GALATIANS # 26
5/2/11
Paul’s doctrine:
faith or works of the law?
Chapter 3: 1 - 4

Title : The Holy Bible, English Standard Version
Edition : Second
Copyright : Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. All rights reserved. Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 2004, QuickVerse, a division of FindEx.com, Inc.

Galatians 3:1-9 ( ESV )
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?
Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”? Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

In the previous two chapters Paul first warned the Galatians (1: 6 – 9) of the deadly peril of “another gospel”. After this challenge of the assault undermining and condemning his preaching, he then gave an account of his part in some of the spread of Christianity north from Jerusalem and West as far as Galatia. He gives no details of his conversion: Christ himself appeared to him and charged him with the duty to take the gospel to the gentiles; He stresses this point and that he did not receive his gospel from man or men and is not subservient to the Jerusalem leaders.…

With this history he carefully details all his contacts with the church leaders in Jerusalem: he stresses the fact that the source of his authority is Jesus Christ – repeatedly stating the Fact that it did not originate with any man – not even the leaders in Jerusalem – his ministry is unique, not subject to the church hierarchy. He never is disrespectful of the church leadership but is not subservient to them in any way..

It is likely that the Galatians had a general acquaintance with Paul’s history – Paul doesn’t provide a detailed history; he supplies just enough additional information to prove his authority and the veracity of his teaching. He gives them the background, preparing them to understand his explanation of the error of the “other gospel” being preached by “those of the circumcision”.

At the conclusion of this historical section he masterfully states the gospel of justification, verses 15 – 21, some of the most compressed of all Paul’s writings. Here in these seven verses he lays out his entire gospel “…which we have preached unto you.”

In chapters three and four he proves the gospel he has just declared, “we are justified by faith”, with a series of arguments drawn from the scriptures (Old Testament to us) proving its truth and showing that it is not a new, different, exotic, doctrine but is the gospel of grace which has always been the means of our salvation - first mentioned with the promise God has given us, recorded in chapter three, v fifteen, of the first book of the Bible.

Paul now again directly addresses the Galatians:.
• v1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.

Paul starts off with the Greek word “o”, providing a very strong emphasis – he is very concerned,

As the Translators hand book puts it:
The tone of the whole verse—and of the whole section, for that matter—is one of unbelief. It is unthinkable to Paul that the Galatians have changed so quickly. The only explanation possible is that they have gone out of their minds!
Foolish (NAB “senseless,” NEB “stupid,” JB “mad”) puts the emphasis not on natural stupidity but on failure to use one’s mental and spiritual powers.
A vocative expression such as You foolish Galatians! may be both grammatically awkward and misleading in sense. It might mean, for example, that all the people in Galatia were stupid, which, of course, is not what Paul means. He is addressing particular Galatians and he is saying that they are “not using their heads” or “not thinking right.” It may be necessary, therefore, to say in some languages “You Galatians are not thinking right,” or “… not using your minds as you should.” In some languages the meaning of foolish is expressed idiomatically, for example, “you have lost your heads,” “your minds have left you,” or “your heads are empty.”

He is not accusing them of having a low IQ, but neglecting, or not using, their gift of discernment (1Cor 12: 10 ). They were like the men on the road to Emmaus; “foolish” (Luke 24: 25) not believing the truth right before their eyes. Using the word bewitched Paul conjures up implications of demon possession or hypnotism by some charismatic witch doctor – surely they wouldn’t voluntarily turn away from the Gospel without some powerful evil influence captivating them!

He had publicly proclaimed “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1Cor. 2: 2) before them. The phrase he uses here is like his message was put on a huge billboard, very visible – no way any of them could have missed or misunderstood it; and they had seemed to understand it, yet now they are slipping away…

• V2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?

“Just a moment, Let me ask you one question, did you not hear even the most basic thing I told you?”

• vv3 – 4 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?

Paul’s central, foundational, most basic teaching, is that we are not, cannot, never have been, and never will be, be saved by works – we are saved exclusively by God’s grace…yet they are now turning away from his message! Those “of the circumcision” had misled the Galatians. Paul is concerned that false and /or mistaken preachers would cause them to be drawn away from the truth A little later Paul warns the Corinthians 2Cor 11: 1-4 of the very same potential disaster.

During His ministry, Jesus warned of false teachers: Matthew 23:15 ( KJV ) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. This is a chilling thought that everyone that preaches, or teaches should keep in mind at all times, as we studied in James (3: 1)! (See also Mat. 10: 42; Luke 17: 2)

It seems that Paul would have continued his historical record a little, giving us an account of his conversion and some more details about his ministry leading up to his ministry to the Galatians (almost 15 yrs. 12 +/- near Tarsus Acts 9: 30) but he doesn’t – what little additional we know, we find in Acts. His purpose was only to provide what additional information they needed to corroborate his credentials

From Timothy George in his writings in The new American Commentary (Volume 30 Galatians):

Everything else Paul said in Galatians 3 and 4 was predicated on the message he first preached to the Galatians, which he summarized in this familiar formula. Each of the three elements in this sermon summary are worthy of close attention. First, Paul preached Jesus Christ. It has been well said that “the universe of Paul’s thought revolved around the Son of God, Jesus Christ.”8 Before his encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, Paul had regarded Jesus as a failed messiah, a foolish rabbi who deceived himself and others. All of this was changed when “God was pleased to reveal his Son in me” (1:16). The prominent Christological titles Paul attributed to Jesus—Christ, Lord, Son of God, Savior—reflect his belief that Jesus was fully divine and thus a proper object of worship and prayer. In Rom 9:5 Paul could speak of “Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!”9 Paul’s doctrine of justification makes no sense apart from the high Christological assumptions on which it is based.
Second, Paul said that Jesus Christ “was clearly portrayed before your eyes.” The word “portrayed” (prographō) can mean either “write before hand” (in a temporal sense) or “portray publicly” (the prefix pro as locative, not temporal). The former sense in terms of predictive prophecy is consonant with Paul’s use of the Old Testament especially in the present context (cf. 3:8, where we read, “The Scripture foresaw [proidousa] that God would hand” (in a temporal sense) or “portray publicly” (the prefix pro as locative, not temporal). The former sense in terms of predictive prophecy is consonant with Paul’s use of the Old Testament especially in the present context (cf. 3:8, where we read, “The Scripture foresaw [proidousa] that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance [proeuēngelisato] to Abraham”). When we read Luke’s account of Paul’s preaching among the Galatians in Acts 13–14, we find him quoting freely from the Prophets and the Psalms, declaring to the people, “We tell you the good news: what God promised our fathers, he has fulfilled for us” (Acts 13:32). However, in 3:1 the word prographō more likely carries the locative meaning, “to display publicly as on a placard.” Paul likely was referring to the vivid, unforgettable way in which he first presented the story of Jesus’ suffering and death to the Galatians. In effect, he was saying to them, “How can you have been so deceived by these heretics when in your mind’s eye Jesus was, as it were, impaled on the cross of Calvary right before you? Yes, you have actually seen Christ crucified plastered on a billboard; how could you ever lose sight of that?” Of course, it is not merely the gruesome facts about Jesus’ death but rather the supreme truth that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself” (2 Cor 5:19, KJV) that gives power to such portrayals of the crucifixion.
Finally, Paul put special stress on the finality of the cross. He proclaimed Jesus Christ as estaurōmenos, literally, as having been crucified. This perfect participle relates to Jesus’ cry from the cross, “It is finished!” The work of redemption was completely accomplished through that perfect atoning sacrifice.

Complete atonement Christ has made,
And to the utmost farthing paid
whate’er his people owed;
How then can wrath on me take place,
If sheltered in his righteousness,
and sprinkled with his blood?10





DISCUSSION
1. What does Paul mean by “foolish”?
2. What has caused such a heated reaction from Paul”?
3. Who had “bewitched” them?
4. Why doesn’t Paul give us more detailed history?
5. What is the “another gospel” they are attracted to?
6. Why are they vulnerable to it?
7. Are we vulnerable to “another gospel”?
8. What is the first line of defense against false teaching?
9. What “gift” has the Holy Spirit given us to deal with such things?

Galatians # 25

GALATIANS # 25
4/25/11
Crucified with Christ?
Paul’s doctrine
Chapter 2: 17 - 24

Title : The Holy Bible, English Standard Version
Edition : Second
Copyright : Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. All rights reserved. Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 2004, QuickVerse, a division of FindEx.com, Inc.

Galatians 2:17-21 ( ESV )
But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not!
For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor.
For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God.
I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

(KJV):
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

In verses 15 – 16, Paul is addressing fellow Jewish Christians (likely Peter, Barnabas and “the other Jews”) with a point of agreement; stating as a matter of fact that everyone agrees that we are justified by faith – not by works. Now, with the word “but” introducing vv 17 -18 he presents a point of disagreement: responding to any objections before they can be leveled. With this shift, Paul also now broadens his audience to include the Galatians; then vv 19 -21, he defines the gospel with an intense personal confession of faith. With these seven short verses Paul lays out the foundation, the core of our hope, the premise on which all Christian Theology/Christology/Soteriology is based. He expands upon these principles in chapters 3 and 4.

• 2:17, But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not!

The KJV uses the stronger “God forbid!” in either case Paul passionately rebuts this concept. There is no record of what the conversations were between the men from James and Peter or what was specifically said to the Galatians it is very possible that they had made just such an accusation, possibly something like:
“You are sinning by eating “un-clean” food with these gentiles and you’re then telling them that they are free to likewise not keep the commandments which God delivered through Moses, by doing this you are making Jesus the agent of sin!”
Something along these lines was at least a part of the accusations which were being used against Paul. All we have to go by is Paul’s response. Paul’s rebuttal applies to both the problem in Antioch and the trouble brewing in Galatia; his use of the word “we” includes the Jews who have been keeping the law, as sinners, right along with the gentiles!

We have to keep in mind that the ones challenging Paul’s doctrine were not un-believers or even apostates – they were sincere Christians, devout in their adherence to the Mosaic law; they truly did not comprehend how their teaching, adding “works”, diluted the Gospel – in fact negated the gospel of Grace; they truly believed that not keeping the Mosaic law was sinning…

• 2: 18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor.

Paul had been around Peter enough that he undoubtedly knew about Peter’s vision in Joppa and his experiences with Cornelius; even though he shifts to “I” this statement is also pointedly meant for Peter…without directly condemning him. It applies to gentile converts as well – in accepting the salvation given by Christ, they had all been freed from the bondage to whatever system they had been in. Now to abandon that free gift and rebuild the bondage they had been in would in fact convict them as “a servant of sin”, enslave them again! Having known Christ’s Grace, and then, In rejecting that free gift, Christ’s atonement for us, I would truly be a sinner of the worst kind!
• 2: 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to GodContinuing with “I” Paul makes a subtle shift – now he is making a confessional statement, harking back to 1: 15 – 16. Though stated in personal terms what he says applies to all Christians, describing a “normal” Christian life.
Paul is using the phrase “died to the law” in the sense of “released from the dominion of”; it no longer controlled him.

F. F. Bruce, in his commentary on Galatians provides a slightly different but valid view:
…‘The question of transgressing the law does not arise for one who has died in relation to the law.’ Transgression implies a law to be transgressed, as Paul notes in Rom. 4:15b; 5:13; it is in the presence of law that sin shows itself in the form of transgression. But the possibility that ‘I constitute myself a transgressor’ before the law is now excluded, for ‘I have died in relation to the law’. Death in relation to the law is more relevant to Jewish Christians who once lived under law: if it is preposterous for them, after dying to the law, to put themselves under law again, it is even more preposterous for Gentile Christians like the Galatians to assume the yoke of a law to which they had no ancestral commitment.
All believers in Christ have ‘died in relation to sin’ (Rom. 6:2, 11), but the point stressed here is that, at the same time, they have ‘died in relation to law’—Jewish believers specifically and consciously so. Paul—for he puts the case in the first person singular—no longer lives under the power of the law; he has been released from its dominion and has entered into new life. ‘With death obligations towards the law have ceased’ (H.-J. Schoeps, Paul, 193). It is fundamental to Paul’s understanding of the law that he can define one and the same experience as death to law (cf. Rom. 7:4–6) and death to sin (Rom. 6:2). To be under law is to be exposed to the power of sin, for ‘the power of sin is the law’ (1 Cor. 15:56); it is the law that provides sin with a vantage-point from which to invade Mansoul (cf. Rom. 7:7–11). But to those who have entered into new life in Christ the assurance is given: ‘sin will have no more dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace’

Paul, then, ‘died to the law’ in order to ‘live to God’ (revealed in Christ). But how was it διὰ νόμου that he died νόμῳ? According to T. Zahn (Galater, 133), the law showed him his need of redemption and referred him to faith. More adequately, R C. Tannehill (Dying and Rising, 59) understands Paul’s wording in the light of the law’s relation to Christ. As appears below in 3:13, Christ bore the curse of the law and exhausted its penalty on his people’s behalf: in this sense Christ died διὰ νόμου, and ‘the believer’s death to the law is also “through law” because he died in Christ’s death’—as Paul goes on immediately to affirm: Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι. The law has no further claim on him who in death satisfied its last demand, and the believer who has ‘died with Christ’ is similarly ‘discharged from the law’ (Rom. 7:6).

(Rom. 6:14). Cf. P. Benoit, ‘La loi et la croix d’après Saint Paul (Rom VII,7–VIII,4)’, RB 47 (1938), 488–509 (especially 502 n. 3).
C. F. D. Moule, ‘Death “to sin”, “to law”, and “to the world”: A Note on Certain Datives’, Rigaux FS, 367–375, suggests that the construction of ἀποθανεῖν with the dative was created by analogy with ζῆν followed by the dative in a relational sense (e.g. ζῆν τῷ θεῷ, as in 4 Macc. 7:19; 16:25; Lk. 20:38).


Expanding on v19:

• 2: 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me

1n v13 Paul began interjecting sanctification along with his usage of justified, now here in v 20, he builds upon and broadens the concept.

Down through the ages sanctification, along with justification, has been one of the major disagreements between the protestants and Catholics. Difference between the meaning and application of the two terms has been a matter of serious disagreement and friction throughout the church, not only between Catholics and Protestants, but throughout Christendom; it is vitally important to distinguish between the two:
• Justification: G1344 δικαιόω dikaioō dik-ah-yo'-o From G1342; to render (that is, show or regard as) just or innocent:—free, justify (-ier), be righteous.
• Sanctification:G37 ἁγιάζω hagiazō hag-ee-ad'-zo From G40; to make holy, that is, (ceremonially) purify or consecrate; (mentally) to venerate:—hallow, be holy, sanctify

Among the various Christian denominations there is a wide range of beliefs as to the meaning and application of sanctification, Here are a few examples from Wikipedia:
Calvinist and Evangelical theologians interpret sanctification as the process of being made holy only through the merits and justification of Jesus Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit. Sanctification cannot be attained by any works based process, but only through the works and power of the divine. Sanctification is seen as a process in Calvinism and not instantaneous.[3] As the process of sanctification flows, the person becomes, in their essence, a different person/man. When a man is unregenerate, it is their essence that sins and does evil. But when a man is justified through Christ, it is no longer the man (in his essence) that sins, but the man is acting outside of his character. In other words, the man is not being himself, he is not being true to who he is.[4] (See Gal 2: 13, 20)

The Catholics see it as a multiple set of actions (Wikipedia):

Roman Catholicism
According to the Catholic encyclopedia "sanctity"[10] differs for God, individual, and corporate body. For God, it is God's unique absolute moral perfection. For the individual, it is a close union with God and the resulting moral perfection. It is essentially of God, by a divine gift. For a society, it is the ability to produce and secure holiness in its members, who display a real, not merely nominal, holiness. The Church's holiness is beyond human power, beyond natural power.
Sanctity is regulated by standards. For example, according to the doctrine of the love of suffering, holiness must include this quality. It is not that pleasure were evil in itself, but that suffering purifies one's love of God. Those who attain holiness learn to rejoice in suffering. By it their love of God is freed from self-seeking. Their lives conform to their master.
There are many other views among the various other denominations.

Timothy George, in The New American Commentary sheds a little light on it:

…But what does it mean to be “crucified with Christ”? In one sense this is presumptuous language because the mystery of atonement requires that the death of Christ be unique, unrepeatable, and isolated. The two thieves who were literally crucified with Christ did not bear the sins of the world in their agonizing deaths. On the cross Christ suffered alone forsaken by his friends, his followers, and finally even his Father, dying, as J. Moltmann puts it, “a God-forsaken death for God-forsaken people.”194 With reference to his substitutionary suffering and vicarious death, only Jesus, and he alone, can be the Substitute and Vicar. And yet—this was Paul’s point—the very benefits of Christ’s atoning death, including first of all justification, are without effect unless we are identified with Christ in his death and resurrection. As Calvin put it, “As long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us.”195 Thus to be crucified with Christ is, as Paul said elsewhere, to know him in the “fellowship of his sufferings” (Phil 3:10). To be crucified with Christ is the same as being dead to the law. This means that we are freed from all the curse and guilt of the law and, by this very deliverance, are set free truly to “live for God.” As Calvin said again, “Engrafted into the death of Christ, we derive a secret energy from it, as the shoot does from the root.”196 It is this experience of divine grace that makes the doctrine of justification a living reality rather than a legal fiction.
3. “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.”Paul set forth in this expression his doctrine of the indwelling Christ. Probably no verse in the Letter of Galatians is quoted more frequently by evangelical Christians than this one. Much harm has been done to the body of Christ by well-meaning persons who have perpetuated erroneous interpretations of these words. Properly understood, Paul’s words give sanction neither to perfectionism nor to mysticism. Paul was not saying that once a person becomes a Christian the human personality is zapped out of existence, being replaced somehow by the divine logos. The indwelling of Christ does not mean that we are delivered from the realm of suffering, sin, and death. Paul made this abundantly clear in his very next phrase, “the life I now live in the flesh” (NRSV). So long as we live in the flesh, we will continue to struggle with sin and to “groan” along with the fallen creation around us (Rom 8:18–26). Perfectionism this side of heaven is an illusion...

As I mentioned earlier there are many other views – some diametrically opposed to this.

• 2: 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

If Christ’s death didn’t complete atonement for us, “penal substitution”, and we must perform various “works” to save ourselves, then he was not the Messiah…there was no point to his crucifixion, He accomplished nothing…
(if time discuss sanctification a little more…)

DISCUSSION

1. What is “sanctification”?
2. What is “justification”?
3. How does Paul bring out the two?
4. What does Paul mean by “crucified with Christ”?
5. What does he mean “Christ lives in me”?
6. Give four examples of different doctrines of sanctification.(read J.I. Packer, 18 words: Sanctification, and Wikipedia “sanctification” etc.)

Galatians #23

GALATIANS # 23
4/04/11
The incident in Antioch
Paul’s confrontation of Peter
Chapter 2: 11 - 15

Title : The Holy Bible, King James Version
Edition : Third
Copyright : Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 1998, Parsons Technology, Inc.

Galatians 2:11-15 ( KJV )
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

This passage has caused some heated discussion among those who believe Peter occupies a position of pre-eminence based on:

Title : The Holy Bible, King James Version
Edition : Third
Copyright : Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 1998, Parsons Technology, Inc.

Matthew 16:17-19 ( KJV )
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

BibleGateway.com provides a couple of examples:
Galatians 2 - IVP New Testament Commentaries
The Conflict in Antioch
How could such a conflict occur between Paul and Peter after they had reached an agreement to support one another? Some early church leaders (Origen, Chrysostom and Jerome) could not believe that this conflict really occurred. They explained that Paul and Peter must have staged the conflict to illustrate the issues at stake. Augustine, however, interpreted the story as a genuine conflict in which Paul established the higher claim of the truth of the gospel over the rank and office of Peter.

Augustine was right. Paul was willing to endure the pain of conflict with Peter in order to defend the truth of the gospel. To understand the nature of the conflict and the issues involved, we will observe how the drama developed in four stages: (1) Peter's practice of eating with the Gentile Christians, (2) Peter's separation from Gentile Christians after the arrival of the delegation from James because of his fear of the circumcision group, (3) the separation of the other Jewish Christians from Gentile Christians because of Peter's influence, and (4) Paul's rebuke. Peter's Practice of Eating with the Gentile Christians (2:12)

Other Catholic scholars even questioned whether this “Peter” was the Apostle Peter – it is problematic to the doctrine of Peter’s preeminence; for Peter to be subservient to anyone undermines the doctrine of Papal supremacy, a pillar of the Catholic church…

This confrontation was inevitable; the radical message which Jesus coming had wrought, and Paul was now preaching, was so different than what the Jews “traditions” had come to believe it was/would be; it shook the foundations of their entire religious tradition, Jesus had already confronted the Pharisees(Mat. 23:13).

In addition to this ingrained “tradition” devised by them as they wandered away from its origin recorded by the prophet Malachi (3: 16-18), the political/social/religious/economic world they were living in was about to explode. Many factors were coming to a head - These were extremely dangerous, turbulent times.

Luke tells us that after they sent Saul back to Tarsus (Acts9: 32) “then the churches had rest “. Yet, Acts goes on to tell us that a few years later, Herod has James the brother of John executed, arrests Peter with the intention of killing him “because it pleased the Jews” (Acts 12: 3 ).
The believers in Jerusalem had continued to diligently keep all the Jewish food, feast days, Sabbath and circumcision requirements, participating in temple worship, continuing to be a part of the Jewish community. This adherence to the customs and traditions had caused the Jews to tolerate them - James the brother of Jesus, was widely admired and respected, he was known as “James the Just” throughout the community, by both Jews and Christians.
.
What had happened to upset this relationship? Why did Herod’s actions please the Jews?
A monumental event had taken place which had world changing consequences. Acts chapter 10 records that only a short time before this, Peter had brought the first gentiles into the Jerusalem church (Paul had probably brought some in and there were probably gentile members of the Antioch church, but these were all out in the hinterland…”out of sight – out of mind” and hadn’t yet came to the full attention of the Jerusalem community).

On returning to Jerusalem, Peter was severely challenged by the church leadership, who reluctantly, after much discussion, conceded to their membership – but, so far as we know, didn’t welcome them into communion with the Jerusalem church; we hear nothing further about Cornelius after the story of his conversion and baptism…

A number of forces were coinciding at this point in history that threatened the Jews relationship – even their existence- in the Roman world. Roman society was unraveling under the rule of a series of insane and/or inept rulers and with that, the stability of society was weakened; This contributed to the special exemption from the religious strictures given the Jews being jeopardized and threatened. With all the unrest and threat to the Jews, the Pharisee and Sadducee leaders were defensive and uneasy; the Zealots were inflamed and determined.
The adherence to the law was the defining characteristic of what constituted a Jew. Without these “markers” the Jews identity would be lost; they would be absorbed into the general population and would disappear as a distinct group of people – the Zealots were not only determined to overthrow the Romans but also to not let the Jewish culture die. Strict adherence and observance of the law was absolutely enforced. Some of them carried daggers which could be concealed in a cloak sleeve, then in a crowded gathering, quickly drawn and plunged into a collaborator, with no one seeing it done. All Jews were very careful around the Zealots – even feared them.

Aside from this, the Jews retained their special privileges as “Jews” defined by careful adherence to the Mosaic Law, thus the leaders did not want anything to interfere with that relationship – such as bringing in gentiles without requiring them to become full Jews, marked by circumcision. Peter, with the baptism of Cornelius and his family had barged right into the middle of all this intrigue and danger. This inclusion of un-converted gentiles into the Jewish community was undoubtedly one of the main reasons Herod’s persecution “pleased the Jews”. If Herod hadn’t died shortly after this the persecution of the Jerusalem church would have likely intensified.

We don’t know where Peter went when he fled, but he was back in Jerusalem when Paul made the famine relief trip (last lesson) and then Paul tells us that Peter came to Antioch. From the wording he had been there for awhile: “For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision”

These who “came from James” were probably sent to convey a message cautioning the Antioch church to back off on their embracing gentiles with no inclusion of requirements of the Mosaic Law –the crises had arrived! As a “pillar” of the Jerusalem church, Peter’s “fear” was an automatic reaction he didn’t want to alienate the establishment – both Jewish and fellow Jerusalem Christians. Additionally, he didn’t want to exacerbate the growing tension between the Roman rulers and the Jewish community.

After Herod’s death the Romans assigned a Roman procurator to rule Judea. During the period after Herod’s death, leading up to Paul and Peter’s confrontation, there had been six distinct uprisings with thousands of Jewish rebels killed – the pressure was becoming almost unbearable!

Paul does not tell us what happened next. Did Peter meekly yield to Paul? We don’t know, however, we being “southern Galatianers” believe Peter did concede to Paul as shown by his defense of Paul at the Jerusalem Conference. (Acts 15) The Jerusalem council arrived at a consensus wherein Peter and the other leaders agreed and endorsed Paul’s Gospel(though some were not persuaded and continued to cause problems) Peter’s endorsement of Paul in His letter written several years later. (2Peter 3: 15) fully embraces Paul’s teachings.

DISCUSSION

1. What precipitated Paul’s rebuke of Peter?
2. Why did Peter act this way?
3. Who were the men “from James”?
4. How did the conversion of Cornelius play into all this?
5. What happened after Herod’s sudden death?
6. How was it all resolved?

Galatians lesson # 22

GALATIANS # 22
2/28/11
Famine relief trip
Paul’s Gospel defended
Chapter 2: 1 - 10

Title : The Holy Bible, English Standard Version
Edition : Second
Copyright : Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. All rights reserved. Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 2004, QuickVerse, a division of FindEx.com, Inc.

Galatians 2:1-10 ( ESV )
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.
I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.
But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.
Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery—
to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.
On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised
(for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles),
and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

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

Since we are of the “Southern Galatian” persuasion, it is our opinion that this is not the trip Luke describes in Acts 15.

As part of the northern/southern debate there has been much discussion over whether the “fourteen years” runs back to the date of Paul’s conversion – not subsequent to the three years in Damascus and Arabia, thus, 34 AD + 14 = 48 AD – one year prior to the Jerusalem council, or 34+3+14=51 – one year after the Jerusalem council).

Northern/ Southern Galatian? We being of the “southern” persuasion, a little chart might help:
Comparison:

Acts/Galatians; 30 through 50AD

date Apostle Paul Luke
30 AD Peters first sermon (Acts 2: 14 – 41)
34 AD Stoning of Stephen (Acts 6: 12; 8: 1)
35 AD Conversion go to Arabia &… Saul’s conversion Acts 9: 1 - 22
38 AD return to Jerusalem Gal 1 18 -19 and return to Tarsus Gal. 1: 21-22; 2 Cor. 11: 33 Saul’s departure from Damascus return to Tarsus 9: 26 - 30
43 AD James executed Acts12: 1 - 3
43 AD Peter flees Jerusalem Acts 12: 17
44 AD? Recruit Paul to Antioch Acts 11: 25
45-46 AD Famine relief to Jerusalem Gal. 2: 1-10 Famine relief to jerusalem Acts 11: 2 - 30;12:25
46-48 AD 1st Mission Acts 13 - 14
48 AD Paul rebukes Peter at Antioch Gal. 2:11-21
48 AD Writing of Galatians
49 AD Jerusalem council 15: 1-29
49 AD Paul/ Barnabas-Mark split up Acts 15: 36-39
49-52 AD 2nd mission Acts 15: 40; 18: 21

(oh-oh the chart didn't come across from word!!)

A small sample of the discussion:

Title : New Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Testament Volume
Edition : Third
Copyright : Copyright © 1990, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Electronic Edition Files Copyright © 1998, Parsons Technology, Inc.

Chapter 2 1-10 PAUL’S APOSTLESHIP TO THE GENTILES RECOGNIZED BY THE JERUSALEM APOSTLES 1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem—There is disagreement as to when this took place. Some commentators (e.g., Alford) take it as referring to fourteen years after the conversion of Paul, while others (e.g., Lightfoot) feel that it refers to fourteen years after the first visit to Jerusalem, mentioned in Galatians 1:18. As a result, some believe this visit to be the one mentioned in Acts 11, while others believe it to be the visit for the Jerusalem council, set forth in Acts 15. The view that this visit was connected with the Jerusalem council, however, has some difficulty because it can be argued that Paul would have mentioned the decision of the council regarding the topic of circumcision, which was one of the main reasons he wrote to the Galatians. But in support of the view that this visit was the occasion of the council, it may be stated first that Paul had a desire to show the Galatians that his authority was independent of the other apostles—so the decision of the council was not to be taken into consideration by the Galatians when they were to obey his teaching. His authority was above that of a council, because he was an accredited apostle. Second, Paul was arguing his point on the grounds of principle rather than authoritative decisions. It would have been pointless for the Galatians to disregard one set of laws only to be bound by another. Third, the decree of the council of Jerusalem did not go as far as Paul did in this instance. All that was decided at Jerusalem was that the mosaic law would not be imposed on Gentiles, while Paul here asserts that the mosaic law has to be transcended.

And another:

Title : The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament
Edition : Second
Copyright : Copyright 1983, SP Publications, Inc. All rights reserved Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 1997, Parsons Technology, Inc.

Galatians 2:1 ( KJV )
2:1. Much debate has centered on the question of the identification of this trip which Paul took to Jerusalem with Barnabas, a Jewish believer, and Titus, a Gentile believer. The Book of Acts mentions five Jerusalem visits made by Paul after his conversion: (1) the visit after he left Damascus (Acts 9:26-30; Gal. 1:18-20); (2) the famine visit (Acts 11:27-30); (3) the visit to attend the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-30); (4) the visit at the end of the second missionary journey (Acts 18:22); (5) the final visit which resulted in Paul’s Caesarean imprisonment (Acts 21:15-23:35). Scholars are divided primarily over whether Galatians 2:1 refers to the famine visit or to the Jerusalem Council visit. But in the context in which he is listing all contacts with human authorities, why would Paul omit reference to his second trip to Jerusalem? And if the reference is to the Council of Acts 15, why did not the apostle allude to its decrees? It seems this passage has the famine visit in view.


• 2: 2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.
Among the scholars there is much discussion whether this “revelation” was the prophecy by Agabus of the coming famine, recorded by Luke (Acts 11: 27 – 30); or a revelation directly to Paul. Most “Northern Galatianier’s” believe what is described here is the Jerusalem Council trip and thus the Revelation is personal to Paul, directing him to attend the Council (if referring to council trip = Galatians written post council, etc). We “southern Galatianiers” are inclined to the revelation being the one declared by Agabus (famine relief = pre council, etc)
This statement shows the trip served two purposes:
1. deliver the famine relief from the Gentile church, with Paul as the leader of the delegation, demonstrating both Paul and the Gentiles concern and respect for the Hebraic, Jerusalem Church;
2. and secondly to meet privately and discuss “The Gospel” with the mother church leaders.
In either case, Paul is focused like a laser on the Gospel he is preaching, he is not seeking their approval or guidance, only re-assurance…If they had rejected his gospel would he have changed it?

No!

He would have continued no matter what! However, as we can see from Paul’s numerous comments/actions showing his utmost respect for the teaching and leadership of the Jerusalem church and the Apostles, he certainly did not in any way desire causing dissension in the church! Even though he makes such a dramatic statement:
(Gal 1: 10 – 12 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. )

He respected and gave full honor to the mother church in Jerusalem, and also to the Apostles; as equals – he did not defer to them at any time….his leading the delegation as head of the Gentile Church and his repeating this with a second relief trip a few years later, further demonstrates his respect, and concern for the Hebraic Jerusalem Church. He did not see the Gospel with which he had been entrusted as a “different” Gospel, but as his revelation being of the deeper meaning of “THE Gospel”; the same one they were preaching, with further explanation; the same one that the entire Old Testament had preached beginning with Gen, 3: 15!

The New American Commentary
The phrase “for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain” is perplexing and has called forth various interpretations. Some have suggested that Paul went to Jerusalem seeking the approval of the leaders there without which his ministry would not have been valid. This hypothesis, however, seems to contradict the entire drift of Paul’s argument in Gal 1–2. Others have given these words a more existentialist twist as though Paul were expressing here a kind of hesitation or self-doubt about his apostolic vocation. This theory also founders on what we everywhere else know about Paul as a person of robust conscience, one given to self-examination but not to psychological introspection. After all, this same apostle could write to the Corinthians, “I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty” (1 Cor 9:26, KJV). It seems better to interpret Paul’s words as an expression of concern for the new believers he had led to Christ and the young churches he had founded. What would a major division in the church mean for these Christians? Beyond that, what would it mean for the furtherance of Paul’s missionary work? Doubtless he himself would not be deterred from the path he had been traveling for more than a dozen years. Yet the world mission to which he had been divinely called could well be sidetracked, if not finally thwarted, by his failure to reach a base agreement on a shared gospel with the mother-church in Jerusalem.92 For these reasons Paul sought the unity of the church and close partnership with the Jerusalem leaders.


• 2: 3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.
This verifies that the Jerusalem “pillars” agreed with Paul’s position on circumcision.

• 2: 4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery—
these are possibly those “of the circumcision” Gal 2: 12 and certainly those who were undermining the Galatian churches

• 2: 5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
an example of this would be the confrontation with Peter…

• 2: 6 And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.
the council was a large gathering of church leaders – yet here Paul describes the meeting as between his group and Peter/John/James, further indication this was prior to the Council meeting.

• 2: 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised
these “pillars” didn’t object to Paul’s gospel, in fact they encouraged him

• 2: 8(for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles),
there is a consensus that they are all being led by the Holy Ghost and they are all preaching the same gospel.

• 2: 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
clearly, unequivocally, endorsing Paul’s ministry

• 2: 10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
This all closely resembles the outcome of the council – except no written note and messenger, which Paul would have surely mentioned.

DISCUSSION

1. What did Paul immediately do after his conversion?
2. Why did he go to Arabia?
3. How long was he in Arabia?
4. How did he escape from Damascus?
5. Why such a dramatic escape?
6. How soon did he go to Jerusalem?
7. What part did Barnabas play in Paul’s Jerusalem visit?
8. What got Paul in trouble in Jerusalem?
9. How did the brethren resolve the problem?
10. Where did Paul go when he left Jerusalem?
11. Then what happened?

Galatians # 21

GALATIANS # 21
1/31/11
No other Gospel
Paul’s Gospel defended 1: 1 -24 (C)
Chapter 1: 17 - 24

17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. 18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. 20(In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) 21Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24And they glorified God because of me.

“Those of the circumcision” have apparently told the Galatians about Paul’s trips to Jerusalem and meetings there with the leaders of the Jerusalem church; then, deceitfully elaborating on this, showing that Paul was a student of them and had now misrepresented the teaching he had received. With this they destroy Paul’s credibility and his authority to teach and declare his Gospel incomplete at best and a heresy at worst. Everything is at stake here! Gospel of “Grace” or Gospel of “Grace and Works”, with the emphasis on works…

Paul now begins his refutation of these peoples attack. There had been no occasion prior to this that had required Paul to prove himself to the Galatians, all his personal history was likely unknown to them. Now, responding to this attack, he recounts all the pertinent information. He acknowledges his first visit to Jerusalem declaring that he only went to “visit” Peter and only seen him and James; he did not study under them he visited them, as an equal – probably getting as much historical information as possible about Jesus the man, but no “gospel” other than verification of his own teaching.

At the time he is describing Saul was a rising star, though a young man he was on the “fast track’ to the top seats of power and influence; already recognized by the most powerful Israelis - and then, with the assignment to Damascus, entrusted with attending to one of the most sensitive issues of the time: Jesus Christ, and Him crucified…actually, the most sensitive issue of all time!
As we learned a couple of lessons ago, Saul was a talented young man from a moderately well to do family, well educated, well connected, having powerful friends. In addition to all this, he was a Roman citizen; this was very unusual, not many Jews could make this claim!

When Rome conquered a country the people continued their original citizenship; only on rare occasions were foreigners awarded Roman citizenship. there is no record of the circumstances which led to him being born a citizen (Acts 22: 28). There s some speculation that his grandparents may have been descendants of Babylonian Diaspora Jews who had not returned to Jerusalem; when the Roman army conquered the area in which they lived, they performed some service for which they were awarded citizenship and given some incentive to move to Tarsis; thus Paul inherited both his name “Paul” (“Paulo” or “Paulus” was a common name among Romans and he may have been given the name to honor the family’s benefactor) and his citizenship.

With this background his account of his actions after his epiphany on the road to Damascus is astonishing – rather than rushing back to Jerusalem to the council and guidance of Gamaliel, or to discuss it with his friends and associates; or conversely, rush back to Jerusalem and beg for forgiveness and guidance from the leaders of the church, he went to Arabia!
There is differing opinion of the purpose of Paul’s sojourn; some propose that this was Christ providing Paul a three year apprenticeship of meditating and intense training in solitude, in the desert; equivalent to the three years the other Apostles had spent with him during His earthly ministry.

Luke gives us a little insight in Acts 9: 19 where he tells us that Saul “straightway” began preaching in the synagogue – from the context it is apparent that this was referring to the time of Paul’s conversion – Paul was on fire with the gospel from the very start and preached it incessantly. “Arabia” was gentile country - here, right at hand - was a huge supply of gentiles, who had not heard the gospel! While it is very likely that Paul spent much time in contemplation and study during this period it is also quite certain he continued the preaching he had started from the beginning.

Paul doesn’t go into a lot of detail here in the letter to the Galatians, however in his second letter to the Corinthians he gives us some more insight:2 Corinthians 11:30-33 ( ESV ) If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. At Damascus, the governor under King Aretas was guarding the city of Damascus in order to seize me, but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall and escaped his hands. Paul had clearly done something to rile up the Arabian king!

Who was this king?
(show map)

Aretas IV Philopatris
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aretas IV Philopatris was the King of the Nabataeans from roughly 9 BC to AD 40.

His full title was "Aretas, King of the Nabataeans, Friend of his People." Being the most powerful neighbour of Judea, he frequently took part in the state affairs of that country, and was influential in shaping the destiny of its rulers. While on not particularly good terms with Rome - as intimated by his surname, "Friend of his People", which is in direct opposition to the prevalent φιλορώμαις ("Friend of the Romans") and φιλόκαισαρ ("Friend of the Emperor") - and though it was only after great hesitation that Augustus recognized him as king, nevertheless he took part in the expedition of Varus against the Jews in the year 4 BC, and placed a considerable army at the disposal of the Roman general.

His daughter Phasaelis married Herod Antipas (4 BC – AD 39), otherwise known as Herod the Tetrarch. When Herod divorced Phasaelis to take his brother's wife Herodias, mother of Salome, in 36, Phasaelis fled to her father. Aretas IV invaded Herod's holdings, defeating his army[1] and capturing territories along the West Bank of the Jordan River, including the areas around Qumran[citation needed].

The classical author Josephus connects this battle, which occurred during the winter of AD 36/37, with the beheading of John the Baptist, but not necessarily occurring at the same time.

Herod Antipas then appealed to Emperor Tiberius, who dispatched the governor of Syria to attack Aretas. But because of the emperor's death in AD 37 this action was never carried out.[1]

The Christian Apostle, Paul, mentions that he had to sneak out of Damascus in a basket through a window in the wall to escape the Governor (ethnarch) of King Aretas. (2 Corinthians 11:32, 33, cf Acts 9:23, 24), The question remains open as to when King Aretas received Damascus from Caligula in the imperial settlement of the affairs of Syria. The Aretas’ administration in Damascus may have begun as early as CE 37 based upon archeological evidence in the form of a Damascus coin, with the image of King Aretas and the date 101. If that date points to the Pompian era, it equals C.E. 37 (T. E. Mionnet, Description des medailles antiques greques et romaines, V [1811], 284f.)




Luke adds more detail in Acts:

Title : The Holy Bible, English Standard Version
Edition : Second
Copyright : Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. All rights reserved. Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 2004, QuickVerse, a division of FindEx.com, Inc.

Acts 9:10-31 ( ESV )
Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.”
And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying,
and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.”
But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints at Jerusalem.
And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on your name.”
But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.
For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.”
So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”
And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized;
and taking food, he was strengthened.
And immediately he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.”
And all who heard him were amazed and said, “Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem of those who called upon this name? And has he not come here for this purpose, to bring them bound before the chief priests?”
But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ.
When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him,
but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him,
but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.
And when he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples. And they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple.
But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus.
So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord.
And he spoke and disputed against the Hellenists. But they were seeking to kill him.
And when the brothers learned this, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.
So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied.

After hustling Paul out of town they breathe a collective sigh of relief and finally some peace and quiet!

Some scholars point out the vagaries in the two accounts as proof of the unreliability of Luke’s work, however, it seems clear that they were recording the same incident but were stressing different aspects – we will see a few more similar scenarios as we go along; in each case a close examination will resolve the differences just as here.

DISCUSSION

1. What did Paul do as soon as he was recovered from his blindness?
2. Why did he go to Arabia?
3. How long was he in Arabia?
4. How did he escape from Damascus?
5. How soon did he go to Jerusalem?
6. What part did Barnabas play in Paul’s Jerusalem visit?
7. What got Paul in trouble in Jerusalem?
8. How did the brethren resolve the problem?
9. Where did Paul go when he left Jerusalem

GALATIANS #20

GALATIANS # 20
1/17/11
No other Gospel
Paul’s Gospel defended (B)
Chapter 1: 11 – 16

11For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone;

Paul repeats that he received the gospel he preaches as a direct revelation from God (v16), reiterating he did not learn it from any human; then in v 20 he dramatically swears that what he has just said is true, with an oath; no Jew would do such a dramatic thing lightly! Paul vehemently declares that he did not receive the gospel he is preaching from any man, he received it in a direct revelation from God

The controversy rages around the question; are we saved by Grace alone or a mix of Grace and works (such as circumcision)?

From the New American Commentary:

What is the true gospel Paul was so careful to distinguish from its counterfeit model? The word “gospel” itself was not uniquely Christian, being used in both classical Greek and the Septuagint to refer to good news of various sorts. Bruce has suggested that the specific background for the Christian adaptation of the word in the “glad tidings” of salvation and liberation scattered throughout Isa 40–66 (cf. Isa 40:9; 52:7; 60:6).26 However, only with the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies in the coming of Jesus Christ does “gospel” receive its full and potent meaning. Of all the New Testament writers, Paul used the word most frequently, sixty times to be exact. On occasion he summarized the content of the gospel in a pithy confessional statement, as in 1 Cor 15:3–4 and Rom 1:1–4. Paul offered no such definition in his Letter to the Galatians obviously because he assumed they were quite familiar with it already from his recent preaching campaign in their midst. Clearly it included a recital of God’s mighty act of deliverance through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the benefits
of which—including forgiveness of sins, a right standing with God, and the gift of the Holy Spirit—are appropriated only by grace through faith.27
.
Even though Paul was un-ambiguous in his message, his writings didn’t resolve the controversy. It all hinges on not only “who” Jesus was/is but “what” He is/was; God/man, this was a very difficult concept to comprehend then, just as it continues to be to this very day.

Soon after Paul’s death the Romans laid siege to Jerusalem and in 70 AD broke through into the city whereupon they sacked it and utterly demolished the temple. These events so closely followed Jesus prophecy that the Christians had fled and few of them were killed. Among these “Christians” were many of those who disagreed with Paul; they did not believe in the Deity of Christ. Their belief spread throughout the region, reinforcing the local “Judaizers” and adding to their numbers. In addition to this there were many Gnostic influenced Christians scattered throughout Christendom. Paul’s ministry and letters had not stopped the onslaught of the doctrine of works.

Twenty or thirty years after Paul’s death the Apostle john wrote his gospel in which he adamantly defines Christ as God (Jn1: 1…), even this didn’t settle the issue and during the next couple of hundred years the controversy continued to swirl, generating serious controversy within the church. In the early fourth century a man named Arius announced that since God on numerous occasions, defined Jesus as “His only begotten Son” then there was a time prior to His being “begotten” that he didn’t exist – this completely negates Christ’s capacity to save us ; if he isn’t something more than a man (even a perfect man) then He is unable to save us without some “work” on our part, completely negating Paul’s Gospel of Grace…

This caused a huge stir, bringing the controversy within the church to a head, with a significant number – in some regions the majority – of Christians falling away and following Arius’s teaching (known as the “Arian heresy”).Constantine had risen to power at this same time, endorsing the Christian Religion; all the discord over this and some other related issues prompted him to get all the church leaders together and settle the matter: the Council of Nicaea.

The key to the problem is how are we saved? Followed by Who/what is Jesus?

From Wikopedia concerning council Of Nicea:

Position of Arius (Arianism)

Arius maintained that the Son of God was a Creature, made from nothing; and that he was God's First Production, before all ages. And he argued that everything else was created through the Son. Thus, said the Arians, only the Son was directly created and begotten of God; and therefore there was a time that He had not existence. Arius believed the Son Jesus was capable of His own free will of right and wrong, and that "were He in the truest sense a son, He must have come after the Father, therefore the time obviously was when He was not, and hence He was a finite being,"[28] and was under God the Father. The Arians appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I", and also Colossians 1:15: "Firstborn of all creation."
[edit]

Position of St. Alexander (Homoiousianism)

Homoiousians countered the Arians' argument, saying that the Father's fatherhood, like all of his attributes, is eternal. Thus, the Father was always a father, and that the Son, therefore, always existed with him. Homoiousians believed that to follow the Arian view destroyed the unity of the Godhead, and made the Son unequal to the Father, in contravention of the Scriptures ("I and the Father are one"; John 10:30). Further on it says "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me"; John 17:21.
[edit]


The Homoiousian compromise proposal

The Homoiousians proposed that God and the Son were alike, but not the same, in substance. This compromise position did not gain much support and eventually the idea was dropped.
[edit]
Result of the debate

The Council declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal, basing the declaration in the claim that this was a formulation of traditional Christian belief handed down from the Apostles. Under Constantine's influence,[29] this belief was expressed by the bishops in what would be known thereafter as the Nicene Creed.
[edit]

The Nicene Creed

Main article: Nicene Creed
One of the projects undertaken by the Council was the creation of a Creed, a declaration and summary of the Christian faith. Several creeds were already in existence; many creeds were acceptable to the members of the council, including Arius. From earliest times, various creeds served as a means of identification for Christians, as a means of inclusion and recognition, especially at baptism. In Rome, for example, the Apostles' Creed was popular, especially for use in Lent and the Easter season. In the Council of Nicaea, one specific creed was used to define the Church's faith clearly, to include those who professed it, and to exclude those who did not.

Some distinctive elements in the Nicene Creed, perhaps from the hand of Hosius of Cordova, were added. Some elements were added specifically to counter the Arian point of view.[30]

1. Jesus Christ is described as "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God," proclaiming his divinity. When all light sources were natural, the essence of light was considered to be identical, regardless of its form.
2. Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made", asserting his co-eternalness with God, and confirming it by stating his role in the Creation. Basically, they were saying that Jesus was God, and God's son, not a creation of God.
3. He is said to be "from the substance of the Father," in direct opposition to Arianism. Eusebius of Caesarea ascribes the term homoousios, or consubstantial, i.e., "of the same substance" (of the Father), to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority.

Of the third article only the words "and in the Holy Spirit" were left; the original Nicene Creed ended with these words. Then followed immediately the canons of the council. Thus, instead of a baptismal creed acceptable to both the homoousian and Arian parties, as proposed by Eusebius, the council promulgated one which was unambiguous in the aspects touching upon the points of contention between these two positions, and one which was incompatible with the beliefs of Arians.

This doctrine that Christ is of “identical substance” as God the Father has been/is the dogma of orthodox Christianity.


Then a few years later at the Council of Chalcedon the “two natures “ of Christ were defined:
(from Wikipedia)

Confession of Chalcedon
Main article: Chalcedonian Creed

The Confession of Chalcedon provides a clear statement on the human and divine nature of Christ:[9]

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως - in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεὸν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

With these dogmas established, orthodox Christianity had settled the issue once and for all – if you did/do not agree to these principles you are not a “Christian” according to these principals. Down through the ages this question has raged within Christendom and continues to this very day (Islam; Mormon: Jehovah witness; etc)

Paul’s gospel of Grace can only be valid if a being, 100% man and 100% God substitute himself in our place, willingly accept the punishment on our behalf– only God can pay the penalty we deserve and then for it to apply to humanity it must be paid by a perfect human… as Paul Puts it: Jesus Christ, and Him crucified (1 Cor 2: 2).



DISCUSSION
1. Where did Paul get his gospel?
2. What is different about the “another” gospel?
3. How did Paul portray Jesus?
4. Why was it necessary that John write his gospel?
5. What is the “Arian heresy”?
6. What is the orthodox dogma concerning the “two natures” of Christ?
7. Where was this established?
8. What is the difference between “dogma” and “doctrine”?
9. What is your perception of Christ?

Title : My Utmost for His Highest

Edition : First
Copyright : Copyright © 1992 by Oswald Chambers Publications Association, Ltd. Original edition copyright © 1935 by Dodd, Mead & Company, Inc. Copyright renewed 1963 by Oswald Chambers Publications Association, Ltd. United States publication rights are held by Discovery House Publishers, which is affiliated with RBC Ministries, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49512. All rights reserved. Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 1998, Parsons Technology, Inc.

January 11 What My Obedience to God Costs Other People
“As they led Him away, they laid hold of a certain man, Simon … , and on him they laid the cross that he might bear it after Jesus” (Luke 23:26). If we obey God, it is going to cost other people more than it costs us, and that is where the pain begins.
If we are in love with our Lord, obedience does not cost us anything—it is a delight. But to those who do not love Him, our obedience does cost a great deal. If we obey God, it will mean that other people’s plans are upset. They will ridicule us as if to say, “You call this Christianity?” We could prevent the suffering, but not if we are obedient to God. We must let the cost be paid. When our obedience begins to cost others, our human pride entrenches itself and we say, “I will never accept anything from anyone.” But we must, or disobey God. We have no right to think that the type of relationships we have with others should be any different from those the Lord Himself had (see Luke 8:1–3). A lack of progress in our spiritual life results when we try to bear all the costs ourselves. And actually, we cannot. Because we are so involved in the universal purposes of God, others are immediately affected by our obedience to Him.
Will we remain faithful in our obedience to God and be willing to suffer the humiliation of refusing to be independent? Or will we do just the opposite and say, “I will not cause other people to suffer”? We can disobey God if we choose, and it will bring immediate relief to the situation, but it will grieve our Lord. If, however, we obey God, He will care for those who have suffered the consequences of our obedience. We must simply obey and leave all the consequences with Him. Beware of the inclination to dictate to God what consequences you would allow as a condition of your obedience to Him.