Cooperation and Challenge, Part I

   Most of my work has been done on a PC; this study was prepared on a Mac.  I don't know if it will appear differently on the blog.  Today, I heard a woman say her grandfather would never use a computer.  Computers remain a mystery to me but I'm glad I don't have to understand them to use them.  May God bless your week.

Galatians: A Study of Christian Freedom

Lesson 3:  Cooperation and Challenge, Part I

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

Almost a decade and a half has passed with Paul having little contact with Jerusalem, the birthplace of the faith he proclaimed. Paul had not been idle; he had been ministering in and around Damascus and in the region around Celicia.

Now, he travels to Jerusalem.  This trip is usually believed to have taken place a few years before the Jerusalem Council described in Acts 15.

Two men accompanied him on the trip:

--Barnabus—the generous believer from Jerusalem who was the first to befriend Saul, the persecutor turned believer.  He was probably older than Paul and had a reputation as an encourager.  He ministered alongside Paul for several years and accompanied him on the first missionary journey.

--Titus—a gentile believer who had come to Christ through Paul’s ministry.  In time, he would become a pastor in Crete.  One of the so-called Pastoral Epistles is addressed to him.

So, Paul travelled to Jerusalem with a stalwart, long-time friend who was known to the Jerusalem church and with a believer who was a product of his work among the Gentiles.  Barnabus could testify that Paul’s message had not changed.  Titus could demonstrate the power of that message. 

² I went up in response to a revelation. 

Language like this is a little unnerving.  The words imply God had somehow spoken to him.  We know from history to be just a little wary of anyone who says, “God told me to….”  But in the early church there seems to have been a greater reliance on such experience.  Yet, it was not an unqualified reliance.  While maintaining a healthy respect for the Sprit’s work, Paul would tell the Thessalonians: “Do not stifle the Holy Spirit. Do not scoff at prophecies, but test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good.” (I Th. 5:19-21)  And John would warn his readers, “...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (I Jn 4:1) 

Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain. 

Paul obviously saw the journey to Jerusalem as part of God’s plan for him.  Had
God not prompted Paul to make the trip, he would have continued ministering as he had been doing.  While he doesn’t appear to have anticipated the trip would change how he ministered or what he preached, he did manifest a humility that was open to correction should that be needed.

The gospel Paul preached contained elements that we would quickly recognize.  in particular, Paul stressed that Jesus was the focal point of God’s work in the world:  In particular, Jesus was the fulfillment of ages-old promises of a coming Redeemer (the Messiah), Jesus died to accomplish the transformation of humanity, Jesus was victorious over death, a victory that confirmed his claims regarding his work and identity.  

³ But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.

While Paul would have Timothy (who was of mixed parentage circumcised) so he could more easily work with the Jewish population and accompany Paul into the synagogues, he did not make a similar demand on Titus.  

To have had Titus receive this initiation rite would have somehow implied his faith in Christ was insufficient, that it needed to be bolstered by observing a portion of the law. Paul was unwilling to set such a precedent.

⁴ But because of false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us— ⁵ we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you. 

The language of the NIV is a little clearer regarding the nature of the situation Paul found at work in Jerusalem:  4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.  

Paul uses strong language (“false believers”) to describe those who seem to have been attempting to undermine his ministry. The identity of these Judaizers is not completely clear but Paul obviously felt he had reason to question their understanding of the Christian faith. Most Evangelical commentators believe they were Christians but were confused or unable to fully embrace the implications of the gospel of grace.  While Paul may have intended to deny their identity as Christians, his words might mean they had  such an erroneous grasp of the faith they could hardly be called Christian, at least doctrinally.  In any case, Paul believed their efforts would ultimately “enslave” Christians by stripping them of their freedom.  

Reviewing the language Paul uses, it’s tempting to give rein to the imagination to try to reconstruct a backstory to this event.  Some believe the Judaizers gained access to what was intended to be “a private meeting” through the collusion of someone on the inside.  Paul nowhere suggests that James, Peter, and John were the only ones present at the meeting.  There may have been some who were sympathetic to the Judaizers‘ cause and wanted to sabotage Paul’s ministry.  The division over the issue of circumcision would not be decided finally at this meeting.  

Paul’s opponents may have never imagined that spiritual slavery would be the outcome of their work; they may have simply believed they were preserving the integrity of the Jewish heritage.  But sometimes, even in the church, we see the out-working of the law of unintended consequences.  That’s true of today’s legalists as well; they believe they are the ones being true to the gospel but they are actually undermining its message and power.

How did Paul respond to this threat?  He says,  “We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.” The issue was so important there would  be no concession, no compromise.

⁶ And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me. 

Verse six begins a new paragraph and introduces a new thought.  Paul moves from discussing the crisis that brought about his visit to Jerusalem to the response of the several Jerusalem leaders to his message.  

Paul is not intending to show any disrespect for the Jerusalem leaders but he is walking a path between being independent and being dependent.  He is not indifferent to their assessment of his message (v 2) but neither does his authority to preach rest upon their endorsement.  He is an apostle in his own right.

Paul had no need to disassociate himself from these leaders for they would recognize God’s hand in Paul’s work among “the uncircumcised” or the Gentiles.

⁷ On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised ⁸ (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles), ⁹ and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. ¹⁰ They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do. 

Paul doesn’t seem to have come to Jerusalem seeking endorsement but he received a kind of endorsement.  The leaders of the church recognized that he had been blessed by God with a special ministry to the Gentiles.  Just as Peter was particularly effective in ministering to the Jews, Paul was particularly effective in ministering to the Gentiles.  Now, this doesn’t mean Peter never preached to Gentiles (Acts 10) or that Paul never preached to Jews (Acts 17:1-4).  The focus of their ministry would be different

This story served to answer some of the charges Paul’s opponents were making as they tried to lure the Galatians away from the gospel he had preached.

--The Jerusalem leaders recognized God’s blessing on Paul’s ministry, blessing that equaled that on Peter’s ministry.

--The Jerusalem leaders perceived themselves to be partners with Paul, even though he preached to a different audience and in a different place.  (This is the implication of their offering “the right hand of fellowship.”  They were not in competition or at odds with one another.)

At the same time, this undermined any claims made by Paul’s opponents to be the true representatives of the Christian message.

--Ultimately, the agreement implies both Paul and the Jerusalem leaders understood that the gospel of grace did not require the addition of human traditions or actions.  To do so would rob the gospel of its power to set people free to enjoy the benefits of Christ’s work and set up a situation in which Christians are trapped in a set of impossible rules.  At the same time, imagining that we might be able to add to our salvation by our own efforts will open the way to pride and a sense of superiority.

--Both Paul and the Jerusalem leaders saw the gospel should have practical expression.  In this case, remembering “the poor” involved trying to raise funds for those Christians in Jerusalem and Judea who were suffering the combined effects of famine and persecution.  

SOME OBSERVATIONS

1. You shouldn’t necessarily believe what you hear in church, even if it’s said by seemingly “religious” people.

The Judaizers probably put on a good show of piety and strict behavior but they didn’t represent the truth.  In fact, they were opponents of the truth and to have listened to them would have divided and weakened the church.

We need to examine what we hear in church and compare it to the teaching of Scripture.  Only when what we hear squares with the Biblical account of the gospel, should we accept it.

2  Legalists tend to be afraid of freedom and want to restrict it wherever they find it.

The attitude that guided the “spies” who sought to sabotage the gospel of free grace when Paul visited Jerusalem was at work in the hearts of the Judaizers trying to influence the Galatian church.  

Legalists don’t think their fellow believers can be trusted with freedom.  They are about control rather than freedom.  There is a Baptist church in Texas that has a unique membership requirement. To be a member of this church, parents must agree to home-school their children.  The church’s leadership trusts neither the public schools nor any Christian school.  Now there’s nothing wrong with home-schooling and Baptist churches have a right to construct their own rules for membership. But this church obviously believes its members don’t possess the wisdom or skill to teach their children how to separate wheat from chaff.  At the same time, they created a system the promotes passing judgement on those parents who choose to send their children to public schools.

As we move through Galatians, we’re going to see that legalism takes many forms.

3  Christian unity is rooted in factors unrelated to outward forms.

If we could visit the Christian churches in the key cities around the Roman Empire, I think we would find each had a distinctive style.

--Churches in and around Jerusalem would reflect the people’s Jewish heritage.  The outward forms of the worship--prayers, Scripture reading, the lesson would take on a form familiar to those who had grown up in the synagogues.

--We would expect worship among Christians who did not have that background to be different.  In Corinth, the worship might be more participatory; in Thessalonica, there might be a more sedate service.

What would be important would be the common focus on the good news about Jesus Christ and his work on our behalf.

Today, churches take various shapes.  Some meet in ornate buildings with stained glass windows and steeples; some meet in private homes where a passerby might not immediately see the gathering as a church service.  We ought to appreciate that variety, not demand conformity.