Galatians
“Living Free”
ch. 2:1-10
“Desired Destination”
Vs. 1-2 Founding fathers
Vs. 3-5 False brethren
Vs. 6-10 Added nothing to me
Intro.
There are several differences between the tone of this chapter and the tone of chapter 1:
- The subject is not the source of the Gospel but the nature of the Gospel (it is apart from Judaism and circumcision).
- Paul’s relationship with the authority of the early church (harmony and unity)
Through it all Paul maintained the balance of tenacity and humility, like a tame tiger Paul wouldn’t budge on his position but neither would he devour his opponents. It wasn’t just about being right, since the gospel was true he must also behave right while defending its validity. In Elmer Davis’ book “But We Were Born Free” he makes this observation with regards to the United States and its sovereignty, “This will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.” Paul could have uttered the same sentiments with regards to the gospel that was under attack from the Judaizers. Paul’s first fight for Christian freedom from the law was in Acts 15 mentioned here. His 2nd altercation came later and is the subject of Galatians 2:11-21. Had Paul been unwilling to be of the mindset of the “home of the brave” the Church as we know it would have never have made it outside of the first century. His courage has kept the gospel free from legalism and has carried it to us Gentiles.
Vs. 1-2 Founding fathers
Vs. 1-2 According to Acts 14:27 Paul and Barnabas came back excited about what the Holy Spirit had done to open up a door to spread the gospel amongst the gentiles. But they soon found that the open door to the gentiles was meant with a closed door by the Judaizers who said that the gentiles first needed to become Jews before they could become Christians. Circumcision was an important Jewish rite that had been passed down by their patriarch Abraham and symbolized the acceptance and obedience to the whole Jewish Law.
Least we think that this is a Jewish problem. There are a lot of Christians that have done the same with: Church attendance, bible reading, communion, tithing, Church membership, baptism etc. The first thing Paul mentions is that of the timing of this 2nd trip as it was 14 years later after his first which was 3 years after his conversion (around 3 years after Pentecost). What this suggests is that apparently the early church had no problem with the gospel Paul was preaching as they were in no hurry to correct it. He also notes that this 2nd trip was accompanied by two very important witnesses:
- Barnabas: A close friend of Paul and the one responsible for introducing Paul to the Church in Jerusalem (Acts 9:26-28). Like the meaning of his name you always see him encouraging someone. When the gospel began to come primarily to the Hellenistic Jews of Antioch he thought that they would relate better to Paul than others, so he went and fetched him from Tarsus. (Acts 11:25-26) It was Barnabas who accompanied Paul on the first missionary journey (Acts 13-14). And it was Barnabas who encouraged John Mark after he dropped out of the team.
- Titus: A Gentile convert who worked with Paul after he was won to Christ by Paul (Titus 1:4). He became “exhibit A” at the council in Jerusalem of the effect of the gospel among the gentile churches and why they didn’t need to become Jews first. In his later years he assisted Paul by going to some of the most difficult fellowships to help solve problems.
This is the trip Luke mentions in Acts 11:27-32 when he brought an offering from the Gentile Churches to help with famine relief in Jerusalem. It was at this time he voluntarily spoke to them about the gospel that he was proclaiming to the Gentiles but he did so privately in case he needed to correct some of them that were in leadership positions if their gospel didn’t coincide with the gospel he had received from Jesus.
In Acts chapter 10 (a full 10 years after Pentecost) God had used Peter to move the church to welcoming in Gentiles into the folds but through the next 14 years there were some of Jewish background that thought that the only way this should be allowed was if the Gentile first became Jewish converts as they believed that Jesus was only for the Jews. Paul’s greater concern was that his view of the gospel (albeit true) may cause a split in the early church if not handled in humility.
Vs. 3-5 False brethren
Vs. 3-5 The mention of Titus being a Greek is to point out that the leadership in the early Church didn’t have a problem with Titus being a believer yet not being circumcised in accordance with Mosaic law. Circumcision (the cutting away of the male foreskin) was the sign of initiation into the Jewish faith and the Mosaic covenant. If a Gentile man wanted to become a Jew, he would have to be circumcised as an adult. All Jewish men were circumcised, and most Gentile men were not, it was an easy way to refer to “those part of the covenant” and to “those outside of the covenant of Moses.” Paul had no problem with circumcision but he insisted that it had no bearing upon a person’s salvation and therefore must not be forced upon Gentiles.
Paul calls these people “false brethren” who came in secretly. The idea behind the phrase “false brethren” is either that they didn’t belong in the church or that they didn’t belong in the meeting to decide gentile conversion. Those that would steal away our freedom and grace in Christ don’t announce their attentions, nor do they lack sincerity for their cause as Paul calls them “false” not “frauds”. The religionists crept in to observe the liberty of Paul, Barnabas and Titus; they didn’t come to celebrate it, but to regulate it!
Their issue was not with Paul as he was a Jew who was circumcised on the 8th day of his life. Their issue was with the gospel he preached. This is why Paul would not compromise even for one hour and remained steadfast in the truth. Martin Luther later expressed the same heart: “Wherefore, God assisting me, my forehead shall be harder than all men’s foreheads. Here I take upon myself this title . . . “I give place to none.” The historical account of the Council of Jerusalem is in Acts 15:6-21 as several folks presented their case:
- Peter began as he said it was he whom the Lord chooses to take the gospel to the gentiles in Cornelius (Acts 10) and the Holy Spirit filled them the moment they believed before he had even finished the message. That one act broke down the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile and clearly God through Jesus was now making the two one in Christ.
- Paul and Barnabas told the assembly what God had done among the Gentiles in a missionary report and although the false brethren Judaizers argued the truth was irrefutable, God had done the same thing over and over as He had with Cornelius.
- Titus was finally brought in as the Judaizers had said that unless a Gentile had submitted to circumcision they couldn’t be saved then what did they make of Titus? Here was a saved Gentile who had not been circumcised.
- James, the leader of the Church in Jerusalem summed up the arguments and the matter was concluded on the side of Paul. It was God’s choice to take the gentiles as they were and who they were to try to lay upon them what God had clearly not.
You would think that this would have forever settled the matter but Martin Luther battled the same issues with “Roman Catholics”, as do those who have to deal with the “Sabbath keepers” or the “membership maintainers”.
Vs. 6-10 Added nothing to me
Vs. 6-10 Four times in this chapter Paul refers to the three major leaders in the early church in Jerusalem, James, Peter and John. But they are alluded to by the use of phrases that describe them as: “those that were of reputation” (verse 2), “those who seemed to be something” (twice in verse 6), and those “who seemed to be pillars” (verse 9). Why the differential way of speaking of them? It seems as though Paul wanted to deflate the puffed up attitudes that people were prone to have (and still do) of the instruments that God chooses in His wisdom to use. In doing this he is elevating the divine gospel far above the instrument that proclaims it. The instrument is fallible but the Word of God is not! A case in point will be seen next week in Peter and Barnabas’ defection at the supper table when the Judaizers came to eat!
Though he recognized their calling and authority and was glad to be working alongside them, they and he were nonetheless human and never to be made “Pope” or “Christ of earth” with their authority equal to the “Word of God”! Calvin writes of verse 8 “The distinction is interesting, especially because Roman Catholics claim that the Pope is the successor of Peter – but where is his ministry to the Jews? “If Peter’s apostleship pertained peculiarly to the Jews, and as the Pope claims the primacy because he is Peter’s successor, he ought to exercise it over the Jews. Paul is here declared to be the chief apostle of the Gentiles; yet they deny that he was the bishop of Rome.”
As far as Paul was concerned when it came to the divine origination of the Word of God these three, “added nothing to me”! Not only did the Jerusalem Council agree with Paul’s gospel, they also encouraged his ministry, recognized it publically and sent a letter stating as much. The same gospel was being preached by the Jewish church to Jews as well as by Paul to the gentile church. The church moved from the theological to the practical and wanted the gentile church to continue to help the poor and needy.
The Judaizers didn’t not give up and instead at every opportunity after Paul left they would come into the church and attempt to get folks to add to the gospel. I say if James, Peter and John could add nothing to the gospel or the Word of God then certainly Joseph Smith, the Pope or anyone else stands no chance!
Ch 2:11-16
“Defended declaration”
Vs. 11-13 Not good enough for Peter
Vs. 14 No second class citizens
Vs. 15-16 Life-giver not Law-giver
Intro.
The agape meal was part of early church life and at the supper the whole congregation came together to enjoy a common meal by pooling everybody’s resources. For those who were slaves it may be the one decent meal that they had for the week and marked the togetherness that the Church had when compared with the world. But the Jews believed that God was only gracious and merciful to Jews and they were forbidden to do business with gentiles let alone eat with them.
That set up the collision in the church in Antioch where prior to the Judaizers from James arrival Peter shared the common meal together but when they arrived he stopped for fear. And this led to all the other Jewish believers separating themselves from the gentile believers, even influencing Barnabas. A church ceases to be Christian if it contains class distinctions. In the presence of God there is neither noble nor base, rich or poor, Jew or gentile all are sinners for whom Christ died and we share a common relationship to our Heavenly Father which makes us all brothers and sisters. A famous name (Peter) can never be used to justify an infamous action.
Vs. 11-13 Not good enough for Peter
Vs. 11-13 At the council in Jerusalem Peter, James and John approved of Paul’s gospel and Peter gave a passionate speech on being the instrument by which God granted gentile conversion. But apparently he fell under the spell of ungodly peer pressure because although he was in favor of welcoming Gentiles into the kingdom of God without first becoming Jews; when the Judaizers came to Antioch, (Paul’s home church) he refused to eat with them. Verse ll clearly states that “Peter… was to be blamed” but how can this be? Peter according to Roman Catholicism was the first Pope and as Pope he was infallible in matters of doctrine and Church practice. Clearly neither Peter nor any Pope is infallible as there is only one that is, Jesus Christ.
The phrase “he would eat with the gentiles” is in the imperfect tense in the Greek showing that Peter’s eating with the gentiles was a regular practice. So his withdrawal was from a habit of having always done so. When a Jew refused to eat with a Gentile, he did this in obedience to Jewish rituals. Peter no longer kept a strict observance of the Law of Moses for himself, but by his actions, he implies that Gentiles believers must keep the law – when he himself does not! They were good enough to enter the church but not good enough for Peter! Peter knew that these men would be offended by his fellowshipping with the gentiles so he treated them as the Judaizers did as second class Christians. And he did this with full knowledge of:
- Of what he had learned in 3 ½ years of observing Jesus who ate and drank with sinners
- Of what he had been told by the Lord not to call unclean that which God has made clean
- Of having witnessed firsthand the baptism of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius before he had even finished the message
“The sins of teachers become the teachers of sin!” and Paul wouldn’t stand for this so he publically confronted him in his hypocrisy. Peter’s actions were based upon “fear” but what did he have to fear from those Judaizers from Jerusalem? The only thing they could do was jeopardize his position in the Church in Jerusalem. It seems that Peter’s fear led him to compromise so as to not lose his position of power! But that being the case: “Who was in power and leading the Church in Jerusalem, Peter or the Judaizers?” Clearly Paul had to address this hypocrisy or the outcome would have led to two classes of Christians. It seems to me that some of the Jewish believers viewed the outcome of the Jerusalem council as the creation of two groups:
- Jews: Who could go on living like Jews keeping the law and maintaining their traditions.
- Gentiles: Who were free circumcision and the law but were no the less 2nd class citizens.
These observations reveal to us that the old Peter was still present in Peter and even the baptism of the Holy Spirit hadn’t washed away its stench. Oh dear ones we cannot tame the flesh, bathe it even in Holy Water, no it must die daily, moment by moment! That is why Paul said in Romans 6:11 that we must “also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Martin Luther said, “No man’s standing is so secure that he may not fall. If Peter fell, I may fall.” Why even Barnabas fell under their influences and the “man of encouragement” became the man of “discouragement” and his name at the moment was “Bummer” instead of “Barnabas”!
Here again was a man who according to Acts 11:24 was characterized as a “good man FULL of the Holy Spirit.” Dear ones, that is why “one death” won’t suffice and neither will “one filling”. I need to die daily and be continually under the spout where the Holy Spirit comes out! Let these two (Peter and Barnabas) serve as a reminder that we must repeat the above process moment by moment! Their fall led to all of the believing Jews following suit. What responsibility and accountability those who are leaders have, be that in the home, on the job or in the church.
Vs. 14 No second class citizens
Vs. 14 It was not that Peter denied the gospel Paul proclaimed, Peter’s offense was against the gospel in conduct, “his behavior was a contradiction of the truth of the gospel”. It was predicated not upon conviction (in fact he contradicted his convictions) it was peer pressure from a small group of the circumcision party that caused him to compromise the gospel he believed and to practice what he didn’t. The same Peter who had denied the Lord for a maidservant’s inquiry had repeated the act. By use of the phrase “But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel…”, it is clear that Paul didn’t view this as a simple matter of seating arrangements at a church potluck.
It was instead a matter of how they perceived the gospel to the gentiles as not eating with them said publicly that they were not saved. There they are, at the Antioch Church potluck and the Gentile Christians have just been asked to leave, or are told to sit in their own section away from the “real” Christians. And Peter (the honored guest) and Barnabas (the man who led many of them to Jesus) goes along with all this and so does every other Jewish believer. All except for Paul who publicly confronts Peter for doing so. Peter was the face of the early Church, the most famous believer on the planet at the moment. Not only this next to the most famous Christian in the world was the man (Barnabas) who had encouraged Paul and was his sponsor and he was siding with Peter. It was Jesus and Paul against the world.
Vs. 14 cont. Here we have what Paul said before Peter and the crowd.
- First Paul reminded Peter publically that was no longer practicing strict obedience to the Law of Moses, “Hey Pete, I saw you eating bacon wrap shrimp; you’re not keeping a kosher diet!” Can you imagine how Paul’s words spoiled the party as those Judaizers choked on their bagel, “What, Peter eats shrimp and bacon with gentiles?” “Say it ain’t so, Pete!” I can imagine that even though Peter was eating kosher food at the time he probably felt a little sick.
- Second, Paul was very emphatic saying, “If you, born and bred a Jew, discard Jewish customs, how unreasonable of you to impose them on Gentiles.” The kind of Christianity that still thinks and behaves as though by its efforts it can please God and by its achievements it can show itself superior to other men is not Christianity at all!
Vs. 15-16 Life-giver not Law-giver
Vs. 15-16 Paul reminds them that we are all declared right before God by the work of Jesus alone and not by the keeping of any or all of the law. If the law was capable of declaring a person right before God then why the animal sacrifices, why the sacrifice of the only Son of God? The word “justified” in verse 16 is a legal term that means to receive a favorable verdict and in this case that verdict is before God.
Next Paul tells his listeners how a person “receives a favorable verdict” by saying “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.” There will not be one person in heaven declared innocent by any effort on their part.
Every person from Adam to the last person to breathe air on this earth will be declared not guilty by Jesus’ sacrifice alone. The phrase “we have believed in Christ Jesus” is literally “we have believed INTO Christ Jesus” and speaks of “committal” not just “conviction”! The difference is if you are a diabetic and know intellectually that you need to take insulin yet do not take it versus a diabetic that makes sure that you do take your insulin. Jesus is no “Law-giver” He is a “Life-giver”! Paul said, “by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified” not Gentile nor Jew, not anyone will ever be considered right by their works! That’s what hypocrisy always does: it tries to make others do what we ourselves cannot do!
Ch 2:17-21
“The Great Exchange”
Vs. 17-18 Christ: 100% righteous
Vs. 19-21 Mankind: 100% not righteous
Intro.
In Job 25:4 Bildad the Shuhite posed a question to Job saying, “How then can man be righteous before God? Or how can he be pure who is born of a woman?” I came upon this newspaper article that would have answered in part Bildad’s question as it read on September 16th 2010 in a New York Paper: “A 21-year-old man was apparently slapped with a parking ticket as he lay slumped over dead in his car. According to family and cops, Nicholas Rappold, of Flushing, was dead in the front seat of his Jeep Cherokee on 165th St. near 35th Ave. Tuesday morning when a traffic agent gave him a ticket for being parked illegally while city officials were in the process of street sweeping. Rappold’s friend found him about an hour after the ticket was issued.
Police voided the ticket after releasing the car to the family.” The question is: Why did they void the ticket? Well obviously by the issuance of the ticket it wasn’t that the law was dead to Nicholas Rappold. No it’s because Nicholas Rappold was dead to the law and the law was no longer valid. That is what this section is all about. Martin Luther was so amazed by these verses that he wrote of his time as a monk and his feeble attempts of trying to make absolution saying: “The merit of Christ is mentioned….but if you look closer you will notice that Christ’s merit is belittled, while the monk’s merits are aggrandized.
They confess Christ with their lips, and at the same time deny His power to save. I myself was at one time entangled in this error. I thought Christ was a judge and had to be pacified by a strict adherence to the rules of my order. But now I give thanks unto God… who has called me out of darkness into the light of His glorious gospel.”
Vs. 17-18 Christ: 100% righteous
Vs. 17-18 Remember that as Paul said these words the concerned parties were right in front of him, he was only saying what they were thinking. Their objection to the doctrine of grace is, “If God declares right bad people, what is the point of being good? Can’t we do as we like and live as we please?” Wouldn’t this make Jesus a servant of sin? Paul’s answer is an emphatic “certainly not!”
- First, yes, we seek to be justified by Christ, and not by Jesus plus our own works.
- Second, yes, we ourselves also are found sinners, that is, we acknowledge that we still sin even though we stand justified by Christ.
- But no, this certainly does not make Jesus the author or approver of sin in our life. He is not a minister of sin.
There are two great temptations in the Christian life:
- The temptation to try to earn God’s favor
- The temptation to use some little achievement to compare oneself to our fellow man to our advantage and their disadvantage
In verse 16-17 a word appears for the first in Paul’s letter it’s the word “Justified” and it is central to the gospel Paul preached. The verb form of the word appears three times in verse 16 and once in verse 17 and the noun form (New King James “righteousness”) once in verse 21. It is always important to define terms and we come to the powerful truth of justification our understanding or lack thereof has eternal consequences. Justification is the act of God whereby He declares the believing sinner right in Jesus Christ.
- No Christian can therefore be more “justified” than another, you either are or you are not.
- If it was justified by works then it would be a gradual process in which one could be more justified than another.
- God declares the believer in Jesus right; he doesn’t make him right by declaring him not guilty. In the court of law once a person has been declared not guilty they cannot be retried for the same crime and as such can never be guilty again.
- We are not merely pardoned as that would mean that we still have a record and we are not just forgiven as that would mean that we could again become guilty.
- In justification God no longer puts our sins on record!
- The number one reason most sinners never become believers is because they refuse to admit they are sinners and sinners are the only kind of people Jesus can save.
Martin Luther said, “A Christian is not somebody who has no sin, but somebody against whom God no longer chalks sin, because of his faith in Christ.” Paul says “There is no more sin than trying to find acceptance before God by our law-keeping than there is sin in everyday life as a Christian.” Good works looks at Jesus, on the cross, taking the punishment we deserved, bearing the wrath of God for us, and says to Him, “That’s all very nice, but it isn’t enough. Your work on the cross won’t be good enough before God until I’m circumcised and eat kosher.” What an insult to the Son of God!
Vs. 19-21 Mankind: 100% not righteous
Vs. 19-20 Here Paul describes what permanently changed his relationship to the law. The law hadn’t died, it was still Holy and Good. The problem is what the law has to work with (you and me) is not Holy and Good. It was the law itself that killed Paul as it showed him that he could never live up to its demands to be perfect. In Matthew 5:27-28 Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
The purpose of the law is to show us that we can’t keep it so we will turn to Jesus who is the only One that has ever kept it. Paul confessed in Romans 7:7 that he “would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” The problem with these Judaizers from James was that they were not living as dead to the law, instead they were thinking that they still could live under the law and be declared by God as being right before Him by their efforts in keeping it. It was only when Paul died to the law as a basis of being right with God that he could truly live for God.
Paul anticipates them saying, “Paul when did you die to the law?” to which Paul says, “I’ve been crucified with Christ! I died to the law as a basis of right standing before God when Jesus died on the cross forever demonstrating that the law could never declare me right!” Furthermore the author of Hebrews in 10:4 says that “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.” Not only does Paul declare that he is dead to the law he also declares that he has a new life as the life he now lives he does through complete trust in Jesus.
On the cross my friend there was a “GREAT EXCHANGE” as we gave Jesus our old failed “tried-to-be-right-before-God” life for Jesus’ “live-in-him-life”. The outcome is Paul’s life is no longer his life it is Jesus’ life and Paul is only managing the life Jesus gave him by simple trust in Jesus. His faith wasn’t in himself, it wasn’t in “faith” it was in a Person who rose from the dead. This simple trust in someone and not in ourselves is made much easier when we realize as Paul writes of Jesus: “Who loved me and gave Himself for me!”
If you could ask Nicholas Rappold he would tell you that the law never loved him, it never sacrificed anything for him. No, it tried to give him a ticket when he was dead. Paul views Jesus’ sacrifice as personally for him and not just generally for the world. Dear one until you come to understand that Jesus’ sacrifice was specifically for you, He personally gave His life for you; you will never understand the full weight of grace!
Vs. 21 Paul finished off his confrontation with Peter by saying; “For anyone to live under the Law of Moses to be right with God is to set aside the Grace of God” and Paul would have none of that! You can either choose the always failed course of human works and effort in an attempt to be declared right before God or you can choose the always successful course of trusting in Jesus’ finished work; but you cannot do both!
It is not heroic or noble to try to earn your way to heaven, it is instead the greatest offense anyone can make as it is saying to God the Father that His only Son Jesus’ death and sacrifice is either not enough or not necessary. Matthew 26:39,42 As Jesus prayed in the garden he asked “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.” “Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done.”
Let that forever settle this in our lives it is “NOT POSSIBLE FOR THIS CUP TO PASS AWAY”. There is no other way! Martin Luther put it this way, “If my salvation was so difficult to accomplish that it necessitated the death of Christ, then all my works, all the righteousness of the Law, are good for nothing. How can I buy something for a penny that costs a million dollars?” To say that my work, my sacrifice is good enough to go to heaven is saying in so many words “I’m Jesus, I’m God” as it proclaims yourself as our own savior!