Galatians 5:17 says, *"For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh."* This seems to suggest a deliberate opposition between the two. My question is: Was this opposition between the Spirit and the flesh part of God's original design from the beginning (before the Fall), or did it come about as a result of sin? In other words, did God will for this tension to exist under His authority, or is it a result of rebellion against that authority? I’m looking for answers from perspectives that explain how this dynamic fits into Christian theology — particularly with reference to Scripture and doctrinal traditions.

***This might usefully take us back to what the [first question in this series](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/107548/10672) pointed to – Paul’s explanation to Christians*** in Galatians 3:10-12. That last verse is connected to Leviticus 18:5. And perhaps 1 Peter 3:18 might show God’s plan of saving humanity from this curse of the law. But I don’t want to cramp your answers, just so long as they actually stick to the confines of this last series of questions – if you don’t mind! Is it reasonable to suggest that justification cannot be obtained through human efforts; that faith in the work of Christ avails for salvation, and that reliance to any degree on works excludes trust in the finished work of Christ? This question is scoped for any Christians who believe perfect obedience to God’s laws are the goal all Christians should, and could, aspire to, to be justified; but as there may be very few such individuals on this site, to also seek answers from those who say such a thing is impossible, but that there are aspects of God’s law Christians must follow, albeit not with salvation in view, but to please and honour him.

Deuteronomy speaks several times of a curse attached to God’s law given to Moses, especially in the book of Deuteronomy (e.g. 11:26-30 & 27:4-26.) It is also mentioned elsewhere in the O.T. and Paul goes into this curse to help Christians avoid it (e.g. Galatians 3:10-12). In principle, the law of Moses could bring either a blessing or a curse. That was its very nature. But **this question is only interested in what ‘the curse of the law’ is.** Because this is so vast a topic, I have posted 2 separate follow-up questions, to prevent massive answers, or a debate arising, or lots of comments. The other 2 ask ***‘[Who lie under the curse?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/107549/who-lie-under-the-curse-of-the-law-of-moses-2nd-of-3-questions-on-this-topic)’*** and then, ***‘[What are the consequences of the curse?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/107550/what-are-the-consequences-of-the-curse-attached-to-the-law-of-moses-3rd-of-3-q)’*** This question is scoped for any Christians who believe perfect obedience to God’s laws are the goal all Christians should, and could, aspire to, to be justified; but as there may be very few such individuals on this site, to also seek answers from those who say such a thing is impossible, but that there are aspects of God’s law Christians must follow, albeit not with salvation in view, but to please and honour him.

Who did it apply to in the time of Moses, then in the time of Christ what did Paul say about Gentiles also being cursed in their rebellion (disobedience)? (e.g. Romans 1:18-23 & 2:14-15 & 3:9). Does this mean that the curse rested not only upon the Jews, who had the written law, but also on all men seeking acceptance with God through works of law-keeping? ***The 3rd question in this series asks about [what the consequences of the curse are](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/107550/10672).*** This question is scoped for any Christians who believe perfect obedience to God’s laws are the goal all Christians should, and could, aspire to, to be justified; but as there may be very few such individuals on this site, to also seek answers from those who say such a thing is impossible, but that there are aspects of God’s law Christians must follow, albeit not with salvation in view, but to please and honour him. LINK to 1st question in series: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/107548/what-is-the-curse-of-the-law-of-moses-1st-of-3-questions-on-this-topic/107619#107619

In Galatians 2:11–14, Paul recounts a moment when he publicly opposed Peter (Cephas) in Antioch. The issue appears to involve Peter's withdrawal from eating with Gentile believers when certain Jewish Christians arrived. Paul accuses Peter and others of hypocrisy and not acting "in step with the truth of the gospel." >"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned..." (Gal. 2:11–14, ESV) Was Peter teaching or promoting heresy here, or was Paul's confrontation about inconsistent behavior rather than false doctrine? How have various Christian traditions historically interpreted this passage, especially regarding apostolic authority and church unity?

> Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was **because of a revelation** that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles. - **Galatians 2:1-2, NASB** I am wondering ***what*** Paul's revelation was? Do we have any scripture, tradition, or writings from church fathers which might help answer this?

I found conflicting sources on the internet: 1. The first source said the Letter to the Galatians was written between 52-55 AD. 2. The second source said it was written between 48-49 AD. Just comparing the dates did not interest me. When I see the relationship with the Jerusalem Council, it becomes more interesting. 1. The first source put the Jerusalem council before the writing of the Galatian letter. 2. The second source put the writing of the Galatian letter before the Jerusalem council. (To be honest, I myself prefer the second source for my own reason). But since I'm not an expert, I wonder at the different timing between two source? **Which source is correct ?**

From this link , the word hypocrite is rooted in the Greek word hypokrites, which means “stage actor, pretender, dissembler.” So think of a hypocrite as **a person who pretends to be a certain way, but really acts and believes the total opposite**. From this wiki about the Pharisee's hypocrisy, it's easier for me to understand it. For example, point 5 on that page says: > They presented an appearance of being 'clean' (self-restrained, not > involved in carnal matters), yet they were dirty inside. In Galatians, Paul refers to Peter as a hypocrite: > When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. *Galatians 2:11-13 (NIV)* But I can't figure out in what way Peter is being a hypocrite. He could be being a hypocrite by claiming not to force gentiles to obey Jewish laws, while actually making them do exactly that. But that would seem to contradict his experience with Cornelius, which show he wouldn't force gentiles to obey jewish law. Alternatively, he could be claiming we do need to force gentiles to follow jewish customs, while actually not believe that was true. But in that case, there would be no reason for him to be scared of the circumsision group, since outwardly he appeared to agree with them. Since neither of these seem correct, how is Peter being a hypocrite, according to Paul?

One minute Paul says anyone who tries to earn their way to heaven by obeying the law will die. An then he goes on to say don't obey the desires of your sinful nature. OK, I'm confused. Do we put "faith" in Jesus, or do we "work" on trying to stop sinning? Which one? >Galatians 2:16: ". . . by the works of the law no one will be justified" (NLT). > >Galatians 5:18: ". . . but when you are directed by the Spirit, you are not under obligation to the law of Moses" (NLT). Vs >Galatians 5:19-21: ". . . when you follow the results of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immortality, impurity, lustful pleasure, idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, 21 envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God" (NLT). Its like he tells us it's impossible to obey the law because we are sinners through and through. Therefore put faith in Christ who died for those sins and love one another. But then, he says don't sin, or you won't inherit the kingdom of God. I'm confused.

I am researching *substantiated references to statements from Presbyterian Denominations* ; I am not seeking 'biblical responses' or individual opinions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Many Presbyterian Denominations uphold the Westminster Confession and other 'statements of faith' which follow on from it. As a result, many promote the law as being the 'rule of life' for the Christian believer. But this does not appear to me to be what Paul the apostle is advocating in Galatians 5:22-25. > But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: ***against such there is no law***. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also ***walk in the Spirit***. [Galatians 5:22-25 KJV] Paul, here, states that Christian believers have 'crucified the flesh'. Clearly this is a spiritual matter not a physical one. *Their faith aligns them with Christ.* Thus, as Paul says in another place, God ... 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, Ephesians 2:5,6. These things are not physical, but spiritual and a *matter of believing.* Thus, if their flesh is crucified (by faith in Christ) the law is no longer held before them. ***For the law has nothing to say to someone who is dead.*** The law has seen a just conclusion to sin, in that death. >For he that is dead is freed from sin. [Romans 6:7 KJV] Rather, in his epistle to the churches of Galatia, Paul points the Galatian believers to the working of the indwelling Spirit (not to an external rule of law). And he emphasises that the workings of the Holy Spirit produce in them : love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. If such is within them, says Paul, there is no law that will condemn them. Against such, he says, there is no law. As he says in yet another place : >There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. [Romans 8:1,2 KJV] Or, if I remove the translated English ambiguity from the Greek text, and then translate the Greek word, *nomos*, with another one of the legitimate English word translations : >... the rule of the Spirit (of life in Christ Jesus) hath made me free from the rule of sin and death. What do Presbyterian Denominations say in regard to Galatians 5:22-25 to support their idea that the law is the 'rule of life' for the believer ? --------------------------------- EXTRACTS from the Westminster Confession, Chapter 19 : - The moral law doth **forever [sic] bind all**, as well justified persons [sic] as others , to the obedience thereof. - Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, **as a rule of life,** informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly ... - ... and **the threatenings of it** serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, Westminster Confession - Chapter 19 --------------------------------------------------------------- All scriptural quotes and references are to the KJV and the Received Text.

One of the implications of the [New Perspective on Paul](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul) (NPP), as I understand it, is that Paul's teachings regarding the "works of the law" (in [Galatians 2:16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians+2%3A16&version=ESV) , for example) are meant to refer only to "boundary marker" laws, that is, laws like circumcision, diet, and calendar, as opposed to all of God's law. This can have a significant impact on one's doctrine of justification, as it opens the door for other "works" (besides circumcision, etc.) to be part of the basis of one's salvation. One challenge to this aspect of the NPP that I've seen is based on other references to the "works of the law" in Paul's writings, where he uses the same phrase but appears to be referring to the entire law. For example, [Romans 3:20](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+3%3A20&version=ESV) : > For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. (ESV) Here, critics of the NPP say, Paul is clearly referring to the entire law, not just "boundary marker" laws, since elsewhere he recognizes many other sins besides failure to circumcise. But to me an even stronger passage appears to be [Galatians 3:10](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians+3%3A10&version=ESV) : > For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” (ESV) Here, quoting [Leviticus 18:5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus+18%3A5&version=ESV) , Paul's use of "*all* things written in the Book of the Law," as opposed to *some*, is seen as plain evidence that "works of the law" to him means more than just circumcision, etc. Thus, the question: **How do proponents of the New Perspective on Paul respond to challenges to their view of Paul's "works of the law" that are based on Galatians 3:10 and similar passages?**

In Galatians 5, Paul helps us understand the work of the flesh, such as in verse 17: "For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do" (ESV). Also in vv. 19-21: "Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (ESV). The main identifier of the flesh seems to be in v. 17, as being against the Spirit. In what ways do we mistake normal weaknesses in our bodies and faculties as the flesh when they are not? What examples would help us know the difference, and perhaps not feel guilty and attempt wrong solutions for recovery?

Paul says in Romans 9:7-8 >**7** and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” **8** This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. And Galatians 3:16 says >Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. But if the promise to Abraham and his offspring was for Christ or us as believers, why was circumcision, if it was the sign of the covenant, given to Abraham’s physical offspring, since they’re not part of the Abrahamic covenant? My best guess right now is that the promise in Genesis 12 has some double-fulfillment features going on, like 2 Samuel 7 and Isaiah 7. As an alternative to a direct answer, links to helpful related articles or books would also be appreciated.

In Galatians 4:9-10 we see St Paul sending a terse message to the faithful abhorring their observance of days, months, seasons and years terming them weak and beggarly elements. Unfortunately, he does not specify what those elements are. In fact, Jewish traditions mandated the observance of feasts and spells of prayer, determined by the days, seasons etc. Jesus followed them . Evidently, St Paul was referring to something else. My question therefore is ; what were the practices observance of which was abhorred by St Paul in Gal 4:9-10 ? Inputs from scholars of any denomination are welcome.

In the Douay Rheims, Galatians 1:6-8, for example, we read: >**6** I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. **7** Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. **8** But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. And, for example, the Council of Trent promulgated a list of "excommunicable offenses" according to Wikipedia's [List of excommunicable offences from the Council of Trent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_excommunicable_offences_from_the_Council_of_Trent) , all of which conclude with "let him be anathema". According to Catholic Teaching, are the terms "let him be anathema" and "excommunicated" synonymous?

We hear St Paul telling in Gal 2:21 (NRSVCE): > I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing. But we see Jesus telling in Mtt 5: 17-18 : > Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. One finds some mismatch between Mtt 5: 17-18 and Gal 2:21 in so for as the role of law in salvation is concerned. If Jesus came to fulfil the law , why does St Paul downplay its role ? Moreover, how are those who lived before Jesus's redemptive mission, but were faithful to the law, justified ? My question therefore is: How do Catholic scholars explain Gal 2: 21 against the backdrop of Mtt 5: 17-18 ?

> But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law. (Galatians 4:4) When God finally sent angel Gabriel, the encounter begins with an unusual greeting The scriptures does not mentioned any passages that an angel more so a higher rank angel belonging to the Choir Cherubim would bow down to a lowly woman saying; "Hail! Full of Grace." (Luke 1:28) This was only a greeting coming from an archangel not yet the message of God to the chosen woman who was not yet even overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. Archangel Gabriel reveals the state of the soul of Mary, and it was already "full of grace". Pope Francis said, "nobody is born a saint, they become thus" and scriptures affirmed this as even Jesus needed to grow in wisdom and grace. Mary like all mankind including Jesus had to merit graces by living a life of humility & obedience. Does the "fullness of time" mean God had to wait for Mary to reach the "full of grace" stature in order for Her to say Her FIAT? Mary was born bestowed with a singular privileges but not yet full of grace as Jesus was born empty coming in the form of slave and needed to acquire wisdom and graces too. Does the "fullness of time" depends on Mary's readiness to accept God's Will by reaching the stature "full of grace"?

I want to check the conclusion I arrived at answering this related question. The English translation of the CCC lists the fruits of the Holy Spirit as (1832 ) > "charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, **generosity**, > gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, chastity." It cites only the Vulgate translation of Galatians 5:22-23. Yet the Vulgate does not list generosity at Gal. 5:22-23 . > "Fructus autem Spiritus est caritas, gaudium, pax, patientia, > benignitas, bonitas, **longanimitas**, mansuetudo, fides, modestia, > continentia, castitas." Instead, it lists 'longanimitas' where 'generosity' is listed in the CCC. Similarly, the Douay-Rheims translation, based on the Vulgate, does not list 'generosity' at Galatians 5:22-23 but instead, if correlates are taken as ordered, 'longanimity'. > "But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, > benignity, goodness, longanimity, Mildness, faith, modesty, > continency, chastity." It seems the Catechism translators mistakenly put 'generosity' where it should be 'longanimity'. The Catechism was originally written in French. The French version does not include a correlate to 'generosity' but does include one for 'longanimity'. Similarly, the Latin translation , which is now the standard translation, is identical to the Vulgate list above. Does the English translation of the Catholic Catechism incorrectly list 'generosity' as a fruit of the Holy Spirit where it should be 'longanimity'?

In the Vulgate, one of the twelve fruits of the Holy Spirit is "longanimitas" (Gal 5:22-23), which is often translated into English as "longanimity" or "long-suffering." In the English version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, however, neither longanimity nor long-suffering are among the twelve fruits. According to the CCC (1832), the twelve fruits are charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, and chastity. Which of these corresponds to "longanimitas" and why the non-standard translation?

When Paul originally proclaimed the Gospel to the Galatians, were they at that time pagan, Jewish, or something else. Did they ever hear of Christ Jesus before Paul? For reference: >You know that because of physical infirmity I preached the gospel to you at the first. And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, but you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. > >Galatians 4:13-14