Galatians One and Two Eau Claire 9/2/2006
St. Paul 9/16/2006
Intro
When I was 19 a friend of mine was the daughter of a Baptist minister. The minister's wife heard about my attending Ambassador College. She must have been somewhat familiar with "Armstrongism" or the church of God, because she sent me a letter, urging me to read the book of Galatians.
I'm sure she meant well. From the Protestant understanding, I was going about to obey the law. I was falling from grace. I was troubled by a false gospel. I was "Judaizing."
The church of God is constantly criticized for our understanding of the scriptures, and our resulting practices. It has been that way for a very long time:
The Council of Laodicea of around 365 decreed 59 laws, #29: "Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ."
If they haven't already, someone will try to "rescue" you with the book of Galatians.
Back in the early 90's I thought we had put all the arguments of the critics to rest. But they were not put to rest. Certain church leaders even tried to "rescue" the entire church of God. Great chunks of the church were not well grounded enough to see through those kinds of arguments.
And the book of Galatians is always in the thick of it. So I keep going back to it. We need to keep going back to it until we thoroughly understand the point of it.
SPS
Today we're just going to stay in the first two chapters of Galatians and consider who it was that Paul was combating in Galatia. We don't have time to go through much if it. So I'm just going to read through the first chapter and a half.
This is not the "interesting" part of the book. But you know what? There is some vitally important background in the first chapter and a half. Great clues as to who Paul's opponents were. And understanding that is vital to understanding the rest of his letter.
Let's consider from Galatians 1-2 who Paul's opponents were.
Body
What I believe about this subject is quite different that what the Protestant and Catholic world teach.
Not that what I'm going to say is unheard of. This is an understanding of Galatians that has been growing in the theological world since the early 70's. But it is not popular - they consider it, but dismiss it.
It more or less began with a breakthrough book by German theologian Walter Schmithals, and his book Paul and the Gnostics in 1972. (Mr. Larry Walker pointed it out some 10 years ago)
This is what Schmithals wrote as the introduction to his chapter on Galatians: "At first glance, at least, it appears to be a rather foolish and, even more, an unpromising undertaking ... to occupy ourselves with the heretics in Galatia. There are few problems in the realm of New Testament introduction in which the scholars of all eras are so unanimously and indisputably of one mind as here."
[ NT "introduction": the background and context of a book or letter. ]
"The heretics in Galatia [they all agree] are Judaizers, that is, Christians who demand the observance of the Jewish law on a greater or lesser scale, but in any case include circumcision: thus they are Christians in whose opinion membership in the eschatological [end-time] community of the Messiah ... depends upon membership in the national cultic union, constituted through the rite of circumcision, of the ancient people of the covenant [i.e. membership in Old Covenant Israel]. This thesis is the presupposition of the exegesis [explanation] of the Galatian epistle in the commentaries, not its conclusion; and it can be such a presupposition because no one would deny it. Paul's battle against circumcision apparently so little admits of another interpretation that, so far as I know, no one has yet attempted to dispute the appearance of Judaizers in Galatia."
And that, in the protestant interpretation, would be you and me. If you want to disagree with him, or what I point out today, just go to any commentary and they will say that I am wrong.
And yet this presupposition is not supported by Paul's words. As Schmithals said, it is not the conclusion demanded by his words. But this old presupposition leads to some very wrong conclusions about Paul's words. So let's begin in Gal 1 and I'll bring out some of Schmithal's observations.
[By the way - it's online a ucgstp.org/scriptures. Search for Galatians in the category of "commentary" ]
1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
1:2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
In the very first line of the book Paul tells us a GREAT deal about his opponents in Galatia. Most of what I have to say today is an expansion on this one verse. Someone has been saying that Paul is "an apostle of men". So Paul is going to have to explain how he became an apostle. That he has met and been taught by the risen Christ himself. The letter is a rebuttal to those who charge him.
The charge seems to be that a "true" apostle would communicate directly with the spirit Christ. He would not just pass along what some book or some other men taught him. (For example, we might make this charge against any minister of the church, such as Mr. Black: What visions, ecstatic utterances and miracles has he shown - i.e. what personal encounters with Jesus Christ?)
Now who would "they" say made Paul an apostle? What "men" would they say gave him his authority as an apostle? Did the Gentile churches which he founded ordain him as an apostle? Do they question the authority of the Gentile congregations? Obviously not. His home base was Antioch in Syria. But that place and that congregation never comes into his argument.
He had been given "right hand of fellowship" as an apostle in Jerusalem. (Gal 2:9) Paul had been ordained an apostle by the apostles in Jerusalem. Yet here his opponents in Galatia are accusing him of being nothing but a preacher who was ordained by the apostles of Jerusalem.
Now that in itself is an amazing thing! What kind of Jewish Christians, Christians who want to live more like Jews, would accuse Paul of being merely an apostle sent by Jerusalem? Or what Christians under the influence of observant, synagogue Jews would dismiss an apostle because he was sent from Jerusalem?
These were not Jewish Christians. Nor Christians swayed by observant Jews. These opponents would only recognize an apostle sent by the living Christ himself.
In other words, the opponents must have claimed direct inspiration from Christ himself. They claimed to be personally familiar with the living Christ.
They apparently claimed that Christ had spoken directly to them. And that he had manifested miracles through them.
Paul must therefore point out, as he does in verse 1: Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
He is not "just" a lackey of Jerusalem as they charged, but called, taught and sent by Jesus Christ and God the Father.
1:3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
1:5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Paul wishes the Galatians to know that God has called them into his new people. They were "without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world" (Eph 2:12) They were delivered from being on "the outside" - outside of God's new Israel. And that delivery was solely by means of a Passover. Passover is the issue, not Trumpets or Tabernacles; but how do you "become" God's people? "Saved", here, is not the entry to the promised land pictured by Trumpets. It is coming out of Egypt at the Passover. Jesus was that Passover, offered of his own free will. And like the first Passover, the purchased people were delivered - not from slavery - but from this present age. The age of mortality and rebellion. Delivered onto the road to eternal life.
That is a major theme in this book. Paul argues that God's Lamb, Christ our Passover, is the full price of our ransom. There is no other sacrifice, or rite, or procedure necessary to introduce us to God. One Passover lamb and we are completely delivered from Egypt.
Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Removed from the "grace of Christ". That is an oft-repeated term in Protestantism. And we're so dominated by that Protestant terminology. It evokes a thought of being free from having to "do" anything. But the grace of Christ is exactly that favor that he just mentioned in verse 4. It is being part of God's new chosen people, and on the road to eternal life.
1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Is Paul speaking this way of Jewish Christians? Are there Christians from Jerusalem in Galatia telling them to be more Jewish? Telling them to observe the Sabbath? Is that a "perversion" of the gospel of the new Passover? Is over-obedience called a "perversion" of the gospel?
1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
On whose authority are these opponents preaching? They dismiss the apostles of Jerusalem as mere "men". But their own words are claimed to come from the "angels of heaven".
How could they pose to be so authoritative? How could they claim to speak for the angels or powers of heaven? Perhaps they claimed to be the mediums or channels of such heavenly powers. But Paul says such "inspiration" is a lie. If the spirits don't speak the gospel witnessed by him and the other apostles, then let that "inspired" person be accursed.
It is a principle from the scriptures:
1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: ...
5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; ...
I think that is a very close parallel. If an angel, spirit, or miracle worker speaks contrary to the scriptures, he is a false prophet. May he be cursed.
And Paul repeats that principle for emphasis.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Now consider that we are asked to believe by all the commentaries that Paul is pronouncing this "curse" against Christians. Against Jewish Christians trying to convert the Galatians to joining the old covenant people of God through circumcision and observing the books of the law.
No, there was something much more sinister going on in Galatia. Some very different "gospel" being preached as coming directly from the "spirit of Christ" or angels connecting them to God. And that gospel was very contrary to the way of life taught by Paul.
1:10 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.
Paul is answering another accusation here. The "apostles" challenging him in the congregations of Galatia were saying that Paul had only won them over with enticing words. He had spoken pleasing words to them to gain their support - and probably their money. Paul is denying it.
1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Again, the heretics, Paul's opponents, in Galatia must have been saying that Paul only knew what he was taught by men. It makes no difference that those men were the apostles from Jerusalem. These "apostles" in Galatia received their knowledge by revelation. From God, not from man.
So Paul fights fire with fire. He also has met the risen Christ. "I ... received it ... by the revelation of Jesus Christ." So he tells the story of his calling:
1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
1:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
Look what he gave up. He had a high position in Judaism. His conversion had been dramatic. The point is that it took direct intervention from God to make that change. Christ had directly intervened to make him an apostle.
1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
... I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it ... (1:12)
1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
How strange, from these words, to believe that his opponents were Judaizers. Were they Jewish Christians from Jerusalem? Or influenced by observant Jews? No -- to oppose these heretical teachers, Paul says he did not go - where? To the precise location from which such "Judaizers" would have learned their gospel. Whoever they were, they accused him of learning his gospel from Jerusalem. But he denies it. He in fact didn't even go there after his dramatic conversion. And he argues that his contact with Jerusalem was limited:
1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
So he is proving that "the gospel which was preached of me is not after man." (1:11) Specifically, not from the apostles in Jersulem. Now what kind of Judaizers would claim that Paul could not be believed because he was only the lackey of Jerusalem?
All the discussion of circumcision in the following chapters has lead readers of Galatians to conclude that these opponents must have been Jews. And that they must be persuading the Galatians to become observant Jews.
But what kind of observant Jews, subsequently converted to Christianity, would deride a gospel as merely learned from the apostles in Jerusalem?
The truth, it seems to me, is that these weren't observant Jews at all. They preached circumcision, certainly, as a rite. A requirement to enter God's new covenant people. They preached this and other rites as necessary to their "initiation". And against this Paul must argue that Christ, our Passover lamb, is entirely sufficient to redeem us out of "this present evil" age (1:4).
1:20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
1:21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;
1:22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
These "apostles" of Galatia accuse Paul of lying. He must answer "I lie not". After his brief contact with Jerusalem he was away preaching to the Gentiles entirely. So continuously away from Jerusalem that he wasn't even known by the church there.
1:23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
1:24 And they glorified God in me.
They knew only of his dramatic turnaround.
Chapter 2 is a continuation of the story if his relationship with Jerusalem.
2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
This second visit to Jerusalem coincides with the Jerusalem conference of Acts 15.
31AD + 1 year (before Paul's calling Acts 9) + 3 years
(Gal 1:18) + 14 years -> 49 AD
(Others would say Paul's conversion was later, and the 14 years was counted
from his conversion:
31AD + 4 (conversion in 35) + 14 = 49)
(There was also an intervening visit at the end of Acts 11 to deliver an offering for the church at Jerusalem. Paul omits mention of it -- he probably
did not meet any of the apostles during that visit.)
We need to compare the first 5 verses of Acts 15 with the first 5 verses of Galatians 2 to understand the source of the circumcision issue.
1 And certain men which came down from Judaea [to Antioch] taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
"Down from Judea" probably implies that they came from Jerusalem.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
A very contentious group. Great arguments with Paul. But they raised an issue that the church in Antioch wanted officially settled. ...
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
It is not clear that the men of 15:1 are the same as the Christian Pharisees of 15:5. It looks to me like some Jews with a very different interpretation of Christianity raised the issue in Antioch. And now some former Pharisees among the brethren in Jerusalem "rose up", or stepped forward in agreement on the necessity of circumcision.
Compare this with Galatians 2:1-5 :
2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
Again, 31 + 1 + 3 + 14 -> 49 The same time. Just before Paul's second missionary journey. This trip to Jerusalem was quite surely, I think, to the Jerusalem conference of Acts 15.
Gal 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
He even has to add that he went up "by revelation". In other words he went in obedience to a revelation. This is more evidence that he is heading off the opponents' charge that he went up in response to orders from Jerusalem. That he was their puppet or mouthpiece.
2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
In the Church, circumcision was a non-issue. It was a non-issue to Peter when he first baptized Gentiles. They never had required it. It always was a non-issue to fully half of the Church - the female half. The issue was raised from outside the church:
2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
Gal 2:5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
The Church was forced to officially decide the issue because of outside ideas - false brethren - who made an issue of it.
I believe that the "false" brethren were those individuals who came to Antioch, and with whom Paul had "great disputation" (Acts 15:2). They weren't former Pharisees now members of the Jerusalem church. Paul confirms here that they were "false brethren".
They came "down" probably from Jerusalem. But they were not subject to the apostles. The council searched the scriptures and officially decided against circumcision. And when they came to this conclusion the whole church seems to have agreed. Including the former Pharisees among the true brethren of the Church. We see no evidence of any dissension about it within the Church.
The men who raised the issue of circumcision in Antioch were not from the Jerusalem church, and were not Pharisee, careful law-keepers. And neither, it seems apparent, were Paul's opponents in Galatia.
-- No reference to the Jerusalem conference in Galatians --
You will notice that Paul never refers to the conference in Galatians. Yet the commonly understood date of Galatians is about 57, just before the book of Romans, on Paul's 3rd journey.
Here it is, 8 years after the Jerusalem conference. The issue of circumcision had been authoritatively settled for the Church in 49. But here is the issue of circumcision raised by supposed "Judaizers" in Galatia. And yet Paul never brings up that decision? Why not?
Some people have noticed that omission and have proposed that Galatians must have been written before 49.
But in fact, this is just more evidence that Paul was not combating Jewish Christians, or "Judaizers". He surely would have appealed to the decision of the apostles in Jerusalem if that held any weight with them. But it did not. These heretics had only contempt for the Jerusalem church. If Paul had appealed to Jerusalem's ruling they would have accused him all the more of being merely a lackey of Jerusalem. The only authority they recognized was personal contact with God, or with the spiritual Christ or the angels of God.
2:5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
We - Paul and the apostles - never required anything but our Passover lamb to enter into God's new covenant people.
2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
He goes on in verses 7-14 to illustrate that he is equal in authority to the apostles in Jerusalem. He is being careful to prove that he is NOT the "lackey" of Jerusalem. But is lead by the risen Christ himself, as his opponents seem to claim about themselves.
So who were these opponents?
They preached a "personal relationship" with Christ. But something far beyond what we mean by those words.
They looked for inspiration. For signs and gifts. For personal acquaintance with God through the Christ.
Let's just suppose --
Suppose that these opponents were learned in the Hebrew scriptures, but also enthusiastic believers in Greek religious notions.
From Plato and others they adopted a very "dualistic" view: that mankind are really spirit beings, immortal souls, imprisoned on this earth in bodies of flesh.
That the ultimate salvation is to be freed from this flesh and return to the heaven from where we originated. And that the role of the Christ was to come and wake us up to this fact.
Freedom would thus be a big issue. Freedom from this flesh.
Such freedom could be manifest in either of two extremes:
- you could live like a monk, denying any pleasure to this flesh because you are far above it. You can put the body on "bread and water".
- or you could live with abandon, caring nothing about the sin or decadence this flesh does. Because the flesh is just an evil prison; a lowly, worthless shell.
It seems that the Galatian "apostles" lived life this way. Paul speaks critically of their morality.
The confusion about their identity comes mostly from the issue of circumcision.
The similarity of the issue - the issue of circumcision as in Acts 15 - has made it seem that Paul was battling Christians with Jewish ideas. Most people can't imagine circumcision as being anything but a Jewish issue.
But the opponents in Galatia were "super spiritual", according to themselves. But their "spirituality" was false. Their behavior was licentious and immoral. They had no interest in obeying the "god" of this lowly physical creation. Circumcision to them was a sign of cutting oneself off from the flesh. It was an initiation ritual.
They were probably not from Judea. And if they were, they were not part of the Jerusalem church. As those who troubled the church in Antioch, they had only contempt for the apostles of Jerusalem.
I don't know where they were from. Maybe Samaria - there are similarities to the ideas of Simon Magus.
Maybe from Ephesus. There are similarities to the influential and dangerous heretic named Cerinthus. John battled him in nearby Ephesus a couple decades after this letter.
Maybe Babylon, where there was a large Jewish population, probably blending the scriptures with Persian and Greek religions.
Maybe Alexandria, Egypt. Alexandria was the largest city of the day, with a large Jewish population. And home to the great library of Greek "wisdom". It was a center for trying to re-interpret the scriptures to fit it with the greatly admired "wisdom" of Plato and Aristotle.
We can't tell where they were from. But they did not preach circumcision for scriptural reasons. They had no intent to make the Galatians obedient to the scriptures.
Notice Gal 5:3:
For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a
debtor to do the whole law.
What if Paul said that to observant Jews? "Well, duhhh", they would say. That would be the point of circumcision to a Jew or an Jewish Christian. But Paul has to say "you want a ceremony? then read the book!"
They apparently had all kinds of rituals and sacraments. They were even apparently based on the priestly rituals of the Old Testament. But their aim was not scriptural. It was ritual approach to some sort of spiritual contact with God. These procedures are what Paul calls "works of law".
But these preachers did not intend to obey God's written word. They only viewed circumcision as some initiation rite into their "enlightened" state.
In chapter 5 Paul contrasts those two spirits - the spirit of his super-spiritual opponents vs. God's spirit. The proof of the spirit, he argues, is in its fruits.
5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under [the] law.
"Works of law", again, are their formula of physical procedures to reach the "spiritual" state. And circumcision is a physical thing, another ritual that is not needed.
5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, ...
The Galatian opponents argue that they are super spiritual. They are freed from this evil flesh. These "works of the flesh" are not just those of all of us when we were unconverted. This is a contrast between the "spirit" of his opponents and the real spirit of God.
5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit [the true spirit] is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, ...
5:23 ... : against such there is no law.
The opponents' spirit IS against the law. But the true Godly spirit does not break the law.
Conclusion
So who were Paul's opponents in Galatia?
They were probably Jews. But they were far from being Pharisees. They read the Old Testament, but probably reinterpreted it to harmonize with the fashionable Greek ideas of the day. They made allegories of the Bible to match the "just so" stories and superstitions of Plato and Aristotle.
Were they "Judaizers"? No, I think far from it.
It is commonly supposed that they were. We in the Church sometimes suppose that they were. Our study paper on the covenants for example: "Judaizing elements in the early Church had influenced some people ..."
Does it matter who they were?
Yes, it does. You can regard Paul's words as aimed against "Judaizers". But if you do, you draw a fine line. You have to draw a line between obeying God out of willingness and gratefulness on the good side. Or obeying God out of requirement on the other.
One form of obedience is "Christian". The other form of obedience makes Christ of "no effect". Makes you fallen from grace.
What a fine line!
Every time you tell people that they should obey the word of God you have to be quick to add a qualification. "Yes you must obey, but of course that obedience doesn't save you. You are saved by God's grace".
The truth, as I see it, is much simpler.
If we understand who Paul's words are aimed at, we understand that God never calls obedience of the scriptures into question. He never criticizes anyone for obeying the scriptures. On the contrary. From cover to cover, obedience to God is the theme of this whole Book. And Galatians is no exception.
Obedience to the scriptures is not the context of this letter. He is not opposing religious Jews or over-righteous Jewish Christians. He is instead opposing a dramatically different gospel.
A different understanding of who God is.
A totally false notion about the nature of man.
And a very different meaning of Christ and his ministry.
Christ was not their Passover, their ransom. They had no intention of following his direction. They had no need of being reconciled and obedient to God. They saw no need of obeying their new master.
"Judaizing" is an unscriptural term for what I think is an imaginary evil, given a close examination of Galatians. An imaginary interpretation and evil that grew out of ancient Roman church anti-semitism. There is no such thing in the scriptures as opposing "Judaizing".
The opponents in Galatia, if we understand who they were, had their own very unscriptural ways. Their ways, which Paul condemns, are not from God's word.
And our way, the Christian way of walking in obedience to God's word, is not being criticized by Paul.
Don't ever let anyone twist Galatians to criticize an obedient spirit.
Don't ever let anyone criticize your obedience as "Judaizing".