Southern
Christian University
James A. Turner
A Study of Galatians #1
Please read all of the
references. They will help you to get a fuller understanding.
In
days gone by, sometimes-considerable time was spent in discussing what is
called the northern Galatian theory versus the southern Galatian theory as to
what churches made up the churches of Galatia. Well, I think it has been well-established
from the standpoint of secular history and more importantly than that from the
book of Acts that the Galatian churches were those churches that Paul and
Barnabas established on their first missionary journey as recorded in the
thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of Acts.
If those were not the churches, then what churches were those churches
of Galatia? And you would not have the Bible giving an
answer, but when you think of the account in Acts, Paul revisited those
churches on his second journey in company with Silas as recorded in Acts 15:36-16:6.
Acts 18:20-23
shows that he revisited those churches again on his third journey.
All
three journeys Paul went forth from that first church that was made up of
Gentiles at Antioch of Syria. There were
prophets and teachers in that church, “And as they ministered to the Lord, and
fasted the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work where
unto I have called them.” And
they fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them and they left and went down
to Seleucia and sailed to the Isle
of Cyprus and preached the word in the synagogue at Salamis
but seemingly with no result. And then
they went through the island to Paphos where they converted a proconsul, Sergis
Paulus, but seemingly he was the only one.
And then they went up to Perga in Pamphylia. They had John Mark as an attendant, but he
went back to his home in Jerusalem
and that is the reason Paul and Barnabas separated when they decided to go and
revisit those churches. They went on up
from Perga of Pamphylia to Antioch of Pisidia.
Paul
and Barnabas went into the synagogue at Antioch of Pisidia and had some
success. They established a church at
Antioch of Pisidia, and then they had much more success at Iconium. They went from Iconium to Lystra and
Derbe. At Lystra they were ready to
worship them as gods, and then the Jews stirred up the multitude, and they
stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city for dead. But as the disciples were watching, he got up
and they went to Derbe. They had good
success at Derbe, and then they turned around and revisited these churches and
appointed elders in them. And so surely
those must be the churches of Galatia
that this epistle is written to.
In
regard to the time of writing, it would be logical to conclude that this
epistle would come between II Corinthians and the epistle to the Romans. Some
have concluded that Galatians was written in the late forties, but this is not logical.
The date of the Jerusalem Conference on the subject of circumcision is usually
given as 50 A.D., and it was held between the first and second journeys (Acts 15:36-16:5).
The problem over circumcision first came up in the church at Antioch of Syria
in the period between the first and second journeys, so there would have been
no need for the Epistle prior to then.
The
churches of Galatia
were not having trouble over circumcision when Paul revisited them in company
with Silas. They delivered to the churches the decrees “ordained of the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem. So the churches were strengthened in the
faith, and increased in number daily” (Acts 16:5-6). Paul
revisited them again on his third journey (Acts 18:21-23),
and there was still no problem over circumcision. On the latter part of this
third journey he stayed at Ephesus for nearly three years (Acts 19:1,19:8-10,
19:21-22), and he wrote I Corinthians during
the latter part of his stay at Ephesus ( I Corinthians 16:7-8;
Acts 20:17-18, 20:31).
He wrote II Corinthians From Macedonia (II Corinthians 2:12-13, 7:5-10,
8:1-8, 8:24-9:5).
Luke does not tell us which church in Macedonia that Paul was at when he wrote
II Corinthians, but please note that he wanted the Corinthians to have their
bounty for the poor in Jerusalem ready when he got there (Galatians 2:9-10;
II Corinthians 8:1-10, 8:23-9:6,
9:12-15; Acts 20:
1-6).
Note,
that Paul was in Greece
(Acts 20:3-6), Corinth
was the primary church in Greece,
when he left with the messengers of the churches to carry the bounty of the
Gentile churches to Jerusalem. He
probably wrote Galatians just before he wrote Romans (Romans 15:22-26, 15:30-33) and
the time would be about 57 A.D.
There
are three New Testament epistles that really give attention to the relationship
of the Old Testament law and the New Testament law in a detailed way; these are
Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews. Who
would be better prepared for that discussion than the apostle Paul, the one who
had advanced in the Jews religion beyond many of his own equal? As already stated the problem about
circumcision came up first in the church at Antioch of Syria, that first
Gentile church. Galatians 2:1-10
and the fifteenth chapter of Acts are parallel accounts concerning Paul and Barnabas
going up to Jerusalem along with
Titus to meet with the apostles and elders over whether or not circumcision and
the keeping of the law would be binding on the Gentiles. It looks like from putting the two accounts
together that there probably were three different meetings. There were at least two. In Galatians chapter two he talks about a
private meeting with those who were pillars in the church, and they were James,
Cephas, and John.
In
Acts fifteen, it looks like they had a meeting, after that private meeting,
with all of the apostles and elders. And
at that meeting, verse five, "But
there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is
needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses." And verse six, "And
the apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this
matter." Put that with verse
twenty-two, “Then it seemed good to
the apostles and elders with the whole church to choose men out of their
company and to send them to Antioch.”
So it looks like this is a meeting, not only of the apostles and elders,
but the whole church. In other words the
Pharisees were given their day in court and they lost their case. It is made very plain that circumcision and
the keeping of the law, was not to be binding on the Gentiles. Peter said, “Brethren,
ye know that a good while ago God made a choice among us (speaking of
the other apostles) that by the word
of my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe” (Acts
15:7). And
that had to do with God sending Peter to the household of Cornelius as recorded
in Acts ten. Verse ten, "Now therefore why make ye trial of
God, that ye should put a yolk upon the neck of the disciples, which neither we
nor our fathers were able to bear."
He is saying that the Old Testament law and circumcision are not to be
binding on the Gentiles. Then James, and
I think this is James, the Lord's brother, verse thirteen beginning summed up
the meeting by calling attention to the prophecy of Amos 9:11-12.
The Gentiles had salvation in Christ and Amos 9:11-12
had been fulfilled. Verse nineteen, "Wherefore
my judgment is, that we trouble not them, that from among the Gentiles turn to
God:
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from four things from the
pollutions of idols, from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from
blood."
The
Gentiles had been so much involved in idolatry that they were to abstain from
any form of idolatry. They had been so
much involved in sexual immoralities that they were to abstain from that, and
from things strangled, and from blood.
Those last two would essentially amount to the same thing, and they are
still binding on us as Christians today.
And the best passage, if you want to turn and read would be in
Leviticus, chapter seventeen beginning with verse ten, as to why the people
under the law and now under the New Testament law are not to eat blood. The life is in the flesh, and under the law
the blood of the animal was given instead of the one who had sinned. And, of course, all the blood of animals
looked forward to the time when Christ would shed his blood to make complete
atonement for sin (Hebrews 9:15-16,
10:1-10).
So through the power of his blood, there would be complete forgiveness,
and so they write a letter and tell them that certain brethren had gone out
from them subverting their souls, but they had not sent them. “To
whom we gave them no commandment”, the latter part of verse
twenty-four. They even decided to send
two of their own members to go with Paul and Barnabas to tell them in person,
Judas and Silas. So it was made just as
plain as it could be made that circumcision and the keeping of requirements of
the Old Testament law was not to be binding on Jewish Christians, or Gentile
Christians. But these willful, false
teachers continued their evil work, and they went to one church after another
that Paul and his companions in travel had established teaching this false
doctrine. And, evidently, this was after
Paul had visited those churches, counting the first time, the third time.
Look
at Acts 16:4, "And
as they went on their way through the cities." Through those cities where they had done
their work on that first journey: Antioch,
Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. "They delivered them the decrees to
keep, which had been ordained of the apostles and elders that were in Jerusalem." This was the letter that they had written,
that went first to the church at Antioch of Syria, telling them that the law
and circumcision was not binding on them and for them to just to abstain from
those four necessary things. Verse five,
"And so the churches were
strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily," and so
they are not confronted with that problem at this time. "And they went
through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden of the Holy Spirit
to preach the word in Asia."
That is the second journey.
In chapter eighteen, we read about the concluding of that second
journey. Verse twenty-one, "But taking his leave of them (from
the synagogue at Ephesus), and saying, I will return again to you
if the Lord will. He set sail from Ephesus.
And when he landed at Caesarea, he went up and saluted the church and
went down to Antioch." So that ends the second
journey.
Then
verse twenty-three is giving the beginning of the third journey. "And
having spent some time there, he departed, and went through the region of Galatia and Phrygia in order, establishing all the
disciples." This means that
he was revisiting those churches that he and Barnabas had established on that
first journey. So the truth was made as
plain as it could be made, but these were willful, false teachers, and they had
gone into those churches of Galatia
trying to bind circumcision and the keeping of certain requirements of the Old
Testament religion on them. And Paul has
learned about it evidently after he had revisited those churches on that third
journey.
Chapter
One
Now
let us move to the reading and study of the Epistle. First Paul stresses his authority as an
apostle. He is an apostle not from men
neither through man. Men didn't have
anything to do with his appointment as an apostle, but it was through Jesus
Christ and God the Father. Since they
are being led by false teachers, he needs to make it plain again that he is an
apostle with authority that he had taught them correctly. But now they are following false teachers,
and he continues with that theme of showing that they are false teachers and
that the Old Testament law saves no man.
He emphasizes that the only way of salvation is by faith in Christ. And if they went back under the Old Testament
law, then they would loose their salvation in Christ. In chapter five we read that some of them had
already lost their salvation in Christ.
Picking
up with verse six, he gets immediately into the burden of the epistle.
"I marvel that you are so quickly removing from him that called you
in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel, which is not another gospel
only there are those that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of
Christ." So these were
willful false teachers. There is a big difference between willful, false
teachers and sincere, false teachers.
There are those teachers that teach the wrong thing because they have
not come to a proper understanding, at least some. But when a man knows what the truth is on a
subject and then teaches something else, he is a willful, false teacher. But he says,
“But though we are an angel from heaven should preach unto you any gospel other
than that which we preached unto you let him be an athema." Anathema is a strong word for accursed, and
probably meaning accursed in such a way to be condemned eternally.
"As we have said before so say I now again if any man preach unto
you any gospel other than that which ye received let him be anathema. For am I now seeking the favor of men or of
God? Am I striving to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be
a servant of Christ." There
was a day when Paul pleased the unbelieving Jews, when he was persecuting the
church and making havoc of it, but he is not pleasing men now. He is pleasing God. He says if I were striving to please men, I
would not be a servant of Christ. That
does not mean that he did not try to please men in regard to things that did
not matter, but in regard to God's truth, he was preaching that which pleased
God.
Then
beginning with verse eleven, he makes it plain that the gospel that he
preached, he did not receive it from man.
He was not taught it, but it came to him “through
revelation of Jesus Christ”, verse twelve. He reminds them how that they had heard of
his manner of life, how that he had “advanced
in the Jews religion, beyond many of his own age, being more exceedingly
zealous for the traditions of my fathers’. But look at verse fifteen, "But when it was the good pleasure of
God, who separated me even from my mother's womb, and called me through his
grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles;
straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood." He did not confer with any man. Why? The gospel that he preached, he received it
by revelation. And he did not need to go
up to the apostles to learn what he was supposed to teach, but he went “away into Arabia”; "and again I returned to Damascus (1:17)." Verse 15 indicates, that God had chosen him
even from his mother's womb like God chose John the Baptist, even before he was
in his mother's womb, (Luke 1:13-17), and
going to make him an apostle.
So
Paul, after his conversion, taught at Damascus
(Acts 9:17-30),
and then went into Arabia and then again he returned to Damascus. Verse eighteen,
"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him
fifteen days. But other of the apostles
saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." Is not verse nineteen putting James the
Lord's brother on equal par with the other twelve apostles. Remember I Corinthians 15:6-7,
after the appearance of Christ at Galilee,
“to above five hundred brethren at once”, Paul said and then he appeared
to James in that forty-day period, before His ascension and evidently made him
an apostle during that forty-day period, for in verse eight, he says “and last of all, as to a child untimely
born, he appeared to me also” Christ appeared to Paul to make him an
apostle especially to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15-16,
26:14-18)
So
the Lord must have made his brother James an apostle during that forty-day
period. According to John 7:5,
his brothers did not believe on him a short time before the cross, but the
cross made all the difference (Acts 1:14), and
James was made an apostle. The James in
Gal. 2:9, “James,
Cephas, and John” who were pillars in the Jerusalem
church is very probably James, the Lord's brother. In Acts the twelfth chapter, we read of Herod
killing James, the brother of John, and when he saw it pleased the Jews, he put
Peter in jail and was going to kill him after the Passover. The time that James, the brother of John, was
put to death by Herod is usually counted to be about forty A.D., The James of
Gal.2:9 could not be James the brother of John
for he had been put to death by Herod in about 40 AD and the time of the
Jerusalem Conference was about fifty AD. And in regard to the other apostle
that was named James, the only thing that I remember said about him in the
gospel books is just the listing of him as one of the apostles, he must not
have been a leader. At the time that
James, the brother of John, was put to death, there was already another James
who was of important standing in the church, for when Peter was released by the
angel, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, (Acts 12:14-17). And when he went there, they finally went to
the gate and let him in. Verse
seventeen, "But he, beckoned
unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord
had brought him forth out of the prison.
And he said, “Tell
these things unto James, and unto the brethren." He is probably referring to James, the Lord's
brother, and to his other brothers. So
at that time, forty AD, there was already a James that was counted important in
the church, and that James is thought by many to be James the Lord's
brother. But I know that some of my
brethren are not ready to recognize him as a full-fledged apostle. But if Paul had not defended himself (I
Corinthians 9:1-2, 5:3-5;
II Corinthians 1:1, 1:23,
3:5-6, 11:5-15,
12:2, 12:7-9,
12:11-12, 13:1-2,
13:10), would we recognize him as a
full-fledged apostle?
Verse
nineteen again, "But other of
the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." "Now touching the things which I write
to you, behold, before God, I lie not.
Then I came into the region of Syria and Cilicia; and I was still unknown by face unto the
churches of Judea which were in Christ." Now, if you follow with the account in
Acts 9:23-30, Paul was disputing with the
Grecian Jews, and they were about to kill him.
And the brethren sent him on his way to his home in Tarsus of Cilicia,
and he was in Tarsus of Cilicia when Barnabas went over there to get him to
help him in the work at Antioch of Syria.
So that is what he is talking about.
"Then I came into the
region of Syria and Cilicia (1:21)." This statement very strongly indicates that
Paul had already done a lot of missionary work before those journeys recorded
by Luke. "And I was still unknown by face unto
the churches of Judea which were in Christ:
but they only heard say, He that once persecuted us now preacheth the
faith of which he once made havoc. And
they glorified God in me."
Do you remember the latter part of Acts chapter seven, when the first
martyr Steven was stoned? Those who
stoned him “laid down their clothes
at a young man's feet whose name was Saul.” And devout men, Acts eight, buried
Stephen. “And
as for Saul, he had made havoc of the church committing both men and women to
prison”.
Chapter Two
"Then after the space of fourteen
years (fourteen years after the three years of 1:18), I went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas taking Titus also with
me." Paul, evidently, used
his own good wisdom in that matter.
Titus was a Gentile and had not been circumcised, and Paul was ready for
him to be made a test case. "And
I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately
before them who were of repute."
And this is what I was talking about a while ago. It looks like to me there were three
meetings. Verses six through nine tell
us about those false teachers. "Lest by any means I should be running,
or had run, in vain. But not even Titus,
who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
And that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in
privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might
bring us into bondage."
Meaning into bondage to the Old Testament law. And so Paul says these brethren are false
brethren. And, you might say, they
sneaked in for a purpose, and that was to bring those Gentile brethren in those
Gentile churches in bondage to the Old Testament law.
Notice
what Paul and Barnabas did when the false teachers first came to that church at
Antioch and started teaching that
false doctrine. "To whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not
for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you." Sometimes we see a different spirit in the
church today. There are those that say,
we need to just show our love and go slow about this matter. True, they are not teaching correctly, but let's
turn them around by continuing to show our sincere love to them. Now, if they are teaching wrong sincerely,
that's one thing, but if they are willfully teaching false doctrine they must
be reproved immediately, and even if they are doing it sincerely, there is
still a place to show them, and to show them immediately, and if they are
teaching sincerely, they will immediately turn, but when you are dealing with
willful, false teachers, they are not likely to turn. And so Paul and Barnabas did not give them
space for one hour. Verse five, "To whom we gave place in the way of
subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue
with you." If Paul and
Barnabas had not stood up for the truth, we Gentile Christians today might be
submitting to fleshly circumcision as a religious ordinance. "But
from those who were reputed to be somewhat.
(James, Cephas, and John)
whosoever they were, it maketh no matter to me:
God accepteth not man's person:
they I say who were of repute imparted nothing to me." Now he had been preaching for how many
years? Seventeen years, and they had not
given him any instruction, and so they who were of repute imparted nothing to
me. They didn't give me any knowledge or
instruction that I had not already received by the Holy Spirit.
Verse
seven "But contrariwise, when
they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision (to
the Gentile people). Even as Peter with the gospel of the
circumcision." Peter was
chosen as an apostle especially to the Jews.
"For he that wrought for
Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought for me also unto the Gentiles; and when they perceived
the grace that was given unto me: James, Cephas, and John. They who were reputed to be pillars gave to
me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship." That showed their approval, "that we should go unto the Gentiles
and they unto the circumcision."
The work of the other twelve apostles would be primarily, and also
including James, unto the Jewish people.
But Paul and Barnabas would be going primarily to the Gentile people. "Only
that we would remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do (2:10)."
Paul
and Barnabas had already had some part in remembering the poor in Judea.
In the latter part of Acts chapter eleven, when the prophet Agabus went to
that Gentile church and told them a famine was coming, every man according to
his ability was determined to send relief.
And they sent relief by the hands of Paul and Barnabas to the elders of
the church in Jerusalem. So he had already had a part in that, and he
was surely zealous in taking up collections for the poor in Judea
from all those Gentile churches.
"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face because he
stood condemned." This
would be after the meeting at Jerusalem as recorded in Acts chapter fifteen,
from this we see that even though the apostles were guided into all truth by
the Holy Spirit, (John 16:7-15) the Holy
Spirit did not make them do right. And
here Peter did wrong! How? "For
before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they
came, he drew back and separated himself fearing them that were of the
circumcision." That matter
of trying to bind circumcision and the keeping of the law must have been very
strong among the Jewish brethren in Jerusalem
and Judea. And it
seems that there went about those that were making it appear that James
approved of such a thing. But remember
that James wrote that letter, or led in the writing of that letter in which
they said, that they didn't receive commandment from us. Well, did Peter do wrong here? Yes, he did.
Now, he may have not understood when he said on that day of Pentecost, “repent and be baptized, every one of you
in the name of Jesus Christ for, or unto, the remission of sins. And ye shall receive to the gift of the Holy
Spirit for the promise is unto you and to them that are far off even as many as
the Lord our God shall call”. He
may not have understood that it was talking about Gentile people, when he gave
that instruction “to them that are
far off”, were the Gentile people.
But in Acts ten, you remember in respect to Cornelius, he received in a
vision of a sheet let down from heaven, with all manner of beasts and creeping
things on it and a voice saying to him, “Rise
Peter, kill and eat. And Peter said, not
so Lord, nothing common or unclean has entered into my mouth”. But he was given instruction; do not call
Gentile people unclean. You go and teach
those people. And so Peter went to the
household of Cornelius. And if you read
Acts chapter ten, you can see that he understood that God had shown him how
that the Gentile people were not to be counted as unclean. And then at that Jerusalem
meeting he said, “Why put a yoke
upon the Gentiles which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear”,
referring to the Old Testament law. But
here he separates from the Gentiles, and the other Jews are carried away with
his conduct. So Peter became weak on
this occasion with that peer pressure. "And the rest of the Jews dissembled
likewise with him; even so much, even Barnabas was carried away with their
dissimulation." Think of
this in regard to the matter of the differences back yonder a few decades ago,
the differences between the black people and the white people, and some white
people would have good fellowship with the blacks until they were around
certain brethren, and then they would be ready to separate from them.
Verse
fourteen, "But when I saw that
they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto
Cephas before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and
not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the
Jews." What does he mean by
that question? "Thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentile." Peter was living as the Gentiles in
the sense that he fully understood that they were no longer under the Old
Testament law, and that he expected his salvation on the basis of his faith in
Christ as set forth there in that speech that he made in Acts fifteen. The
Gentiles were being saved, by the hearing of faith. "So
if thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles." The Gentile Christians, who had been taught
properly, knew that their salvation was by faith in Christ. And Peter knew that. "And
not as do the Jews." Those
Jews who were still trying to live according to the Old Testament law. "How
compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" By his conduct, he was giving a way for these
false teachers to continue their evil work.
And he deserved the rebuke from Paul.
And again this shows the authority of Paul. He was not a “whit
behind the very chiefest apostles”. (II Corinthians 11:15)
"But we being Jews by nature,
and not sinners of the Gentiles." Here
he is somewhat explaining what he meant by the question. "Yet
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but through faith
in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified
by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law:
Because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." So no flesh was justified or saved, by the
Old Testament law.
Now,
it did provide a way of temporary forgiveness. If you read the first five chapters of the
book of Leviticus, about the various sacrifices that they were to make and the
kind of animals that were to be used in making those sacrifices you will be
impressed. When a person learned that he had sinned, he was to take the animal
that the law specified to the place where the tabernacle was, and it was at Shiloh
for about three hundred or more years.
And there at the place of the burnt altar, he was to lay his hands upon
the head of the animal. Surely,
conveying to him that I am the one that deserves to die, but the animal, I can
offer in my stead. With his hand on the
head of the animal, he was then to kill the animal, and then the priest took
over and sprinkled the blood and did all the things that the law required in
regard to the work of the priest. And
when a sinner did that, he received temporary forgiveness. And then they had the day of annual
atonement, Leviticus chapter sixteen, on the tenth day of the seventh month was
the day of annual atonement when the high priest went into the most holy place
of the tabernacle to make atonement for himself and for his family and then for
all the people. Do you remember about
the two goats used to make atonement on that day? One was killed and the high priest to make
atonement in the Most Holy Place
used its blood. Then the other goat the high priest confessed the sins of the
people over and then that scapegoat was carried forth into the wilderness
immediately, symbolically saying to the people that our sins are carried
away. Even the person that carried that
scapegoat was unclean as a result of his carrying that goat into the
wilderness. But, anyway, they received
temporary forgiveness but not complete forgiveness. And again think how Paul, or the writer of
Hebrews, deals with this in Hebrews 9:14-16
and 10:1-10.
In
verse seventeen Paul says, "But
if, while we be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, is
Christ a minister of sin? God
forbid." By Peter's conduct,
he was giving way to this false doctrine for them to run headlong in binding
circumcision and the requirements of the law on the Gentiles.
"For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I proved
myself a transgressor." Is
Paul saying, Peter you have transgressed against the law of Christ? "For
I through the law died unto the law, that I might live unto God. I have been crucified with Christ:
And it is no longer I that live; but Christ liveth in me:
And that life which I now live in the flesh, I live in faith, the faith
which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me. I do not make void the grace of God:
For if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for naught (1:19-21)." So righteousness did not come through the Old
Testament Law. And when you read here, “I have been crucified with Christ”,
he means I have put to death the old man of the flesh by my obedience to
Christ. I do not live according to the way of the flesh any longer; I live like
Christ wants me to live.
With
many passages in the New Testament like this from Paul himself, how could you
rightly reason that in the seventh chapter of the book of Romans beginning with
verse fourteen that he is talking about himself as a Christian, when he says in
substance, what I want to do, I can not do; and what I do not want to do, that
I do, I am carnal sold unto sin. He is speaking of himself, or as a Jew in the flesh
under the Old Testament law.
Chapter three
"O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch
you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified." This does not mean that these Gentile people
in these churches far removed from Jerusalem
were in Jerusalem, and had with
their own eyes witnessed the crucifixion of Christ. But Paul and Barnabas had preached those
primary facts of the gospel to them, the death, the burial, and the
resurrection of Christ. Thus Paul in his teaching had then set forth in his
preaching Christ crucified. Remember in
the second chapter of I Corinthians, "For
I determined to know nothing among you, save Jesus Christ and him
crucified." "This only would I
learn from you. Received ye the Spirit. (The Holy Spirit), by the works of the law, or by the hearing
of faith." The question is a
rhetorical question, carrying an automatic answer to these people. They knew
that they had received the Holy Spirit by obedience to the New Testament law.
Acts 2:38
reads, "And ye shall receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit," Acts 5:32
says that God gives his Holy Spirit “to
them that obey him”. And so they
had obeyed Christ, and they had received a gift of the Holy Spirit when they
obeyed. I think I am right in saying
that the Contemporary English Version capitalizes the law here, showing that it
is definitely talking about the Old Testament law. "Are
ye so foolish, having begun in the spirit, are you now perfected in the
flesh?"
One
of the primary differences between the Old Testament law and the New Testament
law as set forth in the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31
beginning and then is quoted in Hebrews the eighth chapter. Under the Old
Testament law when a child was born into a Jewish family, he was automatically
counted as a part of the commonwealth
of Israel. When he was old enough for the parents to
teach him, they were to teach him on every occasion: “When thou sittest in thy house and when thou
walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.”
(Deuteronomy 6:7) But under the New Testament law, there must
be a new birth that Jesus talked to Nicodemus about. And Jesus said in John 6:45,
"It is written in the prophets
they all shall be taught of God, and whosoever therefore that hath heard and
have learned cometh unto me."
John 6:45
is a quotation from Isaiah 54:13. It is talking about the new Israel of God,
which is the church, that there is a new birth involved. So are you so foolish having begun in the
Spirit and by a new spiritual birth, are you now perfected in the flesh? Do you think a law that left man in the flesh
can perfect you?
They
did not receive any complete forgiveness back there! Of course, those who died in covenant
relationship with God, by keeping the requirements of the law and offering up
the animal sacrifices, when Christ died on the cross his blood reached back and
completely cleansed them. Hebrews 9:15
reads, "that
a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions of those
that were under the first”. “Did you
suffer so many things in vain? If it be
indeed in vain." (3:4) He is saying that all of these
things that you have suffered in the name of Christ, it is going to be in vain
if you go back under the law. It would be in vain as set forth in chapter
five. They would be in a lost condition
if they went back under the law. "He therefore that supplieth to you the
Spirit, and worketh miracles among you doeth he it by the works of the law or
by the hearing of faith (3:5)!" Paul by the laying on his hands could bestow
those miraculous gifts on others (Acts 8:14-24;
I Timothy 1:6; I Corinthians 1:7,
9: 1-4, 12:4-11). And so, evidently, in all those churches, he
had given miraculous gifts to brethren in those churches. And so he is talking about those and the
working miracles among them. Surely, they understood what he was talking
about.
"Even as Abraham believed in God, and
it was reckoned unto him for righteousness." That is a very important statement there that
Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. It is
used here in Galatians 3:6, and it is also
used by James in the second chapter of James, and by Paul again in the fourth
chapter of the epistle to the Romans.
What
was the occasion? God had told Abraham
when he first called him, Genesis 12:1-3, "Leave thy country and thy father's
house and go unto the land that I will show thee and I will bless thee, ----and
in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed." God had given him that promise when Abraham
lived in Mesopotamia.
Abraham had made that long journey from the Ur
of the Chaldees to Haran (Gen. 11:31;
Acts 7:1-5) and after his father died, the
Lord told him to go into the land of Canaan. He had been in the land
of Canaan, I believe, about ten
years when God appeared to him. And
Abraham said to God, “What will thou
give me seeing I go childish, and he that is born in my house shall be mine
heir, Eliezer of Damascus”.
Eliezer was a slave that had been born in Abraham's house, and Abraham
is saying, Lord if you don't give me any children, he will be my heir. God said, “He
will not be thine heir. He that cometh
forth from thine own bowels shall be thine heir.” And he told him to go out and look up, and
see if he could number the stars. And he
said, “So shall thy seed be.” Meaning, of course, Abraham your seed are
going to be innumerable. And thus we
read in Genesis 15:6, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for
righteousness.” So he is saying
Abraham was saved by his great faith.
And not only did Abraham have great faith like that to believe that God
would keep his promise, but remember Genesis chapter twenty-two when God told
him to take his son, Isaac, and offer him on an altar on that mountain three
day's journey in distance, and Abraham was ready to do exactly as God said on
that occasion.
"Know therefore that they that are of
the faith, the same are the sons of Abraham." Who are the sons of Abraham
today? All of those who walk by faith,
Jews or Gentiles. When the angel,
Gabriel, appeared to Mary and told her that she was going to have a child and
that his name would be great and God shall give him the throne his father,
David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and for his kingdom
there shall be no end (Luke 1:26-33). Christ is reigning over his kingdom, which is
his church (Mt. 16:13-18),
and it consists of Jews and Gentiles. In
other words Jews and Gentiles that have believed on Christ make up the new
Israel of God. A lot of people get
confused and they confuse old fleshly Israel
with the new Israel of God.
Verse
seven, "Knowing therefore that
they are faith (that includes
every Christian) the same are the
sons of Abraham." In a
spiritual sense every Christian is a Jew.
He is of the seed of Abraham. He
is a part of the Israel of God. Romans 2:
28 says, "For he is not a Jew
who is outward in the flesh; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in
the flesh:
But he is a Jew, who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart,
and not of the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." The next class will begin with Galatians 3:8.