Galatians 1:11-2:10 "Paul and Jerusalem" We need to start today in Isaiah 62. Because if you are going to understand what Paul is saying in Galatians... Wait a minute. Why should you care what Paul is saying in Galatians? This is a letter written by a Jewish itinerant preacher nearly two millenia ago! Why should you care? The issue that he is dealing with is Jew/Gentile relations in the church, a matter that was settled by the Council of Jerusalem a couple years later, and is now a non-issue! Do you know anyone who insist that Gentiles have to be circumcised? Sure, the particular details of the controversy in the Galatian churches have been resolved. But the underlying issue still looms large today. What Paul is dealing with in Galatians is the "Jesus PLUS" mentality. For the Judaizers, we are saved by the work of Jesus Christ, but the real story was Israel. Jesus has opened the door for Gentiles so that they might join Abraham's family by being circumcised and keeping the law of Moses. And over the centuries the danger has always been "Jesus Plus"-- whether it was Pelagius and his doctrine of Jesus plus good works, or some in the missions movement who had Jesus plus western civilization. What are the dangers today? The same as ever: the church must beware of adding anything to the finished work of Jesus Christ and that includes both the doctrinal problem of works-righteousness, and the cultural problem of identifying the heavenly Jerusalem with our own subculture. The gospel of Jesus Christ overturns every "Jesus Plus," and insists upon solus Christus Christ alone! Why listen to Paul? Because Paul was addressing those who thought that Jerusalem was the center of history, and he was determined to show that Christ is the center of history, and everything else revolves around him. And if you read Isaiah 62 you can understand why. "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet, until her righteousness goes forth as brightness, and her salvation as a burning torch. The nations shall see your righteousness and all the kings your glory, and you shall be called by a new name that the mouth of the LORD will give." The Judaizers read this and said, "That is what Jesus has done!" Isaiah said that the nations would see the righteousness of Jerusalem. Jesus is the one who has made Jerusalem great. "On your walls, O Jerusalem, I have set watchmen; all the day and all the night they shall never be silent. You who put the LORD in remembrance, take no rest, and give him no rest until he establishes Jerusalem and makes it a praise in the earth." The Judaizers would say Jesus has done this. Now God will make Jerusalem glorious. Now Israel will be restored and all the nations will be drawn to God's city. Ezek 36 For the Judaizers, Israel and Jerusalem is the center of the story. Jesus is important but their "gospel" is that Gentiles can be saved if they become Jews. And Paul says that this is no gospel at all. Outside of the book of Acts, Galatians tells us more about Paul's life than any other book. Paul recounts his own spiritual biography not simply to satisfy their curiosity, but in order to make a point. Introduction: The Revelation of Jesus Christ (1:11-12) For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. The one point that Paul wishes to drive home in this narrative is that the gospel that he preaches is not "according to man," but is according to Jesus Christ. He will go to great lengths to distance himself from the apostles in Jerusalem. He is on good terms with them, but he did not learn the gospel from them. They have approved his message but they are not the source of his message. The source of Paul's message is no other than Jesus Christ himself. And Paul tells his story in four parts: 1) the call 2) the first visit to Jerusalem 3) the second visit to Jerusalem 4) the encounter with Peter in Antioch 1. The Call (1:13-17) Paul tells us about how this came to him in verses 13-17: For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. We hear about this in Acts 8. Saul of Tarsus was convinced that Jesus was a false Messiah. After all, according to current beliefs, the Messiah would overthrow the Romans and establish Jerusalem as the center of God's kingdom. Israel would be restored and renewed by the work of Messiah so Jesus obviously could not have been the Christ! Acts 8:3 tells us that Saul ravaged the church, "and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison." And Acts 9:1 said that Saul was "breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord." Why would Saul seek to destroy the church? Why would he seek the death of Jews who believed in Jesus? The Pharisees believed that in order for the Messiah to come, Israel needed to be faithful in keeping the Mosaic law. He may well have remembered Numbers 25:1-5, also recounted in Psalm 106, where Phineas the son of Aaron slaughtered the idolatrous Israelites, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness! God even says that Phineas "was zealous for the honor of his God and made atonement for the Israelites." The slaughter of the guilty was called "atonement!" So Saul of Tarsus may well have seen his own actions as an attempt to purify Israel in preparation for the coming of Messiah. And so he sought to destroy the church of God. It is worth noting that Paul uses the singular here. Paul often uses the word "church" to refer to particular congregation (and especially the "church" in a given city or region), but here he speaks of the church of God as the universal body of believers. He wanted to destroy every visible manifestation of faith in Jesus as Messiah. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. In other words, Saul was on track for promotions and honors he would be a shoe-in for the Sanhedrin. Saul of Tarsus would have been one of the greatest Jewish leaders if it hadn't been for that fateful day on the road to Damascus, when Saul of Tarsus was called by Jesus himself. And for that matter, based on his background and training, if he did convert to Christ, Paul should have been a leader of the Judaizers! If you think about my background, why would I say that circumcision is unnecessary for Gentiles? But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles... Paul here speaks of himself, and of his distinctive apostolic call, but we can see here the basic outline of the distinction between election and calling. Paul had been set apart by God before he was born. God had chosen Paul before the foundation of the world, but prior to the call, Paul was a rebellious sinner. And this call is a work of God's grace: God "called me by his grace." And in that call, God revealed his Son in Paul. Most translations say "to" but it would be better to say that God "was pleased to reveal his Son in me." Because Paul is going to emphasize this "in" language later in Galatians. The union of Christ with his people is going to be the foundation of Paul's argument in Galatians 2:15-21. But what did God call Paul to do? Jesus told Ananias that Saul would "carry my name before the Gentiles." Ac 9:15 When Paul was called, he insists that he did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. The question is "where did Paul get his gospel?" And his answer is most emphatically, not in Jerusalem! Not from those who were apostles before me! By calling them "apostles before me" he agrees that they are indeed apostles, but he also asserts his own apostolic authority! And he goes into Arabia the place where God met with Israel as they came out of Egypt the place where God spoke to Elijah and gave him his prophetic call. 2. Paul's First Visit to Jerusalem (1:18-24) Paul says that his first visit to Jerusalem came three years after his conversion. This would appear to be the visit referred to in Acts 9:26-30. Why did he wait three years? Probably for two reasons: 1) his colleagues in the Sanhedrin would not be very happy to see him! Not only had he failed to squash the church in Damascus, he had converted and was now preaching Jesus as the Christ! 2) the church in Jerusalem had been the chief target of his persecution Understandably they would be a bit reluctant to welcome him! And indeed, he spent only 15 days with Peter and James, before being run out of Jerusalem by death threats from his former colleagues in the Sanhedrin. The point he is making is that he is not subordinate to the Jerusalem apostles. They barely even knew him. But, in spite of their casual relationship, they rejoiced in his preaching and did not oppose him! The one who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy But then Paul went off to Syria and Cilicia (the area around Antioch and Tarsus) and preached. Acts 11 suggests that Paul was mainly centered in Tarsus, since that was where Barnabas found him when he needed assistance in Antioch. In other words, for around a decade Paul was not a "missionary" traveling around, but something much more like a pastor of the church in Cilicia, preaching in the synagogues and establishing the church in that region. But the place where the gospel flourished was Antioch, and so Barnabas came and found Paul and took him to Antioch where he ministered for at least a year. 3. Paul's Second Visit to Jerusalem (2:1-10) So it was around 14 years after his conversion that he finally spent significant time in Jerusalem. I went up because of a revelation (v2) In other words, I was not summoned by the Jerusalem apostles Christ himself called me to go. The revelation referred to here is quite possibly the one in Acts 11:28 when Agabus the prophet foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world. So the disciples in Antioch determined to send relief to the brothers in Judea, which was sent by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. Some have tried to associate the events of Galatians 2 with the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, but if Acts 15 had already happened, then Paul would have had the weight of that Council behind him, because that council determined that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles. It would have been a great argument to say "The other apostles all agree with me, and here is the decision of the council to prove it!" And it would also be very difficult to imagine Peter violating the terms of the Council, and so Peter's actions in 2:11-13 appear to be rooted in the context of uncertainty regarding proper Jew/Gentile relations in the church. So Galatians would appear to have been written just before the Jerusalem Council, which would mean the second visit would probably be the visit of Acts 11, which is all the more supported by the final statement in 2:10 remember the poor. Circumcision and the Gentiles (v3) But when Paul came to Jerusalem he privately set forth his gospel. In Acts 15 everything is done publicly, so this also supports the Acts 11 thesis. Paul was concerned by the strength of the "circumcision" party. He seems to have been uncertain about where the Jerusalem apostles stood. And so he set forth before "those who seemed influential" "the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles." Brothers, this is what I'm preaching can we still be in fellowship? And, what is more, here is one of our Gentile converts, Titus. Does he have to be circumcised? Why is he so concerned for their approval? After all, if his authority comes from Christ himself, then why should he care what the other apostles say? As Paul puts it to the Corinthians, "Is Christ divided?" Paul was utterly convinced of the unity of the church of Jesus Christ. If the apostles the ones commissioned by Christ himself were divided as to the central message of the gospel, then the church could not stand. Remember that Jesus taught us that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Paul understood that the division of the church would lead to its destruction. If the apostolic teaching is divided, then there could be no solid foundation for the church. If the Jerusalem apostles had rejected Paul's teaching, then he would have "run in vain." NOT that he would have been wrong! (Paul never imagines that possibility!) But that there would have been schism between the apostles, and the church of Jesus Christ would have been divided and fragmented. THAT is what it would have meant to run in vain. But the response of the Jerusalem apostles was to extend the right hand of fellowship. They even agreed that Titus did not need to be circumcised! Sure, there were false brothers who objected, insisting that Titus needed to be circumcised, but that would be to return to slavery! And we did not yield to them for a moment, "so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you." (v5) You see, the Jerusalem apostles understood that Jesus PLUS anything else is not the gospel. It was only false brothers "secretly brought in" (Who brought them in? Implicitly, the devil!) But the Jerusalem apostles ("those who seemed to be influential")-- added nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised... They gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. (v7-9) The Jerusalem apostles, led by James, Peter (or Cephas) and John, have approved my teaching. They didn't teach it to me. They didn't commission me. But they have recognized me as a fellow apostle one who preaches the same gospel as themselves. Only, they asked us to remember the poor (v10) This is in the midst of the famine. And they asked Paul to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. Because in the ministry of mercy to those in need, the unity of the body of Christ is made manifest. Paul will later say that in Christ there is no Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free, because we are all one in Christ. That unity is demonstrated in our care for those in need. Paul will conclude Galatians by urging the church to do good to all men, especially those of the household of faith remembering the request of the Jerusalem apostles to remember the poor. Last week's diaconal offering brought in over $1400 for hurricane victims. May we always be ready to help our brothers and sisters in need. Because that is a part of what the gospel is all about. If Paul is right, and Jew and Gentile have been brought together in one Jesus-centered family, then we need to live like a family. A family where it doesn't matter where you were born. A family that transcends race, ethnicity, gender, or culture. A family that is grounded in faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. A family that finds our identity in the heavenly Jerusalem the city of God. Did you notice the reason why Paul did this? "So that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you." If Paul had failed, then something other than the gospel would have triumphed in the church.