Galatians 2:1-5

2:1 “Then after fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem again with Barnabas, taking Titus along too.”

"Paul is omitting nothing material to his argument--in particular, ... He is omitting no visit to Jerusalem or other contact with the church there or its leaders" (Bruce, 106).

Read Acts 11:27-30 (Here.). Paul and Barnabas went from Antioch to Jerusalem with a gift for the church, because a severe famine had been predicted. This famine took place in 45 to 46 AD. So, this could well have taken place as early as 44 AD. Paul probably took this opportunity to speak with the elders and apostles in Jerusalem about the message that had been given to him.

Now, Stephen was stoned between 31 and 34 AD. We add the three years from his conversion to his first visit and then fourteen more. That is seventeen years. If we add seventeen to thirty-one, we get forty-eight. If we add seventeen to thirty-four, we get fifty-one.

The first figure is right around the end of the First Missionary Journey, while the second figure is after the Jerusalem Council and roughly in the middle of the Second Missionary Journey. The first figure could kind of work, but the second seems way off.

There are two factors that we haven't considered, though:
First: Any part of a year could be counted as a whole year, in Jewish reckoning. So, the three years could have been one year, with part of another year on each side. The same with the fourteen would give twelve years with part of another on each side. The total then could be as little as thirteen years and a few days, or say a round figure of about fourteen years.

Ok. That would give us thirty-one plus fourteen, which would be forty-five. Now, Paul and Barnabas were not yet on the First Missionary Journey at this point. This would also have been a good time for Paul and Barnabas to have taken the aid that had been collected to Jerusalem. So, 45 AD. Is an option here. If we take thirty-four and add fourteen, we get forty-eight. This is at the end of the First Missionary Journey at about the time of the Jerusalem Council. Now, this could work, but Paul and Barnabas were sent with aid for the famine. This makes sense if the famine lasted longer than 45 to 46 AD as some believe. Polhill gives the most likely date for the famine as 46 AD (274-276).

Second: What if Paul, instead, means after he had been preaching for fourteen years? In that case, the three years wouldn’t be added to the total. Again, what we considered above still counts. So, this could have been a minimum of twelve years with part of a year on each side.

 

Ok. Thirty-one plus twelve gives us forty-three. This seems to be too early for Paul's second trip to Jerusalem. Thirty-four plus twelve gives us forty-six.

We now have two ways for the years given in Galatians to get us to the year 46 AD. So, in 46 AD, Paul and Barnabas could have taken the famine aid down to Jerusalem, and met with the apostles and elders in secret while they were there. Then, upon returning to Antioch, they could have been commissioned to go on their First Missionary Journey. This confluence of things would make sense. Paul makes sure his message is appropriate. Paul gets commissioned to journey. Paul then goes on his First Missionary Journey. I definitely prefer this explanation, at this point.

Witherington believes that all of this took place a little later. He thinks that Paul's second visit to Jerusalem took place in 48 AD. He places the First Missionary Journey within the year of 48 AD. Then, the Jerusalem Council sometime in 49 AD (Witherington, Acts, 83).

The exact timeframe of these events does depend upon when the famine hit Judea, when the aid was collected, and when Paul and Barnabas were sent with it.

2:2 “I went there because of a revelation”

The revelation that he is speaking of could be concerning the gospel message he had been given. However, this could also be because of the prophecy that Agabus gave that there would be a famine. This prophecy was the reason that Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem at that time. Either of these possibilities is plausible.

"When Paul speaks of revelation he sometimes is referring to something received by means of a vision ..., but he also believed revelation came through prophecy ..., and there is no reason why this could not be the case in this instance. If this is so, the Paul would probably be referring to a prophecy directed to him and perhaps also to Barnabas and Titus (and perhaps others) that they needed to go up to Jerusalem for some reason. This conclusion comports with the thesis that Paul is alluding to the episode recorded in Acts 11:27-30 in which Agabus a prophet form Jerusalem came to Antioch and revealed there would be a severe famine, which prompted the disciples to send relief funds to the Christians in Judea by means of Barnabas and Saul. It also comports with what Paul says in Gal. 2.10, namely that he was asked by the Jerusalem leaders to continue to remember the poor, something he was already eager to do. In other words, this last verse implies that part of the purpose of the trip referred to in 2.1-10 was to aid the poor, and Paul promised to continue this charitable work .... No doubt too, Paul wants his own Galatian audience to know that he did not go up to Jerusalem because he was summoned by the leaders there, but rather because of a prompting from God" (Witherington, Grace, 132).

"and presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles"

Whichever reason Paul was in Jerusalem, he took advantage of the time.

"Notice that Paul speaks of the 'Gospel I preach' (present tense) not 'the Gospel I preached'. He is making a claim that he has not changed his mission or message along the way, a point highly relevant for his Galatian audience who needed to be able to trust that Paul's message had not changed through the years, and that what they had heard and believed was not different from what other converts to Christianity had heard and believed" (Witherington, Grace, 133).

"But I did so only in private meeting with the influential people, to make sure that I was not running - or had not run - in vain."

"What Paul was concerned about was not the validity of his gospel (of which he had divine assurance) but its practicability. His commission was not derived from Jerusalem, but it could not be executed effectively except in fellowship with Jerusalem. A cleavage between his Gentile mission and the mother-church would be disastrous: Christ would be divided, and all the energy which Paul had devoted, and hoped to devote, to the evangelizing of the Gentile world would be frustrated" (Bruce, 111).

In other words, Paul was wanting to make sure that they were on the same page.

2:3 "Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek."

At this point, Peter had already gone to Cornelius’s house and the church was aware that God was accepting the Gentiles. So, it is not strange that Paul’s message was accepted at this time. Peter would have been a major contributor in this respect, as he was the leader of the Apostles. Read Acts 11:1-18 (Here.).

Summary:
Right after the events at Cornelius’s house, when Peter returned to Jerusalem, people were upset.

Peter explains that in a vision, God had said that anything He had made clean shouldn’t be called unclean.

Immediately, three Gentiles came to the house where Peter was and asked him to accompany them. God told him to go with them. Six other brothers went along.

Peter began to preach in Cornelius’s house, and everyone was baptized in the Holy Spirit and began to speak in tongues. The Jewish brothers were all shocked!

The leaders of the church then acknowledged, “So then, God has granted the repentance that leads to life even to the Gentiles.”

So, there was already a precedent established through Peter that the Gentiles had been accepted by God, without circumcision.

Now, the fact that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised is important. “Do you remember how I mentioned Titus accompanied us to Jerusalem? He is a Greek and he wasn’t circumcised! Then why would you have to be?”

 

"Titus is not just exhibit A for the Jerusalem church, Paul is using him as a paradigm for the Galatians as well, as if the Jerusalem church leaders would say the same things about and to the Galatians that they had said about and to Titus on this occasion" (Witherington, Grace, 135).

2:4 "Now this matter arose because of the false brothers with false pretenses who slipped in unnoticed to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, to make us slaves."

“false brothers” These are people who may have outwardly looked like fellow Christians, but Paul does not believe that they are.

"[I]n the eyes of some, perhaps most, Jewish Christians they were genuine believers. Paul, however, does not acknowledge them as genuine believers; in his eyes they were counterfeits, for whom true gospel liberty means nothings" (Bruce, 112).

Perhaps these are Jews who decided to oppose the church in a different manner than Paul had been. Perhaps they truly were saved themselves, but because of national pride had come to believe that people must convert to Judaism first, to be saved. Either way, this conflicts with what God had already revealed to the Church through Peter and Cornelius.

“who slipped in unnoticed to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus”

“This freedom characterizes the life which springs from the gospel of free grace; in this atmosphere of freedom a Gentile believer can associate with Jewish believers, even in Jerusalem, without any one’s raising the question of circumcision …” (Bruce, 112).

“to make us slaves.” Remember, the Law is not evil; the Law is good. However, we cannot be saved by observing the Law. This is what Paul is objecting to! The Judaizers are implying that everyone has to follow the Law to be saved or that the Law has to be added to Grace.

2:5 "But we did not surrender to them even for a moment, in order that the truth of the gospel would remain with you."

“But we did not surrender to them” This issue is so important that there could be no giving ground. The true gospel was at stake. If the Judaizers win, Christianity dies! Again, this was not an assault upon the Law. It was quite permissible for Jews who learned that the Messiah had come to remain Jewish! This was not the issue!

"The true gospel proclaimed that justification and the reception of the Spirit were gifts of God's grace, bestowed on all who believed in Jesus, Jews and Gentiles alike, regardless of legal requirements. To have yielded an inch to those who were demanding the circumcision of Gentile converts would have denied the law-free character of the gospel" (Bruce, 115).

Everyone who is saved, whether Jew or Gentile, is saved by grace through faith. Outward conformity to the Law cannot save anyone.

All scripture quotations, except if embedded in another quote, are from the NET. This can be found online at http://net.bible.org/

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982.

Polhill, John B. The New American Commentary: Volume 26: Acts. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992.

Witherngton III, Ben. The Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.

Witherngton III, Ben. Grace in Galatia. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.

Galatians 1:18-24

1:18 "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and get information from him, and I stayed with him fifteen days." Paul (or Saul as he was known then) went for three years upon the revelation that had been given him before seeking out Peter. In other words, the basis of his preaching was never based on the authority of Peter nor any of the other Apostles or the leaders of the Jerusalem church. This is important because of events that will take place in the next chapter.

In Acts 29 passage that we read last time, the visit to Jerusalem seems to take place right away. (See Acts 9:23-30. Here.) However, here we see that this did not take place until three years later. These were not empty years! Paul continued to minister during this time.

"If this period began at the end of the first calendar year and ended ear4ly in the beginning of the third calendar year, the amount of time could even be less than two full years. The question really is what is the point of reference from which Paul is reckoning this passing of time. From his conversion? From the time of his return to Damascus? In all likelihood it is the former, and so we cannot tell precisely how long Paul spent either in Arabia or in Damascus" (Witherington, 118-9).

Paul had been preaching in Damascus, until people tried to kill him. Acts 9:23-30. We will see below that Paul didn’t meet with all of the apostles and elders at that time. This is also when Paul and Barnabas first become associates.

Cephas is a transliteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic kefa. This is likely the nickname that Peter was given by Jesus. Peter comes from petros, which is the Greek equivalent. Both of these mean, “a rock,” or “a stone.” Peter’s name is, in fact, Shimon, which means, “he has heard” in Hebrew. In Greek, there was no sh sound, so Peter’s name is given as Simon. Since Simon was a popular name, his nickname was also often given. Thus, he is often known as Simon Peter in the Gospels. This pinpointed which Simon was meant. Eventually he became known just as Peter, after the gospel had spread outside of the regions of Judea and Galilee.

“It was important for Paul to get to know the leader of the original apostles, who was also at that time the unchallenged leader of the Jerusalem church” (Bruce, 98).

1:19 "But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother." Notice here that 'apostles' appears with a little 'a'. James was not one of the Twelve, even though he was a very important figure in the Jerusalem Church. In our way of speaking, James was Jesus' half-brother. This speaks against the Roman Catholic tradition that Mary remained a virgin.

Here, James’s name is given as “James the Lord’s brother.” This is because there was more than one James in the New Testament. The name James is the same as Jacob. The name has become James in English via passage through various languages before reaching modern English. Of course, we still have the name Jacob as well. But, as with Shimon, Jacob was a very popular name at the time.

Can you imagine how hard it could be to find someone? “Hey, I’m looking for Simon. Have you seen him?” “Which one? I know thirty Simons.”

In such a case, how would you distinguish between so many people with the same name? Well, you would give additional description. If someone was from a distinct place, then you could give their town as part of their name. For instance, Joseph of Arimathea would distinguish that Joseph from thousands of others in Judea and Galilee. Political affiliation could be used, as in the case of Simon the Zealot. A nickname could be used, as in the case of Simon Peter. The name of a relative could be used, as in James the brother of Jesus and James son of Alphaeus. Or a title could be included, as in Annas the high priest. Another example that we see from Scripture is Matthew the tax collector, where a job distinguishes the man from others of the same name.

Most popular male Jewish names of Judea and Galilee around the time of Jesus:

	Name	Biblical Example(s)
1.	Simon/Simeon	Simon Peter, Simon the Zealot
2.	Joseph/Joses	Joseph of Arimathea, Joseph called Barsabbas
3.	Lazarus/Eleazar	Lazarus from Bethany (brother of Mary and Martha)
4.	Judas/Judah	Judas Iscariat, Judas son of James
5.	John	James and John, John the Baptizer
6.	Jesus/Joshua	Jesus of Nazareth
7.	Ananias/Hananiah	Ananias and Saphira
8.	Jonathan
9.	Matthew/Matthias	Matthew the tax collector
10.	Manaen/Menahem
11.	James/Jacob	James and John, James the brother of Jesus
12.	Annas/Hanan	Annas the high priest
13.	Ishmael
14.	Saul	Saul of Tarsus

(Taken from Table 6 of Bauckham.)
 

Notice that Jesus is sixth in the list, while Joseph is second. There would have been many, many men named Jesus son of Joseph. There was a video put out not long ago about finding the tomb of Jesus. In the tomb, they found an inscription of “Jesus son of Joseph.” Also in the tomb, they found an inscription of “Mary.” Guess what the most popular female name for that time was? Mary. So, finding the three names Jesus, Joseph, and Mary together is not that extraordinary. They had found the tomb of a Jesus, but not of the Jesus. I believe it was a video from National Geographic called "The Lost Tomb of Jesus?". Of course, they made a big deal of it, but they were wrong about the possibility of this being Jesus.

1:20 "I assure you that, before God, I am not lying about what I am writing to you!"

Paul emphasizes that this is the truth, indicating that he had not sat at the apostles’ feet to learn all of these things. But, we may be able to discern some of the things that he heard from Peter and James.

Read 1 Cor 15:1-11. (See here.) This is a very brief account of the gospel. This summary was undoubtedly given to Paul by Peter and James. If you will notice, Cephas and James are the only names specifically mentioned in the passage, which is why we think it comes from Peter and James. This passage contains what is considered to be the earliest recorded Christian creed, preceding the writing of all four Gospels.

Paul did not receive all of his teaching from these two, though. Read 1 Cor. 11:23-26. (See here.) Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians on the proper manner to take communion must have come directly from Jesus. Whether this was during the first revelation on the Damascus road or another is not important.

All of this is to emphasize Paul’s independence from anyone expect Jesus. Why do you think that is? The book doesn’t specifically say, but what if people had been claiming that Paul had gotten all of his learning from the apostles and elders in Jerusalem? What if they were also claiming that Paul had distorted this teaching and that they had the actual truth?

“Hey, you know Paul? Well, he’s all messed up. He can’t even remember what he was told. We just came from James, and we have the real, authoritative teaching!” Paul could easily have been combating some such claim. This is probably why he is so adamant that his teaching does not come from the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, but rather, is from Jesus Himself.

1:21-24 "Afterward I went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia. But I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They were only hearing, 'The one who once persecuted us is now proclaiming the good news of the faith he once tried to destroy.' So they glorified God because of me."

This kind of goes over the same ground we covered for 1:17. The believers were ecstatic that Paul had become a follower of the way he had previously been trying to destroy. They glorified God who had caused such change in an enemy of the gospel.

All scripture quotations, except if embedded in another quote, are from the NET. This can be found online at http://net.bible.org/

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982.

Witherngton III, Ben. Grace in Galatia. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.

Galatians 1:11-17

1:11-12 "Now I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. For I did not receive it or learn it from any human source; instead I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

 

These two verses reflect the purpose of Gal. 1:11-2:14. Paul's purpose here is to show that the gospel is not of human origin. It comes from God. (See Witherington, 90-1.)

Paul again proclaims that his authority is not from men, but from God. How did Paul receive his message and his authority? (Read Acts 9:1-22. Acts 9 )

 

Summary:

Paul is heading to Damascus. He has authority from the High Priest to cause trouble for the believers there.

Jesus appears in a vision. Notice, Paul, or Saul as he was known then, was so stubborn and convinced that he was right, that Jesus had to appear to him personally! “Saul, come on man! Stop opposing the gospel!”

After the vision, he is blind. For three days he sits in physical darkness, but his spiritual darkness has been pierced by the light of the vision he had experienced. He is so overcome by the truth that he won’t even eat or drink. He is blind, but it is only now that he is truly beginning to see.

Three days later, God sends a man to pray for Saul. His physical blindness is healed. Saul's salvation takes place here, or he was saved during his days of blindness.

Saul goes forth with the same determination he had before, but this time for the cause of the gospel.

"It is plain throughout Paul's letters that what happened on the Damascus road was no isolated mystical experience, no mere 'flash of insight or intellectual conviction, but a personal encounter, the beginning of a personal relationship which became the dominating passion of his life…'" (Bruce, 89).

“This is the most powerful argument, the main hinge on which the question turns, that he has not received the gospel from me, but rather it has been revealed to him by God” (Calvin).

"The family language which he [Paul] uses here is not just conciliatory but it makes clear a fundamental conviction of Paul's. That conviction is this - that the family of God is composed on the basis of faith, not heredity or other factors. Those whom Paul considers brothers and sisters in Christ are those who share the same faith in Christ and what he accomplished through his death and resurrection" (Witherington, 91).

1:13 "For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism, how I was savagely persecuting the church of God and trying to destroy it."

Paul starts his story by re-iterating what the people already knew. Paul had begun as an opponent to the gospel! (Read Acts 8:1-3. Acts 8 )

At the time of Paul’s conversion, he was headed to Damascus, planning to spread persecution of the church to that city. He had already attended the stoning of Stephen. Paul was entering the houses of Christians all over Jerusalem, and dragging people off to prison. As we saw above, God had to do something pretty dramatic to get Paul’s attention.

“Paul’s converts might have heard something about his former career as a persecutor from his own lips, but it [is] plain from the sequel that others were circulating reports about him—reports which he regards as deliberately disparaging and which he rebuts from his own first-hand testimony” (Bruce, 90).

Also, we have here a distinction that will make itself known throughout this book, between Judaism and the church of God. "In Paul's view Jew and Gentile united in Christ are the assembly of God, not merely in continuity with the assembly of God. This entity must be distinguished from 'Judaism'" (Witherington, 99).

1:14 "I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my nation, and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my ancestors."

Paul recounts his life as a Pharisee. He was extremely dedicated to the traditions of Judaism. He was a Pharisee of the Pharisees. He did not lightly depart from this. (Read Phil 3:2-11. Phil 3 )

Summary:
Others are boasting in the flesh? Well, if that counts for anything, let’s see how I stack up.

Circumcised on the eighth day, in accordance with the Law.

Of Israel, from the tribe of Benjamin. Hebrew to the core.

I kept the Law as a Pharisee. You know how many additional regulations that entails, don’t you?

I was so zealous for the God of our fathers that I began to persecute the church, because I thought they were perverting Judaism.

I had all of the external regulations in line. I made sure that I didn’t mess that up.

But, all of that was worthless!

1:15 "But when the one who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace was pleased"

Paul was convinced that God had called him from birth and prepared him for the ministry that he would later have. This reminds me of the call of Jeremiah. (See Jeremiah 1:4- 10. Jer 1 ) Paul’s learning as a Pharisee gave him a great depth of understanding, once Jesus revealed to him the truth of the gospel.

Pharisee comes from the Aramaic word for “separated.” It is an interesting contrast here, Paul’s former separation which he advanced himself, with the separation that came by God’s will. However, it is unlikely that the Galatians would have caught this. (i.e. They probably didn’t speak Aramaic or Hebrew.)

“This language is strongly reminiscent of that in which some of the OT prophets relate their calls. Jer. 1:5, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations’” (Bruce, 92). The calling of Isaiah is in Is. 49:1-6 where he relates that he was called from the womb. (Is 49 )

1:16 "to reveal his Son in me so that I could preach him among the Gentiles, I did not go to ask advice from any human being"

Paul had received multiple revelations from the Lord, while the Judaizers could only depend upon human authority. Ironically, the authority that they claimed wasn’t theirs. We will deal with this more in the next chapter. But, people had come from James to Antioch. They were not sent by James to require the Gentiles to be circumcised, though!

He seems to be saying, “They think they have revelation. Let me tell you about revelation!”

“[T]he bankruptcy of the law and the all-sufficiency of Christ came home to him all at once. Knowledge of the law was the prerogative of the Jews, but if salvation was bestowed by grace (as it was now bestowed to Paul) and not on the ground of law-keeping, then it was accessible to Gentiles equally with Jews” (Bruce, 93).

After all, to truly follow the Law, one would have to be Jewish. However, since Salvation is “by Grace through Faith,” Gentiles can take advantage of it as well!

"[T]he distinctive aspects of Paul's Gospel were not received by consultation with any human beings" (Witherington, 116). But this is exactly where the Judaizers would have to have received their "gospel".

1:17 "nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before me, but right away I departed to Arabia, and then returned to Damascus."

After Paul had fled from Damascus, he did not go to Jerusalem to consult with the other apostles and elders. At that time, they probably wouldn’t have accepted him. It was only later, after he had established himself as a minister of the gospel and truly demonstrated his changed life that he gained acceptance in other places. (See Acts 9:23-30. Acts 19 )

“Apostleship for Paul is mission, with the implication of direct commissioning” (Bruce, 95). This would explain Paul’s inclusive use of the term apostle for many beyond the Twelve and himself.

 

All scripture quotations, except if embedded in another quote, are from the NET. This can be found online at http://net.bible.org/

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982.

Calvin, John. Commentary on Galatians and Ephesians. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom41.iii.iii.iii.html

 

Witherington III, Ben. Grace in Galatia. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.

Galatians 1:6-10

1:6a “I am astonished” Paul finds it astounding and disappointing that the Galatians would exchange the gospel for the Law, when the Law was never able to save. Every Old Testament figure who received salvation was saved by faith, even those under the Law. The gospel was not an add-on to the Law. Christ’s sacrifice has always been the source of Salvation.

Heb 11 is called "the faith chapter". How does this fit in with salvation? As was already mentioned, all of the Old Testament saints were saved by faith as well. It is not as if the method of salvation changed with Jesus' death. Jesus' death was not the backup plan. It was not a fallback position. It was the plan from the very beginning. And everyone who was saved before Jesus' death was saved on the basis that Jesus' would die and pay the penalty. Likewise, now everyone is saved on the basis of Jesus' death, which paid our penalty. He paid for all of our sins. Not just for the ones that we committed before we came to Him. He died for the sins that we commit after we have been saved as well! Otherwise, we would all be doomed!
 
“that you are deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ” The one that Paul mentions is not himself, but rather God the Father. In turning to the Law, they were abandoning not just the gospel, but also God.

"The Galatians are at a crossroads and Paul speaks passionately to try to show them how to go forward in their Christian lives. This rhetorical piece is not about 'getting in' or even about 'staying in' but about how Christians should 'go on', and especially how they should not 'go off' the right track and so commit what Paul views as apostasy" (Witherington, 80).

1:6b-7a “and are following a different gospel – not that there really is another gospel” This illustrates that the Law is not the same as the gospel. In fact, it has a very different purpose. The Law’s purpose is to show that we are not able to save ourselves, but it does not give a solution to the dilemma. The gospel’s purpose is to show that while we cannot save ourselves, God has provided the way.

This is by no means an indication that the Law is in any way bad or evil. It is not. The Law is Holy and Good. Here, the distinction is never between the Law being bad and the gospel being good. Rather, the Law points to the need for the gospel.

"The point in any case is that in Paul's view there is only one true Gospel, the Gospel of grace, from which the Galatians are defecting" (Witherington, 83).

1:7b “but there are some who are disturbing you and wanting to distort the gospel of Christ.” The message of the Judaizers was not the gospel, but rather, it was a distortion of the gospel. It was so great a distortion that what was being taught was not gospel at all. It was the tired old idea that we can save ourselves by our good works. But the Law itself reveals that we are not able. It is incredibly ironic that the good works the Judaizers were proclaiming were in following the Law (at least in part), the very Law that shows that we cannot satisfy God's righteous demands on our own merits.

The Judaizers may have had good intentions. They saw the basis of the gospel in the Law. They saw that Christ fulfilled all of this. What do you think?

"No one would think of calling this substitute message a 'gospel', Paul implies, except with the intention of confusing the minds of believers. Gospel it is not; it is a message of bondage, not of freedom. It is a form of [the] doctrine of salvation by law-keeping from which Paul himself had been liberated by the true gospel which he received on the Damascus road 'by revelation of Jesus Christ' (v. 12). That was the gospel which he preached to others, including the Galatians, and there could be no other" (Witherington, 82).

1:8 "But even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you"

Paul was so adamant about this. There is only one gospel! It doesn’t matter who it is that is telling you otherwise. Don’t believe them! Not even if it were an angel from Heaven. Paul says that even if he were to come to them again bearing a different gospel, to not believe it! They have had the truth preached to them, and they accepted it. They shouldn't allow anything to budge them from it.

Of this, Calvin says, “[Paul] declares that the doctrine which he had preached is the only gospel, and that the attempt to set it aside is highly criminal.”

“let him be condemned to hell!” Paul didn’t mince words. They had life, but they were abandoning it. Paul was so upset with these teachers and so concerned for the Galatians that he would have gladly seen the false teachers condemned … if it would save the Galatians from their false teaching. The Greek word here is anathema, which means “cursed” or “accursed.” But, the curse that Paul is speaking of is the one that leads to eternity in Hell. Paul is upset that the Judaizers are drawing people away from the gospel, and thus leaving them exposed to Hell. He would much rather that the Judaizers went there, and that quickly, than for the Galatians to be drawn away and endangered.

"The idea here is of something which is set aside for destruction, and in this case destruction by God. Paul is not himself banning or cursing the agitators but asking God ('let him be ...') to act against them" (Witherington, 83).

This does not mean that Paul hated the Judaizers. He knew that they were merely deceived themselves. He cared for his own people so much that he would always start by preaching the gospel in the local synagogue. Then he would move on to reaching the Gentiles.

1:9 "As we have said before, and now I say it again, if any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let him be condemned to hell!"

Paul is so concerned that the Galatians get the message that he repeats the gist of verse 8.

This reminds me of what Jesus said in Luke 17, "Jesus said to his disciples, 'Stumbling blocks are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! It would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin" (Luke 17:1-2).

1:10 "Am I now trying to gain the approval of people, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a slave of Christ!"

If Paul were trying to please people, he would not be traveling around preaching the gospel. Not only did he generally not please people in the first place, the cost that he paid for the privilege of preaching the gospel was quite steep. See 2 Cor. 11:16-33 for a summary of some of the price that Paul paid so that he could have the privilege of preaching the gospel. But he gladly paid the price! Not for his own glory, but because he knew the price that Jesus had paid for him and for the ones he was sent to reach.

“slave” is from the Greek doulos, which has the meaning of “bondservant.” This was used of someone who had sold himself into slavery to another. Paul was not one to go by half-measures. He was totally devoted to the causes that he thought were right. At first he was persecuting the church, because he thought that this was the right course. When Jesus set him straight, he did a one eighty and began to proclaim the gospel. This happened so quickly, that people didn't trust him at first. They thought that he was trying to deceive them. The appearance of Jesus to him on the Damascus road set the course that he would follow until his death. He was so radically converted that it was as if he had sold himself to his new master and Lord.

All scripture quotations, except if embedded in another quote, are from the NET. This can be found online at http://net.bible.org/

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982.

Calvin, John. Commentary on Galatians and Ephesians.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom41.iii.iii.ii.html

Witherngton III, Ben. Grace in Galatia. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.

Galatians: 1:1-5

Read Gal 1:1 – 1:5

1:1 “From Paul, an apostle” Apostle is from the Greek apostolos, meaning “one who is sent".

"[B]ut regularly in the NT he is one who has received a special commission from Christ" (Bruce, 72). So, Paul is writing as one sent out by Christ; commissioned by Him to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles.

"not from men, nor by human agency"

"We should probably be right in inferring from Paul's emphatic language that his Galatian converts had been given a different account of his apostleship--an account which maintained that he had no commission apart from what he had received from men who had been Christian leaders before him ..." (Bruce, 72).

Paul will defend himself several times throughout this letter, against men who claim his authority is only from men. In reality, it is these men who only have authority from men. The are spreading a false gospel, while Paul is proclaiming true gospel.

"but by Jesus Christ" This is a reference back to Paul's experience on the Damascus road, which is found in Acts 9:1-22. Here, Ananias is specifically told that Saul was the Lord's chosen instrument to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles, to rulers, and to Israel (v. 15).

"[T]his prescript may be intended to establish that Paul is not a mere 'apostle' of churches, an agent sent out by a church such as the Antioch church on a mission of a specific nature and limited duration and with humanly derived authority, but rather an apostle of Christ with an enduring commission and authority" (Witherington, 71).

"and God the Father who raised him from the dead" Paul's authority does not merely come from Jesus but also from the Father.

We are reminded that it was the Father who raised Jesus the Son. This important event is what all of our faith hinges on. Later, in 1 Corinthians 15:14 Paul proclaims, "And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is futile and your faith is empty." Paul is reminding the Galatians of the gospel, even here in the salutation.

On this Calvin says,

The resurrection of Christ is the commencement of his reign, and is therefore closely connected with the present subject. It was a reproach brought by them against Paul that he had held no communication with Christ, while he was on the earth. He argues, on the other hand, that, as Christ was glorified by his resurrection, so he has actually exercised his authority in the government of his church. The calling of Paul is therefore more illustrious than it would have been, if Christ, while still a mortal, had ordained him to the office. And this circumstance deserves attention; for Paul intimates that the attempt to set aside his authority, involved a malignant opposition to the astonishing power of God, which was displayed in the resurrection of Christ; because the same heavenly Father, who raised Christ from the dead, commanded Paul to make known that exertion of his power.

"The raising of Christ, moreover, was specially relevant to Paul's commissioning, for it was his Damascus-road experience that simultaneously confronted him with the risen Christ, thereby convincing him that God had indeed raised Christ from the dead, and brought home to him the call of the risen Christ to be his apostle to the Gentile world" (Bruce, 73).

1:2 “and all the brothers with me” Paul doesn’t list those with him, but the Galatians would have known at least some of them, if not all.

Why do you think that Paul would refer to these others? (Perhaps Paul is saying something like, “My message came from God, but I am not the only messenger! Remember all these others. I will not name anyone specifically, because we all proclaimed the same message!”)

Why did Paul not refer to Barnabas? Especially if this letter were written directly after the First Missionary Journey, the Galatians would have been quite familiar with him.

"There had been a falling out between Paul and Barnabas as a result of the incident at Antioch and now, while Paul was not alone, he was not able to cite other apostles or prominent co-workers who agreed with him and would co-write this letter with him" (Witherington, 74).

"to the churches in Galatia" This does not identify where the churches are in the region of Galatia, but it is likely that Paul had only planted churches in southern Galatia at this time.

1:3 “Grace and peace to you”: this is a uniquely Christian greeting possibly originating with Paul. It is found in Rom 1:6, 1 Cor 1:3, 2 Cor 1:2, Eph 1:2, Phil 1:2, Col 1:2, 1 Thes 1:1, 2 Thes 1:2, Tit 1:4, and Phil 1:3. It is found as “Grace, mercy, and peace” in 1 Tim 1:2, and 2 Tim 1:2.

Notably, this greeting is missing from the beginning of Hebrews. This is one of the reasons that many believe the book of Hebrews was not written by Paul. He was definitely able to write it, though.

“Grace”: a common Greek greeting was chairein, “joy to you.” Paul uses a similar sounding word, charis, meaning “grace.” But the implications of grace are far beyond those of joy.

“Peace”: a common greeting among the Jews. The Hebrew shalom is represented here by the Greek eirene, which also means “peace.” To the Jews, though, the idea went deeper than just an absence of conflict. It also imparts the idea of wholeness and blessing.

Combined, these are a prayer that the Galatians truly be God’s friends and to have every good thing, especially God Himself.

"from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ" The grace and peace that Paul's desires for the Galatians issues from God.

"But Paul is not simply offering perfunctory greetings for he makes clear that the source of what he is conveying here is God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. In other words, Paul is talking about some of the benefits the Galatians have and can continue to receive from God if they continue to 'walk according to the Spirit'. The greeting is especially pointed here as it is precisely the matters of grace and peace that are at issue in the Galatian assemblies" (Witherington, 75-6).

1:4-5 "who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from this present evil age according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever! Amen."

This is a reminder of the gospel, which Paul is soon going to defend.

I can imagine Paul saying, “Remember Jesus? He’s the one who died for you! Remember the gospel that I taught you?”

This is an amplification of the salutation, and is probably part of an early confession of faith.

“of our God and Father to whom be glory forever and ever!” This is a reminder of what we owe to God, but it is also more. Here, Paul is reminding the Galatians whom they are offending by turning from the gospel to the Law.

 

The NET Bible was used in quotes here. It can be found online, here

https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Galatians+1

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982.

Calvin, John. Commentary on Galatians and Ephesians.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom41.iii.iii.i.html

Witherngton III, Ben. Grace in Galatia. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.

Galatians: Introduction

Galatians: Introduction

A Key to Bible Study: The Bible does not mean just anything that you want it to mean, but it can be applied to all the situations of our lives. The key is to determine what it meant to its original audience, and then to apply those principles to a given situation. The first process is called “exegesis,” the second is called “hermeneutics.”

Who wrote it? Gal 1:1 indicates Paul as the author, while Gal 6:11 seems to indicate that Paul personally wrote the entire letter.

To whom was it written? Gal 1:2 indicates that the audience is the churches of Galatia. Now, Galatia was not a city, but rather, it was a province of Rome. This province was in the middle of the Anatolian Peninsula, in what is present day Turkey.

What kind of people were they? In the 3rd century BC, three Gallic tribes invaded the region and conquered it. In the 2nd century BC, the Gallic tribes were in turn conquered by Rome. Under Roman rule, the region eventually became a Roman province, as stated before. These Gauls were related to the Gauls of France and the Celts of Britain. They retained their own language even into the 3rd century AD, but they also spoke Greek. The province is named after these Gallic tribes. But, the Romans expanded the province beyond just the area occupied by the Gauls. The southern part of the province included many of Greek heritage. Eventually, there were churches through the whole region, but it was the people in the south that were first reached, during Paul‘s First Missionary Journey.

A good map of Paul's First Missionary Journey can be found here:

http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN217ACTSPaulOne.htm

When was the letter written? The book of Romans contains more developed theology along the same lines as what is in Galatians. This seems to indicate that Galatians is an earlier work, containing less developed arguments. Romans was written around 58 AD, giving an absolute latest date for Galatians of about 57 AD. Gal 2:1 may allude to the Jerusalem Council, which occurred around 49, but it could also relate to an earlier event. Paul’s First Missionary Journey began in about 46 AD, so the book could not have been written before then.

There are two theories for the dating of Galatians. These hinge upon whether the letter was intended for the people in southern Galatia or the people in northern Galatia. The only Galatian cities that Paul is said explicitly to have visited are those in southern Galatia. i.e. Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and possibly Derbe. (Acts 13:4 – 14:28). Since Luke didn’t include the names of any northern Galatian cities in Acts, it is probably safe to assume that the letter was addressed to churches in the southern Galatian. This, combined with the fact that Paul does not explicitly cite the Jerusalem Council as authority, means that the book of Galatians was probably written just before the Jerusalem Council. i.e. Around 49 AD.

Where was the letter written? If the letter was written to southern Galatian churches, the letter was likely written as Paul traveled to Jerusalem for what became known as the Jerusalem Council. If the letter was written to northern Galatian churches, the letter could have been written from Macedonia or Corinth around 56 or 57 AD, during his Third Missionary Journey.

Rough dates for Paul’s Missionary Journeys and the Jerusalem Council:
First: 46 to 48 AD (Acts 13:4 to 14:28)
Jerusalem Council: 48 or 49 AD (Acts 15:1-29)
Second: 49 to 52 AD (Acts 15:40 to 18:23a)
Third: 53 to 58 AD (Acts 18:23b to 21:15)

Why was the letter written? Judaizers had infiltrated the churches of Galatia and were teaching that the Gentiles had to convert to Judaism to be saved. This was in conflict with what had been revealed to Peter in Acts 10, when he visited Cornelius, and which he defended in Acts 11. This view was also overthrown in the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. If Galatians was written before the events of Acts 15, then Paul was vindicated by the Jerusalem Council. If Galatians was written after the events of Acts 15, then the Judaizers were purposefully standing against the authority of the Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem. In this, it seems more likely that Galatians was written before the Jerusalem Council had taken place.

Broad Outline of the Galatians:
I. Paul’s Salutation (1:1-1:5)
II. Reason for the Letter (1:6-1:10)
III. Paul’s Autobiography (1:11-2:14)
IV. The True Gospel (2:15-5:1)
V. Life in the Spirit (5:2-6:17)
VI. Benediction (6:18)

Eternity: Part 6

“Dying to Live,” Chapter 5 of Love Wins

“In the ancient world, people regularly sacrificed animals” to the gods, both in apology and thanksgiving (Bell 123). True. But this didn’t just happen in the ancient world. It is still happening today. However, since Bell is contrasting this with the words of the author of Hebrews, we can probably assume that he is probably not saying that no one does this now.

“So when the writer of Hebrews insisted that Jesus was the last sacrifice ever needed, that was a revolutionary idea” (124). This was indeed a very revolutionary idea. God, to whom the people sacrificed, had provided for Himself the perfect sacrifice. But to the Jews, this was not as astounding as it was to the Gentiles. God is loving and compassionate. He is not fickle. The false gods of the Gentiles were easily offended, and dangerously fickle. Where God is slow to anger, the false gods of the Gentiles had to be continually appeased. These false gods would never have considered providing the sacrifice themselves for themselves. Not that these false gods actually existed. Even if a demon were to pretend to be one of these beings, it would not actually be the being of the myth.

Bell goes on to talk about words used to describe the results of what Jesus did on the cross: “reconciliation” (125), “justified” (125), “destroyed death” (126), “redemption” (126). He is correct when he says that all of these understandings of what Jesus did at the cross are correct.

Here is a quote from this chapter that I like: “The point then, as it is now, is Jesus. The divine in flesh and blood. He’s where the life is” (128).

The only real issue I had with Bell in this chapter is that he still sees the gospel as something it is not. If everyone is to be saved, then why do we need to preach? Why would Jesus give the Great Commission? If there is no Bad News, then why were we sent the Good News? If Jesus death atones everyone, whether they want it or not, then it doesn’t matter what anyone does. In fact, the entire Law would be meaningless. It would have been pointless for God to send the Prophets. After all, if everything was going to be taken care of, no matter what the people did, why should God tell them to stop sinning? Why would John the Baptizer have been sent to proclaim the need for repentance? After all, everyone is going to be saved regardless.

The whole idea that God will save everyone guts Scripture and makes the gospel meaningless. Bell’s view would make God all Love. It is true that God is Love, but He is also Just. He is also Righteous and Holy.

“The beginning of wisdom is to fear the LORD, and acknowledging the Holy One is understanding” (Prov. 9:1, NET). Yet, if God is as Bell claims, then there is no reason to fear Him. Bell’s ideas make God a harmless teddy bear that could never harm anyone. But this is not the God of the Bible.

A Lesser Son of the King

Copyright RL

Eternity: Part 5

“Does God Get What God Wants?”, Chapter 4 of Love Wins: Part 3

Note: This is a continuation of the previous post. 

I apologize for how long it has taken to return to the subject of Rob Bell’s book. Quite frankly, I find his work frustrating, because it is essentially a treatise of bad theology.

In support of his position, Bell claims Clement of Alexandria and Origen taught that all would be saved (Bell 107). For the sake of argument, let us grant this to him. (But note that this may not be true.) Need we then believe it on the basis of these two witnesses? 

No. We do not then need to conclude the truth of the proposition. We have already concluded that the Bible does not teach that all will be saved. Who else among the Church Fathers could we quote?

“He comes as the Judge of the living and the dead. His blood will God require of those who do not believe in Him.” (The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter 2. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I.)

“And Plato, in like manner, used to say that Rhadamanthus and Minos would punish the wicked who came before them; and we say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years.” (The First Apology of Justin Martyr, Chapter 8. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I.)

“… so let us also, while we are in this world, repent with our whole heart of the evil deeds we have done in the flesh, that we may be saved by the Lord, while we have yet an opportunity for repentance. For after we have gone out of the world, no further power of confessing or repenting will there belong to us.” (The Second Epistle of Clement, Chapter 8. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume IX. Note, this is Clement of Rome.)

These are three sufficient to show that not all of the Church Fathers agreed with the idea that all would be saved. Indeed, these three listed all wrote before Clement of Alexandria and Origen. This shows that the clear teaching of Scripture continued even after the death of the Apostles. (I am not making an unguarded affirmation as to the truth of all of their statements. We are all human, and subject to making mistakes.)

Now, let us imagine that the belief that all would be saved was the most prevalent teaching in the first six centuries. To claim that this makes it true is fall prey to the ad populum fallacy. That is, if enough people vote for something, it must be true! But this, of course, is not how truth is determined. Those who believed in “the ultimate reconciliation of all people to God” (Bell 107) did so in opposition to the Scripture. It was for this reason that the teaching of universalism was condemned in the council of Constantinople in 543 AD. (Galli, Kindle Location 1788. He may actually have meant the council in 553 AD, although Justinian did create an edict in 543 or 544 AD against the ideas of Origen.)

“Central to their trust that all would be reconciled was the belief that untold masses of people suffering forever doesn’t bring God glory. Restoration brings God glory; eternal torment doesn’t” (Bell 107 Kindle Edition). As declared by the title of the book, Bell is trying to emphasize God’s love. And who could fault him for that? After all, Scripture does say that “God is love” (1 John 4:16).

But this is not the final word on God’s character. Indeed, just a little further in 1 John we find: “The one who has the Son has this eternal life; the one who does not have the Son of God does not have this eternal life” (1 John 5:12, NET). So, even here in the book that emphasizes God’s love so much, we find that not all will be saved.

So, if God loves us, and is all-powerful, why won’t everyone be saved? God does indeed love us. He is also all-powerful. But these are not the only aspects of God’s character.

God is also Just and Holy. In His Holiness, God cannot abide the presence of Sin. In His Justice, Sin must be judged and punished.

He has made a way for us to escape the penalty of Sin, while still fulfilling His Justice. To merely forgive all Sin, without the penalty being paid would deny God’s Justice. To merely ignore all Sin would deny His Holiness. God will not act in a manner that is contrary to His own character. And, as John 3:18b says, “The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God” (NET).  God does not cause/force all people to believe, and those who do not believe are condemned.*

We have looked previously at some aspects of the condemnation of the unbelievers. We need not go over all of that ground again.

"Could God say to someone truly humbled, broken, and desperate for reconciliation, 'Sorry, too late'" (Bell 108)? Let us look at this more closely. First, this assumes that anyone in Hell would be truly willing to repent. Yes, they will acknowledge that Jesus is Lord. However, this is not the same as repenting and ending their rebellion against the Holy God. After all, who is the truly repentant one? The one who turns himself in and throws himself on the mercy of the Court? Or the one who repents only upon facing the Judge and seeing the penalty he must pay? Second, Scripture clearly teaches the time for repentance is limited:

"Seek the Lord while he makes himself available;

call to him while he is nearby!

The wicked need to abandon their lifestyle

and sinful people their plans.

They should return to the Lord, and he will show mercy to them,

and to their God, for he will freely forgive them." (Is. 55:6-7, NET)

Repentance must take place while the LORD allows himself to be found! (This passage in Isaiah is addressed specifically to Israel, but the next chapter extends the invitation to the Gentiles.) We have this life in which to repent, and we have no idea when it will end. Don't bank on having a chance to repent after Judgment has been pronounced upon you!

"Many have refused to accept the scenario in which somebody is pounding on the door, apologizing, repenting, and asking God to be let in, only to hear God say through the keyhole: 'Door's locked. Sorry. If you had been here earlier, I could have done something. But now, it's too late" (Bell 108 Kindle Edition). However, is this not exactly what we see in the parable of the Ten Virgins? (The parable is found in Matt 25:1-13. I will not quote it all here.) To summarize, five of the virgins were foolish and five were wise. The wise ones were ready for the coming of the bridegroom, but the foolish were not. The five foolish virgins had to go and get more oil for their lamps. While they were out, the bridegroom came. The five wise virgins went in to the wedding feast. "Then the door was shut. Later, the other virgins came too, saying, ‘Lord, lord! Let us in!’ But he replied, ‘I tell you the truth, I do not know you!’ Therefore stay alert, because you do not know the day or the hour" (Matt 25:10b-13, NET). Those who reject this scenario have not read the Scriptures!

Now, in all of this, Bell has not been rejecting Hell itself, but that Hell is necessarily Eternal. "Love demands freedom. It always has, and it always will. We are free to resist, reject, and rebel against God's ways for us. We can have all the hell we want" (Bell 113). Very well, but this does not mean that we are free to choose to not have Hell once we are there. The prisoner is not free to leave the prison just because he has decided he has been punished enough.

I will skip the rest of chapter four. It is really more of the same.

* Arminians and Calvinists disagree on how people come to believe, but they will likely all agree with this statement.

Galli, Mark. God Wins: Heaven, Hell, and Why the Good News Is Better than Love Wins. Carol Stream, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2011.

A Lesser Son of the King

Copyright RL