THE JERUSALEM NEETING VS 1-10 This occasion is the same one that is described at the end of Acts 11 (though this is a debated point). This trip came about as a result of the revelation given by God to a prophet named Agapes who spoke of an impending famine, so a relief effort was organized and money was sent to Jerusalem in the care of Barnabas and Saul. That is what Paul is referring to in Galatians 2:2 where he says, "It was because of a revelation that I went up." In no sense was he being called on the carpet by the Jerusalem elders, the apostles of long standing. He was never subordinate to them. He did not come because they insisted that he come and be examined. It was because of a revelation from God of a need for financial relief that he came to Jerusalem. Three different groups were present at this meeting: The first group is the delegation from Antioch--Paul, Barnabas and Titus;  Barnabas is one of the most sympathetic and wonderful people in the whole New Testament. If Barnabas were sitting here at this service and you wanted to take someone home for a meal (as we sometimes urge you to do), it would be an absolute treat for you to have Barnabas visit your home. He is forever doing wonderful things for people, courageously taking on prejudices, reaching out to meet those who are in need, and providing stable leadership. All in all he is a gifted and godly man.Barnabas is first introduced in the book of Acts. He had sold a piece of property he owned in Jerusalem in order to take care of people who were in need. Later we meet him when he is the only one in Jerusalem who would believe that the persecutor, Saul of Tarsus, had become a Christian. When Paul came to Jerusalem everyone was still afraid of him, but Barnabas took him under his wing, introduced him to people and gave others a chance to see that Paul had in fact come to Christ. Later, when Paul had given up (at least temporarily) on John Mark, again it was Barnabas who saw something in a brother that others could not see. Evidently Barnabas was also a very capable leader. The Jerusalem apostles sent him to Antioch when an explosion of faith took place there and they needed to send someone to monitor what was going on. Yet Barnabas was humble enough to know when he needed help. He asked Paul to be his associate in Antioch, thus there began the process of his own star being eclipsed as Paul's remarkable ministry took off. Soon thereafter, references to "Barnabas and Saul" would become "Paul and Barnabas," as Paul became the leader and Barnabas the lieutenant. Yet this never caused Barnabas to react with jealousy or pique. He was an attractive and Christ-centered man. Titus is the last of the delegates from Antioch mentioned here. While the Scripture does not tell us as much about him as the other two, we do know that Titus keeps showing up when a cool head and a courageous heart are required to deal with turbulence and hassles in the church. Titus seems to have the knack of putting things right. Paul probably handpicked him for this mission to Jerusalem. The apostle knew that having a Gentile Christian on his delegation would raise the fur on some backs, so he needed a man who could handle that kind of pressure. Titus also ministered extensively in Corinth during the time when the Corinthian church was in turmoil and rife with factions and jealousy on every side. When Paul needed someone to minister in Crete, where he expected some difficult problems to arise, Titus was the man he picked for that assignment too. Thus Titus was a good man to have around in times of problem and difficulty. The second group is the pillars of the church in Jerusalem (three of them are mentioned: James, Cephas (Peter), and John); The second group who participated in this meeting were the "pillars" of the church, the apostles whom Jesus had appointed in the days of his flesh, and others, including his brother James. These men had remained in Jerusalem and had headquartered their ministry there. Their beards are somewhat grayer now than in the days before the cross. Following its early ragtag days, the church in Jerusalem had begun to attract priests and other people of means and social weight. It had become a well-rooted and well-known organization in Jerusalem and its environs. Most of the apostles had remained there, and their ministry had become well rooted also. We need to realize these are godly men, chosen by Christ for their task, and yet we cannot but see the pointed references by the apostle Paul to their "reputations"--so-called pillars, he calls them. Paul says, "Those who have high reputation don't impress me a bit. I'm not sold on human reputation." It is my conviction that he says these things not because he felt any disrespect for Peter and James and John. On the contrary, he loved and respected them very much. But what happened, evidently, in the Galatian churches to whom Paul was writing was that these men had taken on an almost mystical aura. They had an awesome reputation because they had walked with the Lord during his earthly ministry. Paul lacked this privilege, so the Galatians had begun to disregard what he said he was not one of the highly regarded pillars from Jerusalem.Paul gives a very helpful word in this passage about human reputations. When all is said and done, Christian leaders are human beings. Apostles can fail in their personal decisions, in their trust of the Lord, etc. They do not fail when they declare what God in Christ has given them to declare, but in terms of their personal life they are all capable of weakness. In our next study we will look at one of Peter's outstanding failures as an apostle. Paul is saying that Christian leaders are only human. Their reputations may or may not be deserved. We should listen to those who speak faithfully in the name of the Lord but we should not have an otherworldly, mystical view about Christian leaders. God shows no partiality to those who are revered by men. Third group who are identified as "the false brethren" (Gal. 2:4). These individuals ought to sound a warning note to us about the nature of prejudice. They called themselves brothers in Christ, they claimed allegiance to the church of Christ, and yet in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary they held on to their restrictions and antagonism toward Gentile Christians. That suggests to me that gut-level, long-standing prejudice can resist the most obvious and logical presentation of the facts; that prejudice can be much stronger than compelling evidence to the contrary. The evidence the false brethren were resisting. They had been presented with a united declaration of the gospel by the apostles. These apostles whom Jesus had chosen to lead his church had his personal stamp of approval were in total agreement, and yet the false brethren resisted what they had to say. The apostles were men who had had revelations of Jesus Christ. Through their ministry lives were dramatically transformed, and yet despite their clear and forthright statement of Jesus' acceptance of Gentiles these false brethren continued to hold onto their prejudice. This ought to produce some self-examination in us. If these people could resist in the face of that kind of evidence, are we holding on to prejudices of our own despite the clear statement of Scripture?                                                  Secondly, we are told that these false brethren came by stealth, as it were, to "spy out" the liberty that the apostles and the delegates from Antioch enjoyed. That phrase struck me as fascinating too, because of all subjects liberty is least likely to be discovered by stealth. Paul, Barnabas and Titus did not sneak into Jerusalem. They didn't hide the fact that Titus was a Gentile. Their lives were lived in the open. When one is free in Christ that freedom is most obvious. It seems to me that these men, like many legalists, believed that there was some dark secret to a Christian's freedom; that really free people must have a kind of dark, idolatrous core to them that allows them to live in an open, non-defensive way; that if you could catch them in an unguarded moment you could discover their dark secrets But nothing could be further from the truth. Free people can be discovered quite easily; they are the most obvious of all people. They don't have anything to hide! There are no dark secrets. When you meet really free men or women in Christ they are exactly who they appear to be. The third noteworthy thing here is that these false brethren were determined to bring Christians into bondage and imprisonment. As a matter of fact, they did not like seeing people free in the Lord. They had whole categories of formulas that had first to be met before any kind of joy was even an option. This reminds me of the older brother in the story of the prodigal son who was furious that his younger brother was treated with love by the father. It upset him no end to see this man who had sinned and failed be given a chance again. There are many among the church of Christ today who think it wholly unfair for God to forgive sinners, to give them standing in the church, to allow them first class citizenship. They would rather see chains than freedom anytime. The glorious party which the father threw for the returned younger son is totally unfathomable to such people. What actually took place at the Jerusalem Meeting?·        Of first importance is that these leaders were in full agreement that Gentiles did not have to become Jews before they became Christians. They did not have to change themselves externally in order to be internally changed by Christ. Titus left the conference just as thoroughly Gentile as he had been at the beginning of it. Nobody required him to be circumcised, to change his appearance in any way. Secondly, the leadership in Jerusalem took a united stand in opposing the enemies of the gospel. They acted quickly, courageously and in unison to resolve an issue that could not have been resolved at any lesser level. The third thing that happened at this summit conference is that each side recognized that God can call men and women to different assignments in ministry. Nobody felt constrained to make everybody else like themselves. God can call some leaders and give them a burden for Gentiles just as he can call others and give them a burden for Jews. Following their example we can still love and appreciate each other in our different ministries and assignments and not feel that we have to make everybody share our walk, share our ministry. The last thing to note in this conference is that at the end of it the pillars "extended the right hand of fellowship" to Paul and Barnabas. "Fellowship" here is the great Greek word "koinonia." It means "in common," a union of spirit that is properly and delightfully expressed physically by a handshake because the reality of the thing takes place in human hearts. A handshake is a physical act, but it is a temporary one that merely witnesses to something that is already true. We are one in Christ. We belong to each other. We are in support of one another. So publicly they shook hands. This is exactly the opposite of circumcision, another physical act, but one that leaves a scar for a lifetime; one that insists on external conformity rather than believing that internally we are one in Christ, we are part of each other, and that cannot be taken away or added to by the way we look or the appearance that we affect. PAUL’S REBUKE TO PETER vs. 11-14 In ancient Near Eastern culture, the sharing of a meal had more significance than it does today."To sup with" was a synonym for fellowship and unity. (Cf. Rev. 3:20, where Jesus says he "sups with" believers. This is a metaphor for intimacy.) Therefore, to refuse a meal was an act of rejection or condescension. For Christians, eating together had even more significance. Jesus had adopted the custom of fellow ship/supping and raised it to a new level when he instituted the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. It was in a common meal that meal Christians were to regularly remember their intimacy with God and with each other through Christ. So for one Christian to avoid or reject common meals with other Christians was verb‑ serious.Within Judaism, however, there were strong forces against eating with Gentiles. In the Old Testament, God instituted the ceremonial law‑‑the "clean laws". These were a fairly complicated series of regulations for worshippers to follow in order to be "ceremonially clean" and acceptable to come into the presence of God in worship. Persons could not draw near to God if they ate certain "unclean" foods, if they had touched dead things, if they had a disease or touched someone with one, and so on (see Leviticus 11, 15, 20). The laws were so detailed that it was extremely hard to The ceremonial law was actually a teaching method, by which God was getting across  a) that sinful people cannot just go into the presence of a holy God without cleansing, and b) that no one can be completely clean and acceptable to God. Many Jewish sects, especially the Pharisees, completely missed the main points of the ceremonial law. They actually expanded the rules beyond the Biblical list, in an effort to be completely clean and holy all the time. One of the rules of the Pharisees was that Jews could not eat with Gentiles (Luke 15:2). Jesus bluntly rejected the whole ceremonial law of the OT (Matt 15:3‑20), but the apostles did not understand the implications of that. Then in Acts 10 and 11 God sent Peter a vision to show him why the ceremonial law was finished. He saw a great sheet full of animals forbidden for eating in the OT, and he heard a voice saying, "Kill and eat.” (Acts 11:7). Peter replied that he would not eat unclean animals. Then God said, "do not call anything impure that God has made clean." (Acts 11:9). Immediately he meets a repentant Gentile (Cornelius) who receives Christ and is born again. Then Peter realizes: "God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him..."(Acts 10:34‑35). Afterwards he eats with Gentiles despite criticism (Acts 11:2). Even later he asserts that the Gentiles have been “purified [made clean] by faith.”Therefore, every Jewish Christian faced a "collision" of two beliefs when it came to eating with Gentiles. The Jewish tradition was that you could make yourself clean through your own diligence. The Christian tradition was that through Christ (and only through Christ) all believers were "clean" and acceptable to God. When Peter withdrew from the Gentiles it was not just cowardice, but "hypocrisy". Therefore, when he avoided Gentiles, he did not really change his mind or convictions. He still believed the gospel‑‑that we are "clean" through Jesus alone‑‑but he did not act in accord with his inmost understanding and convictions.Perhaps Peter was afraid of the tongues of the `men from James"‑‑these were men from the church in Jerusalem who taught that Gentiles had to adopt circumcision and all the rest of the ceremonial law. They had clout and power, and Peter may have simply been afraid of criticism. But in addition, certainly racial pride entered into it. While hiding beneath the facade of religious observance, Peter and other Jewish Christians were probably still feeling disdain for Christians from "inferior" national and racial backgrounds. Peter was allowing cultural differences to become more important than gospel unity.	GALATIANS CHAPTER THREE OPPOSING OTHERS NEGATIVE BEHAVIORS Three reasons why Paul opposed peter: Paul opposed Peter because he was "clearly wrong", a word that means Peter was wrong in a very obvious, and major way. What made this so major was that the gospel itself is at stake. If Peter had continued in the way he was going, the whole Christian mission to the Gentiles could have failed. Paul does not contend over minor issues that do not substantially affect the central mission of the church. Paul opposed Peter because he "began to draw back". This means that Peter had fallen into a pattern‑‑it was not just an isolated incident. Later in Gal.6: 1, Paul lays down this as a principle, that we should not openly critique people for every sin, but only if they seem "caught" in it, as a developing pattern of behavior. Paul opposed Peter because he was becoming caught in a pattern of cowardice. And since it was hypocritical (i.e. Peter knew better) this pattern would injure Peter's conscience badly. So Paul needed to help Peter out of the trap. How to oppose others We need to tell then to their face: Paul opposed Peter "to his face" meaning that he went to him personally: He did not criticize him behind his back or to others. He did not create a party and drum up support for his own side. We need to address their action not them: Paul did not simply tell Peter he was "breaking some rule", but he appealed to the gospel. He said urged Peter to see that he was not "in line with...the gospel" (v.14). We should not force them to change: Paul did not work directly on Peter's will, seeking to change him by force. Rather, he worked on his mind, telling him to think. He told him he was not acting `in line with the truth of the gospel': He is saying: "Think, Peter! Think of the truth, the message of the gospel. Are you in line with that?" Paul reasoned with him. See the example in vv.15‑16 We should not threaten or guilt trip them: Paul also did not try to work on Peter's emotions, seeking to change him by arousing sufficient fear or embarrassment. Rather than try to move Peter with guilt, by bringing the law to bear on his will, Paul sought to move Peter with grace, by bringing the good news to bear on his heart. Paul says in v.14-16 "you have forgotten the wonderful way God has loved and accepted you!" Instead of intimating, "you better do such‑and‑such or God won't love you", Paul says, "how can you not do such‑and‑such for a God who loves you no matter what?" He doesn't seek to convict Peter with the absence (or uncertainty) of God's favor, but with the presence (or certainty) of God's favor. THE LAWThe Old Testament contains three basic types of laws—Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil. All three were given under God’s direction. The Moral Law is the basis of God’s universal kingdom. It is the expression of God’s character. It exists because God exists, and as God is, so it is. The Moral Law combines a perfect blend of justice and mercy. It may be summed up in one word: Love. All the requirements of God’s Moral Law hang upon two great principles. The first is Deuteronomy 6:5 - "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." The second is Leviticus 19:18 -"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." God created men with His law "written in their hearts." But because they "did not like to retain God in their knowledge," the law was, for the most part, forgotten. It was therefore necessary for God to express His law in such a way that it would ever be remembered. With His own mouth He spoke the Ten Commandments, and with His own finger, wrote them on two tables of stone. The first four commandments, written on the first table, express one’s love for God. The last six commandments, written on the second table, express one’s love for his neighbor. To carefully guard the sacredness of the Ten Commandments, God gave Moses additional precepts with minute instructions for everyday life. These "right judgments" and "good statutes" were simply applications of the principles of the Ten Commandments, and as such are classed as moral law.The Moral Law defines righteousness, but has no power to redeem those who transgress it. A remedial system was therefore necessary whereby God "might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth." Ceremonial laws were those which regulated the services of the sanctuary, the offering of sacrifices, and the priestly ministration. The Ceremonial Law is clearly distinguished from the Moral Law. Whereas the Moral Law defines the conduct of the righteous, the Ceremonial Law had to do with the plan of salvation and God’s work of grace for the repentant, believing sinner. It was through the Ceremonial Law that the righteousness of God was able to be "witnessed by the law and the prophets."Every ordinance of the Ceremonial Law pointed to Christ and His work of saving man from sin. Every animal that was slain typified Christ’s death on the cross. Every function the priests performed symbolized Christ’s ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary. Every sacred festival foreshadowed a saving event in the redemption of the world.God never gave the Ceremonial Law as a covenant of works whereby one could earn God’s favor through meritorious acts. There was no saving value in the sacrificial activities themselves. But through those activities the believer could by faith<9> claim the righteousness of Christ to atone for his sins. Thus the believer was continually to look forward to the "Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Civil law: Every country has civil regulations and the God-given authority for enforcing law and order. So to Israel as a nation were given laws governing the administration of justice. These laws, distinguished by their very nature, were of an inherently national type. Israel was subject to these laws in the same way in which we are subject to the laws of the land in which we live. "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake." "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For...the powers that be are ordained of God."Unlike the Ceremonial Laws, which were wholly symbolic in nature, the Civil Laws were not abolished by the death of Christ. Rather, they lost their force when Israel ceased to be a nation. To understand vv.14‑16 we have to realize that the "circumcision group" was insisting Christians still had to keep the ceremonial laws in order to be "clean" and acceptable to God. Now if a person says, "A Christian “must” obey the moral law (i.e. do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery)" they may be denying the gospel but they may not. If they mean, "you should obey God's will in order to get into heaven", they are wrong. If they mean, "you should obey God's will to please the one who saved you", they are right. A Christian's relationship to the moral law is both "yes and no". On the one hand, we are not under the law as a system for salvation, as a way to merit our salvation. On the other hand, we are obliged to please and serve the one who saved us and will never forsake us‑‑and we do so through obedience.However, Christians have no obligation at all to obey the old ceremonial law. The whole and only purpose of the ceremonial law was to make you clean and acceptable for the presence of God. So anyone who insists on the ceremonial is most directly denying the gospel. For it is Christ who makes us, now "holy and blameless in his sight" (Col. 1:23) and "without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless" (Eph.5:27). Jesus denounced the Pharisees, saying that no external; physical thing actually makes you unclean, but only the internal dynamics of the heart (Matt.15:11). It was a terrible mistake to twist the clean laws to mistake physical cleanness for spiritual cleanness.Now this is how Paul reasons with Peter. He reminds Peter that he "lives like a Gentile" (v.14). This probably means that Peter, like Paul, had become sporadic in his observance of Jewish food and dress laws. He had come to realize that the food and dress laws were only cultural "Jewish customs" (v.14) (lit. the word is "Judaizing"‑‑living in a Jewish fashion). Since Peter knew these to be cultural more, they had no more spiritual significance than any other culture's customs. Why did realize this? Because, Paul says, "we who are Jews ...not `Gentile sinners' know; that we are not justified by observing the law" (v.15). He is saying, "Peter, you know that though we Jews tried to obey the Bible, and the Gentiles did not‑‑we are just as saved by grace as they are!" Since Peter knew that, he realized that Jewish customs were only that‑‑they did not make you more spiritual and holy for God.

Enter supporting content here