Paul was still on the subject of slavery and with good reason. Slavery was a venerable institution in his day and age. It provided an economic means to save oneself in financial hard times and it was surrounded by rules to prevent it from becoming abusive. The Gentiles and the Jews had different systems of slavery, but they both were familiar with the institutions.

“Tell me, you who want to be under the law, don’t you hear the law?
For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and the other by a free woman. But the one by the slave was born according to the flesh, while the one by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.

"These things are illustrations, for the women represent the two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai and bears children into slavery—this is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written: Rejoice, O barren woman who does not give birth. Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor, for the children of the desolate are many, more numerous than those of the woman who has a husband.” Galatians 4:21-27

In these verses the apostle illustrated the difference between believers who rested in Christ only and those Judaizers who trusted in the law. He compared the story of Sarah, the mother of Isaac and Hagar, the mother of Ishmael. Again, this was a very familiar story in Jewish synagogues. The Judaizers would have made sure the Galatians were familiar with it. Paul’s take on the story differed a bit from theirs, however.

Paul introduced the subject by asking the Galatians if they had actually heard the law.  They wanted to be under the law, so they should be familiar with what it teaches. Paul sought to impress upon their minds the illogical action they were taking and thereby convince them of their great weakness in departing from the truth.  The gospel had given them liberty. Why would they now desire to enslave themselves? 

Paul briefly related the history of Sarah and Hagar in case their familiarity was only fleeting.  Abraham had two sons.  Ishmael, the oldest was born of a bond-maid while Isaac, the youngest was born of a free woman.  Sarah had been promised a child of her and Abraham’s seed, but she’d become impatient with the process and had given her bond-maid to Abraham to produce an heir.  God, in due time, kept His promise and Isaac was born.  Ishmael was the child of flesh while Isaac was the child of promise.

These examples, he explained, are allegory.  Hagar and Sarah represent the two covenants.  The former – represented by Hagar – was given at Mount Sinai.  Like the representative slave woman, the covenant given at Sinai, was a covenant of bondage, for keeping of rules, rites and calendars.  Hagar had no control over her life. She was forced to do what Abraham and Sarah decided.  Sarah on the other hand represents the promise of Messiah, Jesus Christ.  The free woman had given up on a child just as Israel had largely given up on Messiah, but God kept His promise in both cases. He gave Sarah Isaac and He gave the world Jesus. The nation that Hagar spawned became the Arabs who lived in the 1^st Century as they live today in brutal bondage to works religions (see the Five Pillars of Islam). Sarah birthed Israel that was given freedom through Jesus Christ.  Paul quoted Isaiah 54:1 “Rejoice, O barren woman who does not give birth. Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor, for the children of the desolate are many, more numerous than those of the woman who has a husband.” for Scriptural support.

“Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But just as then the child born according to the flesh persecuted the one born according to the Spirit, so also now.

"But what does the Scripture say? Throw out the slave and her son, for the son of the slave will never inherit with the son of the free woman. 

"Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman." Galatians 4:28-31

Having explained the history, he then turned to the present explanation.  Christians, he said, are like Isaac – children of the promise.  We who have accepted Christ as Savior and Lord, who put our trust in justifications are entitled to the promised inheritance of Abraham. However, the Jews were tenacious in declaring the correctness of the law and this might cause some Christians to stumble. For 13 years, Hagar had assumed that Ishmael was the heir of Abraham, until Isaac was born. The Jews considered themselves the children of the promise, but now Jesus had come and those who accept Him by faith are the children of the promise.

Paul referred his readers to Scripture, where in Genesis 21:10 it said to Throw out the slave and her son, for the son of the slave will never inherit with the son of the free woman. “

Paul then made a bold statement. Christians are not the children of the slave woman, but the offspring of the free woman!

There are those who claim the title of Christian today who want to hinder Christianity with rules and rites. I don’t think you need me to name them. They are the Judaizers of our day. They enjoy the forms and formalities of liturgical ceremonies and hierarchies. They seek to honor God through doing something, usually performing some ritual. Here, Paul was clear; it’s not the keeping of calendars or rituals that saves us. We did not come to Jesus by doing anything. We came to Jesus by faith, by accepting what He had done on the cross. We do not remain with Jesus by doing anything other than daily reaffirming in our own minds and spirits the faith that brought us to Him in the first place. Works don’t save us. In and of themselves, they enslave us.

Are we free in Christ through faith or bond to the law of works?  We can’t be both.  Paul was clear in this regard. If we would rather perform some stylized ritual than talk honestly with Jesus Christ, we have chosen slavery over freedom and, unless we correct that, we join Hagar and Ishmael in the wilderness rather than enter into Jesus’ inheritance. Which will we choose?  We must choose, for there is no middle ground.

My children are still at home because they are not old enough to live independently. However, I am of an age where many of my friends have children who are young adults. By this, I don’t mean teenagers, but those old enough to be done with their schooling and employed. A characteristic of these young adults appears to be failure to mature. They have the skills, but it’s so much easier to rely on Mom and Dad for things, so they return to the family nest from time to time. Another characteristic is that they expect to be treated as adults while they live in their parents’ home.  Hmm?

I think Paul knew how my friends feel.

Paul truly felt concern for the Galatians and their unwise choices. They had taken on Christ and should be grown adults (spiritually speaking), but they wanted to return to a less mature status, even a status they themselves had never before claimed. Paul wanted them to understand what they were risking. As sometimes works to persuade people, he posed a series of questions designed to make them think about their choices.

“But in the past, when you didn’t know God, you were enslaved to things that by nature are not gods. But now, since you know God, or rather have become known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and bankrupt elemental forces? Do you want to be enslaved to them all over again? You observe special days, months, seasons, and years. I am fearful for you, that perhaps my labor for you has been wasted. I beg you, brothers: become like me, for I also became like you.

“You have not wronged me; you know that previously I preached the gospel to you in physical weakness, and though my physical condition was a trial for you,  you did not despise or reject me. On the contrary, you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself. What happened to this blessedness of yours? For I testify to you that, if possible, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me. Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?” Galatians 4:8-16

Remember, Paul said, before you were Christians, when you were enslaved to the elemental (earthly) forces of this world.  Now that you know God and are known by Him, do you really want to exchange that relationship to return to a similar kind of slavery?  Do you want to observe holy days based upon the calendar?

Remember when I came to you.  I was physically weak and that was a burden to you, but you didn’t reject me. On the contrary, you welcomed me with open arms. What happened to that affection you once felt? I remember when you would have blinded yourself for me, if necessary. How did that devotion turn into enmity? Do you resent that I told you the truth?

Paul had been friends with the Galatians. He had truly felt welcome in their communities. Yet now, they were angry with him because of what he had taught. He wanted them to remember that past affection and to question the source of their anger. He also wanted to assure them that he was not angry with them on his own behalf. He knew they had been deceived. He wanted the Galatians to reconcile with himself, but more so to reconcile once more with Jesus.

I would note that the Galatians sound very Celtic to me. Being from an Irish family myself, I know the mercurial temperaments of some branches of that ancient nationality. They can change emotional directions at the drop of a hat. Paul no doubt was flabbergasted by their easily shifting allegiances, and the anger at him this was producing. He sought to get them to think about the logic of their behavior and conflicting beliefs, because he knew that they could convince themselves of the truth if only they would think about it.

“They  The false teacheare enthusiastic about you, but not for any good. Instead, they want to isolate you so you will be enthusiastic about them. Now it is always good to be enthusiastic about good—and not just when I am with you.

"My children, again I am in the pains of childbirth for you until Christ is formed in you. I’d like to be with you right now and change my tone of voice, because I don’t know what to do about you.”  Galatians 4:17-20

Upon establishing his character and the former relationship with the Galatians, Paul then turned his attention to the character of the false teachers. They had zeal for bringing the Galatians to their system of beliefs, but their purposes were not good. They sought to isolate the Galatians, to keep them from hearing other points of view. 

I always think of this as a sign of heresy, that a group attempts to prevent their membership from hearing other points of view. There are groups in history as well as groups today who hold as a hallmark that what they teach and only what they teach, should be entertained by their members. While we should hold gospel truth as precious, we should not be afraid to hear differing opinions because in the hearing, we often will strengthen our faith. To hear is not to accept, it is merely to give respect. When falseness and heresy are discovered, we who know the truth are free to reject that which is not truth. Groups that attempt to isolate their members from hearing other points of view often appear to have something to hide, like a deviation from the Bible. They fear their members will follow the truth if they hear it.

Paul assured his readers that zeal toward good things is worthwhile, and not just when he’s in their company. When a group becomes zealous for evil things, however, zeal becomes harmful. We should direct our passion toward issues that are true and worthwhile.

Paul truly grieved for the Galatians. He felt like he was evangelizing them all over again. He used the powerful picture of childbirth labor to convey the strength of his distress for them. He truly wished he could be with them so that he might somehow divine a way to convince them of the truth.

Paul’s chief concern was that the Galatians return in faith to Jesus Christ. Now, this does not mean they weren’t Christians. Paul addresses the general churches of Galatian, but he still calls them churches. Churches were the congregations of believers. Therefore, the Galatians were Christians. Paul remembered them coming to the Lord. Yet this situation of growing heresy in the churches was rapidly destroying any witness for faith they might have. They were actually spreading the heresy. This needed to be stopped before it went any further. Paul sought to do this by confronting the issues and reminding the Galatians of what he had previously taught. 

The Law was both a good thing and a bad thing and Paul strove to teach his readers this dichotomy.

Although Paul ultimately saw the Law as a chain wrapped around God’s people, he also gave it due recognition. It had helped to mature Israel during many long centuries of growth prior to the coming of Christ. Paul used the example of a highly valued employee in rich Greek homes – the tutor. The Law was like that and Paul recognized the benefits of it.

“The Law, then, was our guardian until Christ, so that we could be justified by faith. But since that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise.”  Galatians 3:24-29

In wealthy Grecian homes, the tutor essentially raised the children – primarily the male heir. For all we know, Paul had been raised by a tutor, since his parents were Hellenistic Jews living in a Grecian area. The tutor was a servant – often a slave by choice – who lived with the family and trained the children to be good citizens through education, social responsibility, and manners. They were every bit as important to the upbringing of the children as the parents – maybe more so, because while they acted in the parents’ authority, they spent far more time with the children than the parent. Eventually, however, children reached the age of majority. In some cultures this was a legal age, but in Grecian society this was often determined by the tutor who reported to the father. At that point, some ceremony would occur that would mark the passage of the heir from child to adult. Once this occurred, the heir was no longer under the tutor.

Prior to this coming-of-age, the heir was no different than a slave and was in fact under a slave’s authority. His parents could sell him into slavery. They could tell the tutor to beat him, or the tutor could beat him if he thought the kid needed it. The parents could pass him over for the inheritance and give it to another child. He had no rights but what his parents gave him. But when he became an adult and was legally declared the heir, he had rights and responsibilities and these could not be taken from him by those who had given it to him – his parents. The tutor, acting in the parents’ authority, was both instructor and disciplinarian.

Before the coming of faith through Jesus Christ, the Law had provided severe penalties for the Israelites to help keep them close to God. It had helped them curtail their passions and pointed toward Jesus as Messiah so that they might be justified by faith. At the same time, while it pointed to Jesus and salvation, it also pronounced a curse on them for their disobedience. Like a tutor, it both instructed and disciplined.

As I said, there was a ceremony involved in the heir being named an adult. The maturation had taken place already and the tutor had reported to the father that the child was ready to be considered a man. The ceremony had no magical benefits. It simply showed what had already occurred in the heart of the man.

In the Christian life, baptism is our coming-out ceremony. We declare to the world that we are no longer a part of the world, but that we belong to Jesus. Thus, from the subject of maturity and the Law as instructor, Paul turned to baptism. The coming-of-age ceremony didn’t change the man who had grown under the tutor. It simply declared what had already occurred. The heir was ready to follow his father in the family business. Baptism  -- a symbol of a believer’s faith and obedience to God is a clear step toward taking on the attributes of Jesus. Some see it as analogous to circumcision as both announce our entry into the kingdom of God, but there are vast differences that cannot be ignored. Circumcision was/is performed on infants too young to decide for themselves whether to follow God or not. Perhaps this explains some of Israel’s constant wavering. A promise made by our parents binds us less than a decision made by ourselves. Baptism is always seen in the Bible as being performed on those mature enough to profess faith in Jesus Christ. This is a great difference in these two rites of passage. The Judaizers wanted to know why the coming of Christ would set aside circumcision, since it had served the Jews so well for so long. Paul answered, “because those who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Theirs was a personal choice, not a ritual followed as a promise of future choices. Baptism supersedes circumcision and it is a ceremony taken as a step of understanding, not as a ritual performed on an infant. 

There were some who felt that if the Law was of use during Israel’s maturation, it should also be of use for the Gentiles. Paul argued against this. Mature adults don’t require a tutor any longer. That doesn’t nullify the work of the tutor in the person’s younger years, but it puts it in its proper perspective. The Law as tutor was necessary in immaturity, but adults can choose to accept their inheritance. Christians – whether Jew or Gentile – had taken on Christ and that makes us spiritual adults. We don’t need the Law to tutor us any longer. This does not mean the lessons of the Law are not of value, but that obeying the Law for the sake of salvation is ineffective.

“Now I say that as long as the heir is a child, he differs in no way from a slave, though he is the owner of everything. Instead, he is under guardians and stewards until the time set by his father.

"In the same way we also, when we were children, were in slavery under the elemental forces of the world. But when the completion of the time came, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, to redeem those under the Law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba, Father!” 

"So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.”  Galatians 4-1-7

Paul explained that Christians (both Jew and Gentile) have grown up. We are not now treated as minor children, but as grown sons. We enjoy greater freedoms and larger privileges than Israel did while it was under the Law. We are not mere servants of God. We are His adopted heirs. Our communion with God is much closer, more personal.

The temporary institution of the Law acted as our school master, limiting our behavioral choices. Now that Christ has come, we are fully mature and no longer in need of the discipline of the school master. In our majority, we can still learn from the Law, but we are not required to continue following the Law.

And, this is where some stumble, because we so want there to be something definable that puts our name in the Book of Faith. The simple act of acknowledging God’s place in our life just doesn’t seem to be enough. We want to assure that our children will be in the Book of Faith as well and we all know that children won’t necessarily obey us.  Therefore, the Jews wanted circumcision. The Judaizers continued to cling to this ritual as a proof of salvation. They were clinging to an illusion. They had fallen in love with a symbol rather than reality. I believe that, over time, the call for circumcision changed to a call for baptism. No where in the Bible does it say baptism is required for salvation. We can find passages where baptism is the first thing done after salvation, but we can find no passages where baptism is performed before salvation. Nowhere do we see infants being baptized. If we want it to be there, we can find passages where it might have been there, but we can find no passages where it definitely was there. Whatever the early Church Fathers of the 2^nd and 3^rd Centuries believed about baptism is immaterial. We have what the apostles believed about baptism recorded in the Bible and what they believed is far more important than what someone 100 years later believed.

Don’t get me wrong! Believer’s Baptism is an important rite in the Christian churches and should be administered, preferably by immersion, at the earliest available time after salvation, because it is a first step of obedience in a new Christian life. It is a symbol of burying our sin in Jesus and arising new to life in Him. We should not worship the symbol, however! Christians are called to worship Jesus Himself. Baptism does not save us. By itself, baptism is a work and nothing more. The salvation that precedes it is far more important. Without faith making us new, baptism is just a bath. This is why true baptism cannot be performed on infants, because infants lack the mental capacity to understand and execute faith. Without faith, the child is just receiving a ceremonial bath and that does nothing for his soul.

As mature believers, we should know this. Our relationship with Jesus relies on something far stronger than rituals and rules. It relies on salvation. But salvation by faith exercises trust. We must trust God that He doesn’t need any more from us than our obedience.

Oh, but relationship is so hard and we do like our rituals, don’t we? So did the Galatians!  And, Paul saw that as a huge problem.  The Judaizers wanted the Galatians to remain children, bound under the instruction of the Law, but they had taken on Christ and no longer required a tutor.  It was time for them to become adults!

Abraham lived a long time before Jesus Christ. The Jews look to him as the founder of their nation. Very few people think of him as a man who lived by faith. Abraham lived 400 years before the Law was given to Moses. 400 years! What was the basis of his relationship with God? Did he perish upon death as one who didn’t follow the Law? Of course not! Like James before him, Paul knew far more about Abraham than the Jews did.

Having reproved the Galatians for not obeying the truth, Paul tried to impress them with the foolishness of their disobedience. He then turned to proving the doctrine of justification by faith without the works of the Law. He started with an example that would be familiar to Jews, especially to the Judaizers who were attempting to re-educate the Galatians.

“Just as Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness, (Gn 15:6) so understand that those who have faith are Abraham’s sons. Now the Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith and foretold the good news to Abraham, saying, All the nations will be blessed in you. (Gn 12:3; 18:18)  So those who have faith are blessed with Abraham, who had faith.” Galatians 3:6-9

Paul would later use the example of Abraham’s justification in Romans 4, but here, he just touched on the subject. Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. His faith had been attached to the promise of God, predicated on the belief that God owned him as a righteous man. The Judaizers considered Abraham to be the father of the faithful, so Paul explained that Abraham’s descendents are not just his children in the flesh, but those who have claimed the promises of faith. The Galatians (like Christians today) were justified in the same way as Abraham. Abraham was justified by faith; so were they. Paul quoted from Genesis 12:3 for this purpose. The Scripture had foretold that the Gentiles would come to God by faith. Paul claimed this to be the gospel:  that Abraham’s heirs, no matter their nationality, were blessed by Abraham’s faithfulness, by the promise God made to him, and by the same faith as Abraham exhibited. It is through faith that true believers are made and it is only through faith that others obtain the promise made to Abraham.

“For all who rely on The bracketed text has been added for clarity. the works of the Law are under a curse, because it is written: Cursed is everyone who does not continue doing everything written in the book of the Law.  Now it is clear that no one is justified before God by the Law, because the righteous will live by faith. (Hab 2:4)
 
"But the Law is not based on faith; instead, the one who does these things will live by them. (Lv 18:5)  Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us, because it is written: Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree. (Dt 21:23) The purpose was that the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, so that we could receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

"Brothers, I’m using a human illustration. No one sets aside even a human covenant that has been ratified, or makes additions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say “and to seeds,” as though referring to many, but and to your seed, (Gn 12:7; 13:15; 17:8; 24:7) referring to one, who is Christ.

"And I say this: the Law, which came 430 years later, does not revoke a covenant that was previously ratified by God in Christ, so as to cancel the promise. For if the inheritance is from the Law, it is no longer from the promise; but God granted it to Abraham through the promise.” Galatians 3:10-18

Paul contended that it is impossible to be justified by the Law, because the Law condemns us. He gives a clear example of this in this passage.  The Law says anyone who hangs upon a tree is cursed, but Jesus died upon a cross.  Obviously, to the Gentile Christian, Jesus is not cursed.  But the Law doesn't give any leeway in this or any other area.  Imagine putting yourself on trial in the court of Hebrew Law.  We would be found guilty as Law-breakers.  We would have no chance to plead not guilty because the Hebrew Scriptures (Deut 27:26) say that everyone is cursed who doesn’t follow every letter of the Law. Unless we live in universal obedience to the Law, we fall under the curse of the Law. The curse is wrath revealed, to be turned out into complete evil, and is against all sinners – which is every one. It is complete vanity to appeal to the Law and hope for justification. It can’t happen.

Christ’s method of redeeming us from the curse of the Law was, frankly, strange. He was made sin for us. He took upon Himself all of our disobedience so that we would not have to suffer discipline for our past mistakes. In doing so, He opened the door of heaven for Gentiles to come to faith in the same way that Abraham had. Abraham believed God. We believe Jesus, Who is God. Through this faith, we all (no matter our nationality or past beliefs) become heirs of Abraham’s blessing, particularly the promise of the Holy Spirit. Abraham was not saved by putting himself under the Law (for the Law was yet to come for 430 years), but by faith in God. It is by faith in Jesus that Gentiles become the people of God and heirs to that promise.

If the Law has no other option, but to find us guilty, than the only option for redemption is faith. It is utterly vain and foolish to expect rescue from returning to the Law.

Paul quoted Habbakuk 2:4 (The just will live by faith) as support for his argument. It is only through faith that a person becomes righteous. Our human work might give us the esteem of men, but it does nothing to change our position in God’s eyes. We come to God by His rules, not by the rules we prefer.

“Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise was made would come. The Law for clarity. was ordered through angels by means of a mediator. Now a mediator is not for just one person, but God is one.

"Is the Law therefore contrary to God’s promises? Absolutely not! For if a Law had been given that was able to give life, then righteousness would certainly be by the Law. But the Scripture has imprisoned everything under sin’s power, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were confined under the Law, imprisoned until the coming faith was revealed.”  Galatians 3:19-23

So what was the purpose of Law if not to save us? Paul wanted his readers to understand that the Law did still retain value; it simply wasn’t the root of their salvation.  Why did God give the Law if it is useless? The answer is, it isn’t useless. It’s just been misperceived, imbued with more value than it was ever meant to possess.

The Mosaic Law was not designed to annul the promise of God to Abraham, but to assist the people of Israel in keeping that promise. They had been chosen as God’s peculiar people, but they were sinners like anyone else. The Law was given to convince them of their sin and make them aware of God’s displeasure with their disobedience. The Law highlights sin, Paul would later write in Romans 3:20. Keeping the Law helped restrain the Israelites from committing more sin, because it caused them to view God with awe and to somewhat curb their lusts. At the same time, it was designed to direct them to the true and only way sin could be pardoned; namely the death and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The temple rites themselves had pointed to this and the rending of the curtain on the Holy of Holies (from top to bottom, significantly) had declared that the time of the temple was over. Yet the Law did not run contrary to God’s promise. It simply wasn’t sufficient to bring the spiritually dead to life. We were like slaves, imprisoned by our sins and unable to redeem ourselves while we labored under the Law. But now, faith had come to show us a better way. Gentiles are heirs to the promise, but not to the Law. As the Galatians had come to God through faith, they already understood the necessity of a Savior. They did not need the discipline of the Law to bring them to that point. They had already arrived there.

As the promise was given first to Abraham and the Law given later to Moses, the promise is of greater value than the Law. Yet, the Judaizers were trying to teach it the other way around. The promise was, to their minds, superseded by the Law.  It left Jews and Gentiles both in a state of unredeemed guilt, unable to attain righteousness and justification, since the Law cannot achieve these things. The Galatians had once more bound themselves in slavery to the guilt of sin without any means to work their way loose.

In effect, in attempt to find a more complete means of salvation, they had in fact declared themselves guilty of a crime punishable by eternal death and then refused to accept a pardon.

Any parent would understand Paul’s strong tones in this letter. The Galatians were his children in the faith and they were completely fouling up in his absence.  It had to be somewhat like leaving your teenager in charge for the weekend and coming home to discover they’d let the local vagrant population move in.  Beyond upset, Paul admonished them in the strongest possible terms, attempting to persuade them back to the right path.

Proverbs tells us to be careful in using the term “fools” because it’s one of those accusations that can quickly turn around to bite us. Just because somebody seems stupid, doesn’t mean we aren’t the ones who are stupid. But in this case, Paul was certain of what he was teaching. He had seen the risen Christ. He knew what was taught in the Law the Judaizers were peddling. He didn’t want that for the Galatians. He didn’t believe God wanted that for them either.

“You foolish Galatians! Who has hypnotized you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was vividly portrayed  as crucified?

“I only want to learn this from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now going to be made complete by the flesh (or, human effort)? Did you suffer so much for nothing—if in fact it was for nothing?

“So then, does God Lit He supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law or by hearing with faith?”  Galatians 3:1-5

The apostle dealt with the Galatians in an honest manner. They had embraced the faith but now sought justification through the works of the law. They wanted to be dependent upon their own obedience to the moral precepts found in the Mosaic Law.  They wanted rules and rituals to define their salvation experience.

They might seem like fools to us, but I would point out that many people enjoy the structure of works religion. Even outside of the arena of religion, people like clearly defined rules and customs that structure their interactions. It’s one reason why good students fail as college freshmen, because they go from the rules and time tables of high school to the honor system of college. Churches run the gamut between rules-based churches and honor-system churches. It’s my observation that a large segment of the religious-oriented population enjoys having rules that are clearly defined and choose churches that do that for them. Other of us prefer to rely on our relationship with Jesus to inform the rules for our lives. Paul was one of those and he insisted that Jesus would agree with him.

Paul first reproved the Galatians sharply, then endeavored to convince them of the truth.  We should take note of the method. He didn’t attempt to salve their egos. He was forthright and clear, but he didn’t leave his argument at “You’re wrong!” He provided evidence of why and in what areas the teaching they sought to follow was, and remains, wrong. 

He reproved them in no uncertain terms, calling them foolish Galatians. As Christians they should have been wise, yet as corrupt Christians they were foolish children. He demanded to know who had hypnotized (the KJV uses “bewitched”) them. He knew he had presented the gospel to them in clear and understandable terms. Jesus had been crucified for their sins. So, why were they now rejecting that sacrifice?

The Galatians’ belief is not in question. They knew the truth. Paul stated his certainty in this.  Yet, it is not enough to know the truth. Christians are required to obey the truth.  We must submit to it and abide in it. The Galatians had been taught the truth and accepted it, but now they had been hypnotized into refusing to obey it. 

A central feature of all early Christian worship was the memorial ceremony of the Lord’s Supper. The bread signified (as it does today in congregations around the world) Jesus’ body broken upon the cross, made sin for all of humanity. The wine signified Jesus’ blood washing away our sins upon acceptance of His sacrifice. Salvation was clearly presented to them every time they took the Lord’s Supper. Moreover, their principal teacher was Paul. It is simply impossible that the Galatians were not acquainted with the subject of faith if they had been trained for any amount of time under Paul. Salvation by faith in Jesus Christ was his clarion call.

Paul appealed to their experience, because our experiences are something that most of us find hard to deny. I use the example of having heard the aurora “sing”. Scientists tell me the aurora cannot be heard, but I’ve heard it, so I know they simply are inexperienced. In the same way, the Galatians had experienced Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit had worked in their lives, perhaps manifesting in gifts of the Spirit. Had those gifts come to them by the works of the law, he asked. Had he preached the necessity of the law in order for justification? Of course, the Galatians couldn’t say that he had, because Paul never would have preached that and, as Gentiles, they couldn’t claim justification by that means. Paul reminded them that they had received justification by the doctrine of faith in Jesus Christ. If they answered Paul’s question truthfully, they would admit that the gifts of the Spirit had manifested when they had accepted the gospel of faith, not the “gospel” of works.

I would draw special attention to Paul’s emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit. One reason I turned briefly to Acts before starting this series was to highlight to place of the Holy Spirit in the early Church. He is a prominent feature. The early Church could have done nothing without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Christians in the 21^st Century can do no more.

Paul demanded the Galatians consider their own logic! Were they making any sense?  They had begun in the Spirit. That was evident. So now, knowing that, why would they think they could be made perfect by works of the body? They had received the Spirit and justification had been given through Jesus Christ, but now they were listening to errors of doctrine that said that only the Law could finish this perfecting work within them. They were pulling down with one hand what they had built with the other. This made no sense to Paul and he hoped he could show them that it should make no sense to them.

Not only had the Galatians embraced the doctrine of faith, but they had suffered for it.  During their time of suffering, they apparently hadn’t departed from it, so now, why would they turn from what they had been taught to this doctrine that was utterly different from what they had suffered for?

Paul pointed out that the ministers among them, himself included, had ministered through the Spirit, not through the works of the law. The Galatians knew what Paul had taught. For that matter, the Judaizers knew what he taught – that’s why they attempted to discredit Paul’s testimony. They knew that what they were teaching was so very different from what Paul had taught that they could not openly teach Judaizing without calling Paul’s character and ministry into question.

In a way, Paul asked a profound question here. Would the ministers of Jesus teach two different and opposing gospels? Why? What would be the purpose?

We are still surrounded by heresy in the 21^st Century. It is important that Christians recognize it and confront it. Some heresies are clearly identifiable.  Others require a bit more thought. 

Tertullian, one of the early Church Fathers, used two proofs for combating heresy in his “Discourses on Heresies, Chapter 38.”

The first listed proof was one of roots. A church founded by the apostles should be able to produce records showing they had been founded by one or more of the apostles. It was a sign of good root stock for a church to have been founded by one of the apostles.

However, Tertullian recognized that even a well-begun church could fall into heresy.  Look at the Galatians. Some of those churches may never have come back to the correct path. Yet, they had been founded by an apostle. Apostolic succession was no certainty of future doctrinal truth. Thus Tertullian offered a second proof. A truly apostolic church would teach apostolic doctrine – that is doctrine adhering to what the apostles taught. Tertullian himself quoted from almost every book of the New Testament, signifying that he was familiar with the writings that would comprise the New Testament. In fact, by his time of writing in the late second century there was already a working canon recognized among most churches, though there was some controversy on a few books. Paul’s writings had been circulating together in a bound codex since the end of the 1^st Century. Tertullian was familiar with the teachings of the apostles. He was in a good position, as were many of the churches of that day, to determine whether churches were adhering to the teachings of the apostles or deviating from them.

Thus, if a church met this second standard, that of teachings that adhered to apostolic teachings, that church did not need to prove apostolic succession. You can read this for yourselves as Tertullian’s “Heresies” are available unabridged on the net at Early Christian Writings and other such sites. You see, the more important test of being a true church of Christ was teaching in agreement with Scripture, not being able to trace apostolic succession.

Protestant churches are often accused of not being the “real” Church because most denominations trace their founding centuries after the apostles, but that is a fallacious argument, because here we have an early Church Father who placed the emphasis upon the teachings of a church over its history. Regardless of its history, if a church’s teachings do not align with Scripture, which church is dealing in heresy. Regardless of its history, a church that aligns its teachings with Scripture is an apostolic church. Apostolic churches have as one of their duties the responsibility to confront heresy when we encounter it.

It may not be pleasant and many groups will not appreciate it when we do it, but Paul has laid an example of confront heresy wherever he found it and mounting persuasive arguments for returning to Scripturally-based beliefs.  Can we today do less?

In a talking circle at a Native Bible church I know, a woman in deep prayer began to speak, making references to raven and the life-flow of the rivers which nourish God the Father.

In a sweat lodge a few days later, a man with sweat slicking his face, began to sing in Koyukon Athabaskan about the sleeping bear being awakened by Jesus to carry a message to a village.

Both of these are examples of heresy that has crept into one Christian church without the leaders even realizing it.  In fact, the leaders suspect anyone who brings up these examples of making stuff up.  Everybody in their church is Christians.  They wouldn’t be involved in animism.

They should look more closely at the book of Galatians and see how easy it is for a group of strong Christians to slink toward heresy without half-knowing it.

“But when Cephas Other mss read Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he was in the wrong (or stood condemned). For he used to eat with the Gentiles before certain men came from James. However, when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, because he feared those from the circumcision party. Then the rest of the Jews joined his hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

"But when I saw that they were deviating from the truth of the gospel, I told Cephas in front of everyone, “If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel Gentiles to live like Jews?”

“We are Jews by birth and not “Gentile sinners”; yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no human being will  be justified. But if, while seeking to be justified by Christ, we ourselves are also found to be sinners, is Christ then a promoter (or servant) of sin? Absolutely not! 

"If I rebuild those things that I tore down, I show myself to be a lawbreaker.

“For through the law I have died to the law, that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the flesh (physical body), The physical bodyI live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.
I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.  Galatians 2:11-21

Paul had already spoken to the outcome of the Jerusalem Council, but to give greater weight to what he wrote, he told the Galatians about a subsequent incident in Antioch.  I suspect the cult of Peter was already on the rise and the Judaizers were using this as a means to gain greater authority.

Antioch was one of the chief churches of the Gentile Christians, similar as Jerusalem to the Jewish Christians. There is no evidence, contrary to some traditions, that Peter was ever bishop of Antioch. It is unthinkable that this conflict would have occurred between Peter and Paul had Peter been the pastor of the Antioch church. It also makes no sense that he would be, since Antioch was a Gentile church. Peter and the other apostles had acknowledged Paul’s commission as the apostle to the Gentiles in the same way that Peter and James were apostles to the Jews. They had parted as good friends and coworkers laboring in neighbor fields. There is no evidence that Peter went to Antioch to be bishop. Most likely, he was there for a brief visit before going to other mission fields.

Yet, here Paul found himself obliged to correct Peter. This is plain evidence that Paul was not inferior to Peter and heavily damages the idea of papal supremacy and infallibility as it relates to Peter or any supposed successors. If Peter was considered infallible by the early Church, Paul was radically off-base in challenging his authority, but if Paul was radically off-base in this particular area (having to do with the entire authority structure of the Church) then that calls into question everything Paul did subsequent to this event. Paul clearly felt he was right in what he did. If he was wrong and therefore challenging the very foundation of the Church, then all Bible-believing churches are wrong also to believe anything that he wrote. It’s a logical dilemma. Either Paul forsook the Church at this point and remained unrepentant, or Peter was wrong and Paul rightly corrected him.  We know from (2 Peter 2:15-16) that Peter esteemed Paul and his writings rather highly at a later date, so I think we can assume that Peter accepted the correction, which indicates Paul was not wrong to challenge Peter in his fault.

What was Peter’s fault?  Well, something you wouldn’t expect if he were the founder of the worldwide (decidedly Gentile) Church as Roman Catholics claim.  His fault was “dissing” Gentiles.

Apparently when Peter first came to Antioch, he accepted that this was a Gentile church and he ate with the Gentile Christians, though this was in violation of Jewish law.  These Gentiles were not circumcised, but Peter had received the vision from heaven to call nothing unclean and he seems to have had the right attitude at the outset.  Then some Jewish Christians came from Jerusalem and Peter began to avoid the Gentiles, clearly to please those who held circumcision in esteem, perhaps in fear of offending them. His faulty behavior had a bad influence on others, so that even Barnabas (an acknowledged apostle to the Gentiles and instrumental in the Gentile missionary work) joined in the segregation.

This really shouldn’t be surprising to us.  Even the best of men, left to their own devices, are weak and will falter in their duty to God, usually around that issue of pleasing the “right” people.  Bad examples, especially when set by great men, will lead others astray. 

Paul would have none of it.  I read a book recently that tried to paint Paul as a humble and quiet man.  I stopped reading it and likely won’t pick it up again, because the Paul I read about in the Bible doesn’t seem so self-effacing to me.  I think he was a bold defender of the faith and not ashamed to speak up when he was right.  Peter was considered a pillar of the Church (Paul had acknowledged this just a few sentences before in this letter), but Paul was not afraid to reprimand him for bad behavior.  Adhering staunchly to his principles (and possibly the only Jewish Christian to do so), Paul confronted the hypocrisy that was edging toward heresy. 

Paul was every bit as good a Jew as Peter and the others, but he was, by this time in his life, an apostle to the Gentiles. He saw the error of Peter and the others in not obeying the gospel in public, and he confronted Peter in public. Sometimes we are tempted to keep the errors of our leaders private and deal with them behind closed doors. We should note that Paul didn’t do this. Peter’s wronging of the Gentiles had been done publically. His correction was also public.  We can assume his repentance was equally public.

Peter had done nothing wrong when he dispensed with the ceremonial law and lived in the manner of the Gentiles when he had first arrived in Antioch. His later segregation from the Gentiles amounted to saying “You don’t live rightly before God.” Paul saw this as compelling the Gentiles to live like the Jews. This was done not by violence, but by example. The message of his behavior was clear – Gentiles must comply with Jewish practice or not be admitted into the Christian community.

Having thus established his office and character and shown that he was not inferior to any of the apostles, not even Peter himself, Paul uses the reproof he gave to Peter as a launching point to expound upon the fundamental doctrine of the gospel – justification is only by faith in Christ and not by works of the law.

It should be noted that this doctrine found Peter guilty of hypocrisy, by mixing the law with faith. 

Paul was careful to explain to his readers that there was a difference between Jews and Gentiles. The Jews did indeed live cleaner (in terms of sin) lives. Yet, the Jewish Christians had found it necessary to seek justification by faith in Jesus. Works of the law had simply not reconciled them to God. If the Jewish Christians thought faith in Christ was necessary, why should they hamper themselves further with the Law? Why did they believe in Christ? Was it not because they wanted to be justified by faith in Jesus?  So, wasn’t it foolish to go back to the Law and expect to be justified either by moral works or ceremonial sacrifices and purification rites? So, if it was wrong for a Jewish Christian to rely on the Law for justification, would it not be even more wrong for the Gentiles, who had never been subject to the Law, to rely on the Law now. “By the works of the law no human being will be justified” (verse 16). 

Paul went on further, telling Peter and the readers he related to, “if, while seeking to be justified by Christ, we ourselves are also found to be sinners, is Christ then a promoter Or servant of sin?”

Paul hit Peter right between the eyes. Here Peter was, seeking to be saved through Jesus Christ, but he had become a bad example. He had disobeyed God. Did that example come from Jesus? Of course not! With God’s guidance, Peter and Paul had already torn down the wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles. By building it anew, Peter was breaking the law of the Spirit. God is never the author of evil. Peter himself might be the author of evil, but Jesus was not the cause of his evil. You know, it’s interesting that Paul uses the principles and practices of the Jewish Christians themselves to argue for the doctrine of justification by faith without the works of the law. If the Jewish Christians were to depart from that doctrine, they would fall in bondage to the Law. They didn’t want that for themselves; why would they want it for the Gentile Christians?

At this point, Paul now wrote about his own practical understanding in this area. Paul was dead to the Law. It didn’t matter what Peter or anyone else thought about it, Paul was dead to it. The Law had become antiquated when Christ came. Paul had considered the Law itself and seen that justification did not come from works. The Law required perfect obedience, which is impossible for human beings, so there was really no point in keep the Law. Paul had given up all hope of justification by works, had slipped the bonds of the Law, but still considered himself fully indentured to God. The gospel, instead of weakening his bond of duty to God, had strengthened and confirmed it. Though Paul was dead to the Law, he was alive to God through Jesus Christ.

Paul made a powerful statement here – “if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.” (verse 21)

Our human mindset seems to be that we must do something to be worthy of God. He died a horrible death on our behalf. Certainly we must owe Him something for that. We do! But the debt we owe is simple love and obedience to Him. We are not called to work our way into His good graces. If we were called to that purpose, then Jesus’ death on the cross would mean nothing. The Jews thought they had to work their way to God.  It didn’t do them any good. They perished for want of a Savior. Christ’s death means something only if it means everything!

Either Jesus did it all and I did nothing to deserve it, or I can work my way to Heaven and Jesus’ death was unnecessary. That is the fulcrum upon which salvation balances!

Paul’s personal journey with the Lord was important to establishing his authority within the churches, but the agreement of the greater Church was also important. While we should never put anything between us and our relationship with the Lord, it is important to recognize the human need for accountability. Fallible human beings should always be aware of their tendency to err, so that we might submit ourselves to Biblically-directed counsel.  Of course, that goes both ways, as we’ll see in the next article. Our counselors should also listen to us.

After a number of years of ministry without the oversight of the apostles or the church in Jerusalem, Paul encountered a doctrinal issue that he recognized had the potency to destroy the Church. It was the same heresy that he was now combating in Galatia.

Judaizing!

“Then after 14 years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. I went up because of a revelation and presented to them the gospel I preach among the Gentiles—but privately to those recognized as leaders —so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain. But not even Titus who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

"This issue arose because of false brothers smuggled in, who came in secretly to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us. But we did not yield in submission to these people for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain for you.

“But from those recognized as important (what they really were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism (or, God is not a respecter of persons)—those recognized as important added nothing to me. On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter was for the circumcised. For He who was at work with Peter in the apostleship to the circumcised was also at work with me among the Gentiles. When James, Cephas, and John, recognized as pillars, acknowledged the grace that had been given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
They asked The bracketed text has been added for clarity. only that we would remember the poor, which I made every effort to do.”  Galatians 2:1-10

Evidently, from the very beginning of preaching and planting of Christianity, there was a somewhat different understanding of the gospel between those of differing backgrounds. The Christians who had once been Jews retained a regard for the ceremonial law and strove to keep this reputation while those who were Gentiles saw Christianity as the perfection of natural religion and resolved to adhere to that. This was bound to cause difficulty and eventually Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter, James and John, the apostles to the Jews, were going to need to resolve it.

Paul hadn’t felt the need to consult with the Jerusalem church for 14 years. Clearly, he had no dependence upon the other apostles to define his own relationship with Jesus Christ. He felt and acted an equal authority with them.  He preached pure Christianity for that long time without being called to question by them, so clearly they did not disapprove of his doctrine. In fact, they didn’t send for Paul and Barnabas to explain their actions. The Judaizers seem to have suggested that they go to Jerusalem, further evidence they thought their doctrine was acceptable to the Church. Paul was not seeking the approval of the Jerusalem apostles. He was seeking their public agreement.  No doubt there had been communication between him and the other apostles during that time. Barnabas was clearly in contact with the church at Jerusalem, even if Paul was not. Paul appears to have been confident of the outcome of the Council. The Judaizers were apparently just as confident.

The team the Antioch church assembled to accompany Paul to Jerusalem included Barnabas, who had a few years prior been sent out from Jerusalem to minister in Antioch. It was he who brought Paul from Tarsus to help him in ministry. Titus, a Gentile Christian, was also in company.  Did the church of Antioch choose him or did Paul? We don’t know, but I think the reason for his inclusion is obvious. He was Exhibit A – a man of God with his foreskin intact. Titus was not only a convert to Christianity, but also a preacher of the gospel. In taking him, Paul was saying that their doctrine and practice were the same. He had preached the non-necessity of circumcision and here was living proof.

Acts gives us an account of the Jerusalem Council, but here we have the account of one of the individual delegates to the Council. Paul made it clear that he went to Jerusalem to gain the agreement of the other apostles, but that he did not seek their approval – which is quite different. When he appeared before the Council, Paul’s evidence was the gospel itself – that which he preached among the Gentiles. He had to know that there were some among the Council who rejected the preaching of pure Christianity, but he was not afraid to own it. He laid it open before the whole Council and let them to judge whether or not it was the pure gospel of Christ. There are some scholars who believe that Paul presented at least some of his message in private to the apostles who were present. This is believable. Paul’s message often stirred up controversy and enmity toward him and his message, so he might have chosen to approach those with the greater authority among the Jerusalem church first. It’s also possible that during the uproar mentioned in Acts 15 that the apostles drew Paul away for a private discussion.

Paul resolutely clung to the tenets of pure Christianity, but he also noted that the apostles didn’t require Titus to be circumcised. It’s entirely possible the Galatians knew Titus. Though the apostles didn’t require it, there were others who did. Paul named them “false brothers”, claiming they had snuck into the church. They were opposed to the freedom of Christ that Paul preached. Their design was to bring the Gentiles into bondage, for if Titus was forced to be circumcised it would be a short step to requiring all Gentiles to be circumcised. Paul, aware of their plans, resisted them and refused to yield on the matter.

Recognize that circumcision was and is not a sin. Paul allowed Timothy to be circumcised, for instance (Acts 16:3) because it would further the preaching of the gospel among the Jews. Paul’s objection was when it was insisted upon as a necessity for salvation. Paul had too great a concern for the purity and liberty of the gospel to submit it to Mosaic rites and ceremonies. There are things in this world that may lawfully be complied with for the sake of expedience, but when it hinders, distorts or corrupts the gospel of Christ, we should resist it.

Paul once more carefully noted that the apostles hadn’t added anything to what he believed or taught. Paul gave James, Peter and John their props – they were rightly seen as pillars of the Church. Whatever they were before men, even Christians, didn’t really matter to Paul because he believed God does not accept people on account of their outward advantages. God had called James, Peter and John to be apostles, but He could choose to call others to the same office, which He had done with Paul.

The other apostles agreed with pure Christianity and they fully accepted Paul as an apostle. They were apostles to the Jews. Paul and Barnabas were apostles to the Gentiles. They extended their friendship and support to the two in their endeavors.  They asked only that Paul and his missionaries remember the poor, which he tried always to do. The Christians of Judea were by this time laboring under great difficulties.  It would seem that the apostles recommended their case to Paul. Paul supported the Jerusalem church with many collections from around the missionary areas over the years. The Jewish Christians may not have always been comfortable with Paul, his message or the converts of his labors, but Paul saw no reason to withhold charity on that account. By this we are taught that we should not confine our charity only to those who share the same sentiments with us, but be ready to extend our care to all whom we might consider to be Christians.

Paul provided us with an insider’s view of the Jerusalem Council. It can be reconciled with Acts, but clearly Paul was privy to information and meetings that Luke was not.  This is not to be considered unusual. If I am sent to a conference by my boss, I only attend those meetings that I am supposed to attend. I may not be invited to certain meetings. That is normal. Apparently, it was normal during Paul’s life as well. I would write one account of the conference, while the person keeping the minutes would write another. They would agree in general, but differ in detail.

The important issue with this passage is that Paul asked for the apostles to agree with him, not to approve what he was teaching. There is no evidence in Acts or Galatians that the apostles instructed Paul in what he should teach. In fact, it would appear he spent several months (maybe more) in Damascus before presenting himself to the apostles in Jerusalem. He preached and taught there without their approval. Yet, the Bible records this as Christian ministry. Paul did not rely on the other apostles for his authority. Jesus Christ had given him His seal on the road to Damascus. Paul did not need Peter, James, John or anyone else to give him the authority to preach and minister. They had received their authority from the same source – Jesus Christ. The same Holy Spirit worked in them as worked in Paul.

This in no way denigrates the Jerusalem apostles. They agreed with Paul that salvation was by faith and not by keeping the Law. Jews and Gentiles came to Christ in the same way. My point and Paul’s is that we derive our authority with regards to teaching the Bible directly from Jesus Christ. All Christians have met Him in the Spirit when we were born-again. By listening to the Holy Spirit, we can be led to understand the Bible and work it out in our lives.

This is not to say that individual Christians can completely interpret the Bible for themselves in isolation from other Christians. The Bible would not tell us to go to church if we did not need community. The early Christians learned from the apostles and from studying the Hebrew Scriptures. We are to learn from studying the Bible and sharing what we have learned with fellow Spirit-led Christians. The community of believers, just like Silas and Timothy for Paul, provide us with accountability. They act as a check against our falling into error, if we let them.

The heresy of Judaizing didn’t die with the Jerusalem Council. In fact, it appears to have infected some of the apostles. We humans are ever good at wandering off the reservation. God tells us what we should believe and practice, but often we just do our own thing. Three years after the Jerusalem Council, the churches of Galatia had Judaizers worse than lice. Pretty much every church in the region was corrupted in one way or another.

There is no Biblical evidence of an official ecclesiastic authority structure during the New Testament era. Paul strongly spoke against it in this letter. He didn’t get his authority from Jerusalem. He got his authority from Jesus. He maintained accountability through his ministry team, not through the approval of Jerusalem. It was the Judaizers who claimed ecclesiastic authority when they came to Antioch, saying they were from the Jerusalem church, though they did so without the knowledge or approval of the apostles in Jerusalem. I doubt they changed their tactics after they were stopped in Antioch. They went north into the valleys of Galatia and said “we come from Peter and the rest of the apostles in Jerusalem. That Paul guy is leading you astray. Listen to what we have to teach if you want to be saved.”

Though claiming ecclesiastic authority they did not possess (and indeed did not exist), it is clear that the Judaizers were interpreting Christianity to their own ends. Paul wrote to the Galatians at least a couple of years after the Jerusalem Council, so it is clear that the Judaizers had rejected the accountability of the larger Christian community. Paul wrote the letter to plead with the Galatian churches to accept the accountability the heretics had rejected.

This is no different than the action of churches and congregational denominations today. Any one person alone could come up with heretical ideas, but others would correct them. The further up the chain of community you go, more Christians are individually and conjointly able to correct the heresy. If at some point, it is determined that the individual cannot be persuaded to follow the Bible, the community can decide to put him or her outside of the church. Of course, it leaves the person free to preach their heresy, but the confrontation of heresies should strengthen our faith and knowledge of the Bible. Not all have followed the Biblical example in this and it is credited against certain segments of Christianity that they chose to silence heresy through violence rather than through reasoned discussion and church disciple as noted in the Bible. It might also be noted that some of the most famous “heretics” of the Christian era were also great men of God – Peter Waldo, Wycliffe, Luther, Hus, Zwingli – just to name a few.  Sometimes, what’s deemed a heresy by some is really the truth.

I suspect the Judaizers called Paul a heretic.

The Church is founded upon Jesus Christ.  This is no more evident than in Jesus’ calling of Paul the apostle and in His continuing education of His former enemy.  Paul owed every moment of his ministry to Jesus, with few connections to the rest of the Church.

Paul had opened the letter with a general statement about his apostleship, but now he more specifically supported his claim to this authority.  He had history on his side and he wanted the Galatians to know this.

“Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not based on a human point of view. For I did not receive it from a human source and I was not taught it, but it came by a revelation from Jesus Christ.

"For you have heard about my former way of life in Judaism: I persecuted God’s church to an extreme degree and tried to destroy it; and I advanced in Judaism beyond many contemporaries among my people, because I was extremely zealous for the traditions of my ancestors.

"But when God, who from my mother’s womb set me apart and called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me, so that I could preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone. I did not go up to Jerusalem to those who had become apostles before me; instead I went to Arabia and came back to Damascus. Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to get to know Cephas, and I stayed with him 15 days. But I didn’t see any of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.

"Now in what I write to you, I’m not lying. God is my witness. Afterwards, I went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia. I remained personally unknown to the Judean churches in Christ; they simply kept hearing: “He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God because of me.”  Galatians 1:11-24

Some who were teaching in the Galatian churches had called Paul’s apostleship into question. Preaching the ceremonial law, they did all they could to lessen Paul’s reputation, because he preached the pure gospel of Christ to the Gentles.  In order to nullify what he taught, they must show Paul to be an uncertain source of gospel truth. Very early in this letter, Paul set about to prove the divinity of both his mission and the doctrine taught.

First, he explained, he didn’t get his gospel from human beings, but from God. Paul sought always to promote God’s glory, whether it was convenient for others or not.  He reminded his readers of this, lest they think they were going to get a watered-down version of the truth as Paul had received it.  It was not going to happen!

Paul had been called and instructed by Jesus Christ Himself. Ordinary ministers receive their instructions from other men. Paul was fairly unique in this aspect, for Christ had called him directly.

In an effort to show his readers that he understood Judaism and the teachings of the Judaizers, Paul told his readers a bit about his education. He’d been brought up in the Jewish religion, and he had profited in it in many ways.  He’d been exceedingly zealous for the traditions of the elders, to such a degree that he had persecuted the Church of Christ. This had brought him a great deal of stature among his Jewish peers. Paul often in his writings contrasted his past life with his Christian life, using the contrast to magnify the rich grace of God toward him, in that it had created so powerful a change in him. From so great a sinner, God had reformed Paul into His greatest apostle. But, it wasn’t Paul’s education that had brought him to Christ. In fact, his education had been leading him to persecute Christians, for in his prejudices, he had been deeply opposed to Christianity.

God had given Paul his head for a period of years, but He has selected Paul for a special purpose from conception, and in time, He confronted Paul with Jesus Christ.  Paul’s conversion was unique both in suddenness and power. There was no mediation with other believers. Christ made a personal appearance to Paul. The change was wrought immediately, with great power and favor. The change in Paul was not only an outward change, but an immediate inward change. Immediately Paul learned that he would be an apostle to the Gentiles and very soon after his conversion, he was evangelizing in Damascus.

After his conversion by direct revelation, Paul did not confer with other believers. Some suppose the account in Acts does not agree with Paul’s account in Galatia, but I think Paul’s account was memory while Luke’s account was history.  Luke synopsized Paul’s time in Damascus. Thus, he spent a while in Damascus before he visited Jerusalem. He did not apply to others for their advice and direction. He did not go up to Jerusalem to confer with the apostles, for he didn’t feel the need to be approved by them or to receive instructions or authority from them.  He went into Arabia instead.  The desert was often a place of contemplative retirement for hermit esthetics of the time. It is reasonable to assume that a man so steeped in Judaic Law needed a bit of deprogramming time.  He may also have been preaching to the Gentiles of that region.  After several months, he returned to Damascus where he spent three years. Then, finally, he went to Jerusalem and spent two weeks getting to know Cephas and James, the brother of Jesus, who was pastor of the church in Jerusalem. His tone in the letter suggests that he did not consider himself much indebted to Peter or James for either his knowledge of the gospel or his authority to preach it.  He saw his apostolic office as extraordinary and divine.  He didn’t interact with the other apostles and after his visit there, he returned to Syria, perhaps his home in Tarsus.

Paul felt strongly about his independence and used a term that translates "I am not lying."  It would be like us swearing on a Bible to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  While in Syria, he had no communication with the churches in Judea. They heard about his activities and were pleased, but they didn’t oversee his activities and he didn’t ask their advice.

Learning from Paul, we can grasp certain thoughts about our own Christian walk. It should be the goal of all ministers of the gospel (which would be any Christian; we are all called to be ministers) to bring men to God.  This may not always be a comfortable business as we are called to seek the approval of God, not of men.  Each of us has our own testimony and our testimony is the one thing the enemies of Christ cannot discredit. No matter how they would like to say that what we have experienced is without merit, they cannot deny our experience. Only I and God know the work that was done in my heart in March of 1977. Someone else can say they think such-and-such happened to me during that time, but the salvation experience that occurred had only two witnesses and I was one. They can psychoanalyze it, but they cannot know it.

We should be comfortable with sharing our testimony and making those claims about it that are our just due. Christ reaches out to each of us personally, though He may not appear before any of us in a blinding light and a voice from heaven. We are all unique in that Christ comes to us as we are. This is beyond important in our walk with Christ, for it is not some ritualized ceremony that we follow to declare ourselves members of a church, but an individualized struggle and giving over that brings us into the kingdom of God.

Most of us do not have as dramatic a testimony as the apostle, but ours is no less valid and it may be the exact thing someone needs to hear when they are ready to hear it.

Another important point is that Paul did not rely on his education or ministerial contacts. So often, you hear testimonies by people who remark how so-and-so big-time preacher was the pastor of their church when they came to know the Lord and how they went to this highly esteemed university and this big-name seminary. These are not bad things, but in and of themselves, they are merely religious trappings. It is the foundation of faith that matters, for we are all capable of being taught by the Holy Spirit through the Bible without any education by people. God can certainly bless us if we have contact with great theologians, but the greatest Christian theologian wrote 13 books of the New Testament and his writings are available to us today. Most every thing else is merely commentary.

We must first know Jesus and then know His word. We must be comfortable with our place in His kingdom and telling others about Him. If we are instructed by wiser heads in the Lord, that is a fine thing, but their teachings should never supersede the teachings of Jesus. Paul didn’t allow it for himself. We should not allow it either. 

Nothing, no matter how good-seeming, should ever come between us and Jesus Christ!

In James’ letter of a few years before this, the Lord’s brother had likened certain Christians to people without short-term memories. They would look in a mirror at themselves, then turn away and forget what they looked like.  I think Paul understood this concept, because he was dealing with a similar phenomenon in Galatia.

“I am amazed that you are so quickly turning away from Him who called you by the grace of Christ, and are turning The bracketed text has been added for clarity. to a different gospel— not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are troubling you and want to change the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than what we have preached to you, a curse be on him! As we have said before, I now say again: if anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you received, a curse be on him!

“For am I now trying to win the favor of people, or God? Or am I striving to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a slave of Christ.”  Galatians 1:6-10

Unlike Thessalonians, where Paul leisurely approached his subject matter amid loads of praise for his readers, he quickly turned to the body of the epistle here and began a more general reproof of these churches for their unsteadiness in the faith.  He would get specific later.

Paul uses extremely strong language in this section of the epistle – language that conveys strong emotion toward the situation.  This is not a small lapse in judgment. This is central to their salvation!

“I am amazed”  - Paul was filled with the greatest surprise and sorrow that they did not hold fast to the doctrine of Christianity as it had been preached to them. Why had they removed themselves so quickly from the purity and simplicity of the gospel?  (I wonder if Paul remembered the Thessalonians at this juncture, who had founded a growing and thriving church on solid doctrine during a very short time.  He’d apparently had more time with the Galatians.)  The Galatians were not just rejecting what Paul had taught, but were rejecting Christ Himself, Who had sent the gospel to them in the first place.  Having tasted the privileges of salvation, justification and reconciliation with God, how could they turn from God’s mercy toward them?  Paul simply could not fathom their reasons!

Paul called the doctrine of the Judaizers “another gospel” because it differed in its treatment of justification and salvation from the gospel of Jesus Christ.  The Judaizers, like the Pharisees Paul knew so well, emphasized works rather than faith as a means to salvation.  They had mingled this with the doctrines of Christ, corrupting it to the point where it was no longer a gospel at all.  What the Judaizers taught overturned the very foundations of the gospel of Christ.  That was NOT good news!

This was serious business! Paul was so confident that he had taught the Galatians the only true gospel that he pronounced a curse (or anathema) upon those who pretended to preach any other gospel.  He felt so strongly about this that he repeated the curse.

Note that this does not justify just anyone thundering out anathemas against those who differ with us over minor matters of the faith.  Anathema is only against those who create a new gospel, overturning the foundations of grace and faith that Jesus laid.  In this case, Judaism was being used to corrupt Christianity, but there were other heresies afoot then, as there are today.  Paul insisted that the Galatians should listen to no corruption of the gospel, not even if Paul himself brought it to them.  Paul was willing to pronounce a curse on himself if he were to promote such a lie.

As always, Paul was more concerned with his walk before the Lord than his esteem before men.  He assured the Galatians that he was obeying God rather than trying to please humans.  Jesus owned him body, soul and rhetorical ability.  Paul would do what God commanded, even if it made other people angry.

Although Paul was much more civilized and educated than Peter, he shared with the fisherman something that I think must be after God’s own heart – passion for Christ.  Peter famously declared on the night that Jesus was arrested that he would follow Christ into death itself.  A few hours later, he denied Jesus thrice and went to hide in the upper room for a time.  Peter later redeemed himself and became a brave and staunch preacher of the faith.  One was false bravado, the other true passion.  Paul understood true passion.  He would obey God even if it got him killed.  There was no question of this.

He reminded the Galatians that he’d never been concerned with what people thought of him. He was unconcerned now.  He was Jesus’ defender to the end.

We could learn something from Paul. In fact, we should learn something from Paul. He didn’t care if it was inconvenient or might hurt someone’s feelings. The gospel of Christ was the most precious thing to him.  He would not accommodate to those who wanted to twist it to suit their own purposes.

I know for myself that it is often easier not to argue about the gospel (or anything else) with someone because I don’t want to disagree with them or have them be upset with me.  And, certainly there are topics that are not worth arguing about.  Who really cares how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?  Who comes up with a debate like that?  We should all hang our heads for a moment of mourning that anyone ever did so.  But, when it comes down to the foundation of faith, Paul was willing to call down damnation on his own soul if he taught something different from what he knew to be the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Are we that firm in our commitment to what we believe?

Normally, when Paul addressed a church, he praised God for them and wrote a little bit about why they were special and wonderful to him. He didn’t do this with the Galatians, clear evidence of how seriously he took the threat of this heresy.  There was absolutely nothing more important.  Paul got right down to business.

“Paul, an apostle—not from men or by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead— and all the brothers who are with me: To the churches of Galatia:  Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, 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 the glory forever and ever. Amen.”  Galatians 1:1-5

Scholars suggest that the Judaizers were attempting to discredit Paul with the churches they were leading astray. I can imagine their argument.  “Well, you know, Paul didn’t become a Christian until several years (about two) after Jesus died, so he can’t claim to be an apostle. He wasn’t one of the Twelve. In fact, he persecuted Christians before he became a Christian.  Besides, he’s a Hellenistic Jew, not a Judean. We know more about these things than he does.”  Some no doubt claimed, perhaps rightly, that they had known Jesus and seen Him resurrected. Though Paul had founded the Galatian churches, some of the believers there were no longer so certain of his authority.

This letter is the first (known) time that Paul claimed apostleship.  Keeping to his standard practice of not dictating to the churches to which he wrote Paul sought to persuade the Galatian churches to return to the true gospel.  He made no demands, but he did exercise the authority he had.  It might be noted that people are much more likely to give up on beliefs that are dictated from on-high. Beliefs that they have claimed in their own right are more likely to be held throughout a lifetime.  While Paul might have been able to demand they return to the correct path of worship, he was less likely to enjoy long-term success by that method.  Only if the Galatians understood the difference between the gospel and the heresy did Paul hope to return them to the right path in the long-term.

An apostle was a commercial and diplomatic term in common use in the 1^st Century. An apostle was a messenger sent out from a ruler or business owner with authority to act on the authorizing agent’s behalf.  In the Bible, there were numerous apostles.  There were the original 12 (minus Judas, plus Matthias who was selected by lots by the surviving apostles). There were also apostles listed in the New Testament, even some we don’t have an Acts account for (Romans 16:7 Andronicus and Junia – who appears to be a woman; 1 Thessalonians 2, where Paul includes Silas and Timothy as apostles; in I Corinthians Paul includes Barnabas as an apostle).  James, the brother of Jesus and pastor of the Jerusalem Church, was counted as an apostle, though he didn’t become a Christian until after Jesus’ resurrection. At the Jerusalem Council, the other apostles recognized Paul and Barnabas as apostles to the Gentiles. An apostle of Christ was set aside for a specific ministry.  It does not appear to be limited to the 12 apostles of the Gospels.

Paul was not an apostle of Christ because Peter or James or some other apostle had made him such.  He became an apostle on the road to Damascus when Jesus Christ appeared before him and gave him his commission. This did not come from the action of men, but through the grace of Jesus Christ.  This is the same grace that brought the Galatians to salvation through faith.  It is the grace of God that allowed Jesus to die for our sins so that we might be rescued from the cesspool of this world.

Some things to note about this letter, looking at the outset.  Paul wrote it to a wide circle of churches – not to a single church. In other words, the heresy was already spreading.  It seems by the flavor of the letter that most of the churches of Galatia were corrupted by this heresy to one degree or another.  Note that he still called them churches, even though they were infected by heresy.  This may be because there were members who still had not succumbed to the heresy and Paul hoped that the others would renew their commitment to Christ.  Most of the Galatians he was addressing were Christians, having accepted Christ under Paul’s ministry.

Paul sent the letter. Normally, he wrote in community. He gave Timothy and Silas props for being with him as he wrote to the Thessalonians, for example.  And he was not completely alone in writing this letter, as we shall see further in.  However, Paul addressed the letter strictly from himself at the outset.  Why?

There were some among the Galatians who endeavored to lessen his character and authority, so he gave a general account both of his office and of the manner in which he was called to it. He enlarged upon this a little later in the letter, but at the outset, he made his claims of authority.  With regard his office, he was an apostle. He was not afraid to claim the title for himself, though his enemies surely objected.  He did not assume this role without just ground; he acquainted his readers with how he was called to this honor.  He assured them that his apostleship was wholly a divine commission.  He hadn’t received the common call of an ordinary pastor or preacher, but an extraordinary call from heaven itself.  No human beings had given him his qualifications or designation – he was an apostle by Jesus Christ and consequently his authority came directly from God the Father.

Paul reminded his readers that God had raised Jesus from the dead.  Some scholars claim this was an argument for the sovereignty of God and I have no argument with this.  God can do as He so wills.  However, I believe other scholars have a better grasp of this.  Paul is referring to the resurrection of Christ from the dead to explain his own resurrection from spiritual death, as it occurred that day outside of Damascus.  Paul had reason to look upon himself not only as equal in standing with the other apostles, but in some ways preferred above them.  Jesus had called them when He was still upon the earth.  He had called Paul while in heaven.  Paul magnified his office in answer to his adversaries.  Some might think this unseemly pride, but at certain times and occasions, it may become needful to assert authority when such a claim is the just due of the writer. It was Paul’s just due.

Although Paul named himself the sole writer, he also mentioned that there are others with him. What he was about to write was not merely Paul’s opinion, but was attested by his fellows.  He wrote Christian doctrine, attested by fellow Christians.  It is important to realize that, while we are personally responsible for our individual standing before God and our obedience to His word, we are also accountable to our fellow Christians, who have the right and obligation to correct us if we stray from the truth.

A specific feature of Paul’s writing is the apostolic benediction – grace and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.  He wrote it in almost every letter he sent.  Grace is, of course, God’s unmerited favor toward us and His good work within us.  Peace implies the inward comfort of a heart that is right with God.  Observe that without grace, there can be no true peace.  Paul wished both of these benefits for the Galatians and reminded his readers that they could have neither grace nor peace without Jesus Christ, Who died for our sins.

Paul made clear that the Galatians, just as we do today, lived in an evil world, made so by our own sin.  Sin and sorrow abounds around us and we are exposed to snares and temptations at every turn.  Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, prompted by incredible love, nullifies the power of sin on the Christian, in so far as we allow Him to work within us.

“To Whom by the glory and the power forever and ever” may refer to the last line in the Model Prayer (reference) and it has the ring of a doxology. Likely it was used often in prayer in the early church. Paul recognized that his persuasion was not really what was needed in Galatia, but God’s power and forgiveness were the important agents there.  All good things come from God and He is not the author of anything evil.  Therefore, if Paul was to win over the Galatians, God must be in the debate, front and center.

Heresies were, then as now, difficult subjects.  Paul attempted to impart the meat of the gospel to people who were showing themselves unable to digest milk.  They were trading their salvation, which was based upon faith, for empty rituals, which is a works-based religion.  They seem not to have understood the central issue of Christianity.

Heresies remain alive today and it is easy to become exasperated by them.  The plain language of the Bible seems so clear, yet in reality, the heart of man is ever deceitful and deceived.  Paul recognized this and attempted to combat it. It is likely he was not wholly successful. However, because of the heresy of the Galatian churches, we have one of the strongest statements of the Christian faith available to us today.

Galatians is worth studying!  In combating heresy, Paul presented the gospel of faith more clearly than in any other writing available to us.  In his defense of Christianity, we may find the words of life and the spirit of truth.

The overarching theme of the combined Letters to the Thessalonians was that Christ is coming back, but we don’t know when, so when He gets here, let’s all be busy about His business.

In order to accomplish that, Paul prayed for the Thessalonians and encouraged them to face persecution with dignity and agape love, and to avoid immorality. Above all, he warned them to avoid falling into heresy. He loved the Thessalonians like he would have loved his own children.  They were, in fact, his children in the Lord. He wanted only the best for them and he encouraged them to strive for the best. This was a reciprocal relationship.

The first set of letters written to a Christian church by Paul sprang from a need to complete the teaching of a church that Paul had not had much time with.  He saw a lot of good in that church and a little bad.  He praised a lot and corrected a little.

Within two years of the completion of these letters, Paul would write another letter, this one not so cheerful and exuding gratefulness for the recipients’ Christ-like walk.  This letter would be addressed to the Christians in Galatia.

GALATIA (guh lay’ shuh) was a geographical area so named because its inhabitants were Celts or Galli (Gauls), warrior immigrants from the central European continent. The original settlement was in central Asia Minor.  The area, designated as “Asia Minor” after AD 400, is the Anatolian peninsula (modern-day Turkey).  Jews from the nearby regions of Cappadocia and Asia were present in the Jerusalem crowd during Peter’s sermon on Pentecost.  Tarsus and Antioch were just south of the region. Several of the churches receiving epistles from Paul and all of the seven cities of Revelation were on this peninsula. The geography of Asia Minor greatly influenced the development of settlements in the area. The region can be described as the point where “East meets West,” linking the continent of Europe with the Near East. The peninsula is a high plateau surrounded by steep mountain ranges which isolate Asia Minor from much of the outside world. Narrow passes through the mountains connect the interior with the Near East. Deep ravines cut by numerous and often navigable rivers linked the cities of the plateau with the western coastline. Cities developed in locales vital to trade and commerce, such as near the mouths of rivers and mountain passes.

The history of Asia Minor reflects the region’s unstable position between the east and west. The Hittite Empire thrived in the eastern portion of the peninsula after 2000 B.C. Exposed on the west to the Aegean Sea, the coastal area became the home to numerous Greek colonies beginning about 1200 B.C. Centered in Sardis, the Lydian Empire began to expand about 600 B.C., but was soon conquered by the Persians. Control passed to Alexander the Great about 333 B.C. Upon his death Asia Minor fell under the rule of the Seluccids. Beginning about 200 B.C. Roman control of the peninsula increased until all of Anatolia was absorbed into the Roman provincial system. At this time, “Asia” designated the provinces of only western Anatolia. Galatia, Cappadocia, and Cilicia comprised the eastern provinces, while Bitnia and Pontus bordered the Black Sea to the north.

The Celts were a fierce warrior nation that had sacked Rome in 380 AD and then pillaged much of Greece and Macedonia.  King Nicomedes of Bithynia invited them across the Bosporus River to help him fight his brother in 278 B.C. The invaders fought on their own, capturing cities until stopped by Antiochus I in 275 B.C. They then occupied the northern part of Asia Minor, bounded on the north by Pontus and Bithynia, on the east by Tavium and Pessinus in the west. For the most part, true Galatians lived in open areas, leaving city occupation to their predecessors, the Phrygians. The true Galatians fulfilled the role of mercenary soldiers in the region and they frequently switched sides. Finally, in 25 B.C. Rome made Galatia a province of the empire and extended its borders, adding Lycaonia, Isauria, and Pisidia with Ancyra serving as the governmental center. Various Roman rulers added and subtracted territory from the province, so its precise boundaries are difficult to draw. Paul visited Galatia (Acts 16:6; 18:23), though his precise route is not clear. Did he visit Phrygian-dominated cities or the true Galatians in the countryside? Was his letter addressed to the original territory in the north or to the Roman province with its southern additions? We don’t know and the debate will likely continue until Christ returns.

Paul’s letter to the church at Galatia defending his interpretation of the gospel of Christ is his heated defense of justification by faith and freedom in the Spirit. Paul’s passion and clearly-drawn arguments endeared this epistle to all who hold such as the vital core of Christian faith. From the time of Jesus the sufficiency of faith alone for salvation has been a major issue among Christians. The issue initially came to the forefront in Paul’s day when Gentiles believed in Jesus Christ. Must the Gentiles become a part of the Jewish faith to be fully Christian? Certain Jewish Christians, called Judaizers, said that the Gentiles must also obey the Law of Moses and be circumcised to be saved. Paul declared that the Gentiles’ faith in Jesus, apart from the Jewish ritual system, was sufficient for salvation because such faith was actually the standard by which the Jews were called.

The churches of Galatia, to whom Paul wrote, were churches he himself founded. He was not a stranger to them. He preached the gospel to them the first time because of a physical ailment, the nature of which is uncertain, but it didn’t prevent Paul’s preaching. Note that in Galatians 4:13, the term “at first” normally means “the former of two times,” indicating that Paul visited Galatia twice before he wrote the letter.  This is important in determining the date the epistle was written and to whom it was written. The readers were Gentiles converted from paganism (4:8; 5:2; 6:12), although there may have been Jewish Christians and proselytes in the church as well.  I think it is important to note that if these were true Galatians, they were not Greeks. The Celts had their own theology, based upon the mythological gods they had brought with them from Europe.

Paul did not specifically locate these churches resulting in confusion. The place name “Galatia” belonged to a large province of the Roman Empire. The name was used earlier to designate the northern territory of the province inhabited by a particular people know as “Galatians,” who were the descendents of Celtic warriors.   In Acts 13:14-14:24 (first missionary journey) Paul founded churches at Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, cities in the southern part of the Roman province. Paul visited Lystra and Derbe again in Acts 16:6 (second missionary journey). In 16:6 Paul then went through the “region of Phrygia and Galatia,” as he did also in 18:23  (third missionary journey). Does “Galatia” in Acts 16:6 and 18:23 refer to the southern portion of the Roman province, or does it indicate that Paul went north and founded churches in the territory of Galatia? Paul probably addressed his epistle to the churches in the southern part of the Roman province, for two reasons: 1) When describing churches founded by him, Paul normally used the titles of the Roman provinces in which the churches were located; 2) Acts specifically mentioned that Paul founded churches in the southern region, but was silent concerning churches in the north.  However, Luke used geographic designations in his descriptions, rather than political designations. As such, when he is discussing Galatia, he is most likely referring to the area where the Gauls lived.  Another overlooked consideration is the nature of the Gauls. They were a fickle people who often went with the highest bidder. This might indicate that the Galatians Paul was addressing were actually the Gauls, who might be likely to accept Christ and then be easily persuaded to adapt their faith to a more Jewish form. We just don’t know for sure.

Determining the date Paul wrote the epistle involves reconciling Gal. 1:11— 2:14 with Acts. Paul mentioned two visits to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18; 2:1), but Acts recorded five visits (Acts 9:26; 11:27 and 12:25; 15:4; 18:21; 21:17). Probably Galatians 1:18 and Acts 9:26 record Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion. Paul did not mention the Acts 11:30; 12:25 visit because he was concerned to relate only his contact with the twelve apostles. This second visit was with the elders, not the twelve. Acts 15:1-29 and Galatians 2:1-10 are both probably accounts of the Jerusalem Council. Though there are differences in the accounts (Paul made no reference in the epistle to the decree of Acts 15:23-29), the principal characters (Paul, Barnabas, Peter, James), and the main issue (whether faith in Jesus is sufficient for salvation or circumcision and obedience to the Law of Moses were also necessary) in each account are the same. The council is usually dated A.D. 49 or 50. After the Council, Paul made his second visit to Galatia (Acts 16:1-6), matching the two visits he indicated in the epistle (Gal. 4:13). Then he moved on to Corinth (A.D. 51-52). It was perhaps from Corinth that he wrote the epistle.

Sometime after Paul’s last visit (recorded in Acts 16:1-6), heretical teachers, who “distort the gospel” and trouble the churches, came to the Galatians. These Judaizers were Jews who unquestionably claimed to be Christians and to faithfully preach the gospel. We don’t know if these were any of the same who had come from the Jerusalem church to trouble the believers in Antioch. That seems possible as the region of Galatia was just north of Antioch.  They were on the verge of leading the Galatians away from the truth of the gospel. They taught that circumcision was necessary for salvation (5:2; 6:12-16), as was obedience to the Law of Moses, even the observation of days, months, seasons, and years (4:10). Paul felt they were acting out of false and selfish motives, those of personal ambition (4:17; 6:13) and offense at the cross of Christ (6:12). To lead the Galatians away from Paul’s gospel, they sought to discredit him personally.

I believe that heresy is wrong and must be confronted at all cost, but I personally am open to the suggestion that these Judaizers were sincerely deceived. As Acts suggests they were former Pharisees. Although the Gospels tend to paint the Pharisees as hypocritical liars, in reality many of them were men like Nicodemus and Paul. They sincerely wanted to serve the Lord and thought that could only be done by following the Law of Moses.  It is reasonable to assume that some of them held to this belief even after their conversion and that they sincerely could not accept that following the Law was not the pathway to Christ.  In this, they are no different than our modern Pharisees – religious organizations who put membership in their organization higher than faith in Jesus Christ or who have strict guidelines for what Christians are to look like or how we are to perform ministry.

Paul gave such a fiery response to this disturbance because of the very real threat of a large-scale abandonment of the gospel by the Galatians. In 1:1-5 Paul gave greetings to the churches, but he omitted the statement of praise or thanksgiving which normally followed. Paul was too disturbed to give thanks or praise. Instead, after the briefest of greetings, Paul expressed distress at their fickle faith. The Galatians had received the one and true gospel but were turning away from it. Paul pronounced a curse on those who preached something different from the gospel he had preached to them.

The major portion of the epistle, fully five chapters, can be divided into three parts.

1) 1:10-2:21  In this section Paul defended his qualifications as an apostle against the attacks of the Judaizers. He was called to be an apostle by God, and the gospel of grace he preached came from God, independent of the Jerusalem apostles (though they later approved of it). Paul closed this section with the main theme of the epistle, a choice between faith in Christ and obedience to the law. Justification (a sinful person coming into a right relationship with God) came not by living bound to the law but by faith in Christ. Faith alone was sufficient for salvation. To be in Christ meant being free from the legal requirements of the law.

2) 3:1-5:12 This section is the major argument of the epistle, where the differences between Paul’s gospel and the Judaizers’ heresy came to full light. Paul supported his thesis of faith alone on three principles: the gift of the Spirit, the promise and faith of Abraham, and the curse of the law. The gift of the Spirit came to them through faith, not the law. Abraham received the promise and righteousness by faith 430 years before the law was given. People of faith were true children of Abraham and heirs of the promise. Because people did not keep the law when it came, they fell under its curse. The law could only condemn sinners. Christ removed the curse of the law. The law was given as an interim provision until Christ came. Now He has come, and the believer is free. To turn back to the law was to return to slavery. With the coming of Christ, faith and law had become mutually exclusive as ways to approach God.

3) 5:13-6:10  In this final section, Paul guarded against abuse of this freedom from the law. Christian freedom required the believer to walk by the Spirit, which was contrary to the desires and works of the flesh. Christian freedom must be tempered by Christian love.

Paul closed the letter by once more urging the Galatians not to yield to circumcision and all it represented.

If the Thessalonian letters were a friendly correspondence to assure an immature church remained on the right path, Galatians is a stern warning that a church that was old enough to know better was off the trail, into the muck and baiting bears.

The dating of this letter is interesting, because it comes very early in the history of the Christian Church.  James’ letter was 15 years after Jesus’ death. The Jerusalem Council was no more than 17 years.  The letters to the Thessalonians were maybe 18 years.  Twenty years after Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection and only five years after the first Christian letter was circulated, the churches of Asia Minor were falling to heresy.  I still cannot help wondering if James’ letter, with its emphasis on works, had stimulated these Judaizers to begin their work of anti-evangelism.  I am not saying that James’ letter was not Scripture. I’m saying that maybe it was taken wrong.  If we’re not careful allowing the Holy Spirit to guide our studies, we read into Scripture what we want it to say.  “Faith without works is useless” can easily morph into faith without the law is worthless. There’s a big difference.  One says that faith that doesn’t produce works will be ineffectual.  The other says that faith must have works, which can easily be construed as “works saves us and faith is just an interesting side note.”  That’s what the Jews wanted to hear. That’s what the former Pharisees expected to hear.  As the Judaizers were no longer welcome in Antioch, it is reasonable to assume that they moved north to the area of Galatia where they found churches that had been founded by Paul, but that hadn’t had the intense discipleship that Paul and Barnabas had been privileged to teach in Antioch.  First, they attacked Paul’s character and his authority to preach the gospel, and then they taught their own heretical teaching.

Ah, but Paul answered them.  We know that the area of Cappadocia in central Anatolia was among the first Christian areas to support a large population.  History tells us that the churches of Asia Minor were stalwart defenders of the “catholic” faith. Constantinople (present-day Istanbul) would become the seat of the Roman Empire and the official seat of the Catholic Church under Constantine, although true leadership of the Biblically unfounded Catholic Church remains a subject of debate even today.

The outcome of this battle between Paul and the Judaizers for the soul of the Galatian churches is actually unknown.  We’d like to believe that the heresy was stamped out, but it is mentioned so often in the New Testament, that it seems unlikely. Certainly we know that “heresies” continued to spring up through the early history of the Church.  Tertullian and a few others of the Church Fathers mounted rigorous arguments against these heresies.  But, as we see with Gnosticism in the 21^st Century, heresy is very subtle and intoxicating and it can live a long time without many followers. I doubt Judaizing went away. I think it morphed and is alive and well in some segments of the Church today – where you find someone adding ritual to faith and saying we MUST follow certain rules beyond the essentials of faith – there you find Judaizing in a modified form.  Judaizing ultimately seems to make sense to the human mind. We WANT to follow rituals rather than follow God. Rituals are so much more safe and certain than the awesome God we serve. Paul mounted a case as to why we shouldn’t fall for the rituals and instead fall in love with Christ.

God was founding His Church through the work of the Holy Spirit.  The apostles had testified, Peter had preached and some people had listened.  Recognize that not everyone in the crowd that day accepted Peter’s message.  Some of them went on their way shaking their heads over the drunken Galileans.  Yet, 3000 people were added to the Church that day.

There is every reason to believe that some of these people who submitted to believer’s baptism that day were from places other than Jerusalem.  The Jews who gathered to listen to the sermon were from all over the Mediterranean world.  From them, it’s reasonable to infer that the 3000 were a sampling of that crowd.  Among the Parthians and the Cyprians (one of whom was probably Barnabas) were Jews from Rome.  They had not come to Jerusalem to live. They probably spent a short time there studying their new faith under the apostles, but then they returned home to Elim, Rome, Mesopotamia (Babylon) and Cappadocia (which is also known as Galatia – which will be the subject of my next series).  They had affairs to take care of and they went back to their home lands, carrying the seeds of Christianity with them.

“So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about 3,000 people were added to them.

"And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, to fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to prayers. Then fear came over everyone, and many wonders and signs were being performed through the apostles. Now all the believers were together and had everything in common. So they sold their possessions and property and distributed the proceeds to all, as anyone had a need. And every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple complex, and broke bread from house to house. They ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And every day the Lord added to the church those who were being saved.”  Acts 2:41-47

I would note that those who accepted Christ that day in Jerusalem were all old enough to know what they were doing.  There are very unsubtle clues to this in the narrative.  They “devoted” themselves to the teachings, fellowship, breaking bread and prayer.  They sold property, distributed charity and met together in the Temple complex.  These are not the activities of infants, but the lifestyle choices of adults or near-adults. 

I don’t think I can stress more strongly that the primary work of building the Church was not done by the apostles, Peter, the disciples or even the new members. It was done by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit initiated the entire movement that day at Pentecost. Prior to His coming, Peter and the others were not shouting from the rooftops. They were lying low.  When the Holy Spirit came upon them, they went immediately out into the streets, stood up on their soapboxes and shouted “Look at us! Hear us!”  As James and Paul would later explain, nothing good comes from humans. On their own, the apostles never would have done anything beyond prayer.  With the Holy Spirit infilling them, however, they were able to take on their little corner of the universe and reap a harvest that would scatter seeds throughout the Mediterranean.  It is very important to place full credit where credit is due.  The Holy Spirit moved these men and women to do what they did.  They were faithful to obey, but they were not the authors of the impulse.

I would also note that they didn’t rush ahead of God.  They waited until the Holy Spirit came.  Often times in our world today, Christians come up with great plans for how we’re going to conquer the world for Christ. I’ve seen more than a few of them come and go. They come because Christians really want to do something for God and they go because we don’t wait to find out what God wants us to do.  Henry Blackaby, who wrote “Experiencing God”, explains that we all love that saying “Don’t stand there, do something!” when in reality, where God is involved, we ought to be saying “Don’t just do something. Stand there!”  We need to wait upon the Lord and make sure that our plans are His plans. This is not an excuse to do nothing, but is a pause to hear the Holy Spirit’s direction in our lives and the churches in which we have been sent to labor.

The 1^st Church of Jerusalem was a foment of activity, but not until they had received their marching orders from God and been empowered by the Holy Spirit to do what God wanted done.  Let us always remember that!

With a mighty rushing wind, God ushered in the age of the Christian Church.  Founded on the rock-solid foundation of Jesus Christ, the Church would be administered by the Holy Spirit working in the hearts of those who accepted Jesus by faith.  The 11 apostles along with a large group of disciples had descended from the upper room into the streets of Jerusalem on Pentecost to begin a harvest that would fling seeds for far distances.  For in that city, in that week, there were Jews from all around the Mediterranean and they could understand what the disciples were saying, even if they did not share a language in common.

After the disciples had testified to the wonders of God, Peter stood up with the 11.  Please note that Peter was not alone.  He stood among the apostles as he was equal to them.  He was about to become the first evangelical preacher, but contrary to what some believe, he wasn’t special. He was merely one of the team, performing his given duties to feed Jesus’ sheep.

“But Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them: “Jewish men and all you residents of Jerusalem, let this be known to you and pay attention to my words. For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it’s only nine in the morning. On the contrary, this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel:  And it will be in the last days, says God, that I will pour out My Spirit on all humanity; then your sons and your daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams. I will even pour out My Spirit on My male and female slaves in those days, and they will prophesy. I will display wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below: blood and fire and a cloud of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and remarkable day of the Lord comes; then whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Acts 2:14-21

First, Peter assured the crowd that the disciples were not drunk and pointed out that it was only nine in the morning.  I’m sure a few people nodded their heads and thought “Yeah, drunks aren’t even up at this hour.”  Then Peter appealed to Scripture.  Understand that Peter was a fisherman, not a rabbi.  Random people did not stand up in the streets of Jerusalem and start preaching without consequence. If you couldn’t establish your bona fides, you could quickly find yourself being stoned or marched in lockstep to the Temple to be judged a heretic.

Yet, Peter appealed to Scripture, showing that he was more than just a fisherman.  He understood the Bible.  Obviously, Peter had been interested in the Bible and desirous to be a good Jew prior to meeting Jesus.  This is why he had attached himself to Jesus after his brother came to him with the news that they’d found the Messiah.  But, he didn’t have the expertise to fulfill the role of rabbi.  That typically involved a lot of training.  Peter’s three years with Jesus might have accounted for some of his expertise, but we must remember that just six weeks before this Peter was denying he even knew Jesus and then cowering in fear of the Jews.  No, the only agent at work here in both Peter’s new-found bravery and his knowledge of Scripture was having spent time with the Resurrected Jesus and having the Holy Spirit working in his heart and mind.

The prophet Joel is often quoted for Messianic prophesies. There were many Jews of that day who pinned their hopes of Messiah on the verse that Peter quoted.  That they had not attached that verse to Jesus did not mean they couldn’t.  After all, Jerusalem was full to the attics with Jews from around the Mediterranean.

After presenting Scriptural support for Jesus being the Messiah, Peter got to the heart of the matter.

Jesus fulfilled the prophesy!  The people had seen His miracles.  They knew He was a match!

Peter acknowledged a problem with Jesus being the Messiah. He’d been delivered to the authorities who had nailed Him to a cross and killed Him. The Jews believed that anyone who died on a cross was cursed for all time.  There were various reasons for this, but the primary reason was that the Romans rarely took anyone down from the cross. In the heat of the Middle East there was no need to. The flesh would rot and fall off soon enough and become meat for the dogs.  If you weren’t buried, in Jewish tradition, your soul couldn’t be at rest and you couldn’t go to heaven.

However, Jesus had a few brave and well-connected disciples who asked for His body and laid it in a borrowed and fresh tomb.  Not that God couldn’t have resurrected Jesus from the cross, but the burial also fulfilled prophesy for the Messiah. It further subdued any arguments that the Jews might make that somebody stole the body.  Apparently, nobody was seriously claiming this 40 days after the Resurrection.  Everybody knew that the tomb had been empty on Resurrection Sunday.  Concerning the means, I’m sure there was a lot of speculation, but the Roman and Jewish authorities could not produce the body and right here, on Pentecost, the disciples were proving that they hadn’t taken the body either.  Nobody stands up and risks death for something they know is a lie.

Peter makes a bold statement.  God raised Jesus from the dead.  He quoted another Messianic verse, but Peter’s real purpose was to take aim at certain logic.

David had been a great king, beloved by the people. He had been the recipient of many prophesies.  David was a man after God’s own heart.  Yet, he died and if you looked into his tomb centuries after his death, you’d find his body.  The people of Jerusalem knew that Jesus’ tomb had been empty without explanation. The visitors to Jerusalem had likely already heard about these events.  What’s more, as many as 500 people had seen Him alive after He had been certified dead by a spear to the side.

I would note that Peter wasn’t trying to make friends or influence enemies with this sermon.  Verse 23 declares “Men of Israel … you used lawless people (Romans) to nail [Jesus] to a cross.”  He either was so drunk on the Holy Spirit that he didn’t care or he was extremely confident that the Jewish authorities were not going to do anything against this accusation – at least not that day. 

“Men of Israel, listen to these words: This Jesus the Nazarene was a man pointed out to you by God with miracles, wonders, and signs that God did among you through Him, just as you yourselves know.
Though He was delivered up according to God’s determined plan and foreknowledge, you used lawless people to nail Him to a cross and kill Him. God raised Him up, ending the pains of death, because it was not possible for Him to be held by it. For David says of Him: I saw the Lord ever before me; because He is at my right hand, I will not be shaken. Therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced. Moreover my flesh will rest in hope, because You will not leave my soul in Hades, or allow Your Holy One to see decay. You have revealed the paths of life to me; You will fill me with gladness in Your presence.  

“Brothers, I can confidently speak to you about the patriarch David: he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Since he was a prophet, he knew that God had sworn an oath to him to seat one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing this in advance, he spoke concerning the resurrection of the Messiah: He was not left in Hades, and His flesh did not experience decay. Acts 2:22-31

God raised Jesus from the dead.  We saw it, Peter said, and he implied that a large number of the crowd had seen it.  Now that Jesus was in Heaven, He sent forth power to the disciples.  Obviously, Peter explained, David wasn’t resurrected. David was only foretelling Jesus’ resurrection.  Peter then stated that the entire country of Israel had crucified Jesus Who was both Lord and Messiah.

“God has resurrected this Jesus. We are all witnesses of this. Therefore, since He has been exalted to the right hand of God and has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit, He has poured out what you both see and hear.

"For it was not David who ascended into the heavens, but he himself says: The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies Your footstool.’  “Therefore let all the house of Israel know with certainty that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah!” Acts 2:32-36

Gulp!  If I didn’t know anything about Jesus – which was the essential situation of the Jews in the crowd in Jerusalem that morning – I’d now know two things.  This guy was a favorite of God and though I had killed Him, He wasn’t dead. In most mythological systems, the deity would return in a bad temper and mete out his revenge.  Some were no doubt thinking -- What if Jesus had been the Messiah?  What happens now?  Oh, my!

“When they heard this, they were pierced to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles: “Brothers, what must we do?” Acts 2:37

Terrified that Jesus was going to condemn them to hell or use the governments around them to punish them, the people listening to this first-ever sermon wanted to know what could they do to quell God’s anger.

It’s sort of ironic that Israel had been in this place before and asked this question. They’d received a similar answer and chose wrongly. This had brought persecutions on them, finally culminating in the Babylonian captivity.  It seems the Jews of ancient Israel just couldn’t seem to learn from God what it was He wanted from them. For some the question of “what must I DO?” can easily overwhelm the answer that Peter gave.

“Repent,” Peter said to them, “and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children, and for all who are far off, Remote in time or space as many as the Lord our God will call.”

"And with many other words he testified and strongly urged them, saying, “Be saved from this corrupt generation!” Acts 2:38-40

Echoing the prophets for as far back as the time of the Judges, Peter told those who cared to repent.  A nautical term meaning to turn around and go in exactly the other direction, repentance involves more than just feeling sorry for what you’ve done. It means to leave your disobedience to God where you discovered it and RUN in the other direction.  The first step in that flight from self-involvement is submitting to baptism.

The Jews practiced baptism as a means of letting proselytes into the religion without undergoing circumcision.  The person was expected to keep the Law of Moses from then on.  John’s baptism had been for the remission of sins, but here two was an expectation that the person being baptized would then live a perfect “sinless” (keeping the Law) life. Peter was not asking them to do this.  He was asking them to be baptized (immersed in water) in the name of Jesus Christ. Jesus would forgive their sins and they would receive the Holy Spirit – that which had empowered Peter to be able to be heard in over a dozen languages at one time.  This promise was for those in the crowd, but also for their children and for far-flung people where ever the gospel message would be heard. It was very different from the baptism of John.  They weren’t being required to do anything.  They were being required to receive something – salvation and the Holy Spirit.  This was very different from the classical Jewish tradition.

Peter didn’t preach just this sermon. He continued to testify and urge the crowd in the strongest possible terms to come out from the corrupt world they lived in and become acceptable to God by accepting Jesus Christ as Savior.

I think it is important to reiterate that Peter was not the only participant that day. He was part of a large group that came out of the Upper Room.  He also stood among the 11.  They were a team.  Peter was the preacher, but they were as much evangelists as he was.  Their individual testimonies prior to Peter’s sermon softened the crowd and got them ready to hear what the Holy Spirit had to say through Peter.  It is not the job of evangelists or the pastor of my church to witness to my friends and associates. It is my job!  It is your job in your corner of the world!  A well-worded sermon is a wonderful thing, but only if it enters a field made ready by the effective testimony of Christians the audience knows and trusts.

Peter and the team of apostles and disciples could not have done any of what they did without the Holy Spirit. Prior to the mighty rushing wind, they were still hanging out in the Upper Room.  Maybe they weren’t still afraid of the Jews after they’d seen the Resurrected Jesus, but they weren’t out shouting from the rooftops either.

It is important to remember that what happened this day on Pentecost and throughout the New Testament era had less to do with the men and women who are described in Acts than with the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives.  Peter did not found the Church. The Holy Spirit did. Peter just happened to let the Holy Spirit use him for that purpose.

Christians today need to remember that. It’s not some mega-church pastor or TV evangelist who is going to start a Christian revival in this or any other country.  It is the Holy Spirit working through willing Christians, no matter how famous or ignominious they are.

Speak up! The world needs to hear what we have to say!

I’m going to take a brief respite from the Pauline epistles to address Pentecost because I had a delightful conversation with my daughter about this the other day and was so invigorated by her insights that I want to revisit it a bit.

Pentecost is one of Jewish festivals and, fittingly enough, the Festival of First Fruits.  It occurs 40 days after the Passover and its roots go back to Cain and Abel’s offerings.  Cain offered the first fruits of his garden.

In this case, the “first fruits” were people who came to know Christ.

"When the day of Pentecost had arrived, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like that of a violent rushing wind came from heaven, and it filled the whole house where they were staying. And tongues, like flames of fire that were divided, appeared to them and rested on each one of them. Then they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in different languages, as the Spirit gave them ability for speech.”  Acts 2:1-4

By this time, Jesus had spent over a month in resurrected form teaching His disciples (not just the 11 apostles) in ways I don’t think we can fully understand. The Bible doesn’t record much of what He said and I tend to think this was because in resurrected form, Jesus may have been able to work upon His disciples’ hearts in much the same way as the Holy Spirit does now. If you’ve never experienced the Holy Spirit giving you sudden clarity of understanding while reading the Bible, you’re missing something.  They didn’t just hear the words of Jesus; the word was written on their hearts.  It’s hard to record that sort of teaching; therefore, not much is recorded.  We find it, instead, in what the apostles taught as they founded the Church.

Jerusalem was always packed during the festivals.  People came from around the known world to worship at the Temple and hear the great teachers teach.  It was the perfect time for Jesus to begin the harvest. Not so long before, He told His disciples that the “fields are ripe”.  Now He was going to show them the first fruits of that harvest.

A lot of people envision the 11 remaining apostles sitting in the upper room when this occurred, but the scholars I’ve read say there were a lot more disciples than that and there’s every reason to believe that they were all there.  About 120 men and there is no recording of the women, who were likely there.

The First Church of Jerusalem was having a prayer meeting and “where two or three are gathered” God’s power can and will manifest itself.

The Greek word for wind “pneuma” is also the Greek word for spirit used for the Holy Spirit.  A sound like a powerful wind filled the house.  I cannot help but think that the apostles of only six weeks before would have cowered under their seats or ran from the building in terror.  Peter would have denied the experience and Thomas would have doubted it.  These men had indeed undergone a profound change during Jesus’ resurrected teaching time.  They were ready to accept what the Lord had to give, even if it was a bit terrifying.

Tongues of something like fire appeared on each of them and they began to speak in languages they apparently didn’t know.  Now, this is controversial among some groups. I can jack the blood pressure of a group of Baptists (I am a member of a Baptist church) by bringing this up.  Tongues of fire gives us a visual image that we can debate, but the disciples (not just the 11) clearly began to speak in languages by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Did they know these languages?  It’s doubtful.  Peter, Andrew, James and John, were Galilean fishermen, not learned men like Paul. They knew Aramaic and they could read and write Hebrew, but it’s unlikely they spoke more than a smattering of Greek or were at all familiar with any of the languages of the countries listed below.  Matthew, being a tax collector for the Roman government, may have been fairly well-versed in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, but probably none of the other languages.  These unlearned men were given this power by the Holy Spirit. There’s no need to deny the scripture in this event.

“There were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. When this sound occurred, the multitude came together and was confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language. And they were astounded and amazed, saying, “Look, aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? How is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? Parthians, Medes, Elamites; those who live in Mesopotamia, in Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and  Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own languages the magnificent acts of God.””  Acts 2:5-11

The miracle isn’t really about the speaking, so much as it is about the hearing.  The Jews in the crowd heard what the Galileans were saying in their own languages.  And, what were they saying?  Some people try to make it seem that they were translating for Peter, but this is before Peter begins to speak.  They were talking about the “magnificent acts of God.”  We aren’t given a lot of detail in this, but I’m sure they were telling the crowd about Jesus’ miracles, His death, burial and resurrection, and the changes His resurrection had produced in their own lives.

“And they were all astounded and perplexed, saying to one another, “What could this be?”

"But some sneered and said, “They’re full of new wine!” Acts 2:12-13

Have you ever noticed how when people don’t understand something, they scoff?  I do it myself, to be perfectly honest.  God was performing a miracle, using a very special event, to bring many people into the kingdom of God in the first harvest, but some people, even faced with a miracle, scoffed.  It’s pretty funny, really.  “They’re full of new wine.”  I’ve never met a drunk who could suddenly speak fluently in an unknown foreign tongue. In fact, most drunks can’t even speak clearly in their own language. Talk about throwing egg on your own face.  The scoffers must have made the sensible in the crowd really laugh at their silliness.  Obviously, these men were not drunk!  At least, not on wine.

God had picked a very good time to begin this harvest. The Mediterranean Sea was calm that time of year, so worshippers from all over could make it to Jerusalem and then return home to their own lands.  This year, they would be returning with the seeds of a different sort of harvest.  But first, Peter would give the first sermon of the Christian era.