This commentary is based on the NIV translation of the Book of Galatians. Each section of this study corresponds with the sections found in the NIV, 1994 edition.

The People

Around 278 B. C. a group of people called the "Gauls" migrated from southern Europe to the Northern shores of what we know as modern day Turkey.  In 232 B. C. their state became known as Galatia.  In 25 B. C. Galatia became a Roman province. It is important to know that Galatia is not a city but a province. When Paul wrote this letter, he was writing to a number of churches in various cities within the province of Galatia.

The northern part of Galatia is where most of the Gauls lived, although they did live in the south as well. These people in the north were agriculturally orientated by occupation. The southern part of the province had a major east west road crossing through many cities along its path. This area in the south was the economic heart of Galatia, mainly due to this road that made for easy travel and commerce. There was also more than Gauls living in the southern region. Romans, Greeks and Jews could also be found in this more prosperous part of Galatia.

There has been two trains of thought concerning just what Galatians Paul was writing to.  Some say he was writing to the northern Galatians, which would have been more ethnic in nature.  Others say he was writing to the southern Galatians which would have included non-ethnic Galatians.  This is important because depending on what view you hold to will determine the dating of this letter.  I tend to believer that Paul was writing to those in southern Galatia.  I will talk about this later.

The Church

Most of the churches were found in the southern parts of Galatia, in the bigger cities. Luke, in Acts 18:23 says that Paul visited the disciples in the north. Because Luke says he visited disciples and not churches in the north, some suggest that there were fewer Christians in the north and therefore did not have established churches.  That might be one reason why some scholars believe Paul is writing to southern Galatians, because he says he is writing to churches in Galatians 1:2.

According to Kenneth Wuest in his commentary on Galatians, he says that Paul established churches roughly along the line of the Roman provinces. He would lead people to the Lord in the major cities, establish churches in those cities, and then link them all with smaller churches that could be found along the road ways that connected these cities.

The churches of Galatia first consisted of Jewish Christians as a result of natural movement westward by Jews and also as a result of persecution from religious Jews in Israel.  As a result of Paul’s trips through the region, many Gentiles became Christian. These Gentiles did not have the same heritage the Jews had. The Jewish Christians still saw Jesus as the Messiah who would restore the nation of Israel to them.  The Gentiles saw Jesus as the Lord who would bring salvation to the world.

We should take note of who the "Judaizers" are in the Galatian churches as they are called by Bible teachers.  I mention them because there seems to be two trains of thought concerning who these men were.  Many say they were the false teachers as seen in Galatians 1 who taught another gospel.  They could be, and probably were, the spies in chapter 2, verse 4, as well.  If they were the spies and the false teachers, they probably weren't true Christians because they would have compromised the gospel.  Over the years I've tended to understand the Judaizers to be the false prophets Paul was coming against in his letter, and I still tend to believe this.  However, some Bible teachers believe the Judaizers were real Christians, men like Peter, James, John, and many other Jewish Christians, who simply did not fully comprehend Paul's teaching.  I am going to try to avoid using the term Judaizers because the word is not found in the text, and because there is more than one way of viewing who these men were.          

The basic point to Paul's letter to the Galatian Christians concerns what he calls "human effort", that is, adding to what Jesus did on cross by things we do, and in this case, the additions is obeying the Law of Moses.  Paul strongly maintain that when it comes to salvation, "it's all about Jesus and nothing else".  It's Jesus and nothing.     

In my thinking, there are four groups of people spoken of in this Galatian letter.  There is Paul and his associates who preached the gospel of Christ alone.  There were the leaders of the Jerusalem church who struggled over Paul's exclusion of the Law of Moses from the gospel of Christ.  There were the Galatian Christians who were caught between the true gospel and the false gospel.  Then there were the false teachers who taught that Gentiles had to become Jews, get circumcised, and obey the Law of Moses in order to be really saved. 

Date and Authorship

It appears that Paul wrote this letter to the Galatians  himself, although some scholars suggest that he just wrote the last chapter himself and not the whole letter.  As far as we know, this is the only letter by Paul that he actually penned himself.  He did not dictate the letter to someone else to write, as was his practice, that is, assuming he didn't just write the last chapter.

Paul wrote this letter sometime between 48 and 56 A. D..  From my understanding, I tend to believe this letter was written around 48 or 49 A. D.  As I pointed out earlier, depending on what Galatians you think Paul wrote this letter to, that is, the northern ethnic Galatians, or the southern multi-cultural Galatians, will determine the date.  If Paul wrote this letter after his first missionary trip, this letter would have been written in and around 48 to 49 A. D..  If he wrote this letter after his second or third trip, then you date this Galatian letter around 54 to 56 A. D..  More and more, scholars are dating Galatians as 48 or 49 A. D. for various good reasons that I won't get into here.

Galatians is understood to be the first letter that Paul wrote.  It is also the earliest dated book of our New Testament.  It was written before the four gospel accounts, before Acts, and before all of the books in the New Testament.  It shows us that the Christian community struggled with issues from the very beginning.    

I would like to say something about Paul at this point.  It's my thinking, as Moses was to God's people in Old Testament times, so the apostle Paul is to God's people in New Testament times.  Both men were well educated.  Both men met the Lord on a personal basis. Both men were instructed by God to relate His will to His people in their respective age.  So as I always say, "if Paul got it wrong, all Christendom is in major trouble", because, more than anyone else in the Bible, including Jesus, Paul defined the gospel of Jesus.  That is the case because of the volume of revelations Paul received from Jesus.  There is also a practical matter to this as well.  Jesus did not define the gospel as clearly as Paul because that which makes up the gospel truth was not fully accomplished until His ascension, and really, we should probably include the Day of Pentecost found in Acts 2.  The giving of the Holy Spirit to the believer is part of the gospel message.  So for this practical reason, Paul could define the gospel much more clearer than Jesus.  It's clear that Jesus chose Paul to both define the gospel and preach the gospel.  Paul was the first New Testament theologian and he was one very special person.  

Although all books in the Bible are important, Galatians is very important for the Christian.  It gives in concise form the essentials of the gospel and how they are worked out in our lives as Christians.  It is a shorter version of the book of Romans.  The book of Galatians more than any other book in the Bible was that which spurred on the period of history known as the Reformation.  To fully understand what it means to be a disciple of Jesus, one must understand both the book of Galatians and the book of Romans.  Both of these books are what I call "thinking men's books" because to understand their content, it requires serious thought, something many Christians these days are willing to take the time to do.

The letter to the Galatians opens with the name "Paul". The name Paul means "little".  The name Paul was Paul's Roman name.  The name "Saul" was his Jewish name.  There is a non-canonical, second century book entitled, "Paul and Thecla".   The book is non-canonical because it describes an adulterous affair that Paul had with this lady named Thecla from Thessalonica.  Many Bible teachers over the years have, however, suggested that the description of Paul given in this book might be accurate.  It says that Paul was little, or short.  Some suggest that is why he was called Paul.  The book goes on to say that Paul was bull legged, bald, had bushy eye brows, and protruding eye balls that looked kind of scary. Whether this is accurate or not, one can't prove, but it would not surprise me that the Lord would pick such a person to do this most important ministry that Paul had.    

Paul, as he states in the first phrase of this letter says that he is an apostle.  He is basically stating the authority he has in writing this letter. Yet he doesn’t stop there. By definition, we know that the word "apostle" means "sent one". Paul goes on to say in verse 1 who did not send him and who actually did send him. Paul clearly says that he was "not sent from men, nor by man." The tradition the Paul grew up in was quite structured with mentors teaching younger men.  Paul was saying that no mentor, no one in authority over him sent him to preach the gospel.

Who then sent Paul?  He says that "Jesus Christ and God the Father sent him." If we are to believe this, which of course we should, we then should take very seriously what Paul has to say.  Paul’s opposition questioned his claim of being sent by God, which is part of the reason for why Paul wrote this letter. The Galatians would have had no problem with Paul being an apostle of God in days past, but now, the Judaizers were swaying the believers on this point.

I won't try to defend my thinking here that the apostolic ministry is for today because I've done that elsewhere.  I will only say that there is no specific verse that states the apostolic ministry has ended with the first generation church.  With this in mind, I do want to point out one thing concerning the words "apostle" and "gospel".  You will see the word "gospel" mentioned a lot in this first chapter of Galatians.  It simply means "good news".  Some modern day apostles suggest that each and every apostle "has his own gospel".  They say this because Paul uses the term "my gospel" three times in his writings. (Romans 2:16, 16:25, and 2 Timothy 2:8)   Because of how Paul uses these words they suggest that Paul had his gospel, Peter had his, James had his, and so on.  The same would apply today.  Each apostle would have his gospel for those under his authority to believe.  I don't believe this is Biblical.  First of all those holding to this view have a faulty understanding of apostolic authority.  Second of all, those who believe this have a much wider view of what constitutes the gospel than what is Biblical.  Such doctrines as the "pre-tribulation" rapture would be considered as part of their gospel.  So, if one under the authority of an apostle who believes in a pre-tribulation rapture is expected to believe in a pre-tribulation rapture as well.  Or, if another apostle does not believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, then those under his authority are expected not to believe in a pre-tribulation rapture.

The simple point to all of this is that Paul, Peter, James, or, no one else had their own gospel.  There is only one gospel and that is the gospel of Jesus, that all these men adopted as their own.  They taught the same gospel, that is, those specific doctrines that make up the gospel of salvation.  Paul used "my gospel" in connection with false gospels, not in connection of Peter's, or John's gospel. 

Part of the problem floating around the early church was that Paul and Peter did have different gospels.  Peter had a gospel to the Jews and Paul had a gospel to the Gentiles.  Some even suggest that this is what is meant in Galatians 2:7 through 10 which I will comment on later.  This false thinking did get straightened out in the Acts 15 conference.  So if this was a problem in the early church, and it did get fixed, we should not be introducing the same false teaching in today's church, but some are.           

Note here that Paul, as he always does, linked God the Father to the Lord Jesus.  Paul believed in the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and we should believe the same.  Christians do not believe in a generic god, although in many areas of the church you would not know this to be true today.  We talk lots about God, but you'd be surprised how little we talk about Jesus.  We must speak of our Lord Jesus Christ.  He is the one God sent.  He is the one who died for us.  He is the one who is Lord and will return to make all things new.  He is the one who actually sent the first disciples out into the world to represent Him. (John 20:21)  He is also the one that sends you and I out into the world.  In reality, as Jesus said in John 20:21, Jesus sends us into the world to represent Him, while Father God sent Jesus into the world to represent God. If we fail to talk about Jesus, people will not really know what God we are talking about, especially in this day in age when so many people talk about a generic god, and, when so many religions are coming to the forefront.  Jesus is the one who distinguishes the Christian from everyone else.

We should note that God the Father and the Lord Jesus are both used in the same context.  Therefore, there is a distinction between the two.  They are not one as those who oppose the doctrine of the trinity might suggest. 

We also should note here that Paul isn't putting down the idea that man can't be used in the sending out of  apostles, because they are.  We will talk more about this later.  Man can be used in sending apostles out, but it is God alone who calls men to be an apostle.  Men simply recognize God's call on a life.  This is especially true in Paul's case.  Paul met Jesus Himself, as we see in Acts 9.  It was at this time that Paul was called not just to Jesus, but to work for Jesus as an apostle, and in particular, an apostle to the Gentiles.  Paul's ministry was very important to the church back then and is still very important today.  He not only preached to the Gentiles, He set forth Christian doctrine more than anyone else, that the church should be following today and into the future.  Paul taught these doctrines not only to those in his day but for those in our day as well.  For this reason, we must take his teaching very seriously

Concerning apostles, many people say that apostles were only for the first generation church.  They say the same about prophets.  These people suggest that now that we have the cannon of Scripture, we don't need such ministries as apostles and prophets.  They say the ministries for today are the pastor and the evangelists.  I do not believe this way of thinking.  There is no specific passage in the New Testament that states such a claim.   

The words "who raised Him from the dead", is an attempt to establish right at the beginning of this letter the fact of the resurrection of Jesus that is primary to our salvation.  Without the resurrection, belief in Jesus is meaningless.  If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then He is just an ordinary man.  If He is just an ordinary man, then what He says about Himself is not true.  That makes Him unreliable and one who can't be trusted.  The resurrection is one of the cornerstone and fundamental doctrines of Christianity.  To be a real Christian you must believe in the resurrection of Jesus. 

In verse 2 Paul speaks of "all the brothers with him."  Even though Paul is very strong in the fact that no man sent him, he is not what some call a "loan ranger".  He has brothers with him.  He works with others as equals in the Body of Christ in the preaching of the gospel. 

You note in verse 2 that this letter is directed "to the churches".  Once again, Paul wrote this letter to more than one church because Galatia was not a city but a Roman province. 

We should view the word church here as a community of people who have given their lies to Jesus.  These aren't ecclesiastical or denominational organizations as we know them today.  We've come a long way since Paul's days, and I believe our journey has led us away from New Testament thinking when it comes to church. 

This is how I feel we should view this verse in light of the real meaning of the word "ecclesia" which is translated as church in the New Testament.  The NIV reads, "to the churches in Galatia ".  If we understand the word "church" in our modern context, we will not really understand what Paul is saying.  I would translate this phrase as; "to those groups of people belonging to Jesus throughout Galatia".  This is my paraphrase, not a word for word translation from the Greek text.  I personally do not like translating the Greek word "ecclesia" as "church" because that does not properly convey what  "ecclesia" means.  "Ecclesia" is simply a group of people, and in this case, a group of people who have given their lives to Jesus.  "Ecclesia' is not the denominational, or structured systems of modern churches as we know it today.  So, if you think in terms of modern day church when you read this verse and others like it, you will miss the meaning of the verse. 

I've said that we as Christians must take Paul's teaching very seriously, and that includes his teaching on church.  The problem over the centuries is that we have not taken Paul's teaching seriously.  We have let the "ecclesia of Christ" evolve.  We have not patterned church after Paul's teaching.        

In verse 3 Paul goes on to say "grace and peace be to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ". Paul is greeting these people on the behalf of God Himself, along with Jesus. Paul was a representative from God and was sent to deliver a message to these Galatians from Him.  Paul was an ambassador and an ambassador only speaks things that he is supposed to as directed from the one who sent him, and in this case, that is Jesus.

Both "grace" and "peace" have two aspects to them.  First, grace is both "unmerited favour on God's part", and it is also, "God given divine ability to do His will."  You will see both aspects of grace in the Bible.  Second, peace is both "having inner peace because we have been reconciled to God", and, "peace with God, that is, we are no longer His enemy."  There is both peace with God and peace in God. Both aspects of peace can be found in the Bible.

Concerning "grace" being "the God given ability to do His will" and not just unmerited favour, you can read an expanded article I wrote on this subject.  Visit my web site to learn more at;  http://stevesweetman.com/articles010/grace.htm

Here are a few passages you can look up to see how "grace" is more than unmerited favour.  See 2 Corinthians 8:1-6, Hebrews 4:16, Acts 14:26, Romans 6:14, 12:6, and 15:10

Again we see the distinction between God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ in this verse.  God as Father is really more of a New Testament concept than an Old Testament concept, mainly because of the incarnation of Jesus, His Son, who as the New Testament teaches, is the first born among many sons.  All those who have given their lives to Jesus, are now God's sons.  Therefore, the idea of God being Father is more predominant in this age in which we live.  

I'd like to comment on the word "Lord".  Jewish Christians would have associated "Lord" with "Yahweh" in the Old Testament. This is an important linkage here.  Paul, and the other early apostles made this association because they believed in the "Deity of Christ".  This would have been blasphemy to the non-Christian Jews. 

The name Jesus means "salvation", or "God is salvation", or, something similar.  The very name Jesus had, that was actually given to Him by God the Father, not Mary, tells us that Jesus is the Saviour of the world.  In Hebrew culture, it was the father who named the children, and it was Father God who named Jesus, which you can see in the gospel accounts of the birth of Jesus.

The tile "Christ" is the Greek equivalent for the Hebrew title "Messiah".   "Messiah" means, anointed one.  In the Hebrew Old Testament prophets, priests, and kings were anointed, of which Jesus is seen as all three in the New Testament.  Jesus was therefore seen as the coming anointed one that would save Israel.

So, we see by the words "Lord Jesus Christ" that Christians believe in the Deity of Christ, that is, "Jesus is God in human flesh", the one sent into the world to both rule our lives and save our lives.   

In verse 4 Paul says that Jesus gave Himself for our sins for a specific reason. The reason is to "rescue us from this present evil age". Paul strongly felt that the age in which he lived was evil. I don’t think that things have changed for the better in our day. If Paul lived today, he most likely would feel our day and age is just as evil. The question can be asked to us today, "do we feel our present age is evil", if so, does this fact grip our hearts? My guess is that most of us know our age is evil, but it doesn’t really grip our hearts as it should. Peter, in Acts 2:40 exhorts his listeners to "save themselves from this corrupt generation". If we understand Romans 1 and 2 we will certainly realize that no matter what generation we live in, it is corrupt.

I believe we don't have the same distaste for the world around us as Paul, Peter, and the first generation of Christians had.  This is so because we are too much in love with the world and all that it has to offer.  The Bible clearly teaches us not to love the world or the things in the world. (1 John 2:15)

How we view the world is one important aspect of Scripture.  Throughout the Bible, right back from the days of the Tower of Babel , the world systems are viewed to be in opposition to God.  Christians therefore should have the same mentality.  This, however, does not mean that we should hide ourselves from the world and seclude ourselves in some back woods commune. We are to be like Paul.  We are to go out into the world and win people in the world for Jesus, just as He commanded his disciples to do.  The trick is this.  While out in the world we are not to copy the world or be influenced by the world, but more often than not, that is not the case.      

Note the phrase "according to the will of God the Father."  It is God's will that we should be rescued from this world.  If it is God's will to rescue us from the world, then we should take this much more seriously than we do.  Many Christians really do not take this seriously, and many Christians probably don't even know that we should be rescued from the world.  If we don't know that we are to be rescued from the world, we won't want to be rescued, and God won't be able to rescue us, unless He divinely intervenes in our lives.   The end result to this is a weakened church, which I believe we have today.  In many respects, the church today is no different than any civil and secular group of people.   

I like the word "rescue" because it implies being snatched from something that is dangerous, as a fire in a house.  Again, I'm convinced, for the most part, the modern Christian does not view the world around them being bad enough to be rescued from.  Our present way of thinking is not New Testament thinking. 

Paul states that Jesus "gave Himself for our sins." You see Paul's Old Testament understanding come through here.  All through the Old Testament animals were offered to God for our sins.  That has now changed.  Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.  When we trust in Jesus' sacrifice, these sins are forgiven by God.  Our sins are forgiven in order for the Holy Spirit to come and live within us.  Forgiveness is only the beginning of the matter.  We should not stop at forgiveness in our thinking as many Christians do. 

We should note that the very first animal that was killed and sacrificed for our sin was killed by God Himself in Genesis 3.  Adam and Eve covered their naked body (nakedness  once wasn't sinful, but now became sinful) with leaves but that wasn't good enough.  God killed an animal to provide covering for their naked bodies.  We learn that what man can do to cover sin doesn't work.  What works is what God does in covering our sins, and again, this is the message of Paul's letter to the Galatians.   

We as Christians need to think seriously about the death of Jesus and what it really means.  If you read the Old Testament and understand how much God hates and detests our sin, you will appreciate the act of love that Jesus went through on the cross.  We can't fully know how much God detests our sin.  Yet, at the same time, we can't really know how much He loves us, and that is why Jesus went to the cross instead of us.  God is just.  Sin must be punished.  Someone must be punished for the sin that God detests.  God's love is seen in that He became human and He died and was punish in our place.  The more we understand how much God hates sin, the more we can appreciate His love. 

Note the words "our God and Father" in verse 4.  God is not a generic or aloof far away God.  He is personal.  He is so personal that He is our Father.  The word "abba" can mean "daddy", that is, if you think "daddy" is an affectionate word for one's father.  The idea of "abba" denotes personal love and affection.  Some call God their "daddy" these days because the word "abba" is used three times in the New Testament Greek text to describe God as being our Father.  I do have a bit of a problem with this because when most people call God their daddy, I really don't think they grasp the idea of who God really is.  He is our Father, but he is no sugar daddy as the modern phrase puts it.  If you can call God daddy with the utmost respect, and even fear, go ahead, but if not, just call Him Father.  In my thinking, Father is more respectful than daddy.   Also remember, that our Father is a God of consuming fire as Hebrews 12:29 states.  That should put a different light into the idea that God is our daddy.           

In verse 5 Paul says that glory will be given to God the Father forever and ever.  We should join the angels, and those men and women in past ages who have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus, and give our Heavenly Father the glory due Him.  Of course, the best way to give God the Father glory, is to obey Him, live for Him, and do His will.   

The Greek word that is translated as "glory" comes from a root word meaning "opinion".  Thus, when glory is used in respect to God in the New Testament it means that everyone will have the highest opinion of God that one can have that is seen in their words and acts of praise and honour to Him.  God is now glorious, but not all people see Him as glorious.  That will change.  When it is all over, in the days of the new heaven and the new earth, all will highly esteem God.  They will praise and honour Him both by word and by deed.  Things will not be as they are today when most people, Christians included, only glorify God in their words, not their actions.  

No Other Gospel (ch. 1:6 – 11)

It is interesting to note that in usual Greek formation of Christian letters, Paul's included, there would normally some sort of short prayer at this point.  Paul does not include this prayer.  This seems to point to the fact that Paul is very upset as he writes this letter, as we will see later from the word usages employed in this letter.  He gets right into the topic at hand.

Verse 6 says, "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you…"  The Greek word "thauma" that is translated "astonished" here means "to wonder at, to marvel at, as to gaze into the sky with awe." I can just see Paul gazing into the sky above and scratching his head in amazement, wondering why these people are contemplating changing their minds concerning the gospel of Christ that he preached to them. He just shook his head in astonishment and amazement.

Verse 6 also says, "you are so quickly deserting…"  The verb tense shows that the Galatians hadn’t actually changed their minds as yet. They were in the process of changing their minds but had not fully completed the process. There was still hope for them. Paul wanted to get to them before those who opposed him got to these people.

The Greek word translated as "deserting" here is a military word that suggests a "rebellion" or "a revolt'.  Paul viewed this desertion as a revolt, not only against him, but against Jesus Himself as I will point out.  This was not a passive falling away.  It was a well thought out revolt.   

Paul says that the Galatians were deserting the one who called them. They were not deserting Paul as some might think, although in one sense of the word they were.  I'm just not convinced that Paul was talking about himself in this verse.  It's not the nature of what he is writing in this book to say that these people were forsaking him.  The nature of the book is to show that the Galatian Christians were forsaking God, Jesus, and the gospel of Christ.    

Some suggest the one being forsaken is actually Jesus, and that is more probable then Paul being the one forsaken.  That being said, I don't believe it was Jesus being forsaken.  This might be technical but I believe it was God the Father, the God of the Jews, that was being forsaken here. The text reads, "… the one who called you by the grace of Jesus Christ".  If this was Jesus being forsaken this phrase would not make perfect sense.  You would have to write it like this. "... you have forsaken Jesus who has called you by the grace of Jesus".  It makes better sense to say, "… you have forsaken God the Father who has called you by the grace of Jesus".  I know this is a technical point, but it is worth thinking about.  That being said, the Galatian Christians were in fact beginning to forsake all three, Jesus, God, and Paul.  I have one last thought on this point.  Who calls people to salvation?  Is it man?  No.  It is God, through the Holy Spirit.  Man only preaches the gospel.  He does not reach into the hearts of people to call them.      

For Paul to say that the Galatian Christians, of which some Jews, were forsaking God the Father, he would have been thinking in terms of the God of the Old Testament, meaning Yahweh, who, these Christians would still claim to believe in.  This might well have made them quite upset.  Paul was simply saying that you Galatians are actually forsaking the very God you claim to serve.

One thing to note concerning the word "one" in the English text is that there is not a corresponding Greek word in the Greek text.  Therefore, the word "one" is simply understood from the contextual structure of the sentence. This is partly why there is a discrepancy of opinion to who the "one'" Paul is speaking of.  

Concerning the "call of God" as seen here, many scholars point out that it is the work of God, through His Holy Spirit who actually calls people to Jesus and the gospel of Christ.  See 1 Thessalonians 2:12, 5:24, 2 Thessalonians 2:14, and 2 Timothy 1:9.

These people were turning to a different gospel. The Greek word translated as "different" implies something that is not just different but something that is the opposite to what they had already accepted as truth. This was not a shift in thinking, a minor change on some points. This was a desertion to something altogether different. It was an altogether different gospel, although Paul says in verse 7 that this is actually "no gospel at all". That is why this is an altogether different gospel, not merely an aberration of the true gospel.  The word gospel simply means "good news", and the so-called good news that they were in the process of believing was far from good news. It wasn’t good news at all. It wasn’t gospel. It was heresy. There is nothing good about working for your salvation when you already understood it to be free.

In verse 6 the "free" aspect to the gospel that Paul preached is seen in the word "grace".  The definition of this "grace" means "unmerited favour by God."  Man cannot do anything to receive salvation.  We cannot earn it, neither can we work for it.  It is free because God has chosen to bestow His love, mercy, and grace on us who don't deserve it.  It is important to note that even though salvation is free it is not cheap.  It is actually very expensive.  Jesus paid a high price for us to receive salvation for free.  This is the gospel that Paul preached.  It was not the gospel these people were considering switching to.  These people were thinking of working for their salvation by obeying certain rules.  This is why Paul is writing this letter.

If you had the choice to work a forty hour week and get paid, or not work a forty our week and still get paid the same amount as if you were working, what would you choose?  Most people would choose not to work and get paid instead of working and getting paid.  Most people view not working and being paid as good news.  Therefore changing your mind and wanting to go back to work and get paid can't really be seen as good news.  That's Paul's point here.   

Here is another thought concerning the gospel being free by God's grace, especially in respect to how the gospel relates to the Law Of Moses and works.  I'll take just one law from the Law Of Moses.  In Numbers 15 a man is stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath day.  Now you tell, me, is that good news?  Remember, the word "gospel" means "good news".  What good news is this?  Leviticus 20:10 says an adulterous must be stoned, but in John 8:11 Jesus says that there is forgiveness available for the adulterous, that is, upon repentance and trusting her life to Jesus.  Now that's good news.  This is why Paul is so astonished that the Galatians are contemplating forsaking the gospel of Jesus and reverting back to the Law of Moses.  That's also why he calls this reverting back to another gospel as being no gospel, or, no good news, at all.       

In verse 6 Paul uses the term "another gospel", but in verse 7 he qualifies what he said by saying that what these people were about to switch to was not even another gospel.  It was no gospel at all.  Again, the word "gospel" means "good news", and Paul saw no good news in working for salvation, especially when that was not what God wanted, and also especially when it was free, and especially because Jesus did the work on the cross for us.  By saying that one had to work for his salvation, you are saying that what Jesus did on the cross is not good enough.  We, mere humans, need to improve on what Jesus, the Son of God, did for us.  I can't think of a worse sin than that.     

In verse 6 Paul says that these Christians "were so quickly deserting…"  This was not a gradual desertion over a long period of time.  This shows the importance that once we accept the gospel message, we right away get grounded it the gospel.  We should immediately be taught and learn as much and as fast as we can about Biblical truth or else we could end up in the same situation as these Galatian Christians.  I do believe this is one reason why so many Christians are deserting the faith these days, just as these people did in Paul's day. Good Biblical teaching is getting hard to find these days.  We spend more time than needed on such things as, how to improve your finances, your sex life, your self esteem, and other such things and not the important doctrines of the Bible.   

I believe the group called the Jehovah Witnesses are a cult, but one thing that they do which church groups could learn from is how they spend lots of time teaching, not only their new converts, but all of their converts.   What I don't like concerning this cult's teaching is that it is indoctrination, that is, you believe what we say or else.  There is no room for personal investigation of the Bible.   How you think and how you teach others is merely repeating what you have been indoctrinated with.  Personal Bible study, led by the Holy Spirit is very important for the Christian.

In verse 7 Paul says, "some people are throwing you into confusion and trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.  These men were teaching a good news of works, that is, in order to be saved you had to do certain things which were diametrically opposed to Paul’s gospel of trusting in Jesus alone. This was leading to confusion on the part of the Galatians. These men were perverting the gospel, as Paul puts it.  These are strong words by Paul, and his words will get stronger.  But Paul is a man of great conviction, as we should be.  These events  bothered Paul greatly, and they should bother us as well when they occur in today's church world.  

The good works that the false teachers were trying to get the Galatian Christians to do came from the Law of Moses.  We will see later in Paul's letter that the Judaizers did not believe the cross of Christ was sufficient for salvation.  One had to obey the Law of Moses to really be saved.  Now Paul had been a strict Jew, a Pharisee, who put a lot of stock in the Law of Moses, but he was convinced that God's Law, that was given to Israel , had now taken on a brand new meaning, and obeying it for the purpose of salvation was not part of that meaning.  The problem facing the Galatian Christians really bothered Paul, and it should bother us as well, but more often than not, even in the Evangelical church, we have done the same by adopting our own set of rules to obey in order to stay saved.   Obeying rules in order to stay saved is really no different than obeying rules to get save.  

Note the words "are throwing you into confusion" and "trying to pervert the gospel".  It appears from these words that the Galatians had not fully given themselves to this other gospel, although probably some had.  The Judaizers were in the process of causing these people to switch their allegiance.  When false doctrine is taught to those who have recently been saved, they can easily be confused.  That's part of the plan of satan.  In this state of confusion it is easy for the false teacher to get his way.  In today's Christian world when Biblical teaching is being pushed aside for other things, it's too easy for people to be confused.  This confusion causes them to give up and give into the false teaching.   

The Greek word translated as "pervert" here means to destroy or make useless, and if something is useless, you get rid of it.  This is the end goal to the Judaizers, and as we will see later, the real end goal was for the Judaizers to have their own following.  When having your own following is more important than caring for Jesus' flock and the real gospel of Jesus, you have departed from the ways of Christ.  In today's Evangelical world you often hear pastors refer to their congregation as "my people".  Such words are not New Testament thinking.  A pastor does not have his own people.  He simply cares for the people of Christ Jesus.   

In verse 8 Paul tells the Galatians that even if we, or an angel from Heaven preach any other gospel other than the one he preached, "let him be eternally condemned". These are strong words. Paul was saying, even if I change my mind, and preach to you something different, let me go to the Lake of Fire for ever. The same would apply even to an angel. Paul meant business here. He was upset. He did not want to see his work go down the drain. Most of all, he did not want to see these people lose their salvation. For if a person who would teach another gospel would deserve eternal condemnation, then too would the person who accepts this false teaching deserve such a punishment as eternal damnation.  To me, this suggests that one who is saved has the possibility of losing his salvation. 

I often wonder how Paul would feel today if he were here to see today's church.  Somehow I think he would be saying the same thing.

Concerning the word "preach" that we read in this passage.  More often than not in modern times we view "preaching' as something a "preacher" does behind a pulpit, but that's not really the New Testament concept of preaching.  Preaching the good news of Jesus is simply proclaiming it, or speaking it, no matter where or how you speak it.  And it also doesn't matter who is speaking the gospel.  All Christians speak, or preach, the good news of Jesus, not just people we call preachers.   Also preaching is not just relegated to a pulpit.

In verse 9 we see Paul's intensity.  He repeats what he has just said.  He tells the Galatians again that anyone who preaches anything differently than what they have already heard deserved eternal condemnation.  How things would be so different in the church today if we had such heart felt conviction as Paul had, and as we can see here.  Heart felt conviction in today's church is being replaced by the humanistic and worldly philosophy of tolerance.  Tolerance is good to a degree, but tolerance at the expense of Biblical truth is not right.  

In 2011 one movement within Evangelical circles is called "the Emergent Church".  Part of the teaching of this movement is to mix Christianity with other religions, which in one real sense of the word is what the Judaizers were doing.  This mixture is heretical.  The latest movement in 2011 that combines Islam with Christianity is called "Crislam" and is one huge heresy.        

Verse 10 says, "am I now trying to win the approval of men"?  Certainly not. By speaking these words Paul would definitely lose the approval of many. He was trying to please God by preaching His Gospel.

Paul says that he was "not trying to please men". He was not saying this in an arrogant, or disobedient spirit. He was not trying to be a rugged individualist. His heart’s desire was to please God by serving man. Many times in today’s world we hear people repeating these words, but they are often doing so from a spirit of rebellion, not from a real spirit of wanting to please God.  Not so with Paul.

There is a difference between pleasing man and serving man. Paul did not please men but he certainly served men. How did Paul give his life to God? He did so by serving men as he preached the good news to them. Paul went through exceeding great hardships in order to bring salvation to as many who would accept it. Paul was a true servant of God. The Greek word "doulos" means bond servant. Paul claimed to be a bond servant. A bond servant was one who chose to serve a master. He was allowed to go free if he wanted to, but he chose to stay and serve his master voluntarily. Paul chose to serve God by serving man, but he did not please man. He pleased God by serving man. 

When I think of Christian monks over the centuries who claimed to serve God by secluding themselves from the world and humanity, I don't see what they were doing as serving God.  Again, one serves God by serving man in such a way that men and women will come to Jesus.  

The Bible often speaks about the "fear of the Lord".   Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus as seen in Acts 9, and from that day onward, he had a healthy fear of God.   The fear of the Lord that the Bible talks about is more than reverence.  It is being afraid of God.  He is awesome.   

This section ends with Paul saying, "if I still pleased man, I would not be a servant of Christ."   If you see any Christian leader, or any Christian as far as that goes, trying to please men, you know they are not serving Jesus, even if they say they are.  This gets to the motivation of many Christian ministries today.  Some ministry grow, get real popular, and are tempted to be crowd pleasers.  We have a "superstar" mentality in the world today that has infiltrated the church.  Christian leaders and ministries should not be "superstars" but "servants". 

I think that in today's church we think more of "believing in Jesus" that actually "serving Jesus."  Every Christian should view himself as a servant, a bond servant to the Lord Jesus.  Remember, Jesus is Lord and that means He is our Lord.

Note the word "still" in verse 10.  It suggests that when Paul was a Pharisee, prior to his conversion, one of his main goals in life was to please men, and in his case, please those in authority over him.  This is the tendency of man.  Please those above you so you can climb the latter of success.  That was Paul's pre-Christian way of life.

Note also the word "men' in verse 10.  It is an intensified form of the Greek word for men.  This means that Paul is emphasizing the fact that he was not pleasing "men", but God.

Paul, in this portion of chapter one is trying to make a strong point that his ministry and his revelation is very much independent from man, especially from the apostles in Jerusalem. He says in verse 11, "I want you to know". These are words of emphases. What does Paul want these people to know? "The gospel I preach is not from man". No man either spoke or taught him this gospel. He received it "by revelation from Jesus Christ". In verse 17 he makes this point again by saying, "I did not consult any man. I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was…"

Much of the New Testament was written or influenced by the apostle Paul.  I have always said that if Paul got it wrong, then we as Christians have one big problem, because more than any other New Testament personality, and that includes Jesus, Paul has defined the foundation for Christianity.  I believe as Moses was to the Jews in the Old Testament, so Paul is to Christians in the New Testament times.  Both men formed the fundamental teachings for God's people.  Both men were in direct contact with God.  Both men had their ministry and teaching given them directly from God.  So if Paul's many visions didn't come from the Lord, then we are in serious trouble as Christians.     

Note in verse 11 the word "brothers".  This is important because Paul still considers these men his brothers in Christ even though they were in the process of leaving the gospel.  In Paul's mind, the Galatians, other then the Judaizers, had not left the gospel, or, the brotherhood of the redeemed.  There is a line that is crossed where one leaves the circle of brotherhood, or, leaves the gospel of salvation, thus loses salvation.    

In verse 11 and 12 Paul reasserts that no man taught him this gospel, and when he says "no man", I believe he is speaking of the apostles who came before him, like Peter, James, and John.  The context seems to suggest this.  It was Jesus Himself who first taught Paul this good news. 

Verse 12 specifically states that Paul received this gospel through a revelation from Jesus Christ, and we know from 2 Corinthians 12:1, that he had many of these revelations.  Jesus literally and personally met with Paul and spoke many things to him, some of which were not permissible for a man to speak. (2 Corinthians 12:4)  Paul certainly saw things we haven't seen, and I feel he is the only one who has seen such things.  If someone today claims to have seen such visions as Paul had, I certainly doubt their experience was from God.   

In verse 13 Paul reminds the Galatians of his former life in Judaism when he "violently persecuted the church". Note the adjective "violently" in older versions of the NIV, and the word "intensely" in the newer versions.  I like the word "violently" better than the word "intensely" because I feel it better reflects the Greek and what Paul actually did.  We do not have much specific information in the Bible to give us any specifics on how violent he was. We see him giving approval of Stephen’s murder in Acts 8:1.  Also, in Acts 22:17 and following Paul says that he imprisoned and flogged Christians.  The word "flog" suggests violence.  Beyond this, Scripture is fairly silent. Maybe Paul did not want to glorify his past sinful life, so that is why we don’t read about his violence. We simply know that he "violently persecuted the church", of which flogging is one example.    

The Greek word translated as "violently" in its simplest form means "to throw beyond".   The idea is that whatever is being described with the use of this adjective is meant to portray an action that is way beyond normal.  This Greek word is often used as the power of God working in the believer, as can be seen in 2 Corinthians 4:7 and elsewhere.  The same Greek word is used in 2 Corinthians 1:8 when Paul speaks of his hardships in life go beyond that one could stand in his human strength.  So,  the persecution that came from the hands of Paul were way beyond normal, way beyond what his superiors would have expected.  Simply put, Paul went overboard when it came to persecuting the church.  That's why I say he could be seen as an "Judaistic extremist", as we would say here in 2011. 

I can't say for sure, but Paul might well have even killed Christians.  I can't say this for sure because the Bible doesn't say he did.  That being said, Acts 9:23 and elsewhere tells us that the Jews "conspired to kill Paul".  If the Jews tried to kill Paul, of which he was once apart of these same Jews, it is then logical to suggest that Paul tried to kill Christians as well.    

Paul’s goal as stated in verse 14 was to destroy the church. Both words, "persecuted" and "destroyed" are very strong words in the original text. The verb tense used by Paul is an ongoing action. That is to say, he continuously tried to persecute and destroy the church.  Many people these days who have a pretty bad past and who become Christians share their testimony.  Many of these people spend more time on their "bad past" than they do on Jesus, but not so with Paul.  He only wanted to speak about Jesus.  He did not want the personal attention that he would have gotten by speaking of all the bad things he had done.  Part of the reason why some Christians like speaking about their bad past is because of pride.  It draws attention to them.  Yet on the other hand, those who listen to such people like hearing of such bad things.  It's our human nature to dwell on sin and not Jesus.  

Paul was one very driven man, both before his conversion and after his conversion.  This was probably part of Paul's makeup from birth, something the Lord sure used.  His pre-conversion goal was to "destroy the church" through violent means.  Again, I think you might even call Paul a "Judaistic extremist", using today's vernacular.  His post conversion goal was to build that same church he attempted to destroy.

You might note the word "Judaism" as Paul uses it in this context.  He is separating himself from the Jewish religion that he once gave his life to.  What we should understand is that Paul is not separating himself from the teaching of the Old Testament or from the God of Israel.  He is separating himself from what Judaism had become, a religion of humanistic works, that resembled nothing like Judaism was to be.  Paul saw Christianity and the gospel of Christ not even as an extension of Old Testament Judaism, but its fulfillment.      

Also in verse 14 Paul says that "he was extremely zealous of the tradition of my ancestors". Paul’s use of adjectives such as "extremely" is not by accident. He is making his point very emphatically. Because he violently persecuted the church, he was saying that he was not influenced by any man in the church to become a Christian.

In verse 14 we see that Paul advanced in Judaism faster  than others of his age.  He was working his way up the ladder of success as a Pharisee very fast.  This shows us the mentality of the day.  Like today, men viewed ministry, not really as ministry, but as a career where one could advance up the ladder to success.  This is not Godly ministry.  Godly ministry is actually working your way down the ladder to be a servant.

Note the word "tradition" in verse 14.  It was the tradition of Judaism that really bothered Paul, and the Judaizers were attempting to bring that tradition into the Christian lives of the Galatians.  The Judaizers were attempting to do two things.  One was to bring non-Biblical tradition into Christianity, and two, bring Biblical Judaism into Christianity as well, which in Paul's words had been redefined.

In verse 15 he says, "but when God, who set me apart from birth, and called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles..." It was God Himself who called Paul to salvation, and not only to salvation, but also to be the apostle to the Gentile nations. He did not receive salvation as a result of Peter’s, or anyone else’s preaching. God Himself preached to Paul. As a matter of fact God had decided to call Paul long before He actually did. Paul claims that he was chosen by God from his mother’s womb.  I believe this is more proof that suggests that Paul is the New Testament Moses.  God calling Paul from his mother's womb actually ranks Paul up with men like John the Baptist, who when his mother heard of the soon coming Messiah, he jumped in his mother's womb.  Also, both Jeremiah and Isaiah felt they were called by God from conception as well. 

In verse 16 Paul states that he "was called by God's grace".  As noted earlier, there are two aspects of God's grace found in the Bible.  One is His unmerited favour and the other is the divine ability to do God's will.  Both can be seen in this verse.  God's love, compassion, and unmerited favour caused Him to call Paul to Jesus and to reveal Jesus to others.  This was one very important mission.  It was also one very special mission that only he performed in human history.  Paul was therefore special, but being special could not enable Paul to do God's will.  He needed divine help, the divine ability, to do what needed to be done.  Thus both aspects of grace are seen in this verse.     

Note the words "reveal His Son in me" in verse 16.    This is really the goal of Jesus for the life of every believer.  God wants Jesus to be revealed in us.  In other words, God wants us to reflect Jesus in every aspect of our lives.  This is something we need to take very seriously.  We are not to promote ourselves, but Jesus.  People should see more of Jesus in us than they do of us, but that is not normally the case.   With many Christian ministries today, they promote themselves more than they promote Jesus. 

Concerning the word "reveal" in this verse; it's from the Greek word "apocalyto", meaning, "to unveil".  Paul, and we too, are meant to draw back the drapes that prevent those in the world seeing Jesus.      

We see the main thrust to Paul's ministry in verse 16.  It was to preach the gospel of Jesus to the Gentile world, which he did, and, which caused many problems for him and the early Jewish orientated church.  Paul was not the first to preach to Jews.  Peter was, which is seen in Acts 10.  Unlike Peter, Paul's main focus was to the Gentiles.  That being said, Paul set forth the Biblical principle that states, "to the Jew first and then to the Gentile".  Paul always went to the Jews first when he entered a city but eventually would preach to the Gentiles. 

Paul's preaching to the Gentiles concerend the Jewish Christians greatly   They  simply could not get their heads around Gentiles being part of the church and finding salvation by faith in the grace of God. This issue finally got resolved in Acts 15 when those opposed to Paul's preaching to the Gentiles came around to see it was God's will, but sad to say, is now becoming an issue once again in certain parts of the church.  

In verse 17 Paul says that after his conversion he went out into the desert of Arabia , where he learned from Jesus Himself this gospel that he was preaching. The Arabian Desert is now what we would call southern Jordan and southern Israel , between the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, although in Paul's day, Arabia was also to the east of the Jordan River .  So Paul might not have had to go far south to that part of the Arabian Desert .  Paul had exceedingly great visions from God. Is it possible that while in Arabia he was caught up into the third heaven and saw great and unspeakable things? (2 Corinthians 12)  This seems to be the case.  It seems likely that Paul had these tremendous visions that he spoke about in 2 Corinthians in the desert, soon after he was saved.  Beyond these particular visions, if you read the book of Acts, you will see that Paul had many visions.  Many call Paul a mystic, and in one sense of the word he might have been, yet on the other hand, Paul was one very intellectual and well educated man, that in my opinion balance his many visions. I take note of this because there are some among us who claim many visions like Paul, but do not have the same balance in their intellect and knowledge of the Bible. I tend to question these people's visions and so-called ministries.  Visions must agree with the Bible. 

Note how Paul uses the word "Jerusalem" in verse 17.  He specifically says that he did not go to the capital city, so to speak, of Christianity where the leaders were.  I don't think Paul is being disrespectful here of the apostles who had gone before him who lived in Jerusalem . I believe it was God Himself who sent Paul into the desert so Paul could see these visions I have spoken about. 

In verses 18 and 19 Paul says that he never went up to Jerusalem for three whole years, after this time in the desert.  Then when he did go to Jerusalem he stayed with Peter for fifteen days.  Paul is very exact here.  He is proving that it was God alone who taught him the gospel that he was to preach.  His exactness when it comes to the timing of these events should tell something about Paul, and that is, he does not exaggerate things.  While in Jerusalem at this time, the only other person that Paul saw was James, the Lord's brother. That is, physical brother, who many say was the leader of the Jerusalem disciples.  It's hard to imagine that it took Paul three years to finally meet the brothers in Jerusalem, yet in these three years Paul was learning much from the Lord.  

Verse 19 mentions James, and in my thinking, the sentence structure says that he was an apostle.  He obviously was not one of the original twelve.  This James was Jesus' brother and He did not give himself to Jesus until after Jesus died, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven.  I often wondered how  James must have felt.  He knew Jesus in a human sense, since he was His brother.  But now, knew Jesus as the risen Lord.  What a strange sequence of events for James. 

What I'd like to point out here for those who do not believe there are any apostles outside of the twelve, well, James was one of many.  I do believe that the original twelve apostles are distinct from the other apostles.  You might call the original apostles the "A" (capital A) apostles, while the others were "a" apostles.  

Concerning Paul, I believe he considered himself, and I  believe it is valid, that he was one of the original apostles, who, in his words was "abnormally born out of season', meaning, Jesus called him personally, although at a later date than the others. (1 Corinthians 15:8)          

Verse 20 simply states that Paul would stand before God and repeat what he just said.  He is telling the truth.  He is telling no lie.  It is a bit sad that Paul has to actually make this statement.  He had to tell his brothers in Christ who were leaders among the early disciples that he was not lying. This is how controversial his ministry was in the early church.     

In verses 21 to 24 we see that Paul says that later he went to Syria and Cilicia, of which we know little about. He did not stay in Judea.  He was unknown by the Christians in Judea. He went to farther fields to preach, leaving Judea to the twelve apostles. The Christians in Judea only heard of his miraculous conversion and glorified God as a result.  God called Paul to the Gentiles, so why would he stay in Judea?  He didn't because he felt compelled by God to preach to the Gentiles who knew nothing about the gospel, and little about Judaism. 

Note the word "personally" in verse 22.  Paul is making the point that even though believers might have heard about him in the province of Judea , they had never net him "personally".  Again, Paul is saying all of this to prove that he had little contact with the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, as well as in the province of Judea .  He heard this gospel directly from Jesus Himself.   Paul was a special apostle.  There has been no one like Him.  I believe the Lord called him to be special.  Any modern day apostle can not really compare himself to Paul.  He can only repeat, and speak what Paul taught. That is the role of a modern day apostle, and I do believe the ministry of an apostle, as well as a prophet, still exists.  The difference between today's apostles and those in the New Testament is that they preach what the New Testament apostles preach.  They do not invent their own gospel.

There are actually some who teach that each modern day apostle teaches his own brand of gospel and those who he has authority over must submit to that gospel.  That's not Biblical.  There is only one gospel, which all the first century apostles preached, despite the use of the phrase "my gospel" that Paul uses a few times in his writings; Paul was not using that phrase as if he owned the gospel, or, as if he had his own brand of the gospel.  He was using that term in a possessive since.  He embrace the gospel of Christ and claim it as his own, like Peter, James, John, and the other apostles. 

Those who teach that modern day apostles have their own gospel that people must submit to, view the gospel in a wider sense than I do.  I see the gospel as those doctrines that comprise what constitutes salvation.  These teachers would say that one's end time thinking, for example, would be part of the gospel.  So, if an apostle over you does not believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, which he would consider part of his gospel, then you would be compelled to believe the same.  I don’t believe that any teaching on the rapture of the believers is part of what makes up the central gospel message.  I don't believe that how you think about the rapture qualifies you or disqualifies you from being a true Christian.         

Verse 24 states a fact.  The people, and most likely the people of Judea from the context, praised God for Paul.  The Jews in Judea had recognized that God was using Paul to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.  If this was so, then, the people of Galatia should do the same.  This is really what Paul is getting at in this verse.  So, it seems that the ordinary Christian accepted Paul and his ministry for the most part.  It was just the leaders in Jerusalem that had trouble with Paul's ministry. 

Note the words "the faith" in verse 23.  Most of the time when you see the word "faith' in the Bible, it means to trust.  Faith is an action.  Faith is trusting.  Faith is more of a verb than a noun, although here it is used as a noun.  There are a few places in the Bible where the word "faith" is used as a noun.  "The faith" is the set of doctrines that comprise the Christian gospel.  Ephesians 4:5 is another example of this usage of the word "faith" when Paul says that there is "one faith".