I'll let someone else answer the FV NPP question, and quickly address the rest.


I am going to paste in part of a paper I wrote for a Biblical Theology class that address the argument of Galatians

Galatians Arugment:

Galatians is an often misinterpreted book. In order to understand Paul’s argument, one must first understand what he is arguing against. Paul is not arguing for salvation by faith, over and against the Mosaic Law. Paul is arguing against the Judaizers and their mis-interpretation of the Mosaic Law. Paul’s argument is that God’s plan for his people, which now includes gentiles, has always been salvation by grace through faith, and not by meritorious law-keeping. In order to understand Paul’s argument, especially as it as seen in Galatians 3, the error of the Judaizers must be reconstructed.
The Judaizers were trying to make Gentile Christians, in Galatia, live like Jews. What exactly did this entail? They were teaching the Gentiles that they must submit to circumcision (Gal 5:2, 11; 6:12), and keep the Jewish ceremonial calendar (Gal 4:10). In short, they had to Judaize, or live like a Jew. So what is the big deal? Is there more at stake (to be crass) than a bit of skin, or a few festival days? Yes, so much so that Paul says that if they submit to this, then Christ is of no value to them (Gal 5:2). Why does Paul take such a strong stance, especially when he himself had Timothy circumcised in order to preach to the Jews (Acts 16:3)? The answer to this question is the key to understanding Paul’s argument, in Galatians.
The reason behind Paul’s insistence to resist the Judaizers is found in the Jewish concept of meritorious law-keeping. Paul is not arguing against it, as God had revealed it, but against this Jewish misunderstanding of the Mosaic covenant. In this Jewish tradition, righteousness was thought to be the fulfillment of all a persons obligations. Righteousness was about what a man could accomplish to be right before God. Paul is writing against this view. G. Dix describes Paul’s argument as “a brilliant and vigorous attack on the whole Pharisaic conception of Zekith (lit. ‘satisfaction’), i.e., the notion that it is only by ‘satisfying’ the demands of the Law upon him, that a man can attain to . . . righteousness”17 The Jews had built a system of acquired merit on the basis of demands and the fulfillment of obligations. Steve Schlissel comments:
"This wrong view of the law has, not surprisingly, prevailed in Jewish history after Christ. The Encyclopaedia Judaica defines Righteousness as “the fulfillment of all legal and moral obligations.” It is regarded as “a learned trait resulting from sustained performance of obligations.” Today, serious discussion is had among orthodox Jews concerning the following: May one tie his shoelaces on the Sabbath, or squeeze a sponge, or open the refrigerator, or turn on his hearing aid, or play with nuts on the ground? (It depends, no, it depends, it depends, no.) This attitude was confronted by Jesus over and again. The famous hand washing encounter of Mark 7:1-23 lives on in spirit among my people. . . . These and thousands of other regulations are rooted in the notion of acquired merit."
Schlissel then applies this concept to Paul’s argument.
"This is the key point in understanding Paul’s argument. If righteousness is, as Jewish thought held (and still holds) a “result . . . (of) sustained performance of obligations,” then the one with the most obligations can attain to the most righteousness. On this supposition it is easy to see why the Jew gives thanks for being a Jew. It is to the Jews that the Law was given. At the time of Paul, with the Temple standing and the priesthood operative, this was an especially important point. If Gentiles were not obligated to keep the whole Mosaic code, erroneous Jewish reasoning could argue that there would consequently always be a two-tiered membership in the Church. Thus Paul emphasizes that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile."
The Judaizers were trying to make the Gentile Christians live like a Jew, because they thought that acquiring the meritorious righteousness of law-works was necessary to be righteous before God. In their understanding, in order for a man to be right before God he had to be a Jew. It is against this false understanding of the Mosaic Law that Paul argues. With this understanding, it is clear why Paul told the Galatians that their salvation rested on this issue. If they believed that they were made righteous before God by coming under the Mosaic Law, to gain merit, then they were no longer seeking to be right before God by Jesus Christ’s sacrificial atonement!
With this understanding, Paul’s argument in Galatians is clear. He begins by warning them about, and pronouncing anathema upon, competing gospels (Gal 1:1-9). He proceeds to give them his apostolic credentials, as the apostle to the gentiles (1:10-2:10). He then introduces the judaistic problem by referencing his conflict with Peter (2:11-21). There are a few details in this interchange which will enlighten the understanding of chapter 3. Paul publicly confronted Peter, because he stood condemned (2:11). He stood condemned because he drew back and separated himself from the Gentiles, fearing the Jews who came from James (2:12). Peter began to act as if being a Christian was based upon being a Jew. He acted as though what made a person right before God was not faith in Jesus, but meritorious confirmation to Jewish ceremonies (i.e. circumcision). Paul confronts this, saying that what makes a man justified is faith in Jesus, not being a Jew. Performing the law is not what makes a man righteous (2:16).
Verse 19 makes it clear that Paul is not speaking against the Mosaic Law, but against this false understanding of that Law. Paul says that the Law, itself, taught him that he was not justified by his meritorious law-observance. The Law taught Paul that he was not acceptable because of who he was or what he could accomplish, but because of who God is and what God could accomplish. Through the Law Paul died to the Law, as a system of meritorious righteousness. The Mosaic Law kills any attempt at justifying oneself by merit. It is only after a man understands that he cannot gain meritorious righteousness that he can be alive to God. For, if a man could justify himself through his own merit, then Christ died for nothing (Gal 2:21). Jewish distinctives (i.e. ceremonies, circumcision, etc.) were temporary (Gal 3:25-29). They were given to teach justification by faith (3:24), not to replace it. To say that those distinctives are what justifies a person is the same as saying Christ was not necessary.



Answer to the no jew/greek, slave/free, male/female question:

To understand what this is argument is all about you need to understand the Jewish system of acquired merit. In Jewish thought, righteousness equalled the fulfillment of obligations. Therefore whoever had the most obligations could gain the most righteousness. Still today, in Jewish synagogues you can hear Orthodox Jews thank God for making them Jew and not a Gentile, a free man and not a slave, and a man and not a woman. This is because a Gentile is not under the obligations of the Jewish ceremonies, and therefore cannot gain that righteousness, a freeman has more law-obligations than a slave, and a male has more obligations than a female. Therefore a Jewish male has more ceremonial law obligations than anyone else. Therefore if they meet those obligations they have a chance to accrue that righteousness.
Paul's argument is against this Jewish understanding of righteousness. According to the Jewish understanding a Gentile could never be righteous before God because he wasn't a Jew, and was not fulfilling the obligations of the ceremonial law. Therefore if he wanted to be right with God he would need to become a Jew, or Judaize to acquire an acceptable righteousness. Paul is arguing that the Jews have missed the point of the law, which was a tutor to teach Justification by faith in Christ. Now that Christ has come there is not need for those ceremonial tutors. Paul is not giving an argument that there are not distinctions whatsoever between these categories of people, but against the Jewish conception of the degrees of law obligations as a basis for earning meritorious righteousness. This is clearly seen in Paul's teaching elsewhere that restricts women from teaching in the Church.

Answer to question about the Jerusalem council:


Acts 15:19 Wherefore my judgment is, that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God;
Acts 15:20 but that we write unto them, that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood.
Acts 15:21 For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath.


These four categories are not the only thing gentile believers must do. That would be an absurd conclusion. For example, stealing or murder isn't mentioned, does that mean those are up for grabs?

These four categories are things that the gentiles would normally not have to keep, but for the sake of the transitional period of the church (moving from a strictly Jewish to a mixed body) they were told to follow these things for a time. These were ceremonial laws, that they were told to keep for the sake of the Jews. They were told to do these things so as not to offend those who were Jewish. Of course the only problem category is sexual immorality. But of course, we know that there were also ceremonial laws concerning this. And since it is put in a list of ceremonial laws, it seems safe to conclude that these were things that Gentile Christians would not normally be bound to do, but for the sake of peace and unity were asked to do.

__________________


Gabriel Wetmore
Member Fairview Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Fountain Inn, SC