Dr. Rodney Plunket

Galatians 1:11-2:21

Last week we began a sermon series from Paul’s letter to the churches of Galatia.  We began at the beginning, in Galatians (Gal) 1:1-10.  We especially noted that in Gal 1:6-10 are words that are strikingly different from any other of Paul’s openings to letters.  Paul’s tone is angry and assertive in these verses, and he even pronounces a curse on those who are confusing the Christians in Galatia with a perverted gospel.

Such a surprising beginning to this letter caused us to ask what those who were unsettling the Galatian Christians were teaching.  We also sought to know more about who the agitators were and what their motives were.  I sug­gested that the available evidence indicates that they were teaching that even non-Jewish (or Gentile) Christians had to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses to maintain their place among God’s saved people.  I also suggested that these agitators were ethnic Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah/
the Christ, but they also believed that the Mosaic law was still binding for all of God’s people.  Paul himself describes the motives of these agitators.  He makes clear that the agitators are doing what they are doing in order to gain the attention, the respect of the Galatian Christians and to avoid persecution––
motives that Paul evaluates as fleshly (see Gal 4:17 & 6:12-13).  So, if my assessment is correct, in Galatians Paul is opposing some Jews who believe in Jesus as the Messiah but teach that even non-Jewish Christians have to be cir­cumcised and have to keep the Law of Moses.

Why is Paul so upset about this heresy?  Why is he so much more angry at these false teachers than he is at any of the other false teachers that he con­fronts in several of his other letters?  I contended last week that Paul is much more angry here because this false teaching is much more serious.  Paul knows that the consequences of this false teaching are worse than that of other errors with which Paul had to deal.  They are more serious because the effect of this false teaching would be to cause the Galatian Christians to turn away from the life-transforming power which had broken into the world through the crucifix­ion of Christ.

We tend to think that a shift to being circumcised and keeping the Law is simply a change in what people do.  Paul knows that it is much more than that.  Paul knows that to be circumcised and to keep the Law is a shift away from being empowered and transformed by the living presence of Christ within believers.  It is a move back into the world as it was before Christ changed eve­rything through His crucifixion.  So Paul’s purpose in this letter is well enun­ciated in Gal 4:19 where he says, “I am again in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you.”  Paul wants them to be changed by the presence of Christ within them.  He wants their spirituality to be shaped by the living pres­ence of Jesus Christ inside of them and not by the practice of external religious observances.

Now we turn our attention to Gal 1:11-2:21.  In Gal 1:11-2:10 Paul makes clear that the gospel he preached in Galatia was from God and not of human origin.  He tells his readers that he “received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal 1:12).  He briefly describes his conversion, his life immedi­ately after his conversion, and he especially describes any contact that he had with any other apostles.  One of the purposes of this material is to make clear that Paul was preaching the gospel he had received from Jesus without altera­tion from anyone else.  His gospel was not defined nor edited by human authority.  It came from God.

Paul also wants his readers to know that the other important leaders in the Church recognized and confirmed that his gospel was from God.  Paul said that the other leaders in the church “recognized the grace that had been given to me,” and “they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship (Gal 2:9).  To give “the right hand of fellowship,” according to R. N. Longenecker, “was an idiom of the day for pledging friendship and acknowledging agree­ment” (Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary [Dallas: Word, 1990], 58).  Paul’s point is that he presented the gospel he preached to leaders of the church in Jerusalem and they confirmed that gospel recognizing that it was from God.  They also recognized that his primary calling from God was to spread the gos­pel to non-Jews while theirs was to preach to Jews.  What we need to realize is that Paul is undercutting those who are troubling the Galatian churches.  He is doing that by making clear that the real leaders in Jerusalem had heard the gos­pel he preached and they accepted both him and that message.  So these agita­tors are not only out of step with Paul; they are out of step with the confirma­tion given to Paul by the Church leaders in Jerusalem, the very capital of Judaism and Jewish Christianity.

Paul also reveals an interesting side story relative to his interaction with Church leaders in Jerusalem.  In Gal 2:3-5 he says,

even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circum­cised, though he was a Greek.  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—we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you.

Paul, in these verses, reveals that when he was in Jerusalem for these meetings he had with him Titus, a Christian who was Greek and uncircumcised.  And the real Church leaders in Jerusalem did not compel Titus to be circumcised.  However, some, whom Paul calls “false believers,” did try to make that hap­pen.  Paul refers to their efforts as efforts to “enslave,” efforts which they “did not submit to . . . even for a moment.”  Again, Paul is using the story of his interactions with the Jerusalem leaders as an opportunity to take aim at those who are promoting a perverted gospel to the churches of Galatia.

So Paul in Gal 1:11-2:10 is confirming that his gospel came to him from Jesus and was not authorized nor edited by anyone else.  In fact, instead of altering his gospel, the Church leaders in Jerusalem confirmed his gospel and did not try to make circumcision of non-Jews a part of it.

Paul then, in Gal 2:11ff, recounts an incident that occurred when Paul was ministering to the church in Antioch.  Please turn in your Bible to Gal 2:11-14 and follow along as I read.  I should note before reading that Cephas is another name for the man we normally refer to as the apostle Peter.  It seems that people of Paul’s day commonly had more than one name.  One of Peter’s was Cephas.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles.  But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction.  And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.  But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Acts 11:19-30 gives a brief description of Paul’s early ministry in Antioch with Barnabas.  Acts 15:1-2 adds a brief but very important element to the picture of the work in Antioch.  It says,

Then certain individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”  And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the oth­ers were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders.

This trip to Jerusalem resulted in a statement being sent out to Gentile believ­ers, a statement that made clear that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised to be saved.  These verses in Acts are relevant to our study of Galatians because they make very clear that Antioch was the place around which controversy swirled regarding the relationship between non-Jewish believers and the Law of Moses.  Paul, in Gal 2:11ff, tells of an incident not reported in Acts.  He tells of a time when even the apostle Peter was so powerfully influenced by some Jewish Law-keeping believers that he quit eating with the non-Jewish believers.  Peter ate with the non-Jewish believers when he first arrived in Antioch, but these others influenced him to stop.  And their influence was so strong that even Barnabas quit eating with the non-Jewish brothers and sisters.  Paul’s response was strong.  He said, “I opposed [Peter] to his face.”  In front of eve­ryone Paul said to Peter, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”  Paul’s original statement was designed to portray the consequences of Peter’s hypocrisy.  By withdrawing from table-fellowship, Peter was pressuring the non-Jewish believers to become Jews.

And we should note a linguistic issue here.  In the Greek original of this statement in Gal 2:14 we have two different words that are usually brought into English with the same meaning.  Look again at Paul’s statement of accusation against Peter.  He refers to Peter living “like a Gentile and not like a Jew.”  The English phrase “like a Jew” comes from one Greek word that means, “live like a Jew.”  At the end of Paul’s accusation he uses another single Greek word that is translated by our English versions as “to follow Jewish customs” (NIV) or “to live like Jews” (NRSV).  The first Greek word that Paul uses clearly does mean “live like a Jew,” but this second word is not the same word and based on usage in other ancient sources likely should be rendered as “to become a Jew.”  Paul is telling Peter in no uncertain terms that he is causing these non-Jewish believers to feel that they must become Jews who follow the Law of Moses in order to be accepted into the fellowship of God’s people.  How can they see themselves as fully saved and fully members of Christ’s Church if the leaders of that Church will not eat with them?

Feel the power of Paul recounting this story to his readers in the Galatian churches.  Not only would the one who planted those churches be seen as a per­son who stood strong against those who tried to promote Law-keeping among Gentiles, but Paul is encouraging them to stand strong as he did against those same pressures.  If Paul could oppose Peter to his face in public, then they can stand strong against persons who do not have the same stature that Peter does.

Now please follow along as I read Gal 2:15-16.

We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.  And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.

Here we encounter, for the first time in Galatians, a Greek phrase that has gen­erated a significant degree of scholarly debate.  The relevant phrase is found in v 16, in fact it is found twice in slightly different forms in that verse.  In the NRSV that phrase is rendered as “faith in Jesus Christ” the first time it occurs and as “faith in Christ” the second time it occurs.  Even though this is the way that phrase has been rendered by most English translations, I think it is wrong.  Several scholars believe that Paul is not referring here to our faith in Christ but instead to the faith or faithfulness of Christ, a faith in God or a faithfulness to God which characterized the life of Christ Jesus.  There are many reasons why scholars are promoting this reading of the relevant Greek phrase.  One of those reasons is very simple:  if Paul is trying to say “faith in Christ” then there are ways to convey that meaning that are much more straightforward and obvious.  And Paul uses one of those straightforward and obvious ways in Gal 3:26, and he uses it to mean “faith in Christ Jesus.”  But in Gal 2:16 Paul uses a Greek construction that is much more naturally translated as “the faith [or faithful­ness] of Christ Jesus.”  And, by the way, the Greek word normally translated as “faith” is the same Greek word that Paul uses for “faithfulness” in Romans 3:3 and Gal 5:22.

What difference does all this make?  It makes a lot of difference.  Is Paul arguing in Gal 2:16 that this whole controversy about Law-keeping is nonsense because Law-keeping has been replaced by having faith in Christ Jesus?  Or is Paul arguing that this whole controversy about Law-keeping is resolved when one realizes that the faithfulness of Christ has met all the demands of the Law?  I think Paul is arguing that the faithfulness of Christ has met all the demands of the Law.  Bruce Longenecker makes an excellent case for “the faithfulness of Christ” being “a central component of early Christian understanding.”  So Paul in Gal 5:15ff is likely arguing on the basis of the accepted fact that one aspect of the way Jesus saves is by His perfect fidelity/His perfect and faithful obedi­ence to the will of God.  That means, as Longenecker goes on to say,

In Gal 2:16b Paul suggests that Christians participate in Jesus’ own fidelity simply by their faith and not by their works of the Law . . . .  While others had no diffi­culty in thinking that Christ’s faithfulness should be wed to the covenant faithfulness of his people in their obser­vance of the law . . . .  Paul found these two points irreconcilable, stress­ing instead that the appropriation of Jesus’ faithfulness . . . comes only through faith” (The Triumph of Abraham’s Faith [Nashville: Abingdon, 1998], 105).

In other words, Paul is arguing that Christ has met the Law’s demands, that means we are freed from them.

Now please follow along as I read Gal 2:17-18.

But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin?  Certainly not!  But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I dem­onstrate that I am a transgressor.

Verse 17, I think, indicates that in light of the excellence of Christ’s faithful­ness everyone is “found to be sinners.”  Paul certainly expresses that type of awareness in Philippians 3 where he refers to his own Law-keeping as rubbish when compared to “the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord” (Philippians 3:8).  Everyone is “found to be sinners” when they look to the faithfulness of Jesus for their justification.  Does the fact that Jesus’ faithful­ness places everyone in “the sinner” category make Jesus “ a servant of sin.”  No one to whom Paul writes would affirm that notion; and Paul denounces it with a strong negative, “certainly not” or “may it never be” or, as the King James Version has it, “God forbid.”  But, Paul declares in v 19, “if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor.”  Christ is not “a servant of sin” but, Paul says, he himself is if he tries to “supplement the efficacy of the faithfulness of Christ” (Longenecker, 111) by seeking to be right with God through external observances of the Law of Moses.  To try to add to Christ’s faithfulness is to fail to understand the per­fection of Christ’s faithfulness; it is a failure to realize that every other level of faithfulness is “rubbish.”

Now please follow along as I read Gal 2:19-20.

For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God.  I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me.  And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

When Paul saw that the effect of Christ’s perfect faithfulness was to make him a person who would never measure up, he died.  And that death was to Law-keeping.  There was no longer any point to it.  The only way to be saved was to put all of his faith/all of his trust in the perfect faithfulness of Christ Jesus.  And that is what he did.

And the transformation was so radical that Paul says he died.  He was crucified with Christ.  Paul died, but he still lived, but it was a different Paul.  It was a Paul within whom Christ now lived.  And Paul declares that since Christ now lives in him, his guiding principle in life is “the faithfulness of the Son of God.”  Your English versions will say by faith in the Son of God; but, again, the much more likely rendering is by “the faithfulness of the Son of God.”  The very faithfulness of Jesus transforms us because Jesus lives inside of us.  Do not, Paul is saying, make Christianity a matter of external obser­vance.  You will be a transgressor if you do that.  You will return to what you should have died to.  Jesus’ extreme level of faithfulness shines so brightly that every other form of obedience is just pathetic.  If you truly rely on Jesus, you give up that rubbish.  You die to that rubbish.  You die and are lived in by Jesus.  Then the faithfulness found in Jesus lives in you and, as Paul will make clear in Gal 5, that faithfulness inside of you will cause you to bear the fruit of the Spirit.

Paul ends this section by announcing, “I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.”  If external observance is how it gets done, then why did Christ die?  What does that do?  How can someone else’s dying save if the real way to be saved is through external observances of one law or another?  Paul reveals the ludi­crousness of such a notion.

I want now to share something with you.  It has to do with a man named Daniel Rosenblit.  Daniel, in the 1970’s, was an atheist.  He even made fun of those who believed in the afterlife.  “In 1978, after weeks of failing health, Daniel had a near-death experience.”  I want you to listen to some excerpts from his story of that experience, but before I do that let me tell you that the result of that experience was to turn Daniel into a street preacher.  Hear his story of his near-death experience.

I looked up and saw God.  Even though I was not a spiritual per­son, something inside of me recognized Him immediately.  At that very moment, I knew beyond any shadow of a doubt that even an atheist would recognize Him immediately.

Immediately, I placed my hands over my eyes and wept, because an in an instant I knew that all those spiritual friends and I had so often mocked were all right and I was wrong!  Dedicating one’s life to be faithful to God in all things was the only purpose of our existence.  Unfortunately, I had been living my entire life disregarding God and His ways, and I was now painfully aware of this fact (http://www.near-death.com/rosenblit.html).

I do not know what you make of near-death stories.  I do not even know what I make of them.  But I believe Paul wants his readers to experience something like the near-death experience of Daniel Rosenblit.  We are to sense profoundly that we have died; the old me and the old you have died.  And we are to be transformed by that experience.  Our old way of doing things is to be radically changed.  We are to live a transformed life because we now have Christ living inside of us.