> ‎Chapter 3‎ > ‎Chapter 4‎ > ‎Chapter 5‎ > ‎Chapter 6‎ > ‎ 

 

Summary of Galatians 2:1-14

Paul continues the story of his early years in the faith. After 14 years he went to Jerusalem again, with Barnabas and Titus, because of a revelation. There he compared notes with the Apostles, privately, and checked on the accuracy of what he preached. They did not even ask to have Titus, a Greek, circumcised. However, some false brothers got in, unfortunately, to oppose the freedom the Galatians had in Christ, to enslave them and Paul, by making them subject to the Mosaic law. Paul did not give in to them even for a moment. Those who were important did not add anything to what he was preaching. (Paul observes in passing that it makes no difference in the sight of God of whatever sort they were -- probably he means, of what sort they had been during the earthly life of Jesus -- the Gospels reveal their weaknesses in that time. Or else, that the fact that they had been with Jesus on earth did not make them any more Apostles than he was, for he too was sent out by Christ). Rather, seeing that God had given him a mission to the gentiles, while Peter was sent to the Jews, and seeing the grace given Paul, James and Peter and John shook hands in fellowship, asking only that Paul should remember the poor -- which he was already doing.

After the meeting, Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch. (Paul had gone on ahead). At first Peter ate with the gentiles (ate foods prohibited by the Mosaic law). But then some men came from James, and he stopped. Other Jews with him fell into the same hypocrisy -- even Barnabas was misled. So Paul seeing the danger, told Peter in front of everyone that if he, even though a Jew, had been willing to live like a gentile (not following Mosaic law) -- how could he force (by his example) the gentiles to act like Jews?

Comments on 2:1-14

After 14 years Paul went to Jerusalem again. From what point did he count the 14 years? We do not know. The Greek could also be translated "in the course of a period of 14 years." He says he went because of a revelation. Acts 15:2 says the community at Antioch sent him because of the debates over the Mosaic law. Of course, there is no conflict -- both things can readily be true. This was the council of the Apostles, probably in 49 A.D., described in Acts 15:1-30, at which Peter spoke first, saying the gentiles need not keep the law of Moses or be circumcised (the two things go together, for circumcision was a sign of being under the law). Then James spoke, and agreed. So the council wrote to the churches of Syria and Cilicia, telling them they need not be circumcised or keep the law of Moses, but asking them not only to avoid loose sex (required by basic moral law) but also, seemingly to appease the feelings of Jews, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, and from strangled animals. It is important to notice that the letter went just to the churches of Syria and Cilicia. Today if the Vatican writes to one or two episcopal conferences, the letter applies only to those areas, not elsewhere. Similarly, the letter of the council of Apostles did not apply elsewhere. Hence we have the answer to a difficulty some think insuperable -- they note that Paul did not hesitate in 1 Corinthians 8-10 to permit the Corinthians to eat meat sacrificed to idols, as long as they watched out for scandal. Then the objectors wonder how Paul could disregard the letter of the council. The answer is what we have just indicated -- requests to observe three items of the Mosaic law did not apply outside of Syria and Cilicia. We know from Acts 16:4 that Paul did preach in accord with the letter when he was in the area to which it applied.

We notice that Paul privately compared his teaching with that of the Apostles -- it was not that he had doubts. He insisted so strongly in chapter 1 that he received his knowledge of Christianity directly from the Damascus road vision. No, this was just to reassure those who might not believe what he had said in chapter 1.

In passing, we might note that in verse 4 Paul starts a sentence, but never finishes it. He usually dictated his letters, and especially when he was worked up, he could easily forget where he was at in a long sentence. Grammarians call this pattern anacolouthon (a Greek derivative meaning: not following up). More of the same pattern starts in verse 6. But the sense is clearly what we gave in the summary.

Paul says some Judaizers came from James. But we know from Acts 15 that James agreed with the council decision that gentiles need not keep the Mosaic law. So we wonder about the mention of James. It could be a different James, for that was a very common name among the Jews -- there were two Apostles of that name, and another James, the "brother of the Lord." Perhaps it means merely they came from James' place, Jerusalem.

Paul also says the Apostles added nothing to his preaching. Some have charged contradiction here with Acts 15 in which, as we just saw, the council did add three rules from the Mosaic law to the general moral rules. But the answer is easy. Paul is speaking of the basic doctrine -- this temporary sop to the feelings of Jews was not a matter of doctrine. The Apostles did not ask him to change anything in his doctrine. So, James, Peter and John shook hands in fellowship -- the Greek is koinonia, a state of having all things in common.

When Peter came to Antioch, he at first followed the decision he had helped make in the council, and so ate, with gentiles, foods not permitted by the Mosaic law. But then he returned to his well-known vacillation, which we saw in the Gospels -- how he started out to walk on the waves when Jesus told him he could, but then doubted and began to sink -- and how he swore he would never deny Jesus -- then did it three times.

Paul does not tell us Peter's reaction after Paul confronted him. Many today assume -- with no evidence -- that Peter and Paul were on the outs after this. As we said, there is no evidence of it. It was just a case of Peter's well known weakness in conduct. The objection supposes Peter began to teach false doctrine, that gentiles must keep the Mosaic law, and this even after he himself had taken the lead at the council in teaching the true doctrine! But the promise of Christ to protect the teaching of Peter and the Church rules that out completely. After receiving the Holy Spirit at Pentecost he could still be weak, but would not waver in doctrine.

Similarly, Paul's correction was not about Peter's doctrine, which he had not changed, but about his conduct, too weak. But because of Peter's special importance -- for the Gospels so many times show Peter as in first place -- his example could be dangerously misleading. Hence Paul felt he had to correct Peter. So it is also foolish to cite this incident as a case in which an Apostle corrected a Pope on doctrine. It was not a matter of doctrine, but of vacillation in practical conduct.

Summary of Galatians 2:15-21

In verse 15, Paul seems to be quoting his opponents who say: "We are by nature Jews. We are not sinners from the gentiles." But Paul says he knows that a person is not justified, or made right with God by doing the works of the law -- no, it is by faith in Jesus Christ that people become just. Christians have believed so as to be in Christ (probably, not certainly, implies: they are members of Christ; Paul will develop this idea more in 1 Corinthians 12, Romans 12, and especially in Colossians and Ephesians), and so are justified by the faith of Christ, and not by doing what the law calls for. For no one will be justified by carrying out the law.

But if, in trying to reach justification in Christ, Christians turn out to be sinners, then Christ would turn out to be a minister of sin (for failing to justify them)! Heavens no! He is not that!

Again, if Paul were to return to what he had left, that is, the observance of the law, he would thereby make himself a sinner (either by turning to what cannot justify, or by admitting he should not have left).

For Paul died to the law through the law, with the result that he lives to God. He is crucified along with Christ. It is no longer Paul that lives: Christ lives in him. He lives his present life in the faith of Christ, even though he, Paul, is still in the flesh. Christ loved him, and gave himself for him.

So Paul does not put aside the regime of grace, for if justification came by the law, Christ would have died for no reason.

Comments on 2:15-21

Here we are at the heart of Paul's great thesis: justification through faith, and not through the works of the law. He opens, it seems -- there were no quote marks in use in his day -- with a quote from his opponents, who proudly say: "We are Jews. Gentiles are sinners." Or else we could also say, probably, that Paul here is using a focused picture ( see comments in the glossary on focusing).

But now, before going ahead, because of its vital importance, we add a supplement on the ideas of Luther.

Supplement on LutherI.

That Luther was scrupulous is admitted even by Lutheran theologians: "In their situation, the major function of justification by faith was . . . to console anxious consciences. . . . The starting point for Luther was his inability to find peace with God . . . terrified in his own conscience."³ That is, he thought he was always in mortal sin. He got peace only by making what he thought was a great discovery in Galatians and Romans: justification by faith. The sad thing is he did not do enough study to see what those two key words mean.

First, he thought justification leaves one totally corrupt, and without even free will.⁴ Consequently, he held for an absolute blind predestination. He compared a human to a horse, which could have either God or Satan as rider. The man has no choice. But according to the rider he does good or evil, goes to heaven or hell as a result.

He said after justification it is as if a white cloak of the merits of Christ were thrown over us: God will not look under the rug. In contrast, Scripture teaches that by justification we are "partakers in the divine nature" (2 Pet 1:4). And that we are temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 3:16 & 6:19) Who would surely not dwell in total corruption. Paul teaches that after death we will see God face to face (1 Cor 13:12). Now of course God has no face and the soul has no eyes. But it means we will see Him as directly as I might see you. I look at you, but I do not take you into my head: rather, I take in an image of you. Images are finite or limited, so are you. But no image could let me know what God is like, He is infinite. So it must be that He will join Himself directly to the created soul or mind, so that by that means it can know Him as He is. But in Malachi 3:2 we read: "Who can stand when He appears? He is like a refiner's fire." So He will not join Himself forever to total corruption (cf. Apoc/Rev 21:27), or if He did, that refiner's fire would have to cleanse it -- that would be purgatory.

Secondly as to the word faith: Again Luther did not study to find what Paul means by faith. He thought it meant confidence that the merits of Christ are credited to me. (Take Christ as one's personal Savior). Then on a ledger for myself I could write infinity for the merits of Christ; on the debit page, the number for my sins, past, present and future. No matter how many, how great, they would always be outbalanced by the infinite merits of Christ. So the person has infallible salvation. So even if he sins much, no problem. In Epistle 501 to Melanchthon: "Sin bravely, but believe still more bravely." And in a letter to the same Melanchthon of August 1, 1521: "Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. . . . No sin will separate us from the Lamb even if we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day." In contrast, St. Paul includes three things in faith: believe what God says, have confidence in His promises and -- it is this third one Luther omitted and denied -- obey His commands. Thus in Romans 1:5 Paul speaks of the "obedience of faith," that is, the obedience that faith is. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, a standard Protestant reference work, in the fifth volume, a Supplement, on p.333 says precisely this, that Pauline faith includes "the obedience that faith is." But faith which includes obedience cannot justify disobedience. Therefore Luther made a huge mistake.

If anyone ever took Christ as his personal Savior, it was St. Paul himself. Yet St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 compares Christian life to a great race at Corinth. Anyone who hoped for the prize had to go into athletic training, and so deny himself much. Only one could get it, but all Christians can get it, and their prize is eternal life, not just a crown of leaves. Some Protestants say Paul is just urging them to gain something extra. But no, in context, Paul has been urging them for some time to avoid scandalizing another by eating meat offered to idols when the other thinks it forbidden. In 1 Corinthians 7:11-13 Paul pleads: "The weak one will perish [eternally] because of your knowledge [that the eating is not wrong in itself], a brother because of whom Christ died." Paul himself even with his heroic work for Christ, does not think he has infallible salvation. Rather in 1 Corinthians 9:26-17 he said (literal version): "I hit my body under the eyes and lead it around like a slave, so that after preaching to others, I may not be disqualified [at the judgment]." And right after that in chapter 10, Paul gives many instances when the first People of God did not have it infallibly made: rather, many were struck dead by God for sin. So in 10:12: "He who thinks he is standing, let him watch out so he does not fall."

Yet in his Exposition on Psalm 130:4 Luther wrote, speaking of justification by faith: "If this article stands, the church stands; if it falls, the church falls." Sadly then, his church never did stand, for he greatly misunderstood both key words, faith and justification.

Some Protestants add a requirement of being "born again." Now Baptism really is being born again (Jn 3:5), since it gives justification which makes us children of God. But Protestants mean that when one takes Christ as his Savior, he must have an experience, usually a feeling. But there is no scriptural requirement for that. Emotion is neutral in religion.

This shows the error of his belief in Scripture alone. Really that idea is antibiblical. For the Second Epistle of St. Peter in 3:16, speaking of the Epistles of St. Paul -- where Luther thought he found such errors -- says: "In them there are many things hard to understand, which the unlearned and the unstable twist, as they do the rest of Scripture, to their own destruction." Luther did just that. He insisted Scripture is so clear that anyone can understand it. St. Peter says no, it is very hard.

Further, Luther had no means of knowing which books are inspired, are part of Scripture. He thought that if a book preached justification by faith strongly, it is inspired. But most books of the Bible do not even mention the subject. And he could write a book to do that, and so could I, and it would not be inspired. A Baptist Professor, Gerald Burney Smith, in 1910 at the national Baptist convention, reviewed in his paper every means he could think of to find which books are inspired⁵ He discarded one after another, and said if we had a providentially protected teaching authority, that would tell us -- he of course did not think we have such a thing. So he was left trying to appeal to Scripture but not able to know for certain which books are Scripture. Hence, not strangely, later in his article he said it is not surprising that today we do not so often meet talk of anything infallible: "Nothing is more noticeable than the gradual disappearance of that word 'infallible' from present-day theologies." Of course, when one cannot know which parts are Scripture. Gerhard Maier, in a book called The End of the Historical Critical Method published by the great Lutheran house of Concordia, said (1974, pp.61 & 63):". . . only scripture itself can say in a binding way what authority it claims and has. . . . Scripture considers itself as revelation."⁶ What a perfectly vicious circle! Scripture is inspired because inspired Scripture says inspired Scripture is inspired.

Luther's mistake led to another impasse: He believed that we are totally corrupt by original sin, so we cannot avoid sinning almost constantly. But that belief logically led to an impossibility, as we see in the Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod⁷ (emphasis added): "As to the question why not all men are converted and saved, seeing that God's grace is universal and all men are equally and utterly corrupt, we confess we cannot answer it." They saw the next step would be to say that God predestines and reprobates blindly, with no condition in the humans. Calvin did say that. Luther also did, as we saw above in his work The Bondage of the Will. Most Lutherans, including the Missouri Synod, seem not to know, or not to want to know what Luther really taught on this matter.⁸

II. Earning salvation: We do not earn salvation, or justification. We get justification, (the state of grace for the first time) without any merit at all, it is purely a gift.⁹ But secondly, having that state, since it makes us sons of God, gives us a claim to inherit the kingdom. Now a claim to a reward can be called a merit. So only in this sense can we be said to merit heaven.¹⁰ Thirdly, having that status as sons of God and sharers in the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4) means our works after that point have a special dignity that calls for added reward. So we can be said to merit additional degrees of grace, i.e., of capacity for taking in the vision of God in heaven.¹¹

We could put it this way: we by our own power cannot merit anything at all. But inasmuch as we are members of Christ and like Him (cf. the syn Christo theme, especially in Romans 8:17: "we are heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with Him, so we may also be glorified with Him") we get in on the claim, or merit, He generated.

So, we are free from the law in the sense that keeping it does not earn justification. But if we break it we earn punishment. Again: We can't earn it, but can blow it.¹²

We return to the line by line commentary: Galatians, Chapter 2, verse 15: Protestants like to point to the verb dikaioo and to say in ordinary Greek it means only 'declare just' -- for a human court could not do more. But that is a natural situation, for no human judge could do more than declare a man just. But God is not so limited, He can make one just, not in the sense of making it true that the man never sinned, but in eradicating the effect of sin. Sin leaves a soul incapable of the vision of God in the next life; justification, as we saw above, makes one capable, gives him a participation in the divine nature. This is a radical interior transformation, not just something legalistic and extrinsic. (As to that verb dikaioo, other verbs that have the -oo ending mean to make one to be what the root indicates. E.g., leukos is white, leukoo means to make white; delos is clear, deloo means to make clear. So it is only that no human can make one just that causes the shift from the usual meaning of -oo verbs in the case of dikaioo).

Paul adds that it is impossible to keep the law: no one is justified by the works of the law -- seeming to imply: it cannot be done. (Probably echoing Psalm 143:2). Here we need to recall the pattern of two ways of looking at the law -- we mentioned them in the comments on 1 Thessalonians 4:5, and in the glossary. We said that the two ways could be called focused and factual. In the case of the law, the focused view would be this: The law makes heavy demands -- it gives no strength to keep them -- so inevitably the person falls -- then he is dead and even cursed, for the law curses those who do not keep it (Deut 27:26). We called this a focused view by a metaphor -- imagine we are looking through a tube of any kind and we see only what is framed by the circle of the tube. Something just a bit outside the circle is not seen. What is not seen in the focused view of the law is the fact that even before Christ, divine help, grace, was offered to people (in anticipation of Christ). If they used that, then we would have the factual picture, thus: The law makes heavy demands, and gives no help -- but help is available from the grace of God -- if a person uses it, then he does not inevitably fall -- he may choose to keep out of sin and please God instead. So, in the factual view, it was possible for Paul to say that he himself, even before his conversion, kept the law perfectly (Phil 3:6).

This twofold way of looking at the law makes it possible for Paul to have two kinds of statements about the law -- most commonly, he speaks almost harshly (in a focused picture, e.g., 2 Corinthians 3:7 & 9; 1 Corinthians 15:56); at other times, in a factual picture (e.g., in Romans 3:2 and 9:4) he can even speak of the law as a great privilege for the Jews. We need to keep this double pattern in mind often, for it is needed to understand many things in St. Paul. (Incidentally a sort of focused way of speaking appears also in 1 John 3:9 which says "Everyone who is born of God does not commit sin, for His seed remains in him. And he is not able to sin since he was born of God.")

In verses 17 and 18 Paul gives as it were confirmations of his thesis that justification is by faith. But he makes the wording so extremely compact that we must fill in, in order to follow him. If we fill in verse 17 it will mean: If someone tries to find justification by faith in Christ and then turns out to be a sinner, that would mean Christ had failed to provide the justification sought through faith -- which would make Christ the minister of sin -- which is of course absurd. (Paul writes in Greek me genoito -- literally: "Let it not be." We paraphrased: Heavens no!)

We could fill in verse 18 in two ways: If I go back to depending on the law for justification, I make myself a sinner, because either (a) That would amount to an admission I was sinful in leaving the law in the first place, to depend on Christ or (b) I put myself in the impossible position of depending on the law for justification -- which it cannot give, since it only makes heavy demands but gives no grace, so I must fall and wind up a sinner, in a hopeless state (cf. the remarks on the focused picture of the law).

Paul also says that through the law he died to the law so as to live to God. Most likely it is to be understood in this sense: The law called for death as penalty for sin. Christ died. But Paul -- and all Christians -- are members of Christ. So in that sense, if He died, they too died. (This is the Mystical Body concept -- will see more of it in 1 Corinthians 12 and still more in Colossians and Ephesians). So Paul can also say in 2 Corinthians 5:14: "I am convinced of this, that one died for all, therefore all have died."

Here is an interesting possibility: St. Paul surely knew of mystery religions, very common in his day. In them if a man went through, at least in a ritual, the same things a god had gone through, he would get the same effect. For example, the Egyptian god Osiris died, was made into a mummy, then by having his mouth opened with the right words, he became the god of the dead. So, others could get the same effect the same way. At one point in the rituals of some of these mystery religions, the one initiated would be given a cloak to put on, then he was "putting on the god."

Now Paul of course would not mean to turn Christianity into a mystery religion. But he might well, in line with his policy of being all things to all men (1 Cor 9:19-23), use the language and thought system of such mysteries to help to put over Christianity. So if Christ died, we died. Paul has a syn Christo theme: we do all with Christ (some things in sacramental ritual, some in living our lives). If we suffer with Him, we will be glorified with Him. We were baptized into His death. We were buried with Him, and rise with Him. We should live a new life with Him. We should set our hearts on heavenly things (Rom 6:3-8; 8:9 & 17; Col 3:1-4; Eph 2:5-6).

Some Protestants say that Christ was punished for sin, that He took the punishment we should have had. This is an outrageous notion, that the Father would punish an innocent one, even His own Son! We can clarify the picture by making a distinction. There are two things: (1) To punish can mean to inflict evil on another so it may be evil to him -- that is hatred. Of course the Father did not do that. (2) We could explain the word thus: The Holiness of God loves all that is morally right, and so will punish to rectify the objective order of goodness.

We could picture the objective order of things -- the whole moral picture to be seen in the world -- as a two pan scales. An early Rabbi, Simeon ben Eleazar (c.170, citing Rabbi Meir from earlier in the same century), wrote: "He [anyone] has committed a transgression. Woe to him. He has tipped the scale to the side of debt for himself and for the world."¹³ The sinner takes from one pan what he has no right to take. So the scale is out of balance. The Holiness of God loves what is right, and so wants the balance restored. How? If the sinner stole something, he begins to rebalance by giving it back. If he stole a pleasure, that is used up, but he can begin to rebalance by giving up some other satisfaction he would have legitimately had.

We have been saying "begins" since the imbalance from one mortal sin is infinite. No creature could produce an infinite value to fully rebalance even one mortal sin. So IF the Father willed -- He did not have to of course -- but if He so willed, if He wanted to fully rebalance, that could be had only by sending an Infinite Person, His Son, to rebalance. That Son gave up what He could have lawfully had, even to the death of the Cross. This infinitely rebalanced for sin.¹⁴

Punishment even in civil affairs, if rightly thought of, is such a rebalance. (It is good to try for rehabilitation, but not always workable. And often jail is needed to protect society from habitual criminals). But the essential aspect of punishment is this rebalancing of the objective order, which should not, as we said, include a desire that it be evil to the other out of hatred for the other. That would be vengeance. Rather the concept is like that of Hebrew naqam, action by the one in charge of the community to rectify things, i.e., the objective order.

When Paul says "I no longer live, but Christ lives in me," he probably means that Christ, through His Spirit, has become the principle that dominates his life, so that Paul does the things Christ would do, in the way He would do them, out of love for Christ. He has become the "spiritual man" of which he writes in 1 Corinthians 2:14-16. He produces the "fruits of the Spirit" of which he will speak in Galatians 5:18-25.

Paul himself is in the upper reaches of this third level. For there are three levels of guides a person may follow in making his decisions: On the first level, a person is guided in his decisions by the whim of the moment. Aristotle (Ethics 1.5) calls this a life fit for cattle. On the second level, one's guide is basically reason, even though that reason is as a matter of fact aided by actual graces. But on the third level one is guided by the Holy Spirit through the gifts and so can be led to do things not contrary to reason, but higher than what reason would lead to.

Paul continues, saying, in verse 20, he lives his life "in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." This is a tremendous statement. We appreciate it most fully if we put it into the framework of the covenants. At Sinai, God said to the people through Moses (Ex 19:5): "If you really hearken to my voice, and keep my covenant, you will be my special people." That is, if you obey, you will be specially favored. It brought into being a people of God, to have special favor on condition of obedience.

That ancient people did not do well in obeying. So many times over, God had to send a foreign nation to oppress them, until they would come to their senses. The chief invaders were Amalek, the Philistines, Assyria, New Babylonia. Finally came the great smash: Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon swept down in two waves, 597 and 587 B.C. He wrecked the temple and the city, took most of the people away into captivity to break their national spirit.

It was during that captivity that God spoke again through the great prophet Jeremiah (3l.3lff.): "I will make a new covenant. It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers, for they broke my covenant, and I had to show myself their master. But this is the covenant: I will write my law on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people."

The new was to be different in that the new would be written on hearts, the old was on stone tablets. The old had been broken, it was implied that the new would never be broken. But the two essential things about Sinai were still there: there would be a people of God, who would receive favor on condition of obedience.

Jeremiah hardly could foresee how this would be fulfilled. Vatican II tells us (On the Church §9) that Jesus Himself made that covenant in the Upper Room the night before He died. He took bread here, wine there, and said: "This is my body . . . this is my blood." It was as if He said: "Father, I know what you have commanded: I am to die tomorrow. Very well, I turn myself over to death -- represented by the seeming separation of body and blood in the two species of bread and wine -- I accept. I obey."

He made the pledge that evening, and fulfilled it the next day.

But now we notice this: in a covenant -- which in that way resembles a contract -- each party gives something in return for what the other gives. Of course the things given are at least of approximately equal value -- surely so in the mind of the receiver -- otherwise there would be no agreement made. But the "price" of redemption (cf. 1 Cor 6:20) given by Jesus is of infinite value. Therefore, what the Father gives in return must be similarly infinite, namely, an infinite treasury of grace and forgiveness for the human race.

Is that title, as it were, established just in favor of our race as a whole? It is for us as a whole, but there is more -- and that is the great point of what St. Paul says here: "The Son of God loved me and gave Himself for me." That is: there is an infinite title -- to use the language of contract/covenant -- established by the price of redemption in favor of each individual human! Could it be that this is true just of Paul, a very special person? No, for Vatican II¹⁵ taught: "Each one of us can say with the Apostle: The Son of God loved me, and gave Himself for me."

How could anyone fail to be saved then, as long as he would pull up from sin just before death? The answer is: one can become hardened or blind from repeated mortal sin -- then even if God gives graces, they are not received. The sinner is as it were impermeable. And if he set out to have a spree of sin, and finally pull up, when he did stop sinning, that would not be a change of heart (repentance), but something preplanned.

Such is the love of the Heart of the Father, revealed to us in the Heart of His Son! For love means to will or wish the well-being and happiness of another for the other's sake. So when The Father loves us, it means He wills us happiness, even eternal happiness.¹⁶

Paul continues saying he does not "set aside the grace of God." We need to notice that Paul has several expressions, which to him are equivalent: grace of God means the setup, or regime of grace, that is, the setup of justification by faith, leading to final salvation by faith (on sense of the word faith, please see the glossary).

So Paul means here: He is not going to leave the regime of justification/salvation by faith/grace, to go back to trying, in vain, for justification/salvation by law. So he adds that if one could get justification by the law, there would have been no need for Christ to die. (It is in vain to try for justification by law, for the law has no power to save, and no one can keep it -- this Paul says in the focused sense).