As I have said previously, this is Paul’s first letter, or first epistle, that he writes in his ministry. And the subject of this letter is to write the Galatians a defense of his apostleship, and a defense of his gospel and the doctrine of justification by faith. Now we have looked at his autobiographical details in chapter one in which Paul defended his apostleship. He did that by explaining his conversion on the road to Damascus, and how the Lord Jesus spoke to him directly.
Then we read that immediately following his conversion, he did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, but went to the desert region of Arabia where we believe he received instruction from the Lord Jesus which lasted about three years. He came back at the end of that three year period to Damascus and was preaching the gospel that he received. Now this is noteworthy, because the church had been started in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. And it was in that church, and through that church, that the apostles doctrine was established, and various men were sent from that church to establish churches in the surrounding regions.
So there was a sense in which Jerusalem was the mother church. The twelve apostles were there. And the gospel emanated from that church to the other regions. So for Paul to reveal that he did not come from Jerusalem, he had not been a part of that group of apostles, and his doctrine did not come from that church, it was a significant point of criticism.
But what he is doing is showing that his gospel is the gospel of Jesus Christ, it was taught to him by Jesus Christ, and his apostleship was from Jesus Christ. He says as much in chapter one vs 11 “For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but [I received it] through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”
But though Paul’s gospel was received directly from Christ, he also wants to show that his gospel is the same gospel as that which the apostles in Jerusalem believed. He is being criticized and his churches are being undermined by people who were saying that his gospel was not enough. They said it did not include certain requirements that were necessary for salvation. Paul refers to these requirements as the law. But what is really being referred to here is the ceremonial marks of the law, such as circumcision and observing certain days and dietary laws. Those were the aspects of the law that the critics were trying to get the Gentile congregations to observe. They basically were saying that they needed to become Jews in practice, and these laws were the defining marks of the Jews.
Now I want you to see that for yourself. Because we tend to think when we hear the word “law” that it is speaking of the ten commandments. And to some extent that is included, but the context of what Paul is talking about becomes clear as you read the epistle. For instance, notice chapter 2 vs 3, Paul says Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. Circumcision was the law in question. In chapter 2 vs 12, he condemned Peter because he stopped eating with the Gentiles, fearing the party of the circumcision. In vs 6-9, the issue is the circumcised versus the uncircumcised. In chapter 4:9 and 10, Paul equates observing days and months and seasons and years with weak and worthless elemental things by which one would become enslaved again. In 5 vs 2, Paul says that if you receive circumcision then Christ is of no benefit to you. In 5 vs 3, he says that if you receive circumcision, then you are under the obligation to keep the entire law. In 5 vs 6 he says neither circumcision nor uncircumcision mean anything but faith working through love. In chapter 6 vs 12 he says that hose who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised, simply so that they will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh. He says in 6:15, neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.
So we see that the laws that the Judaisers were concerned about were largely circumcision, and then to a lesser degree certain dietary restrictions, and also observing Jewish days, months and seasons and years. So it was mostly the ceremonial aspects of the law that they were concerned about, which they were saying that the Gentiles must observe if they were to be truly saved.
So Paul wants to show that circumcision was not a part of the gospel that the apostles in Jerusalem were preaching either. He says in chapter 2 vs 1, “Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but [I did so] in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.”
Up until this point, Paul had not been in Jerusalem except for 15 days when he had seen Peter. But that was 14 years prior. Peter had not taught him the gospel. He had been taught by Christ in the deserts of Arabia for 3 years before he went to see Peter. But now there had been some things that the Judaisers had accused him of, and they were undermining the churches that he had planted. And so he had deliberately brought along Titus, a Greek, so that he could confirm that the apostles doctrine concerning salvation was the same as his gospel. Paul says he met with the apostles privately. In other words, he didn’t walk into a Sunday morning service and disrupt the service in order to bring up this concern. But he wanted to consult with the leaders privately.
And notice that Paul said he went up to Jerusalem by revelation from God.The Lord obviously knew that this was a matter that needed to be addressed and settled. That was a 300 mile trip, by the way, which was probably done on foot taking a couple of weeks or so. Paul said that he communicated to them the gospel that he was preaching to the Gentiles. You can read about that in Acts 15. I don’t have time to read that chapter for you this morning, but you can read it later and find out what the council at Jerusalem decided concerning circumcision. They basically sided with Barnabas and Paul and sent messengers back with them to the churches to that effect.
Paul says in summary of that decision in vs 3 “But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. But [it was] because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.”
Paul’s point is that the apostles in Jerusalem accepted Titus as a brother in Christ even though he was not circumcised in accord with the Mosaic Law. This shows that the apostles in Jerusalem accepted the gospel of grace as Paul understood it and had been preaching. The problem with circumcision then did not come from the apostles, but from the false brethren who were trying to bring them into bondage.
Circumcision was a mark in the flesh that was the sign of initiation into the Jewish faith and the Mosaic covenant. Today, we don’t have people in the church saying that it’s necessary to be circumcised. But we do have a similar sign that is viewed as a requirement by some, and that is baptism. Baptism is an outward sign. The Catholic Church believes that baptism removes original sin, and daily sin is removed by the mass, and other sins are removed by purgatory. But many of the characteristics of circumcision are also characteristics of baptism. And there are some denominations that say that baptism is necessary for salvation. So the principle of works versus grace is really the crux of the argument here in Galatians, and it is fundamental to the accuracy of the gospel. That truth of the gospel is what Paul said he wanted to make sure remained with the Galatians, and so he was willing to go to Jerusalem to defend it.
So Paul wants to emphasize that the church in Jerusalem did not correct his gospel, nor add to or detract from his gospel. He says in vs 6 “But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)--well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.” Even though Paul met with the apostles a few times, they did not give him the gospel he preached. The leaders in Jerusalem added nothing to the gospel Paul preached or to the apostolic authority he possessed. They confirmed his gospel, but they did not teach him his gospel.
I don’t think that Paul means any disrespect to the apostles in the way that he refers to them. But I think he understands that they are men, and somewhat flawed men at that. They were still learning themselves the distinctions of the new covenant, at least in some respects. They were still intertwined in Judaism to some extent. And I think Paul recognizes that and consequently is not overawed by their position. Because he also knows the Lord Jesus. He has also been taught the doctrine of Christ. And so as he says in 2Cor. 11:5 “For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.”
So Paul continues in vs7; “But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter [had been] to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in [his] apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we [might] [go] to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.”
The apostles of the Jerusalem church (James, the brother of Jesus; Cephas, also known as Peter, and John) accepted Paul and his ministry to the Gentiles. They gave him the right hand of fellowship. That means they endorsed Paul’s gospel, even though they knew that Paul did not require the Gentiles to come under the Mosaic Law in order to be saved. But instead, they accepted that Peter’s primary ministry was to the circumcised, and Paul’s primary ministry was to the uncircumcised. Of course, there was overlap in both camps, Peter preaching to Gentiles and Paul preaching to Jews. But Peter was primarily ministering in Israel, and Paul in Galatia and Asia.
Paul adds in vs 10 “[They] only [asked] us to remember the poor--the very thing I also was eager to do.” I think that is the concession that was made to the church in Jerusalem. It was not that the church in Jerusalem would give Paul anything, but that Paul and the Gentiles might give the church in Jerusalem something. And that was to remember the poor who were there, who were being persecuted by both the Romans and the Jews. Many of whom were displaced from their occupations, from their homes, and suffering from what was said in Acts 11 was a famine in that area. And Paul said he was eager to do that. We read elsewhere of Paul collecting a contribution for the saints in Jerusalem on a number of occasions and either sending it to them or taking it there himself. I think Paul demonstrated that he understood the debt of gratitude he had for the church in Jerusalem and the kinship he had with them. And so he wanted to participate in that relief for them.
But Paul is not done in describing his relationship with the apostles and the doctrine of the Judaisers which had infiltrated the church. He says the false gospel of the Judaisers even went so far as to affect Peter. Peter, of course, was the head of the church of the circumcised. Paul says in vs 11 “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he [began] to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.”
I think Paul makes it clear that when Peter eventually came to Antioch he was happy to eat with the Gentiles. Peter knew theologically that there was nothing unclean which God had made. You will remember the vision that he had where a great sheet came down from heaven with all kinds of animals in it, and God told him to kill and eat. And Peter didn’t want to do that because he had never eaten anything unclean. But God said what I have cleansed let no consider unholy. And as a result of that dream, not only did God pronounce all foods clean, but He also showed Peter that he should preach the gospel to Cornelius, a Roman centurion.
So Peter had no problem eating bacon and eggs with the Gentiles. But then some men who came from Jerusalem, Paul says from James - probably not meaning that James sent them, but that James was the pastor of the church in Jerusalem at that time- and when they came, Peter withdrew from the Gentiles, fearing the party of the circumcision. That would be the Judaisers. Peter was afraid of what they would say if he was seen eating with the Gentiles.
Vs13 “The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how [is it that] you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
In the previous trip Paul referenced that he made to Jerusalem, he spoke to the apostles privately. But here Paul rebukes Peter in the presence of all. Why the difference? Well, it was probably because Peter had acted in a public fashion, and it had influenced others in the church, as well as Barnabas. And so to correct that false doctrine, it needed to be a public rebuke so that everyone affected could see that it was in error and needed to be corrected.
So Paul shows here that rather than Jerusalem rebuking Paul’s gospel and changing it, Paul actually rebuked Jerusalem’s gospel and compels them to change their hypocrisy. Peter and Barnabas both knew better. Peter had received a direct vision from God concerning this very thing. And yet both of them were willing to disregard the truth for the sake of not offending the Jews who were wrong in their doctrine.
Paul said in 1 Cor. 8, that it may be proper to restrict your freedom for the sake of a weaker brother so that you do not put a stumbling block in front of him. But this was not that kind of situation. This was actually putting a stumbling block in front of a weaker brother by implying that it was necessary to be in bondage to the Jewish law. And so Paul had every right to rebuke them for it.
Paul then takes this illustration and uses it to differentiate justification by faith versus justification by the law. He says in vs 15, "We [are] Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.”
Paul’s argument is that he and Peter and the other apostles were Jews by nature. Yet being a Jew and observing the law did not save them. It was necessary for them to believe in Christ Jesus so that they might be justified by faith in Christ. They could never be justified by the works of the law. Justification has always been through faith, not by works. Abraham, the father of the Jews, was justified by faith. Rom 4:3 says, “For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."
Justified means declared righteous. We are not determined to be righteous after God has examined us. No one can be righteous enough to be accepted by God. But God declares us to be righteous on the basis of Christ’s righteousness. 2 Cor. 5:21, “God made Jesus, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” We are credited with the righteousness of Jesus Christ by faith in Him.
To have faith is to believe in Christ, in who He is, that He is God incarnate, that He is Lord, that He is our Savior, having died on the cross for our sins, and rose again on the third day and ascended to heaven. Rom 10:9-10 “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus [as] Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.”
Since salvation is by faith, it is plain to see how wrong it was for Peter to separate from these Gentile Christians because they had not put themselves under the Law of Moses. Since by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified, then what difference does it make in salvation if a Gentile is circumcised according to the Law of Moses? What difference does it make if a Gentile keeps the dietary laws? All that counts in justification is their faith in Christ, because that is the only way we are made right before God.
Paul continues his argument for justification by faith in vs17-19 "But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! For if I rebuild what I have [once] destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.”
I think what Paul is saying here is that Gentiles were considered sinners because they were not circumcised and they ate unclean foods and did not keep the festival days and Sabbaths. So he is asking does justification through faith in Christ make Him a minister of sin? The answer is a resounding No! For we have died to the law. We do not reestablish the law in justification, but the law of the flesh is done away with. Essentially Paul said, “There is more sin in trying to find acceptance before God by our law-keeping than there is sin in everyday life as a Christian.” If he were to try to build a way to God through keeping the law then he would make himself a transgressor.
How is it a sin to build again a way to God through the Law of Moses? In many ways, but perhaps the greatest is that it looks at Jesus, hanging 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.” That is to regard the atonement of Christ as insufficient.
Paul states the conclusion of this doctrine of justification by faith in vs19-21 "For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and 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 up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness [comes] through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."
Paul realized that the law made him guilty before God, not justified before God. John Calvin said “To die to the law is to renounce it and to be freed from its dominion, so that we have no confidence in it and it does not hold us captive under the yoke of slavery.” As long as Paul still tried to justify himself before God by all his law-keeping, he was dead. But when he died to the law then he could live to God.
Paul said, “I have been crucified with Christ. I died to the law when Jesus died on the cross. He died in my place on the cross. I was condemned to die for my sins, but Jesus took my place on the cross. Since we died with Christ on the cross we have been given a new life. Our old life lived under the condemnation of the law is dead. Now we are made alive in Jesus Christ and Jesus is alive in us. Paul realized that on the cross, a great exchange occurred. So Paul’s righteousness wasn’t his, it was the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
Paul says, “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 up for me.” I live by faith in Him. I trust Him, I listen to Him, I follow Him, I love Him, I obey Him, I yield to Him. Faith is actively following Christ daily, minute by minute, hour by hour, decision by decision. Faith is not just something in the past, but it continues. Hab. 2:4 says, the just shall live by faith.
Paul said, “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” To try to keep some or all laws in order to be justified, is to deny the effectualness of Christ’s atonement. It is to nullify the grace of God. Eph.2:8 says, Salvation is by grace through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.
Salvation is a gift of God. What a wonderful doctrine. Much to wonderful to try to add to it. To do so is to minimize God’s grace, which would rob God of His sovereignty and diminish HIs character. God has loved us so much that He was willing to sacrifice His only Son so that He might GIVE us Christ’s righteousness, so that He might justify us. That is grace. God’s gift of salvation which we cannot earn, but we can accept through faith in Jesus Christ. I trust that you have believed in Christ and received justification from God on the basis of His righteousness.
No comments:
Post a Comment