Galatians. By John Humphries

Transcription

1 Galatians By John Humphries We believe that determining the motivation for Paul to write the Book of Galatians must take into consideration the Jewish opposition to the gospel of Christ. This opposition is seen all through the Book of Acts and is a continuation of the conflict that began with Jesus and the Jewish leadership as recorded in the gospel accounts (Matt. 12:14). 1 In this series of studies we are confining our perspective to the New Testament historical timeframe. It is true that Jewish rebellion against God persisted long before the New Testament era and manifested itself early on at the beginning of God s dealing with Israel as a covenant people as they turned aside quickly out of the way that God commanded them (Exod. 32:7-8). But, as we have indicated, we are confining our perspective to the time of the apostles as they went from place to place preaching the gospel. They met with serious and, at times, even deadly opposition. The Jewish leadership threatened and beat the apostles in their efforts to stop the spread of the gospel (Acts 4 & 5). The Jews soon murdered Stephen because he sharply rebuked their obstinate unbelief and opposition to God, their prophets, and the gospel (Acts 7:59). A young Jewish Pharisee named Saul of Tarsus opposed Christ as the Messiah and was making havoc of the church in Jerusalem as well as in other places (Acts 8 & 9). The apostle James, to the delight of the unbelieving Jews, was executed with a sword (Acts 12). Please note that we are not attempting to give a complete summary of the record, but only a sampling of the Jewish attitude and hostility towards the gospel of Christ. The gospel was certainly a stumbling block to the Jews because of the notion of their Messiah being crucified (1 Cor. 1:23). Jewish expectation was that a heroic Messiah would burst forth upon the scene and lead Israel to a great liberating victory over their Gentile enemies (John 6:15; Acts 1:6). But instead of conquering the Gentiles, Christ, through the gospel, was inviting the uncircumcised Gentiles to come to God without having to submit to the demands of the Law of Moses (Acts 15). It therefore became an additional stumbling block to the Jews that uncircumcised Gentiles could be on equal terms with them before God without obeying the Law of Moses (cf. Eph. 3:6; Matt. 20:12). A crucified Messiah and uncircumcised Gentiles were just too much for most of the Jews to tolerate. Furthermore, we need to keep in mind that the Jews were under the Law of Moses for over 1500 years. It was difficult for them to accept the teaching that God was going to take away the first that He may establish the second (Heb. 10:9). After all, the Law of Moses was a God-ordained covenant and God explicitly warned again and again that man was not to tamper with any of the teachings of His Law (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Josh. 1:7; Prov. 30:5-6). 1 Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version.

2 Following his conversion (Acts 9), Saul (who is also called Paul, Acts 13:9) began his gospel efforts. Paul, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5), preached the gospel to many uncircumcised Gentiles (Acts 13:46) and led them to God apart from submission to the Law of Moses (Acts 15:1-5). This infuriated the Jews to no small degree and their opposition to Paul was fierce, continuous, and with deadly intent (Acts 14:19; 23:12). Indeed, as one reads on through the Book of Acts, time and time again opposition to the gospel efforts of Paul by the Jews was recorded (13:42-45; 14:1-2, 19; 17:5, 13; 18:5-6; 19:9; 20:3 etc.). Paul summed up the Jewish problem in his letter to the church in Thessalonica: 14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost (1 Thess. 2:14-16). The opposition to Paul, and the gospel of Christ that he proclaimed, was not confined to the unbelieving Jews, but also included influential Jews who became believers (cf. Acts 6:7; 21:20). Some of these misguided Jewish brethren wanted to compel Gentiles to live as do the Jews (Judaize, Gal. 2:14; cf. 6:12; Acts 15:1, 5). These were the troubling Judaizers ( false brethren of 2 Cor. 11:26?) that plagued the churches of Galatia and viciously attacked the apostleship of Paul, attempting to discredit him in the eyes of the brethren. Note that Judaizers is derived from the Greek verb ioudaïzō (ἰουδαΐζω, Gal. 2:14) to conform to Jewish religious practices and manners (Vine). Please note what Acts 15:1 states to be the issue in the light of the New Testament: And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. Please note the last phrase. They did not say, You cannot be accepted socially or culturally into the Jewish community and therefore be considered justified. No, indeed, the Judaizers (see v. 5) said that the Gentiles could not be saved (v. 1). This saved (Acts 15:1) means saved from sin and go to heaven after one dies. Not saved from social discrimination, etc., but saved from sin is the way the apostles and elders in the New Testament took it. This is clearly the obvious meaning of being saved in this context (cf. Acts 2:21, 40, 47; 4:12; 11:14; 15:1, 11; 16:30-31). This false doctrine of the Judaizers was a serious threat to the gospel of the grace of God. It went far beyond the mere idea of equalizing cultural and social distinctions between the Jews and Gentiles. The social and cultural equalization process, true enough, would be one of the benefits of being one in Christ (Eph. 2:11-22). But the main and vital issue in this confrontation with the Judaizers clearly pertained to the saving of the souls of the Gentiles. Therefore there were spiritual and eternal consequences wrapped up in this doctrinal deviation from the gospel of Christ. These Judaizers were teaching a different gospel (Gal. 1:6) that would completely

3 destroy the entire scheme of redemption. This would be the consequence if the Law of Moses were still in force and not nailed to the cross, thus taken away (Col. 2:14; Heb. 10:9). To understand this challenge to the gospel of Christ, we need to review some pertinent Scriptures that we believe will shed helpful light on this issue. First of all, it must be remembered that under the Law of Moses, only members of the tribe of Levi could serve in the priesthood. (Heb. 7:11-14; Exod. 28:1; Num. 18:23; 2 Chron. 26:16-21). Since Christ/Messiah is of the tribe of Judah (Heb. 7:14), he could never serve as high priest as long as the Law of Moses was still binding upon the people (Heb. 8:1-4; cf. Num. 3:10; 2 Chron. 26:18). Furthermore (and this is extremely critical), if Christ is not able to act as our high priest (not offering his blood before God) we are all lost in sin and forever separated from God (Heb. 9:11-15; cf. Isa. 59:1-2). The entire scheme of redemption comes crashing down if Christ s blood is not offered on our behalf. Furthermore, Christ had to take away the first covenant (Law of Moses) before He could establish the second (i.e. the new covenant of Christ, Heb. 10:9-12). The Messiah/Christ was prophesied to be of a different priestly order and not of Levi (Ps. 110:4). And therefore the Law of Moses obviously had to be taken away before this could be accomplished (Heb. 7:12-13; 10:9). This removal of the Law of Moses thus prepares the way for Christ to enter into the presence of God and offer His Blood for our sins (Heb. 9:24; 10:12, 19). It is only upon the basis of Christ s blood that the grace of God is given (Rom. 3:24-25). Some of the Jews who believed (cf. Acts 6:7; 21:20) wanted to circumcise the Gentiles and place them under the Law of Moses (Acts 15:1-5; cf. Gal. 2:1-5). As we have seen, this would in effect remove Christ as High Priest since he was of the tribe of Judah and not of the tribe of Levi. The Judaizers therefore undermine the gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20:24, 32) by making the blood of Christ null and void (Gal. 1:6-9; 2:5, 21). To return to the Law of Moses (and therefore leave Christ and His sacrificial blood) would be to fall from the grace of God (Gal. 5:1-4). If no blood of Christ can be offered, then there would be no grace of God. And if there is no grace of God, there is no salvation for anyone ever at any time in human history (Heb. 9:15; Rom. 3:23-26)! Any attempted perspective (no matter how cerebral or erudite) that overlooks this basic teaching of the New Testament is fundamentally flawed and lacking in true Biblical perspective. We repeat for emphasis: To return to the Law of Moses would require that we leave Christ as our high priest. His blood, therefore, could not be offered unto God for our sins. Consequently, the entire scheme of redemption would collapse and each and every last one of us would be lost in our sins and separated from God eternally! The purpose of the Law of Moses was to act as a tutor to bring us to Christ. The law made us aware of our sinfulness, thus defeating self-righteousness. This would in turn lead us to Christ for salvation (Gal. 3:19-25; Rom. 7:7; 1 Tim. 1:8-11). To turn back to

4 the Law of Moses would be to leave Christ as our High Priest. With Paul our sin sick soul would desperately cry out, O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death (Rom. 7:24)? Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift (2 Cor. 9:15)! Without the blood of Christ the only way to avoid condemnation because of our sins would be for one to always obey God perfectly in every way. That is, never sin, never transgress, or never commit iniquity of any kind whatsoever (Gal. 3:12)! We would always do good at all times (James 4:17). This is perfectionism and legalism gone to seed and would result in total bondage for us all, for all of us sin (Rom. 3:23; John 8:34; Gal. 2:4; 4:9). The Word of God solemnly warns us that it requires only one single sin to convict and condemn us as a sinner before God (Jas. 2:10). Thus we all desperately need the grace of God made available through the soul saving blood of Christ that he offers to God as our High Priest (Heb. 2:17-18; 4:14-16; 6:19-20; 9:11-14; 10:11-14). Galatians, therefore, is a powerful defense of the truth, purity, and sufficiency of the gospel of Christ (Gal. 2:5). Paul opposes the Judaizers misuse of the Law of Moses (cf. 1Tim. 1:3-11) and their perversion of the gospel of Christ (Gal. 1:6-9). Galatians would in fact warn us against any and all errors that would seek to distort in any way the truth of the gospel and the grace of God. For this study, we will divide the Book of Galatians into three sections consisting of two chapters for each section. In chapters 1-2 Paul defends his apostleship. In chapters 3-4 we will consider the doctrine of justification by faith apart from the Law of Moses, which Law was pointing us to Christ. Finally, in chapters 5-6 we will note various admonitions contrasting the works of the flesh versus the fruit of the Spirit, as well as Paul s concluding appeal to the brethren to accept him as a faithful servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. Galatians Greeting 1 Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead), 2 and all the brethren who are with me, The apostle Paul immediately begins the defense of his apostleship and the gospel that he proclaimed. The matter is most urgent and he gets to the point in the very first verse. He makes it clear that he did not receive his apostleship from any human agency. Neither a church nor even an apostle of Christ appointed Paul. He was called and appointed to the work directly by God and the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 9:15; 26:19; 1 Tim. 1:12; 2:7). To the churches of Galatia:

5 Paul had preached and taught the gospel in these areas on several occasions (Gal. 4:13; cf. Acts 14:6-7; 16:1, 4-5). It is suggested (mindful that there are pros and cons) that Paul wrote Galatians while in Corinth (Acts 20:2-3) during the winter of 57 AD. The Jews continue with their plotting against Paul at this time (Acts 20:3; cf. 18:6, 12). 3 Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. Grace and peace are fully available to all who will accept Jesus as Lord. Through His death upon the cross, according to God s own will (Acts 2:23), Jesus can deliver us from the guilt and punishment of the ungodly world of sinners. The gospel, apart from the Law of Moses, is sufficient to lead us on to heaven (Acts 13:38-39; Rom. 1:16-17; Col. 2:9-10; Eph. 1:3). Only One Gospel 6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. There is only one true God, one true Lord Jesus, one true Holy Spirit, and one true gospel that has been revealed by the inspired apostles and prophets of God (1 Cor. 8:5-6; 2 Cor. 11:4; Eph. 4:4-6). Paul repeats the warning to include both men and angels and therefore emphasizes the point that anyone who preaches something different from what the holy apostles and prophets proclaimed (Eph. 3:1-7) stands accursed before God (2 John 9-11; cf. Rev. 22:18-19). This warning should be a wake-up call to the Galatian Christians and also to the Judaizers (mentioned above) that were troubling (Gal. 5:12) the churches. Indeed, all who would seek to honor and serve the Lord in teaching His word need to keep this passage in mind at all times (cf. James 3:1; 1 Pet. 4:11; 1 Tim. 4:16; 2 Tim. 2:15; 4:1-5; Matt. 12:37). Denominational authors and teachers, many of them being brilliant thinkers and also possessing great learning and scholarship, often influence and lead many astray who read their books or sit at their feet in pursuit of their degrees. A great intellect is truly a wonderful gift and great learning is also a wonderful accomplishment. Give to all of these theologians and authors their due honor and acclaim in this regard. These splendid gifts of intellect and great learning, properly exercised, are wonderful assets in the study and proclamation of the gospel. But it must be kept in mind that brilliance of mind and prestigious academic accomplishments (sad to say, Phil. 3:18) are often far afield when it comes to sound exegesis of Scripture. The many denominational seminaries and secular universities have teachers and authors who excel in such attributes and achievements. Bookstores all across

6 the land have their bookshelves loaded end to end with their writings. But remember that such authors are under the curse (anathema) of God when they pervert the gospel of Christ (Gal. 1:9). We need to always remember this as we sit at their feet or read their writings. So listen or read with a great deal of care and discernment (Mark 4:24)! A Biblical example of this misuse of human intellect and great learning would be the Sanhedrin Council of the 1st Century Jews. When Christ was upon the earth the Sanhedrin Council constituted the greatest collection of human intellect and learning within the Jewish nation. They were recognized as the leading experts in the languages associated with the Old Testament Scriptures. They also had a first-hand knowledge of the Jewish traditions, thoughts, and customs of their day. If they were alive today, they surely would be recognized as important thinkers, authors, and teachers in the leading institutions of theological learning. Their books, should they write them, would be read and quoted by religious teachers of every persuasion all across the land. Without doubt they would have a great deal of influence in the religious world, and their various perceptions on the Bible (and the authors of the Books of the Bible such as the apostle Paul) would be considered very, very important in understanding the thinking of the Jews during the time of the New Testament. Without a doubt, many preachers would seek to sit at their feet to obtain their advanced degrees in Bible. Others would devour their books with fervor and embrace their new assessments of the doctrines of the Bible that, in turn, they would share with their particular brotherhood or fellowship. We simply must keep in mind that in spite of the great intellect and great learning in the Scriptures that some of these Jewish authors and the leading members of the Sanhedrin possessed (cf. Gamaliel, Acts 5:34), they did not understand the nature of the Messiah and His kingdom, or even how to become citizens in it (John 3:10; 6:15; 7:48; 8:45; Acts 3:17; 7:52; 13:27; 1 Cor. 2:6-8). Should this not also justify some caution as well regarding their views concerning faith, grace, mercy, and other weighty matters of the Law of God (cf. Matt. 23:23)? And (thinking of our day) if a scholarly teacher, preacher, professor, or author does not even understand the plan of salvation, the organization, worship, and work of the church of God, would not it be prudent to exercise caution regarding his or her views on faith, grace, works, justification, etc.? If one does not understand enough to become a member of the New Testament church, then his or her thinking just is not what it ought to be. If one appears to understand the truth of the gospel of Christ (Gal. 2:5), but rejects it or refuses to obey it for whatever reason, their thinking is contrary and off the tract. Such are blind guides and condemned by the Lord (Matt. 23:24). Impressive credentials must not cloud the issue or obscure the truth that anyone (no matter how scholarly or astute they may otherwise be) that muddles, obscures, perverts, violates, or deviates from the gospel of Christ in any way has the anathema of God upon them (Gal. 1:9). Please understand that we are not suggesting that the reading of books written by denominational, Jewish, or various other authors is to be avoided or is wrong. We are not

7 anti-uninspired literature! Furthermore, we are not anti-computer programs that feature literally hundreds (perhaps thousands) of volumes of literature of all kinds at one s fingertips. These books and programs can be very useful, helpful study tools. But tools can be misused; and that is the point that we are attempting to make just here. We must also state that neither are we anti-education concerning the obtaining of advanced degrees in the Bible. But we also understand that while it certainly is possible, it requires constantly keeping one s focus crystal clear in order to avoid being overly influenced by the error that one is constantly exposed to in these institutions. Don t learn too much that isn t so is advice that should be taken seriously. One certainly is free to obtain all of the education that one can handle. The overwhelming majority of the books (or computer programs) in anyone s library today probably are books and sets of books that are written by sectarians and others that are not members of the Lord s church. These computer programs, books, and sets of books can be very useful tools that the teacher may use with great benefit in the study of God s Word. But just as with many tools, they must be used with great care or terrible harm will follow. A preacher once lost part of two fingers when he became interested in woodworking. In his eagerness and zeal to get started he misused a band saw. He did not fully understand, or perhaps he momentarily forgot, the critical safety instructions, that he had hurriedly read, and consequently seriously injured his hand. Zealous preachers have studied under (or read after) and became overly impressed with the knowledge and brilliance of various sectarian teachers and authors (Col. 2:8). They got into a theological weed patch, spiritually harming themselves, and confusing those that listened to them, as they taught and wrote articles influenced by these erroneous, false teachings (cf. 1 Tim. 4:16; James 3:1; Matt. 15:14). Certainly there is the need for being alert and keeping abreast of what is going on in the world of religion and philosophy, etc. (Eph. 4:15-16). We are not anti-intellectual. As a matter of fact, it would appear that the apostle Paul was well read as we note his citations of pagan poets and prophets in his preaching and writing (Acts 17:28; Tit. 1:12). But we must not forget that only the Word of God is the infallible standard for all things spiritual. One may therefore read and quote from uninspired writings, but wisdom would dictate that we do so with great care. Alexander Pope wrote An Essay on Criticism in the early 18th Century: A little learning is a dangerous thing Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again. Fired at first sight with what the muse imparts, In fearless youth we tempt the heights of arts While from the bounded level of our mind Short views we take nor see the lengths behind But more advanced behold with strange surprise,

8 New distant scenes of endless science rise! So we quote an uninspired author to help make a point. We think that such is proper and useful at times. But we must think things through carefully in the light of God s Word. We also need to remember the inspired prayer of the Psalmist David. Lord, my heart is not haughty, Nor my eyes lofty Neither do I concern myself With great matters, Nor with things too profound for me. (Ps. 131:1) Another consideration concerning this paragraph (vv. 6-9) is that Paul and Peter (and the rest of the inspired apostles and prophets) all preached the very same gospel concerning justification by God s grace through faith made possible through the blood of Christ (1 Pet. 1:18-19). Paul certainly isn t saying that if Peter or any of the other apostles and prophets would happen to visit the Galatian churches, preaching the gospel, that they would be under the curse or anathema of God because they did not preach the Pauline Christianity of justification. No, a thousand times no! This would utterly be the wrong conclusion to draw from this warning passage (Gal. 1:6-9). To begin with, Paul did not preach his own ideas or his own brand of justification that he himself hammered out as a baptized Pharisee. One must never accept the false notion that Paul was some kind of a master, genius theologian that diligently thought through all of his early training as a Pharisee (that was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel) and therefore developed his very own system of Pauline Christianity (Acts 22:3; 2 Cor. 11:22; Gal. 1:14; Phil. 3:5). Indeed, Paul preached the same thing that Peter and the other inspired men preached because he and they received it directly from the Lord (Gal. 1:12, 23). Paul argued over and over that he and the apostles of Christ, along with the other inspired individuals, had the very same perspective concerning justification (Eph. 2:14-16; 3:3-6; 4:4-6; cf. 1 Cor. 1:10-13). They all spoke the same thing, and there was no division among them. They were perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10; Gal. 2:6-9). In Acts 15, for example, we clearly see that Paul s preaching concerning justification was sorely tested (vv. 1-5) This entire episode attested to the fact that Paul s preaching on justification was the same as the apostle Peter s preaching. Please note that Peter s report (Acts 15:7-11) concerning his preaching of the gospel to Cornelius, who was an uncircumcised Gentile (Acts 11:2-3), is immediately followed by Paul and Barnabas giving their amen to Peter by citing their gospel work among the uncircumcised Gentiles (Acts 15:12). Paul and Barnabas testified that the Holy Spirit also gave divine confirmation of their gospel preaching among the uncircumcised Gentiles with miracles and wonders being performed. Finally, James sums up the discussion by citing the Scriptures (Amos 9:11-12) confirming that the gospel preaching among the uncircumcised Gentiles had the Lord s approval (Acts 15:13-21). The inspired apostles

9 and prophets were all on the same page and preached the same gospel of justification by faith and the grace of God grounded firmly upon the blood of Jesus Christ. Of course, the reason for Paul, Peter, and James to be teaching the same message of the gospel was that their preaching on justification by faith was the Holy Spirit s revelation on justification that came from the Lord (John 16:12-15). The same Holy Spirit inspired all of the apostles of Christ (including Paul) and the prophets of the Lord (1 Cor. 12:4, 11, 28). Please understand that we are simply trying to raise a caution flag that we need to always keep in mind who it is that wrote what it is that we are reading (cf. 2 Tim. 3:14). The Scriptures must constantly be our guide and measure in everything that we hear, read, study, or teach. And, yes, we all really do need to be cautioned and reminded of this. Yea, though we may protest and insist that we know and fully understand this admonition to listen or read, with great caution and critical discernment, the writings, etc. of the world, we do need reminding now and again (cf. 2 Pet. 1:12-15; 1 Cor. 10:12; Acts 17:11; Heb. 5:14). This writer has been young and now am old (Ps. 37:25) and sees more and more each day, sadly, the need for this reminder. 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. While Paul would yield on matters of custom, scruples, etc. that did not violate God s will (1 Cor. 9:19-23), he would not compromise the truth in any way. He would not violate God s word or alter any doctrine of Christ in order to please an unbelieving crowd. This is a much needed warning to all of us today in this age of compromise, the plea to water down the truth, don t be judgmental, or don t rock the boat type of thinking. Hugh Fulford said it well in one of his notes. 2 Why do we think we have to listen to the world around us when it comes to what we believe, teach, and practice religiously? Why must we always be only a few steps behind the denominational world in our pursuit of the novel? The churches of Christ have a distinct message and we ought not to be ashamed of it! We have precisely what the world needs to hear a message calling people back to God, back to Christ, back to the Bible, back to the church of the Bible, back to a life modeled after the life of Christ. Why should we not boldly lead in the way that is right instead of following in the way that is popular? Call to Apostleship 11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but 2 Fulford, Hugh. Hugh s News & Views. huford@comcast.net

10 it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Paul continues to emphasize that the gospel he preached was a revelation of Jesus Christ and not something that he learned from any man. What Paul preached (1 Thess. 2:13) and what Paul wrote to the churches (1 Cor. 14:37) was given to him from the Lord. Furthermore, Paul taught the same gospel to the people in every place that he visited. He did not have one gospel for the Jews and another gospel for the Gentiles (1 Cor. 4:17). 13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. 14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. Paul had a reputation as a persecutor of the church of Christ (Acts 9:13, 26; 22:4-5, 19-20). He also had a most promising future as a zealous, young Pharisee (Phil. 3:1-6; Acts 22:3; 23:6; Rom. 11:1; 2 Cor. 11:22). However, Paul was willing to give all of this up and turn to Christ. This not only was the sacrifice of a brilliant future in Judaism; but it was also a move that would place him in serious jeopardy with the Jewish leadership (1 Cor. 15:30; 2 Cor. 11:26; Gal. 5:11; 6:17). Therefore this action on the part of Paul would indicate his sincerity and earnestness concerning the message that he is proclaiming. He was giving up everything that a young Jewish man would cherish in order to preach Christ and Him crucified. Furthermore, Paul was not peddling the word of God because he could not make it in Judaism (cf. 2 Cor. 2:17), but he was sincere and genuine in his preaching efforts. 15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Paul again points out that his calling to the apostleship was of God. Not only was his calling pleasing to God, but also that the Lord s plan was for him to preach the gospel of Christ to the Gentiles. When Paul was given this responsibility from the Lord, he did not need to immediately go to the apostles in Jerusalem (or to any other man) in order to learn the message that he was to proclaim. In fact, he began his preaching right away in the city of Damascus (Acts 9:20). Like the apostle Peter (Matt. 16:17) the apostle Paul did not need to receive his message from flesh and blood but rather he received divine revelation directly from heaven itself (Eph. 3:3). Neither Luke (Acts 9) nor Paul enlightens us with any details concerning the purpose of his trip to Arabia. Whether he went there to preach or to meditate (or both) the Bible does not reveal. The point that Paul is emphasizing is that he did not need to be taught by the apostles in Jerusalem before he could proclaim the unsearchable riches of Christ. Contacts at Jerusalem

11 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord s brother. 20 (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.) After a considerable length of time, Paul did travel to Jerusalem and visited with the apostle Peter as well as with James, the Lord s brother (Matt. 13:55). But this was not to learn the doctrine of Christ (vv ). Paul also knows and understands fully the seriousness of telling the truth and not lying to his brethren before God (Eph. 4:25; Matt. 12:36-37; Acts 5:4b). John warns us that all who are guilty of the sin of lying shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death (Rev. 21:8). 21 Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. 23 But they were hearing only, He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy. 24 And they glorified God in me. Paul had to leave Jerusalem because of Jewish persecution and travel to Tarsus, the capitol of the Roman province of Cilicia (cf. Acts 9:29-30) where he evidently remained until Barnabas came for him and persuaded him to return with him to Antioch in Syria (Acts 11:25-26). Paul did not have the opportunity to be with the churches in Judea and become well known by face to them. But they certainly knew about Paul and would remember his work as a persecutor (cf. Acts 8:1-3; 9:1; 22:4-5, 19-20; 26:9-11; Phil. 3:6). Now they are hearing of his zealous and forceful (1 Cor. 15:10) preaching of the very same gospel that he once tried to eradicate from the earth. What Paul tried to destroy was the identical gospel that Peter, John, and others proclaimed all around Jerusalem and Judea. Paul preached the one message of salvation, which is the one faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Eph. 4:5; Jude 3). It is the authentic, true gospel that neither man nor angel can change without damnation (vv. 6-9). This means that if the gospel (that Paul preached to the Gentiles) is attacked by the Judaizers as being false, then the gospel that Peter and the other apostles preached is false also. Peter, John, and Paul are all preaching the very same faith (cf. 1 Cor. 15:11)! This is a telling argument and completely exposes the sophistry and emptiness of the Judaizers malicious accusations against Paul and the gospel that he preached. 1. Is there a gospel for the Jews and another gospel for the Gentiles? Why or why not? 2. Was Paul dependent upon the apostles in Jerusalem for his message? Why or why not? 3. Considering Paul s argument in verses 11-12, 15-17, that he did not depend upon any man for his teaching and preaching, does this suggest anything concerning modern day preaching and teaching of the Word of God? 4. Was Paul a failure in Judaism and therefore turned to the gospel for fame and fortune?

12 5. What were people hearing that proved Paul was preaching what Peter preached? Galatians 2 Defending the Gospel 1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), 5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. We have learned over the years that the chronology and dating of events in the New Testament (Old Testament as well) are not always easy to determine with certainty. The Holy Spirit often did not deem precise dates of events as essential for our edification. We suggest that Acts 9 and the conversion of Paul took place within the time frame of 34/35 AD. Three years later (Gal. 1:18) Paul went to see Peter in Jerusalem. Fourteen years after this visit (Gal. 2:1), in about 50 AD, the events of Acts 15 and Galatians 2 took place. But again, we realize that there are ongoing debates among Bible students concerning this suggested dating of these events. Frankly, however, we are persuaded that the exact dates of the events mentioned in Galatians one and two do not affect the truth being taught by the apostle! The point that Paul is making is that the other apostles of Christ (and other inspired men such as James, Gal. 1:19; 2:9; Acts 15:13-21) concurred with the teaching and actions of Paul in defending the sufficiency of the gospel of Christ to save the souls of the believing Gentiles. In other words, circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses were not to be bound on Gentiles (or Jews for that matter) in order for them to be children of God (Acts 15 and the Book of Galatians). Paul was divinely guided in his actions and went up by revelation to Jerusalem to make certain that there was no misunderstanding, or destructive conflict potentially, between him and the leaders of the church there. The same Holy Spirit guided the leaders in Jerusalem, as well as the apostle Paul (1 Cor. 12:4-6, 11). Therefore none of the apostles and elders (Acts 15:6) demanded the circumcision of Titus (who was Greek, i.e. a Gentile). The Judaizers were demanding the circumcision of all Gentiles in order for them to be saved (Acts 15:1, 5). Paul was determined and resolute not to give in to the Judaizers (false brethren) and allow the circumcision of Titus or any of the other Gentiles in order for them to be acceptable to God. To yield to the Judaizers would pervert the truth and

13 deny the sufficiency of the gospel of Christ and, in effect, bring all under the bondage of the Law of Moses (Gal. 5:3). We must not become confused over the matter of Timothy (whose father was a Greek) being circumcised (Acts 16:1-3). Paul did not circumcise Timothy in order to save him or bind the Law of Moses upon him (Acts 15:1, 5; Gal. 5:3). If this were the case, then truly Paul would have been just as inconsistent and hypocritical as the apostle Peter on one occasion (Gal. 2:11-14). Timothy s circumcision was a matter of honoring Jewish culture and customs. It had nothing to do with his salvation. It was not to place him under obligation to keep the Law of Moses (1 Cor. 7:17-20; 9:19-23). Paul simply did not want to take the uncircumcised Timothy (whose mother was Jewish, Acts 16:1) in among the Jews, as he knew that this would complicate and undermine his effort to preach the gospel to them. These secretly brought in Judaizing brethren were counterfeits as far as Paul was concerned. These were ravenous, savage wolves in sheep s clothing (Matt. 7:15; Acts 20:29) that would not spare the flock of God but would bring them under the bondage of the Law of Moses thus taking away the liberty that the Christian has in Christ Jesus (John 8:31-32, 36; Gal. 4:9; 5:1). Paul would not yield to this false doctrine that perverted the gospel of the grace of God. 6 But from those who seemed to be something whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. We do not believe that Paul is trying to be disrespectable to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. Rather he is defending his teaching as a fully inspired (and fully equipped to teach the whole counsel of God) apostle of Christ (cf. Acts 20:20, 27; 1 Cor. 15:10-11; 2 Cor. 11:5-6). Paul understood that if he were to be discredited as an apostle of Christ, then the truth that he taught could also be brought into serious question and rejected. Therefore in defending himself, he was defending the gospel that he taught (cf. 2 Cor. 12:11-12). Paul did not preach Paul; he preached Christ (2 Cor. 4:5; 1 Cor. 1:13). Furthermore, the apostles and elders in Jerusalem did not receive any revelation from the Lord that was not also given by the Holy Spirit to the apostle Paul. God did not favor the apostles and elders in Jerusalem above Paul (cf. 2 Cor. 11:5). 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. The apostles and elders in Jerusalem realized that Paul had the gospel of Christ committed to him by the Lord just as the Lord had commissioned Peter with the same

14 gospel. They were preaching the same faith -- the same gospel (Gal. 1:23). The only difference was that Peter mainly preached to the Jews and Paul, for the most part, preached to the Gentiles. The Lord was working effectively and equally through both apostles. The apostles and elders in Jerusalem realized this and gave their approval to Barnabas and Paul for them to continue their gospel work among the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). Peter, James, and the brethren would continue their gospel efforts among the Jews (cf. James 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:1). 10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do. The only request that the apostles and elders from Jerusalem made was for Paul and Barnabas to remember the needy. Paul was not only eager to do this, but had already engaged in the work of benevolence to the needy saints (Acts 11:27-30). This remembrance of the poor was something that Paul continued to do when the need arose (1 Cor. 16:1-4). No Return to the Law 11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. The apostle Peter gave in to his fear of being criticized by the brethren from Jerusalem. He had been eating and associating with the Gentiles. But when these Jewish Christians arrived, he withdrew from the Gentiles and acted as though the scruples of the Law still stood as a barrier between the Jews and the uncircumcised Gentiles. Peter had felt the sting of criticism before when he had gone to the household of Cornelius and associated with them (Acts 11:1-3). Peter seems to have been an impetuous sort of person who sometimes spoke or acted very hastily and later would realize that he had not properly thought it through (Matt. 14:28-31; 16:22-23; 17: Mark 9:5-6; 14:29-31; John 18:10-11; Luke 22:54-62). His foolish impetuous conduct was not only wrong, but it also influenced others to follow his sinful and dangerous example. He was playing the hypocrite in this action, as he certainly knew better (cf. Acts 10:15, 28; 11:1-4, 17-18; 15:7-11). But unchecked fear will cause one to do foolish things and go against their convictions. Peter s hypocritical actions would play right into the Judaizers doctrine that the Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses in order to be saved and enjoy the full fellowship of the Jewish believers. Something had to be done publicly to correct this incident as it distorted the truth of the gospel (cf. 1 Tim. 5:20). 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 We who are Jews by

15 nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. Paul rose to the occasion and met the issue head on by rebuking Peter over his hypocritical action. This rebuke of Peter by Paul not only was a defense of the truth of the gospel (that Jew and Gentile were on an equal spiritual footing before God), but it further indicated that Paul did not receive his apostleship from anyone in Jerusalem. Paul was an independent and fully inspired apostle of Christ (Gal. 1:1). Paul reminded Peter of what Peter himself had already learned from the Lord (Acts 10:28; 15:7-11). Peter would realize that Paul was right and that he had (through fear of those of the circumcision) acted the hypocrite and separated himself from the uncircumcised Gentile Christians. To the apostle Peter s credit he did not appear to harbor resentment against Paul over this public censure, as he later acknowledged Paul as a beloved brother and an inspired man who also wrote inspired Scriptures (2 Pet. 3:15-16). This incident (and Peter s apparent acceptance of the rebuke) calls to mind a pertinent passage in Proverbs: 7 He who corrects a scoffer gets shame for himself, and he who rebukes a wicked man only harms himself. 8 Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; rebuke a wise man, and he will love you. 9 Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; teach a just man, and he will increase in learning. (Prov. 9:7-9) Contrast the attitudes of individuals in these passages (Matt. 13:53-58; John 9:34; Acts 7:54) with those in these passages (Acts 2:37, 41; 8:30-31; 18:24-26). Where do you and I stand? Paul reminds Peter that faith in Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation and that no one (Jew or Gentile) had to obey the Law of Moses in order to be justified before God. Perhaps Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit, could have had this reminder by Paul in mind when he wrote (2 Peter 1:12-15) concerning the need for brethren to be continually reminded of what they had already been taught and knew. 17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! To seek justification in Christ requires that one must first realize he is a sinner and therefore needs justification through the blood of Christ (Mark 2:17; Luke 19:10; Rom. 5:9). If one does not realize the guilt of sin in his life, they are not going to understand the need for the gospel of Christ. To preach the gospel of Christ thus involves preaching the sinfulness of us all. For example, only when one realizes that he is sick will he realize the need for the physician. Only when one realizes that he is lost in sin will he realize the need for the Savior Jesus Christ.

16 It is, therefore, a dishonest twisting of this truth to call Jesus a minister of sin! Neither the teaching of Christ nor that of Paul made man a sinner. Man s very own sins are what made him a sinner (Rom. 3:23). Jesus died to provide forgiveness from sin (John 1:29). Paul preached the gospel in order to deliver men from their sins (1 Cor. 15:1-2). The gospel that Paul preached was fully sufficient to lead both Jew and Gentile to God apart from the Law of Moses. 18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. Paul maintains that to return to the Law of Moses is to leave Christ (our High Priest) and the saving grace of God (Gal. 5:4). For anyone to build again the middle wall of the Law of Moses (that requires that the High Priest be of the tribe of Levi) is to transgress the will of God and therefore become a transgressor (Eph. 2:14-16). 19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. By the Law is the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20; 7:7). Paul learned from the Law of Moses that he fell short of God s glory and was a sinner. He found forgiveness and life in Christ (Rom. 7: 24-25; Acts 22:16). The old man of sin and worldly living must die or be put to death through repentance, and the new spiritually minded man must live for the Lord (Col. 3:1-11; Rom. 6:1-14; cf. John 5:24-26; 10:10; 11:25-26). 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. With Paul the old man has been put to death (crucified) and the new man now lives by faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God who loved and died for him (Col. 3:1-11). The passage in Colossians makes a contrast between the old man with his ways of the world and the new man in Christ who seeks to serve and please God. To allow Christ to be our daily guide and motivation in all that is done is to allow Christ to live in us. This requires a life of faith in Christ, keeping our eyes upon the Lord and not being distracted by the things of the world (Heb. 2:9; 12:1-3). The love that Christ has and His great sacrifice for our sins should encourage us to live for Him every day of our lives. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain. Paul argues that if one could find redemption and forgiveness of sins through the Law of Moses then there would have been no need for Christ to have come and died upon the cross. The truth is, however, that the Law of Moses looked to the coming of Jesus to fulfill all things that were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning the Messiah (Luke 24:44). The Old Testament has to have the New Testament fulfillment in order to make any sense whatsoever. To stop short with only the Law of

17 Moses is to completely destroy the entire scheme of redemption. The message of redemption is totally incomplete without the coming of Christ. The Old Testament is not intended to be simply a study of the origin and history of the Jews along with their dealings and interactions with some of the nations of the world. Instead, the big picture is that God knew from the beginning that mankind (whom God created for His glory, Rom. 11:36; Eph. 1:14) was going to fail (sin) and live in rebellion against Him (Rom. 3:23). God, foreseeing this, intended all along to provide a way (in His own good time (Eph. 1:10; Gal. 4:4) for dealing with the sin problem (Matt. 25:34; Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2; Rev. 13:8). These passages (referenced above) clearly indicate that the coming of Christ, therefore, was not an afterthought on the part of God but was carefully planned by the Lord. The Jewish nation was to play a major part in the sacrificial coming of Jesus Christ into the world (Rom. 9:4-5; John 4:22). Through this seed of Abraham (Gen. 12:2-3; 18:18; 22:18) all nationalities would be blessed in the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 3:25-26). From this seed of Abraham comes the special Seed whom Paul claims is Christ, the Son of God (Gal. 3:16). Before the coming of Christ into the world, God gave to Israel the Law of Moses to function as a tutor until Jesus came (Gal.3:24-25). Those that would be among the number of the redeemed, however, would constitute only a small remnant of all the multitudes of the earth (Matt. 7:13-14; 20:16; Luke 13:23-24). Only a remnant among the Jews will accept Christ as Savior and Lord (Rom. 11:5) and only a remnant among the Gentiles will be saved (Joel 2:32; Rom. 10:12-13; Acts 2:21, 39; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; Rom. 15:7-13). It must be noted that the removal of the Law of Moses does not mean that God changed His mind or made a mistake in giving the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was perfect for what God wanted to accomplish with it (cf. Ps. 19:7-11; Rom. 3:20; 7:7, 12, 14, 16; 1 Tim. 1:8). The Law of Moses made man conscious of his sins and also acted as a restraint for sin (Ps. 119:11, 59, 101, 176). Any imperfections or faults in the scheme of things are not the fault of the Law of Moses, but are the result of mankind s sinfulness (Eccl. 7:29). The Hebrew writer states, Because finding fault with them, i.e. Israel, God promises a new covenant (Heb. 8:8). In the gospel that Paul preached the righteousness of God is revealed in its fullness and completeness, and this righteousness is made available to mankind without (and apart from) the Law of Moses (Rom. 1:16-17; Phil. 3:9; Col. 1:19; 2:9-10). 1. Why did Paul refuse to circumcise Titus, but did circumcise Timothy? 2. What was the apostles and Jerusalem elders reaction to Paul s preaching? 3. When Paul rebuked Peter, what did this indicate about Paul?