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.

GALATIANS # 19
1/10/11
No other Gospel
Paul’s Gospel defended
Chapter 1: 6 – 24
1: 6 – 10 A

In order to make a coherent study of Paul’s opening rebuke/defense it is necessary for us to take on a few more verses than usual; we have to look at 18 verses as a unit for it to all come together properly…we might wind up having to do this in two studies…

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.

(6) I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—(7) not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. (8) But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. (9) As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (10) For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Paul Called by God (11) For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. (12) For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (13) For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. (14) And 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. (15) But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, (16) was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; (17) nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. (18) Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. (19) But 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!) (21) Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. (22) And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. (23) They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” (24) And they glorified God because of me.

1: 6 - 10
In nearly all of his letters Paul includes a blessing after the salutation (1Cor 1: 4 – 9; Rom 1: 8 – 15 etc), but here he abruptly, turns from the doxology in v.6 to a severe rebuke in vv.8 - 10 and then a defense of his authority and message in vv 11 - 20! This drastic reversal, with its abrupt, harsh, statement is nearly without-precedent in NT writings and certainly not “normal” for the Greco/Roman style of writing he follows. Rather than an Apostolic blessing, an Apostolic curse!

Acts 13 - 14, describes the success of Paul and Barnabas’s mission to the southern Galatians. They had established, and left a network of solid churches with good elders in place, leading these young Christians in their worship. This rejection of Paul and his teaching hurt his feelings but even more importantly it alarmed him that they were abandoning God and turning away to “another gospel” which is not a Gospel. This was not only attacking Paul but was a sudden reversal of everything that the Holy Spirit had set in motion, an undoing of all that had been accomplished!

Who were these Judaizers and what was so dangerously enticing and erroneous about their “another gospel”?
The scriptures don’t provide a clear identification of them, however, from the evidence that is provided we can deduce that they are Jewish Christians at least claiming to be agents of, and endorsed by, the Jerusalem church. As we have discussed in previous lessons, the Jerusalem church remained strongly influenced by their adherence to the Mosaic Law; for some it was nearly impossible to make the transition from “Law” to “Grace”. Fundamental to the maturing of Judaism such that these temple worshiping Jews could apprehend the full meaning of the “good news” was an understanding of the two natures of the God/man Jesus Christ: Who is He?

It’s easy for us, from our vantage point provided by the completed scriptures and two thousand years of study, to be overly critical of the “Judaizers”. However, if we step back and look at the big picture we well might come to a different conclusion. The Apostles were all workmen from the lowest levels of society; when Jesus came to them He was one of them…maybe even a little lower than some of them…He was just a man and as described in Isaiah, He had no “form”, or “majesty”, or “beauty” that we should admire Him. He was just a normal, run of the mill, average man – nothing special about Him: He was fully human, a man just like them, tried in every way, just like them.

They spent three years living with this man, becoming closely acquainted with Him, eating with Him, being cold tired and hungry with Him: He fully revealed His humanity to them; they knew Him as a man and only very dimly or not at all as God…at Christ’s transfiguration, Peter “confessed” His Deity, was greatly praised by Jesus, and then, within minutes Peter receives a frighteningly harsh rebuke from Christ, demonstrating that Peter didn’t comprehend what he had just confessed! The Apostles only dimly perceived Christ’s Deity (with the possible exception of John) to them He was a wonderful prophet and teacher, with almost magical powers to raise the dead calm storms etc. but His being God had not yet soaked in – for some it never did.
For Him to be able to pay our sin debt He had to be fully human and fully God– for us to realize this, His humanity must be revealed to us –it is not strange that they did not understand the magnitude of what He had accomplished on the cross – it had not yet been fully revealed – we humans can only receive God’s revelation of Himself a piece at a time – they were not weak or evil - they were the ones to whom His humanity had been fully revealed, During His incarnation His Deity was also revealed but not nearly so clearly and emphatically as His humanity.

Paul did not know, probably never even saw, the historical Jesus; on the Damascus road he met the Christ described in the book of Revelations; Christ/God, one of the aspects of the Triune God. When he saw Him, Paul was blinded and fell to his face just as John (the most beloved!) describes happening to himself in Rev.

This revelation had to be just as clear, just as distinct, just as unique as His Revelation of his humanity had been; as we discussed in previous lessons there was no person more suited to receive this revelation than Saul of Tarsis.

it was inevitable that there would be some disagreement and resistance to Paul’s announcement that God had paid the price with His blood and no further sacrifices were necessary or of any effect, Jesus had fulfilled the Mosaic Law. These Judaizers, including the Apostles to some extent, didn’t fully comprehend the fact that Jesus was God and His grace is the only way we can be saved; there is nothing we can or must do to add to or accomplish our salvation

Significantly, Paul did not develop an abstract or metaphysical doctrine of God apart from his self-revelation in Jesus Christ. In commenting on this verse, Luther remarked that Paul always associated Jesus Christ with the Father in order to teach us true Christian theology that “does not begin at the top, as all other religions do, but in the utmost depths.… Therefore you must put away all speculations … and run directly to the manger and the mother’s womb, embrace this infant and virgin’s child in your arms, and look at him—born, being nursed, growing up, going about in human society, teaching, dying, rising again, ascending above all the heavens, and having authority over all things. In this way you can shake off all terrors and errors, as the sun dispels the clouds. (Libronix Digital Library System)”


Paul’s Gospel brought Jesus humanity and Deity in to full view in a manner that we can all comprehend.


DISCUSSION
1. Why doesn’t Paul bless the Galatians?
2. Why is Paul so distraught?
3. Who were these people who were undoing Paul’s work?
4. Why were they attacking Paul’s teaching?
5. What was the troublemakers perception of Christ?
6. What was Paul’s view of Christ?
7. How did he come by it?
8. What are the “two natures of Christ”?
9. Why is this important?
10. What is your perception of Christ?

Galatians lesson #17

GALATIANS # 17
11/08/10
Chapter 1: 1 – 3

greeting

Okay!

Yielding to popular demand, I will shift to the ESV for awhile:

(I still like KJV best!!!)

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 1:1-5 ( ESV )
Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through 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 our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

(h,mm, I guess it is a little easier to read…)

One aspect of Greek civilization was the development of writing to an art form (this was further refined and polished by the Romans); the Hellenization of the Mideast brought these sophisticated writing techniques and skills to all educated people, even isolationist leaning cultures such as the Jews.

(Beginning at Sinai, the Law and all its ramifications had caused the Jewish people to be completely incompatible with the surrounding cultures, just as Moses had declared:
Exodus 33:16 ( ESV )
For how shall it be known that I have found favor in your sight, I and your people? Is it not in your going with us, so that we are distinct, I and your people, from every other people on the face of the earth?”
This establishing of “boundary markers” preserved the Jewish religion and people; this characteristic has kept the Jewish religion/people intact to this very day, unlike all of those in existence at the time of the implementation of the Mosaic Law.)

Though having very sophisticated writing forms of their own (see James study for a brief discussion of some Hebraic writing techniques), they adopted this writing style, particularly for public writing, or writings intended for predominantly gentile readers; the highly educated Paul utilized these Greek techniques, writing very skillfully to his audience:
(2) Structure and Form
In recent years New Testament scholars have devoted much attention to the structure and form of the Pauline Letters, analyzing their literary features and comparing them with other letters that have survived from the Hellenistic world.70 By the time of Paul, letter writing in the Roman Empire had developed into a fine art among the professional clientele of the educated elite. The publication of 931 letters by the great Roman statesman Cicero (d. 43 B.C.) set a high standard for others who desired to use the letter form for political, philosophical, or moral exhortation as well as for communicating matters of a more personal nature.71 Those who wished to perfect the art of letter writing had available various handbooks and manuals of style to guide them in this process. One of these, by Proclus, “lists forty-one epistolary types including letters of friendship, introduction, blame, reproach, consultation, criticism, censure, praise, interrogation, accusation, apology, and gratitude.”72 The questions scholars have been keen to study are exactly how Paul’s letters fit into this pattern of literary constructs. Generally Paul’s epistles do seem to follow the normal pattern of the Hellenistic letter, the basic form of which consists of five major sections:
1. Opening (sender, addressee, greeting)
2. Thanksgiving or Blessing (often with prayer of intercession, well wishes, or personal greetings)
3. The Burden of the Letter (including citation of classical sources and arguments)
4. Parenesis (ethical instruction, exhortation)
5. Closing (mention of personal plans, mutual friends, benediction)
A quick look at the text of Galatians will show that it fits this pattern rather neatly with one exception: there is no thanksgiving or blessing. Otherwise, using this structure, we could outline Galatians thus:
1. Opening 1:1–5
2. Body 1:6–4:31
3. Parenesis 5:1–6:10
4. Closing 6:11–18 (George)

Demonstrating his grasp of the nuances of this art, Paul structures his letter in accordance with the sophisticated dictates in play at that time.

ESV Ch. 1: 1: Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead —
Paul launches his diatribe against the Judaizers with the opening phrase of verse one. He takes an unusual tack from the normal structure of a greeting; not just stating his position in society, but going much farther, declaring himself to be an Apostle – in the same sense as those chosen by Jesus to accompany Him in His ministry!

Apostle:

G652
ἀπόστολος
apostolos
ap-os'-tol-os

From G649; a delegate; specifically an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ (“apostle”), (with miraculous powers):—apostle, messenger, he that is sent.

Following this with the statement that his authority is not from this world; that the origin of the gospel with which he has been entrusted and which he “preached”, is “not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father”. With these statements, Paul declares his independence from all church leaders, even those in Jerusalem – he declares that he received the Gospel directly from God, just as Moses had received the Law straight from God; Jesus personally revealed the gospel to him – none of it is doctrine learned from, or received from, any man!

Paul is never disrespectful of the Jerusalem church and the “pillars” who guide it, however, since the Gospel had been revealed to Him directly from Christ, he is also never, in even the slightest way, subservient to them – or anyone else. Luke describes Paul’s conversion; the astonishing event which was the basis of his apostleship and receipt of the gospel:

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 9:1-22 ( ESV )
But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.
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.

Paul’s declaration that he received his Apostleship directly from God is like the Old Testament prophets: he has declared himself to be their equivalent! Or as the folks at the New American Commentary put it:
1:1b Paul was called “by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead.” Paul decisively qualified his calling in a negative way: it is neither from men, that is, from a human source, nor by men, that is, mediated through any particular person whether Peter, James, Ananias, or whomever. Now follows a strong adversative, “but” (alla), and a positive ascription of the true source of his life and mission. It would be a serious error to pass over these words lightly as though they were “a kind of pious window dressing intended to furnish evidence of orthodoxy.”8 The entire message of Galatians is contained in these words. True, they are words that belong to the confessional and kerygmatic tradition of earliest Christianity; they are part of the heart of that message that Paul claimed to have “received” and then “passed on” to his converts (1 Cor 15:3). These words were not invented by Paul but rather already were there in the praise and proclamation of the first believers. Still, Paul pressed this confession into service in Galatians at this particular point in order to establish a firm foundation about everything he would say about faith and works, law and gospel, freedom and bondage, circumcision and the cross. (Libronix Digital Library System)

So, what is Paul preaching that is so controversial?

We don’t have a complete record of his early sermons; however, here is a typical statement from one delivered a little later:
Title : The Holy Bible, King James Version Edition : Third
Copyright : Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 1998, Parsons Technology, Inc.

Acts 13:38-39 ( KJV ) (KJV does a better job on this one)
Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Justify…..
G1342 v
Δίκαιος
dikaios
dik'-ah-yos
From G1349; equitable (in character or act); by implication innocent, holy (absolutely or relatively):—just, meet, right (-eous).

The “troublemakers” had attempted to persuade the Galatians that Paul did not have the approval of the church leadership and his teaching was inaccurate at best, or, at worst, blasphemous. A lot was at stake here – with this statement Paul declares his and his gospel’s authority and credibility, if Paul’s gospel of “Grace” is undermined, then what’s left?
If we are not saved by Grace alone, then:
• We must first keep the Mosaic Law and then be Christians.
• Jesus death was not enough – he wasn’t able to complete our salvation.
• In addition to Jesus efforts, we humans must perform the rest of the work.
Christ’s salvation of mankind would then have been unnecessary – we humans could/can do it on our own; in this verse Paul identifies Jesus Christ together with God the Father, clearly distinguishing Him from ordinary men.

Ch 1:2 …and all the brothers who are with me,…
.
Unlike most of his other letters, Paul doesn’t identify his companions here, naming no one by name. This has caused some intense discussion among biblical scholars as the identification could pin point when it was written and could shed some light on whether Paul and Barnabas had completely fallen out with one another. If the letter was written after the Jerusalem council,(“Northern Galatian”) then the split must have been horrendous: Barnabas and Paul split up and go their separate ways shortly after this controversy; Scripture do not record Paul ever returning to Antioch; no more is written about Peter for several years; etc. all leaving the question of the depth of the split unanswered. Or… another possibility (“Southern Galatian”), maybe all the conflict and tension arising from the question of how Christianity interfaces with Judaism coming to a head with the confrontation with Peter, along with Paul’s letter to the Galatians, precipitated the Jerusalem Council with which it was resolved, at least among the leaders. The situation would still have been explosive in this case, the Jerusalem Council hadn’t yet met, and tempers were flaring, with everyone defensive and on edge, in which case, Paul is deliberately vague to avoid forcing the issue with anyone. (these are more of the reasons I am a “southern Galatianer”)

F. F. Bruce explores it a little bit:
In the initial salutation of several of his letters Paul associates with himself by name one or more of his companions who are with him at the time of writing (cf. 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Thes. 1:1; 2 Thes. 1:1; Phm. 1). Here he mentions no one by name, but associates himself,all the brothers who are with me’. Our conclusions about the probable identity of those brothers will depend on our view of the provenance and date of the letter. If it was sent from Syrian Antioch, not long after Paul and Barnabas returned from their evangelization of the cities of South Galatia (cf. Acts 14:26ff.), we should think of the leaders of the Antiochene church, including pre-eminently Barnabas (cf. Acts 13:1). In that case it might be asked why Barnabas is not singled out by name, since he was Paul’s senior colleague in the evangelization of South Galatia. R J. Bauckham (‘Barnabas in Galatians’, JSNT, Issue 2 [1979], 65) suggests that Paul’s generalizing phrase ‘covers his embarrassment in not being able to ask his partner to endorse the letter’ after the painful incident narrated below in 2:11-13. On the other hand, Paul may wish to indicate to the Galatians that he is expressing no merely individual viewpoint, but one shared by his colleagues. The phrase οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ ἀδελφοὶ occurs in the final greetings of Phil. 4:21, where the reference (less general than πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι in the following verse) seems to be his missionary associates.
ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατίας. The addressees are specified with the utmost brevity. ‘The churches of Galatia’ are mentioned again in 1 Cor. 16:1. It has been argued above (pp. 5–18) that the churches addressed here are those of South Galatia, whose founding by Paul and Barnabas is recorded in Acts 13:14–14:23.
It was evidently a circular letter, designed to be taken by a messenger to one of the Galatian churches, then to the next on his itinerary, and so on until each church had heard its contents. If some of the churches wished to make and retain a copy, that could no doubt be done. But Paul apparently did not send several copies, one for each church; his words in 6:11 imply that each church would see the one copy that he sent and take note of he ‘large letters’ that characterized his own handwriting. (Bruce, the epistle to the Galatians, a commentary on the greek text)

Ch. 1:3
With verse three, Paul introduces a new greeting device; the normal Greek word used here was “rejoice”, the normal Jewish was “peace”. Here, with his combining “Grace” and “peace” he has decisively expressed a statement having uniquely Christian force and meaning which he then uses in nearly all his subsequent letters. This coupling of these two words in this way brings the concept into sharp focus; “peace” that is inherent in God’s “grace”, a concept expressed uniquely by Paul.
The Judaizers belief and teaching, that a Christian must adhere to the law, was a perversion of the Gospel, completely contrary to the gospel that Paul preached. In his preaching to the Galatians we can presume he had taught the message of Grace and thus his blessing of Peace and Grace is very appropriate to his letters, for instance, from a little later in his ministry:
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.
Romans Ch 3: 21 - 31
The Righteousness of God Through Faith
21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since God is one. He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.



DISCUSSION
1. What is unusual about verse 1?
2. Why doesn’t Paul identify his companions?
3. What was preaching that disturbed some of his fellow Christians?
4. Was it unanimously embraced?
5. How did this differ from what the Jerusalem church was teaching?
6. How was it resolved?
7. What phrase does Paul use that’s usage was probably widespread in the early church?*
8. How does this reflect on the Deity of Christ?
9. What is the pertinence of “northern” or “southern” Galatia?
10. How does all this impact the modern church

GALATIANS #16?

GALATIANS # 16
11/15/10
What prompted Paul to write a letter to the Galatian churches?

With the baptism of Cornelius, (Acts 10), the question of whether Christians must adhere to the Mosaic Law had arisen (Acts 11; 1 – 3 (KJV) And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.) ). Now, about 15 years after Christianity had come into being, the issue had exploded into a full scale crisis!

There is no record of anyone other than Paul having given much, if any, thought to how the coming of the Messiah had changed things.The church was in danger of becoming a cult within the Jewish religion, or disintegrating; in either case fading into oblivion: were the Judaizers right and we must first be Jews and then, secondarily, almost as an afterthought, Christians? Or was Paul’s gospel of grace right, declaring the Mosaic Law fulfilled with the “works” of Christ? Or, are there two gospels - one for the Jews and one for the gentiles? One gospel of works plus grace; countered by one of grace only? Did Jesus complete his work (John 19: 30) or was there some things left undone which we humans must complete? These two doctrines are mutually exclusive – it’s either one or the other, it cannot be both!

Paul had been preaching the gospel of grace throughout the gentile Christian community for several years, converting gentiles and Jews alike; although emanating exclusively from him, his teaching was accepted as THE gospel by these folks.

Paul had taught this doctrine on his and Barnabas’s missionary trip that had established the Galatian churches: now he has received word that some “troublemakers” had gone behind his back to these people, telling them that to complete their salvation they must be circumcised; which then implies that one’s salvation requires keeping the entire Mosaic Law. Our salvation is contingent on whether or not we perform these “works”: we humans, by our own efforts are able to save ourselves…in which case, what was the point of Jesus death?

If these “Judaizers” are right, the entire Gospel comes unraveled!

Paul’s angry re-action, declaring that any one preaching “any other gospel” than his was to be cursed (Gal 1: 8 – 9), shows how heated the issue had become. Paul was adamant that our only hope of salvation is the Grace of God; all Christians were freed from the “yoke of the Law” by what was accomplished by Christ’s “Penal Substitution” on the cross. This “work” of Christ was complete, there is/was/will never be, anything further required; there is only one way; there is nothing we humans can, or must, do to be justified; Jesus was/is the only way it can/could be done, He did it all (Jn. 19: 30) !

There is disagreement among modern biblical scholars over how deep this division was: did the leaders of the Jerusalem church support the “Gospel of circumcision” (I’m paraphrasing here)? How high up in the Jerusalem hierarchy did this belief go, all the way to the top? There is quite a bit of evidence that it did, many certainly leaned that way…note the lengthy, heated, discussion on Peter’s return from Cornelius (Acts 11: 1 – 3) and the passionate debate at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15: 6 -7).

Here’s an example of a scholar who believed it was prevalent not only among “false prophets” but possibly included even the “pillars” in Jerusalem:

Luther begins his preface to the epistle thus:
The Galatians had been brought by St. Paul to right Christian belief, from the law to the gospel. But after his departure there came the false prophets, who were disciples of the true apostles, and turned the Galatians back again to believe that they must attain blessedness through the work of the law, and that they were sinning if they did no hold the work of the law, as according to Acts 15 certain highly–placed people in Jerusalem insisted. 7

This is expanded as follows in his commentary on the epistle:
St. Paul goeth about to establish the doctrine of faith, grace, forgiveness of sins, or Christian righteousness, to the end that we may have a perfect knowledge and difference between Christian righteousness and all other kinds of righteousness…. For if the article of justification be lost, then is all true Christian doctrine lost….
Christ [says Paul] hath mercifully called you in grace, that ye should be freemen under Christ, and not bondmen under Moses, whose disciples ye are now become again by the means of your false apostles, who by the law of Moses called you not unto grace, but unto wrath, to the hating of God, to sin and death….
Hereby it may easily be gathered, that these false prophets had condemned the Gospel of Paul among the Galatians, saying: Paul indeed hath begun well, but to have begun well is not enough, for here remain yet many higher matters; like as they say in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts: It is not enough for you to believe in Christ, or to be baptized, but it behoveth also that ye be circumcised; ‘for except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved’. This is as much to say, as that Christ is a good workman, which indeed begun a building, but he hath not finished it; for this must Moses do. 8

….Luther goes on to draw a parallel with the ‘fantastical spirits, Anabaptists and others’ of his day as well as with the ‘Papists’ (Bruce, the epistle to the Galatians, a commentary on the greek text). 9

And then Calvin puts a “happy face” on it, putting the blame on “false apostles”:

According to John Calvin (1548), Paul
…had faithfully instructed them [the Galatians] in the pure gospel, but false apostles had entered in his absence and corrupted the true seed by false and corrupting dogmas. For they taught that the observance of ceremonies was still necessary. This might seem trivial; but Paul fights for it as a fundamental article of the Christian faith. And rightly so, for it is no light evil to quench the brightness of the gospel, to lay a snare for consciences and remove the distinction between the old and new covenants. He saw that these errors were also related to an ungodly and destructive opinion on the deserving of righteousness….
The false apostles, who had deceived the Galatians to advance their own claims, pretended that they had received a commission from the apostles. Their method of infiltration was to get it believed that they represented the apostles and delivered a message from them. But they took away from Paul the name and authority of apostle…. In attacking Paul they were really attacking the truth of the gospel. (Bruce, the epistle to the Galatians, a commentary on the greek text) 10

Calvin’s position held until the early 19th century when it was analyzed by the founder of the Tubingen school, F. C. Baur who arrived at a dramatically different conclusion:

This understanding of the situation prevailed into the nineteenth century, when it was taken up by the Tübingen school of F. C. Baur and his associates, who integrated it into their account of primitive Church History. ‘What led the Apostle to write this Epistle to the Galatian Churches’, wrote Baur, ‘we learn very clearly from the Epistle itself’. The Galatians’ falling away from the gospel as Paul preached it was due to the influence of strange teachers who… represented to them that, as a first step to the Christian salvation, they must submit to circumcision (v. 2, 11). Here we first meet with those Judaising opponents with whom the Apostle had to maintain so severe a struggle in the churches which he founded, and they appear here quite in the harsh and uncompromising Judaistic character which marks them as opponents of Pauline Christianity…. In one word, they were Jews or Jewish Christians of the genuine old stamp, who could so little understand the more liberal atmosphere of Pauline Christianity that they would have thought the very ground of their existence was cut from under them if Judaism were no longer to have absolute power and importance. 11
In principle, according to Baur, the declared opponents of Pauline Christianity were in agreement with the leaders of the Jerusalem church; indeed, those leaders ‘are themselves the opponents against whom the Apostle contends in refuting these principles’. 12 But their reluctant recognition, at the Jerusalem conference, that Paul and Barnabas had been entrusted with the gospel for the Gentiles, tied their hands and compelled them to take the position of non–belligerents. Other members of the Jerusalem church, however, were not so bound, and they were infiltrators or trouble–makers who endeavoured to subvert Paul’s teaching and apostolic authority among his Gentile converts, including the churches of Galatia. (Libronix, bible commentary, Galatians)

And from Robin Griffith Jones:

Glance through the letter to the Galatians and the impression is clear that Paul is resisting opponents who are – and know they are – undermining the very foundation of his good news. He stands for God’s grace and rescue by faith; they stand by contrast for the rigid observance of the Law. The battle lines are clear, and the fighting is fierce. That is clearly what Paul wanted the Galatians to think. Thanks to his letter, they may well have done so; so have almost all subsequent readers.
The new teachers had come from Jerusalem itself or from Antioch. They asserted the rights and leadership of the Galatians’ mother assembly in Antioch. They came almost certainly with the authority of Barnabas himself. Paul then, has been proved right: more and more of the Law is being demanded from more and more assemblies…. (Jones 225)

Even Barnabas? He helped Paul establish these churches; was there when Paul delivered his gospel! (Jones is a “northern Galatianer” – if one takes a “southern” position, it resolves this terrible prospect!)

In any case, the inroads made by this disavowal of Paul’s teaching was eroding Paul’s credibility and seriously undermining the veracity of his teaching - it presented a deadly peril to the Gospel of Grace; was Jesus unable to complete his work? Must we complete it ourselves?

The normal state in any group of people is a left (liberal), a center (moderate), and a right wing (conservative), faction, just as we find in churches today: the Jerusalem Church was typical in this sense with an overall leaning towards the right. The underlying world view of all the Jewish Christians tended to be adherence to the law; the “right” demanding strict compliance, one must first be a Jew, then a Christian; the “left” taking a more moderate stand, with a much more relaxed view of the necessity of keeping the Law. Those in the middle were caught between the two; being pressured by each of these groups. These attitudes, colliding with Peter’s experience with the Roman centurion, was inexorably leading towards creation of two gospels – one for the Jews and one for the gentiles.

Paul identified those conservative Christians who actively pursued and promulgated strict adherence to the Law as “trouble makers” and/or “the circumcision”. Some of these folks forced the issue, going behind Paul and attempting to discredit him and his gospel, precipitating the writing of the letter to the Galatians. Though these circumstances were tragic, their recording here is the “breath of God”, ( 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ( KJV ) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.) ;and as such, provide considerable insight to the workings of the early church, as well as declaring that there is only the gospel; no “another gospel” exists.

Even though all scripture are “inspired”, Galatians stands out as a very important letter:
By common consent, Galatians is one of the four ‘capital’ epistles of Paul (the others being 1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans) and one of the best authenticated. 1 When the claims of the other letters to Pauline authorship is under consideration, the standard assessment is this fourfold group, and pre–eminently Galatians. Denial of the genuineness of Galatians, such as was made in the Dutch school of W. C. van Manen, 2 is recognised as a critical aberration in the history of NT study. From the first gathering together of the Pauline writings into a corpus, early in the second century AD, Galatians had a secure place among them. (Bruce, the epistle to the Galatians, a commentary on the greek text 4)

It is the first written declaration that we are justified by faith:

Paul’s letter to the Galatians is one of the most significant books of the New Testament and of the whole Bible. Sometimes described as “the Magna Carta of Christian Liberty,” it discusses in clear, emotional, and intensely personal language the basic issue of how a man is put right with God. In Paul’s own words, the basic question is: “Does God give you the Spirit and work miracles among you because you do what the Law requires or because you hear the gospel and believe it?” (3.5). And the answer comes in similar language: “A person is put right with God only through faith in Jesus Christ, never by doing what the Law requires” (2.16, emphasis added) (Arichea)

Paul wrote the letter because of the information he received that men, presenting themselves as representatives of the Jerusalem church, were persuading his flock of new believers that Paul’s teaching was wrong and he was not personally authorized or qualified to preach or teach to any one – he had no choice but to respond forcefully!

DISCUSSION

1. What was the proximate “cause” of the writing of the letter to the Galatians?
2. When did the controversy first arise?
3. What was the outcome of the Jerusalem council?
4. Was it unanimously embraced?
5. What was F. C. Baur’s conclusion on 4?
6. Calvin’s?
7. Luther?*
8. Yours? Why?
9. What is the pertinence of “northern” or “southern” Galatia?
10. What did Luther mean by his comment that Galatians is one of the four “capital” letters?
11. Why did Paul start his letter with such vehemence?
12. How is this all relevant to the “body of Christ” today
13. *Extra work: How does all this enter into Luther’s views compared to Eusebius’(“predestination”/ “works”)?
14. Augustine/Pelagius?