Welcome
Prayer
Song
Silence
So, after saying that he returned AGAIN to Damascus we pick up reading at verse 18 where Paul says:
Galatians 1:18-2.4
March 3rd 2019
Milk
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;
22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
24 And they glorified God in me.
Okay back to verse 18 to wrap this chapter up:
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
Most commentators believe that Paul is saying after three years from the change on the road to Damascus and not after his return to Arabia.
Why, I am not sure. Whatever it was, we know that from one point he was changed by his encounter with the Lord and at LEAST three years past before he returned back to Jerusalem, the birthplace of the faith.
And then he went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, who was presumably the oldest and one of the most distinguished of the apostles based on a number of factors.
First of all, Peter was part, along with James and John, of Jesus inner circle. He saw and experienced more (like the Mount of Transfiguration and Gethsemane) than the other eight.
In Galatians 2:9, Peter, along with James and John, is called a pillar by Paul.
The scripture does not tell us why Paul went to see Peter in particular . . . but the Greek gives us an idea.
Of course our Catholic friends suggest that Paul went to pay tribute to the first Pope, but that is just a matter of “conspecjecture” (a combination of convenient speculation and conjecture).
What is insightful is that the Greek word Paul uses to “see Peter” is “historeo” and it means,
To be knowing, to visit for information, sort of like a personal interview.
Interestingly, historeo is not used anywhere else in the New Testament, and it seems, at least from what scripture tells us, Paul was most interested in learning about and or from Peter as an individual.
“And he abode with him fifteen days.”
In Acts 9:28-29 we read about this same visit to Jerusalem of Paul:
9:28 So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem, 29 And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.
Some suggest that this is the reason he stayed with Paul only 15 days – but Paul does not say this was the reason – so we don’t know.
I personally believe that Peter did not have that much to teach Paul, that in the three years prior Paul had been taught the truths of Gospel with more depth by Revelation as he says, and after 15 days of getting to know Peter it was time to move on.
Could be wrong. (verse 19)
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
Huge convo here – which we are not going to spend a lot of time – but the bottom line is . . . we really don’t know who this James is – exactly.
Let me try and explain by first explaining the James’s of the Record:
James
First, there is James the son of Zebedee and Salome who was an elder brother of John the apostle. He was one of the twelve. He was by trade a fisherman, in partnership with Peter and was, along with John and Peter, at the transfiguration, at the raising of Jairus’s daughter (in the room) and in the garden with our Lord. In all probably as a result of their boldness and energy, he and John were called Boanerges, (“sons of thunder.”)
He was the first martyr among the apostles, having been beheaded by King Herod Agrippa Ac 12:1-2 A.D. 44.
So it could NOT have been this James.
James Two – the son of Alphaeus, or Cleopas, who is also called “the brother” (which could mean near kinsman or cousin of the Lord).
He was called James “the Less,” or “the Little,” probably because he was of low stature or the youngest of the first James.
He is mentioned along with the other apostles Mt 10:3; Mr 3:18; Lu 6:15 and he had a separate interview with our Lord after his resurrection (according to Paul in 1st Corinthians 15:7) and he is also mentioned as one of the apostles of the circumcision.
This James appears to have occupied the position of head of the Church at Jerusalem, where he presided at the council held to consider the case of the Gentiles Acts 12:17; 15:13-28:31; 21:18-24
And this James was the author of the epistle which bears his name.
It seems that this is the James that Paul went to see because the James here referred to seems to have surely been an apostle.
The construction of the sentence seems to demands this supposition.
So, we know that in the listings of the apostles (in Matthew 10:2-3) two of this name are mentioned, James the son of Zebedee and brother of John, and James the son of Alphaeus.
From the Acts of the Apostles it is clear that there were two of this name in Jerusalem and as I said, it is probable that this James referred to here was the lesser.
But commentators have not been agreed on what is meant by his being “the brother of the Lord Jesus.”
It appears that the word brother better means, “the near kinsman” or “cousin,” for he was, the son of Alphaeus and Mary, the sister of the virgin Mary.
However, in a record called “the Apostolical Constitutions” three men named James are mentioned either apostles or eminent men in Jerusalem; and hence many have supposed that one of them was the son of Mary the mother of the Lord Jesus and therefore Jesus actual brother.
We read in Matthew 13:55 that the names of Jesus brothers were, in fact, James, Joses, Simon, and Judas – and its really remarkable that three of the apostles bear the same names –James the son of Alphaeus, Simon Zelotes, and Judas.
Of course its possible that three brothers of our Lord and three of his apostles might bear the same names and be different people, but that is really interesting and not easily explained.
Nevertheless, all signs point to this being James the less, the son of Alphaeus, and consequently a cousin of the Lord Jesus.
And if not an apostle, he could have been a fleshly brother of the Lord.
Verse 20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
This is an oath, or a solemn appeal to God.
It’s design seems to be to prevent any and all suspicion of Paul – as this seems to be they bore toward him at this point in the churches at Galatia.
He adds
21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;
Before leaving for these regions, Luke notes that the Greeks sought to kill Paul, and this is something that Paul omits from this account – why we don’t know.
We do know that his main point is to show that he did not receive the Gospel from men or Man and since that fact does nothing to support this fact perhaps he left it out.
Syria was between Jerusalem and Cilicia. Antioch was the capital of Syria, and in that city and the adjacent places he spent a considerable amount of time.
Cilicia was a province of Asia Minor, of which Tarsus, Pauls native home, was the capital. (verse 22)
22 And (I, as it is Paul writing) was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
In other words, the believers in the rest of Judea did not know me by face. Paul had visited Jerusalem only, and he hadn’t formed any acquaintance with the churches in the other parts of Judea.
He regarded himself at the first as called to preach particularly to the Gentiles, and he did not remain even to form an acquaintance with the Christians in Judea.
I think Paul adds this fact to show that he did not learn the faith from any of the churches (or the people in them) in all of Judea. He adds (verse 23)
23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
In other words, they never saw me but they had heard that the one who used to persecute believers in the past now preaches the same faith that he once destroyed.
24 And they glorified God in me.
They praised God on my account. They regarded me as a true convert and a sincere Christian; and they praised God that he had converted a persecutor like Paul to become a preacher of the gospel.
This line sustains the fact that he was not influenced by them but he was seen by them as a true believer.
Alright, lets move into chapter 2 which is a direct continuation of where we just ended in chapter 1, as Paul says:
Galatians 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
Back to verse 1
Galatians 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
Two ways to do the math:
Fourteen years after his first visit there OR fourteen years from his conversion. To me, it seems reasonable that it was fourteen years from his last visit.
What had he been doing? Preaching the Gospel primarily in Asia Minor.
Then he writes, “I went up again to Jerusalem.”
When we studied the book of Acts, chapter 15, Paul was in Antioch and there was a problem and we read in verses 1-2:
And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
It is commonly believed that Paul here refers to this visit now.
This is a really important reference and meeting that took place in Jerusalem with Paul and Barnabas and Titus because it speaks directly to what was happening in the lives of the believers at Galatia – men were claiming that they too, needed to reembrace elements, if not the whole, of the Law, to obey sabbath days and to be circumcised . . . and perhaps the whole of it.
In the case of Antioch, some persons who had come in among the Gentile converts (from Judea) had insisted on the necessity of being circumcised in order to be saved.
Paul and Barnabas had opposed them; and the dispute had become so warm that it was agreed to submit the subject to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.
In chapter 15:2, Luke says that there were “others” with Paul and Barnabas on that journey to Jerusalem but he doesn’t mention them.
Here Paul seems to reveal that Titus was one of them.
Remember, Titus was a Greek who had been converted to Christianity. Paul had not circumcised him; but had admitted him to the full privileges of the Christian church as an uncircumcised person.
Here, is the first mention which occurs of Titus. (verse 2 is an interesting addition)
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
I think Paul adds this first line as a means to retain his autonomy from the will and ways of men.
I went up by revelation seems to be a way of saying that he did not go up to receive instructions or commands from the apostles with regard to his ministry to the Gentiles.
He seems to be saying that he went up by the expressed command of God – by Revelation.
In Acts 15:2, it reads that Paul and Barnabas went up by the appointment of the church at Antioch.
But there is no discrepancy between that account and this; for though he was designated by the church there, there is no improbability in supposing that he was directed by a special revelation to comply with their request.
Again, the reason why he says that he went up by direct revelation seems to be, to show that he did not seek instruction from the apostles; he did not go of his own accord to consult with them, as if he were dependent on them; but even in a case when he went to advise with them he was under the influence of express and direct revelation, proving that he was as much commissioned by God as they were.
And communicated unto them that gospel that he communicated to the Gentiles,
And again, Paul makes it clear that He communicated to THEM “that Gospel that He communicated to the Gentiles.”
Which in all probability included a strong exclusion of the law of Moses.
Before we move on, we notice that Paul says that “he went up by revelation.” The question remains, is revelation something by which God speaks to people today?
Of course. Every second of everyday, I would suggest, by and through the Spirit that abides in His children, and we might suppose, through the Holy Spirit working from the outside of unconverted individuals too.
For centuries and out until this day religious men would say things like, “Revelations have ceased.”
This lead to a number of men and women popping up and claiming to receive revelations that transcended the boundaries of scripture.
Both expressions were extreme and I believe wholly unfounded.
The formula by which we accept revelations, it seems, it so long as they evidence the fruit of the spirit, and don’t contradict scripture established, revelation is a wholly subjective experience and every person is entitled, by and through the shed blood of Jesus to receive it through the spirit for themselves and perhaps others IF the Spirit confirms the revelation to the other.
Again, always within the boundaries and scope of canon. I would even go so far as to agree that Founder of Mormonism Joseph Smith COULD have had a revelation and COULD have even received another book of scripture IF – IF what was given Him was not in contradiction to what has already been received.
In other words, if he had simply gotten another witness that confirmed the Good New and omitted things like:
“We are saved by grace after all that we can do,”
He might have been okay.
Instead, he ran way outside the parameters of the Good News, going so far as to even put up another veil surrounded by more Law.
Sinister.
So, revelation: of course – daily, but within harmony of what has been given.
Paul adds to this line:
“but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.”
Apparently, aside from the pulsing masses and even the company of the Apostles, Paul privately went to some leaders and/or key persons, and there
gave a private explanation of his motives and views, that they might understand it before it became a matter of public discussion.
It does not appear that Paul went to these leaders to discuss whether the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles, that was certain and firmly established by Peter in Acts (10:1-48) but he appears o have gone to discuss whether the rites of the Jews and the Law were to be imposed on the Gentile converts.
Remember now, in this letter to the Galatians Paul adamantly opposed the imposition of the Law upon Gentile believers.
So here he explains that he was even opposed to them way back at the start of his ministry, when he privately went to some leaders and explained his views and his practice on that point relative to his work among the Gentiles.
The reasons why he made these interviews private with the leading men in Jerusalem he does not state, except to say that in doing so he would prevent that:
“by any means he should run, or had run, in vain.”
From this we might suppose that:
The Jews (especially in Jerusalem) in general had VERY strong attachment to their own customs, and this attachment was found in a high degree among those who were converted from among them to the Christian faith and especially those who were of high rank.
In other words these might get really agitated that those customs were not necessary to be observed.
If Paul had addressed this in the excitable tensions of the masses it would almost certainly produce mayhem.
But if a few of the principal men were made to understand it, perhaps Paul felt assured that their influence would help prevent any uprisings, which would have been a setback to his work, translating to his “running in vain.”
Therefore, he sought an early opportunity to lay the case before them in private, and to secure their favor; and this course contributed to the happy revolve.
We do know that when the subject was presented to the Apostles and the Elders of the church at Jerusalem there was some real dispute (Acts 15:1-41) as many who came from the Pharisaical tradition insisted that the Law be practiced by all.
What is sort of interesting is that when the first Apostolic counsel was convened, the voices heard were that of Paul, Peter and James, who delivered the final verdict.
Isn’t it intriguing that Paul only went to Peter and then James once he was converted, and it was these two, along with Paul, that established the best practices among Gentile converts!
At this point, in his letter to the churches at Galatia, makes a point in something he shares, saying:
3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
In other words, it seems that Paul introduces this case of Titus undoubtedly to show that circumcision was not necessary to salvation.
I mean, Titus was a man whom Paul had admitted to the Christian church without circumcising him. He claimed that he had a right to do so; and that circumcision was not necessary in order to salvation. After all, if it was necessary, it would have been proper that Titus should have been compelled to submit to it.
We have to remembered that this was all happening at Jerusalem; that it was a case submitted to the apostles there; and that consequently the determination of this case would settle the whole controversy once and for all about the obligation of the Mosaic laws on the Gentile converts.
This is likely the reason Paul appeals to telling this story, to show the churches at Galatia that the Law and its non-application to the Gentile converts had already been dealt with, and their returning to it was a true disaster and form of rebellion.
Now, we know that while Paul confirms here that Titus had no need to be circumcised, but Timothy, another Greek convert, was taken and circumcised by Paul.
There is no contradiction here.
In the case of Titus it was demanded as a matter of obligation to salvation, and he resisted the principle on that basis. But in the case of Timothy, it was a voluntary compliance on his part with the usual customs of the Jews, where it was not pushed as a matter of obligation, and where it was not to be understood as indispensable to salvation.
Paul would not have hesitated to have circumcised Titus in the same circumstances in which it was done to Timothy; but the circumstances were different; and when it was insisted on as a matter of principle and of obligation, it became a matter of principle and of obligation with him to oppose it.
That says SOOO much about the liberty that the Gospel brings. We remember Paul said that he “became all things to all men that he might save some.”
The gospel is the Good News – it has nothing to do with religious rituals and rites that must be embraced or culturalisms that must be refused.
All that stuff was taken over and fulfilled in Christ Jesus. The question is what needs to be done to bring the light to a lost and burdened people.
I would sit in a whisky bar sipping Jack all night if I knew that such an approach would bring a barfly to the Lord.
Get it?
4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
Here is the problem in a nutshell with the churches at Galatia –
because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
Another way to say this is
“Yet there was danger of this” (of him having run in vain or danger to the work he had done in the ministry) “through the false brethren secretly introduced into the Church, who had stolen in or crept in as a means to spy out the freedom which is ours in Christ Jesus, in order to rob us of it.”
What is the freedom Paul talks about which is in Christ Jesus?
It is reflected in the sign over against the wall. Out original sign for CAMPUS – FREEDOM IN CHRIST.
How free are we as believers?
Completely. Totally.
In fact, whatever seeks to insert itself in-between this total liberty is anathematic to what God achieved in and through His Son. Anything and everything.
We can say this because the commands come from the Holy Spirit, gently enforcing the law written on our hearts.
So when we talk about complete liberty as believers we are talking about complete liberty from all external sources. All.
I could not say this if we were still waiting on Jesus return because if that was the case, we would be still preparing for Him to come and take His bride (which we would hopefully be apart of) and if we wanted to be apart of it we would have to fully comply with what His apostles demand here in the New Testament church of that day.
There is no getting around it. Their instructions were emphatic to them/then for the Bride, consisting of mostly His believing brethren and some converted Gentiles, had to be pure and ready.
Because He came and took her, as promised, we have fully entered the age of the Spirit – where God operates on the hearts of all people and everything material that once was in place has been shaken down so the only thing that remains cannot be shaken.
In this age believers CHOOSE to be bondservants of Christ, to put their lives on the line, to live by the spirit and not by the flesh, and to take up their cross and die daily.
They submit by choice, according to the Spirit, not the will and ways of Man, religion, or rules that once applied to the former age.
So what we have looks like this (which you have seen before)
On board
Second Draw first Third
Old Testament End of Old Age to Come
Former Age Beginning of
Age to Come
We know that the Apostles that walked with Jesus were called to those who were living in the former age, to bring them into the faith before the end of it.
These apostles were in all probability supportive of the Converted Christians from Judaism still practicing elements of the Law.
But we also know that Paul had the unique responsibility of introducing the Good News to the world of Gentile, who had no Law – and should NOT try to embrace elements of the Law – because that is clearly not the means by which men and women are justified before God.
So he had a really difficult duty of trying to appease the Jews, the other apostles, the Jewish convert, while keeping the Gentiles free in Christ, unencumbered by the Law (which would put them into bondage) but readying themselves for the coming of Christ for His bride.
For this reason we read a number of approaches in the Apostolic Record relative to purity and freedom, liberty but not licentiousness, spirit and not flesh.
But there was the overall oppressive ongoing resistance against those who wee constantly trying to capture those who were totally free in Christ.
For this reason we read in Acts 15:1
“And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.”
Acts 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
In 2nd Corinthians 11:20 Paul expressed frustrations that the believers there would “suffer a man bring them into bondage.”
And here in Galatians 3:25 he will write
“But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.” (Which is the Law)
And again in Galatians 5:1 where he writes:
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
And then finally in Galatians 5:13 where he says:
“For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.”
In closing I cannot tell you how stunned I am by the number of believers over the course of History, believers right in this county right now, who willingly receive and embrace elements of the Law, thereby allowing themselves to be placed in bondage . . . in the name of Christ.
It stuns and frankly makes me seriously curious as to why?
Why would someone allow another person, or religion, or even a misinterpreted and anachronistic bible verse to interfere with their liberty in Christ to love fully, and constantly.
Perhaps Paul wondered this about the believers at Galatia all the way back in the day.
We will stop here.
Q and A
Prayer
