Category: i) Galatians

Here, Paul refers to himself and other Jews (as contrasted to Gentiles) and especially Peter as themselves sinners. So, there was nothing in that regard to separate them from the Gentiles.  But, did it follow that Christ made them sinners?  Absolutely not!  Instead, Christ simply reveals what is already so, we are all in need of the grace of God.

It was this truth that made Paul “die to the law that I might live to God” (19).

His purpose was to live for Christ.  In his conversion, his own will became irrelevant.  It was Christ who determined his life.  Such should be so for us as well.  “I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me” (20).

Christ’s death was useless (vain) if a man could appear just before God as a result of the law of Moses.  But, all have sinned, and there was no provision for grace and mercy under the old law.  Christ is needed, and His death has value for every man.

This context is divided into two different passages so that first the event can be examined, and then the message Paul proclaimed (verses 14-21) can be addressed later.

When Peter came to Antioch of Syria, he and Paul had an encounter caused by Peter’s sin. Though by this time the inclusion of Gentiles into the kingdom was established (Acts 15), there was still opposition to it that Peter reacted to by “separating himself [from the Gentiles] fearing those who were of the circumcision” (12).

This was a public sin, and Paul responded publicly, admonishing Peter “before them all” (14). Peter’s actions were public, and they had led others, even Barnabas, to be “carried away with their hypocrisy” (13). Public sin can and often must be dealt with publicly. A little leaven leavens a whole lump (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:6).

Apparently, this admonition left no hard feelings, as Peter wrote approvingly of Paul in his own epistle at another time (cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16). A penitent soul does not harbor resentment for admonition.

As Paul continues here his reference to the meeting in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15, some might think that he writes disparagingly about the apostles and elders in Jerusalem.  Those who “seemed to be something”, “it makes no difference to me”, “who seemed to be pillars.”  This is absolutely untrue, as Paul was simply using this occasion to again argue for his independent, God given position as an apostle.  His standing did not depend upon James, Peter and John and they had nothing to add to the gospel he preached. Despite the efforts of the Judaizers to diminish Paul, he was acknowledged by the other apostles to be an ambassador “toward the Gentiles.”

As such, Paul receive from them the “right hand of fellowship.” Such a shaking of hands was and is now an expression of Christians of our joint participation in the faith of Jesus Christ. Paul was not a usurper, he was an equal partner in God’s work.

Paul was also eager to help the poor, a truth clearly established in the record of scripture, (1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 8-9; Rom. 15:26).

Paul was continually embroiled in conflict with Judaizing teachers, who he here refers to as “false brethren.” Their view of the Christian faith nullified the grace of God. They viewed Christ as continuing the covenant between Jews and God, and viewed any Gentile Christian as a proselyte.

Circumcision, as a token of the covenant between God and Israel became the point of contention, and Paul was not going to compromise the gospel to appease these evil men. He protected Titus (a Gentile) by refusing to allow him to be circumcised. Paul’s correct understanding of the covenant of grace was that both He (a Jew), and Titus (a Gentile) were spiritual Jews, whose circumcision was not of the flesh, but of the heart! (cf. Romans 2:28-29).

We have liberty in Christ. Our appeal is to God’s grace. An appeal to the Old Law brings men into the bondage of sin.

As Paul continues the defense of his apostleship begun in verse 11, he notes that the first time he met any of the other apostles was three years after he began his ministry. Further, that on that occasion, Peter was the only apostle he met, during a two week trip to Jerusalem. (vs. 18-19).

Why would he point this out? Because of the Judaizing teachers who claimed that he was usurping his position as an apostle. Perhaps they claimed that Paul was just taking what he had heard, and parroting it while claiming an apostleship he did not deserve.

Paul’s here responds by relating his early ministry. He could not have been parroting the apostles because he hadn’t met or heard them. Instead, as he affirmed in verse 12, “For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

Since the gospel he preached was revealed to him by Jesus Christ, it was authoritative, and to be obeyed by the Galatians (cf. 1:6-9).

In the first portion of his letter to the Galatians, Paul emphasized that his apostleship was authorized by God. He asserts the fact in verse 1, and argues the assertion in verses 11-17.

When a careful study is made of Paul’s actions from the time of his conversion, his claims are corroborated. After Paul was converted, as recorded by the historian Luke in Acts 9, he immediately began to preach the gospel of Christ in the synagogues (cf. Acts 9:20). Though the book of Acts does not record the trip to Arabia, it does note that “many days were past” (9:23), and emphasized the preaching done in Damascus. So, as Paul wrote, he did not “immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus” (vs. 16-17).

Why is this significant? First, Paul did not need the apostle’s blessing to begin or accomplish his ministry. The charge he obtained was directly from the Lord (cf. Acts 22:15). Second, the message he preached was not of his own devising, but was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 9:15,17; 22:14, Galatians 1:11-12).

Paul begins his epistle to the Galatians in a manner typical to him. In the first few verses he defends his apostleship, and asks blessings upon his readers.

His defense of himself is especially appropriate in that the churches of Galatia had been influenced by Judaizing teachers. These false teachers not only advocated false doctrine, they also sought to destroy the reputation of Paul at every opportunity. Their chief tactic was to claim that since Paul was not one of the original apostles, he had usurped the position. In response, Paul declared that his apostleship was “not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father…” (vs. 1). The truth of this is evident in the reading of his conversion (Acts 9).

In praying for Grace and Peace for the Galatians, Paul identified Jesus as the Savior. He expressed the purpose of Jesus’ sacrifice, “that He might deliver us from this present evil age.”

In that Jesus accomplished this wonderful objective, Paul rightly noted that He is solely worthy of “glory forever and ever. Amen” (vs. 5, cf. Revelation 5:1-7).

Galatians 1:6-10

The Apostle Paul was a stickler for accuracy. He was careful to preach the gospel as it was revealed to him, and was harshly critical of any who would “pervert the gospel of Christ.”

Of course, the condemnation was given by inspiration, and so reveals to us the attitude we must have toward God’s word. While it is popular to modify the gospel to suit the desires of men, it is not acceptable to God. Consider the severity of the condemnation, “let him be accursed.”

The word, a translation of the Greek anathema, literally means to be banned or excommunicated. The lesson? God will cut off those who change the gospel to please men!

Our purpose is to please God, not men. As such, we should be willing to preach His word to the world, even if it earns us persecution, and the disdain of others. That is what it means to be a bondservant of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 4:21-31

In our text, the apostle Paul uses the two wives of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar, as an allegory. His words, “which things are symbolic.”

The two women represent the two covenants. Hagar is the Old Covenant “from Mount Sinai”, and Sarah the New “the Jerusalem above.”

The point of the allegory is to establish that the New Covenant, like Sarah, is to be preferred. Sarah was the mother of Isaac, the child of promise. It was through this lineage that redemption came, not from Hagar and Ishmael.

In the same way redemption is found in the New Covenant, not the Old. The New Covenant of Christ is to be preferred to the Old. We are to cast off the Old, just as the scripture says, “Cast out the bondwoman and her son.” As Paul wrote, “So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.”