requirements on our behalf.

With that said, let’s continue and look at Galatians 2:15-19. again, where after Paul asks Peter the question in verse 2:14. he now starts a new paragraph and makes the following statements regarding their “new found knowledge” as “born again of God’s Spirit, new second creations” and the Mosaic Law....

2:15. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

From the Morphological Greek New Testament text;
“ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί”
We are Jews by birth and not (ἐξ – from among) Gentile sinners,  

2:16. (And we know) Knowing that a man is not justified (dikaioutai; rendered, declared to be righteous) by the works of the (Mosaic) law, but BY THE FAITH of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified (dikaiōthōmen; made, pronounced and declared to be Righteous by God) BY THE FAITH of Christ, and not by the works of the (Mosaic) law: for by the works of the (Mosaic) law shall no flesh be justified (dikaiōthēsetai; rendered, declared to be righteous).

The ONLY flesh that WAS justified, was Yeshua as the Second Adam, being God in the flesh.
The disobedience of man, by the First Adam, was what caused the separation.
Therefore that required the obedience of Man, by the Second Adam, to be the source for the Reconciliation.

2:17. But if, while we seek to be justified (dikaiōthēnai; declared righteous) by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, (hamartōloi; to “forfeit by missing the mark” – properly, loss from falling short of what God approves, i.e. what is "wide of the mark" in context, by observing the Mosaic Law again) is therefore Christ the minister of sin? (Is Christ the minister of sin and the Mosaic Law like Moses?) God Forbid.
(Or is Christ the Minister of a New Second Covenant consisting of Grace and Truth? See John 1:17.)

2:18. For if I build again the things (palin oikodomō; to build, edify once more, again in context the Mosaic Law) which I destroyed, (katelysa; to break up, overthrow, destroy, unyoke) I make myself a transgressor (parabatēn; "a transgressor, contrary to" – properly, someone who steps over (walks contrary to) God's line, refers to a deliberate violator (transgressor) of God's law. In context - a sinner all over again).

2:19. For I through the LAW (the Tôwrâh of God’s Promise, and the finished work of Yeshua) am dead to the (Mosaic) law, that I might live unto God.

So, Paul is clearly chastising Peter and the rest of the believing Jews for their demonstrated behaviour, which evidently in context, by taking into account all of the previous narrative, consisted of edifying and religiously observing the Mosaic Law again. Then Paul makes the following justification for his condemnation towards all of them that are listening….

2:20. 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.

Paul states that he has (spiritually) died with Christ, and that he trusts in God’s tôwrâh of Promise and the finished work of Yeshua who lovingly died on his behalf, by living in Faith.
He is saying, that “Trusting God and His Promise” is demonstrated by Living in Faith in that Promise.
Paul is also saying that he is secure in the RIGHTEOUSNESS that God’s Promise has provided, as opposed to having to religiously observe the Mosaic Law again, which was the first and old means for mere man to obtain righteousness.

(Paul basically encapsulates much of the what is expressed above within Philippians 3:2-9., where he starts off by saying “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the consicion (katatomē; to cut up, mutilation)” where with that, he is sarcastically referring to those false Jewish brethren, “beware of those false brethren that are of the circumcision, those that are cut up and mutilated, because they will lead you astray”.
Where he then proceeds to talk about his former life as Saul, and his righteousness that he attained through the Mosaic Law as Saul, only to conclude, that comparatively that righteousness, contrasted to the RIGHTEOUSNESS that is provided by Yeshua by Faith, is simply “excrement”.)

Continuing… 
    
Paul then closes with what was the final comment of the conversation that took place between Peter and himself, by expressing a warning.

2:21. I do not frustratethe Grace of God: for if righteousness come by the (Mosaic) law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Let’s summarize some of what’s transpired.

In verses 1:6,7. Paul has told the Galatians, “I am shocked and astonished that you are deserting and falling away from Father God, and from the Grace of Christ that He had called you to. You have listened to others who have perplexed your mind and taught you to substitute this different, perverted and distorted version of the gospel, in place of the True Gospel of Yeshua that I had taught you to follow!

Then within verses 1:8,9. he defends the Gospel that he preaches with a curse, and in 1:11,12. he clarifies from “Who” and “How” he was taught this One True Gospel.

In 2:1-5. Paul tells the Galatians what had transpired at the council in Jerusalem, and how he and those that were with him, defended the “Liberty that they have in Christ” against the “false brethren claims” that it was necessary to instead be in “bondage, be circumcised and religiously observe the Mosaic Law”.

Then in 2:11-21. he continues with the narrative, and proceeds to tell the Galatians about his confrontation with Peter, and how his, (and the others) demonstrated behaviour of returning to and religiously observing the Mosaic Law, was NOT walking uprightly and was contrary to the Truth of the Gospel.

And Paul closes that conversation with Peter with a warning, by saying;
2:21 I do notfrustratethe Grace of God: for if righteousness come by the (Mosaic) law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Why is what is stated within that verse by Paul a warning?
The English “frustrate” was derived from the Greek verb “ἀθετῶ” transliterated as “atheteō”.
Atheteō is defined as, “to do away with, to set aside, disregard, to thwart the efficacy of anything, nullify, make void, frustrate, to reject, to refuse, or slight”.

Therefore Paul is saying, that this demonstrated behaviour of religiously observing the Mosaic Law again, “does away with, thwarts the efficacy of, nullifies and voidsthe Grace of God.

This repeats the same warning that he expresses within 1:6,7.;

I am shocked and astonished that you are deserting and falling away from Father God, and from the Grace of Christ that He had called you to. You have listened to others who have perplexed your mind and taught you to substitute this different, perverted and distorted version of the gospel, in place of the True Gospel of Yeshua that I had taught you to follow!
  

Book of Galatians Law vs Grace with Firsts and Seconds including God's Promise and discussion of Faith compared to Mosaic Law