Genesis - Evolution Part 1

You will have gathered that I am prepared to accept that the earth is old, and that much of the geology is reasonable, though I do not think it is possible to prove beyond all doubt that the earth is old, and if it turns out the earth is only 10 000 years old I am not going to worry about it. Similarly, I do not automatically reject evolution as possibly being part of the process that God used. However, I do find evolution far less convincing, and am extremely concerned about the way evolution is used as a supposed argument against God.

One of the key bones of contention is the evolution or creation of the eye. It has long been argued that the eye is so complex that it cannot have evolved. Now we do have to be wary of the "it is so complex it could not have happened" argument because it really means that "we cannot imagine or understand how it happened". This might mean it cannot have happened, or it might mean are understanding or imagination is limited. However, I have looked at some of the evolutionists arguments for the evolution of the eye and found them very unconvincing. There is a short video on YouTube by David Attenborough. He shows that there are all sorts of variations of the eye in nature, from primitive to sophisticated, therefore (so he says) the eye evolved. I do not know enough about the science to know if what he says is true, but even accepting it in no way proves evolution. If we look at computers or mobile phones we will find all sorts of levels of sophistication. We could even find a timeline showing how computers have evolved from the basic machines they once were to the sophisticated one they are now. Yet while they did "evolve" we know full well that each one was designed. So Attenborough's argument proves nothing.

The above argument applies more generally to evolution. One of the arguments is that the diversity of species and the commonality between species is an argument for evolution. This is nonsense. It is consistent with evolution, but is equally consistent with someone creating each lifeform separately from the same basic materials.

Genesis - Young or Old? - Part 2

What are the arguments for an old earth? They are essentially based on three things:

• Evidence from the rocks, such as sedimentary rocks
• The fossil record, and it is important to note that this does not rely on assuming evolution
• Radiometric dating

Perhaps the key underlying assumption is that the physical laws that we observe today have pertained over time. Based on this assumption geologists are able to provide a reasonably consistent explanation of what we see today. (I use the term "reasonably consistent" only because I am not a geologist, so do not want to make claims beyond my qualifications). For instance there are various radiometric dating techniques, and different methods give consistent findings.

How does this fit in with the Bible? On the one hand some will say that Genesis necessitates a young earth. However, old earthers can also claim Biblical support for their findings. For we believe that God has created an ordered universe, therefore it is reasonable to apply ordered methods to interpreting what we see around us. Some of the young earth arguments rely on specific intervention by God. Now the Bible does say that on occasion God does intervene directly in nature. Eg parting the Red Sea, the day when the sun went backwards, Jesus calming the storm. However, it is equally true that He does not do this very often. Perhaps most importantly, just because something is not miraculous does not mean that God is not directly involved.

So where do I actually stand? I am afraid the answer is "don't know, but suspect the earth is rather old". However, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to adopt an old earth point of view as a means for explaining what we find, and this does not go against the Bible.

If it wasn't such a loaded term, I would definitely describe myself as a creationist, it is just that I do not see that this demands a young earth. I see the creative work of God in all things, including the beauty of mathematics and the wonder of scientific processes.

If you look on the web, or read books on the topic, you will find all sort of arguments about the validity of geological arguments, and arguments why this or that is true or not. For me, the fundamental point is how we understand Genesis 1. If God did intend it to mean he actually took 6 physical days to create the earth, then all the geology in the world has no weight. If He did not intend this, then I am really not interested in all the debates we have about the age of the earth.

What I would say is that we should not be afraid of science, but I will say this when I talk a little about evolution next time. One thing I will say now is that at the start I said I get annoyed by people who seem to tie themselves in knots over the age of the earth. Something that annoys me even more is evolutionists making ridiculous and unscientific claims.

Genesis - Young or Old? - Part 1

Let me start by saying that one of the things that annoys me is people who believe in a young earth who seem to be tying themselves in knots trying to prove that the earth is only a few thousand years old (if you are a young earth, please read on, you might find something that is more pleasing to you later).

As we know Genesis 1 talks about 6 days, and on the basis of this young earthers believe that the earth is a few thousand years old. Now the fundamental point is what God intends us to understand form Genesis 1, and I find it hard to believe that God was thinking "what you guys really need to know is that I created the earth in 6 days flat". It seems far more likely that God wants us to know that we were created, why we were created, and why things aren't working.

Now there is a lot of scientific evidence that points in the direction of the earth and the universe being several billion years old. However, as a mathematician there is something that worries me about this. No one was there. Science is based on observation and repeatability, Now by the very nature of things none of us were there to observe creation, and we cannot repeat the process in order to test our ideas. Moreover, we have scientific observations of about one to two hundred years, with less scientific observations from a few hundred to a few thousand years. In mathematics one of the most dangerous things you can do is extrapolation. If you have some data points you can make predictions within the data range, and they are likely to be reasonably accurate. However, to go beyond the data range is extremely dangerous. In the case of the age of the earth we are extrapolating from a few hundred years to billions of years. That at least calls for a degree of humility and caution on the part of those who argue for an old earth.

This does not mean that we cannot make any suggestions about the age of the earth, just that we ought to be careful. On the other hand some of the arguments against an old earth are equally dodgy. Again as a mathematician, I know that it is possible for a system with a few basic rules can lead to an extremely complex system. Some of the arguments or concerns about an old earth are based on a small view of God. We may find it hard to imagine billions of years, but that need not be a problem to God.

Genesis - Introduction

Earlier I looked at Genesis 12-25, covering Abraham's life. Now I am going to study the first 11 chapters of Genesis. This inevitably raises questions about the age of the earth, creation, and evolution. So before embarking on the text itself I will say a few words about these matters, and my current position. You might find some of this helpful, you will almost certainly disagree with some of it and agree with other parts. However, the main reason for giving this discussion is to let you know "where I am coming from".

In fact this preamble will go on for a few days, because Genesis is the focus of the science versus religion debate. In fact I do not believe there is any contradiction between science and religion. The conflict only arises when scientists stop being scientists, and religious people go beyond what the Bible says.

Let me start with what I consider to be the most important point, and that is that God is the creator. Everything and everyone was created by God on purpose and for a purpose. In my view this is what really counts, and to grasp the significance of this is way more important than deciding whether the earth is 10 000 or several billion years old, or whether God created us in a day, or via a process of evolution.

The fact that God created me is one of the foundations of my life. When things are going well we have a creator to rejoice in and with. We can celebrate the beauty of the world, and the wonder of science.However, it is probably fair to say that it is even more important when things are difficult. There are times when I just feel like giving up, but in these times I know I cannot give up. God did not create me and save me so that I could give up. I am fearfully and wonderfully made, and made with a purpose. God created me so that His glory could be displayed in and through my life, and so that His blessing could be given to other people. When facing situations which I just do not know how to handle, or can see no way through, I know that the Creator of the Universe loves me.

And this applies to each one of us. So you can apply it to yourself. Sometimes we are tempted to write other people off, but we cannot, because God created them too. In the next posting or two I will talk a little about the age of the universe and evolution, but what I have said today is way more important.

Galatians 6:11-18

Paul brings his letter to a close. It was common in those days to use a scribe to write letters, so it is probable that Paul did so, but here uses his own hand to demonstrate the authenticity of the letter. There were people who faked letters in those days, the ancient equivalent I suppose of putting fakes posts up on the web. Nothing changes!

Paul then attacks the motives of the circumcision group. They were pretending that in promoting circumcision they were aiming to please God. In reality they were seeking to impress men, and to avoid being persecuted. For one of the reasons Paul was persecuted so much were for what he said about observance of the Law.

The only thing that Paul wants to boast in is the cross. The cross is the only grounds we have for hope. We all go through times when we become terrifyingly aware of our own weakness and failings. In such times we need to look to the cross. Most of us also have some times when we feel rather pleased with ourselves (we do actually get things right sometimes!). In those times we need to look to the cross and remind us where our hope and salvation come from.

What counts is a new creation. This is what God has done for us in Christ. He has done it for us as individuals, and for people as a whole. When we believe in Christ we are born again, we do not get a second chance, we get a new life. The church are the people of God and the foundation for the church, as Jesus said to Peter, is faith in Christ.

Galatians 6:7-10

We naturally read these verse as saying that if you do bad things you will reap a bad harvest. Now this is undoubtedly true, but I think Paul is saying more than that here. We read like this because most of our translations use the term "sinful nature". it actually says flesh, and Paul has spent most of the letter contrasting the spirit and the flesh.

So I think Paul is actually saying that if we rely on human resources (ie sowing to the flesh) then we will inevitably reap a bad harvest. Our very nature is corrupted by sin. It is like a polluted water supply. We could build a very nice well, but no matter how good the well we would still be drawing polluted water. There is no point whatsoever expecting our flesh to yield salvation.

Instead we should sow to the Spirit, following Him. Then we will indeed reap a good harvest, one of eternal life. This involves practical hardwork as well, for we must endeavour to do good. We are not doing this in order to earn salvation, but because we are called to do good.

Galatians 6:1-6

The legalists use sin as an excuse to judge someone. The case of the people condemning the woman caught in adultery is a prime example of this. Such people may appear to be righteous and concerned about upholding God's standards, but in reality they are reacting out if insecurity and are seeking to prove themselves better than others. Or, to be more accurate, less bad than others. Here Paul tells us how we should react.

Or first priority should be to seek to restore the person, and to do so gently. At the same time we are not to be naive. We need to watch that we too do not fall to the same temptation. None of us is immune from temptation, and we need to recognise this.

In a legalistic environment people become concerned about their rank in the pecking order, but in the kingdom we are to carry one another's burdens. We are not competing against each other. The cross has set us free from all need to prove ourselves, whether that be to prove ourselves righteous, or to prove ourselves better than someone else. Instead we are free to love each other, free to look after the needs of each other.

If ever we catch ourselves having a competitive spirit in this sense, then we need to correct ourselves, for such thoughts and attitudes come from the flesh, not the Spirit. But this manifestly does not mean we have no standards, or do not seek to do the best we can, but we do not waste our time comparing ourselves against each other.

In the kingdom when one wins all win.

Galatians 5:19-26

Paul then gives his famous lists of the acts of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit. He starts with the acts of the flesh. Now from Paul's letter it seems that immorality was not a major problem in the Galatian church, in fact they definitely wanted to please God. So why does Paul give this list of various types of unworthy behaviour? Possibly as a reminder of things they should avoid, but possibly also as a warning against the things that living by the law can lead to.

How does living by the law lead to these things? Well in the history of Israel in the Old Testament we see all these things happening at various stages. Bringing things more up to date, we can find these things in churches. If a church is not led by the Spirit (and this means more than claiming to be led by the Spirit), these things will happen. They are the inevitable fruit of relying on human strength, even if we have the best of intentions.

Conversely, the fruit of the Spirit is good fruit. Why does Paul then say "against such things there is no law"? Maybe to say that the Law is certainly not opposed to the fruit of the Spirit. Indeed, it is living by the Spirit that actually produces the fruit that the Law commends.

Perhaps on a more practical level for us, it does not matter what the circumstances are, it is always possible for us to demonstrate this fruit. It may be difficult and costly, but it is always possible.

So the outcome is that if we want to please God then we need to live by the Spirit, that is the only way to crucify the flesh and its passions and desires.

Galatians 5:16-18

As in Romans 7 and 8, Paul is contrasting walking by the Spirit and living by the flesh. The Galatians were naturally keen to please God, and the Judaisers had offered a superficially attractive way, saying that if they followed the law then they would please God more. Paul warns them that if they do this they will be living by the flesh, living out of their own resources. This will inevitably lead to moral failure.

Why is this? The reason is that we are fallen, we are sinful. So if live out of our own strength something inevitably goes wrong. Even if we set out with the best of intentions, sooner or later (usually sooner!) sin kicks in. The Spirit and the flesh are opposed to each other. Our flesh does not want to depend upon trusting God, we prefer to be in control. The Spirit leads us in ways that demand that we trust in God, and our flesh doesn't like doing this.

If we are led by the Spirit we are not under law. This does not mean that we can do what we want, but that we do not live by law, and do not seek to gain acceptance by obeying the customs of the law.

Galatians 5:13-15

We have enormous problems understanding what being saved by grace through faith means. A common accusation is that being forgiven means it doesn't matter how we live, and indeed some people who profess to be Christians seem to take this view as well. However, the most cursory reading of the Bible, and Paul in particular, show that any such understanding is in fact a misunderstanding. Paul now turns to the practical outworking of the Christian life.

As in Romans, Paul talks a lot about the flesh. The word flesh is often inadequately translated in the NIV as "sinful nature". It means much more than this. The Good News Bible actually translates it more accurately when it says "human nature", and it really means living out of our own strength, instead of living in fellowship and communion with God, ie living by the Spirit.

We were called to be free, but we are to use the freedom to serve each other in love, not to indulge ourselves. Indeed if we choose the latter we will end up in slavery again.

Interestingly Paul says that the Law is summed up by the command to love our neighbour as ourself. After Paul has said about the Law in the earlier part of Galatians one might have expected him to want nothing to do with the Law. But Paul was not arguing against the Law, but against the Law as a means of salvation. The Law reflect the heart of God, and so still tells us much about how we should live, and how God wants us to live. As Jesus said, there are two central themes in the Law: (i) love God; and (ii) love each other.

Verse 15 implies that there was back biting going on. This is an inevitable result of adopting a legalistic attitude. For when we are trying to earn salvation we end up comparing ourselves with others, and instead of trying to make ourselves better, we try to make others out to be worse than ourselves. This leads to a horrible situation. It is also bound to happen, for any attempt to save ourselves is destined to end in failure, and the back biting is our human attempt to deal with this.

Only the cross gives us the freedom to truly love one another. For on the cross we have nothing to prove and have been completely forgiven. We have also received the Holy Spirit who transforms us from the inside out.

Galatians 5:7-12

Paul finishes the main theological argument by returning to personal matters, both about the Galatians themselves, and about himself.

The Galatians were doing well, but someone has cut in on them to stop them obeying the truth. Theological arguments are not always just theoretical matters with no practical relevance. The important ones determine how we will live. The test of a teaching is whether or not it helps or hinders us from obeying the truth, Jesus Christ.

Nor can we afford to allow a little false teaching, for there is the danger that it will permeate through everything and ruin the lot. Paul then implies in verse 10 that the church should discipline the false teacher or teachers.

He closes the section by drawing attention to himself. Apparently some claimed Paul himself was preaching circumcision. This is inconsistent with other things that people said about Paul, but we should not be surprised that the attacks on good people are inconsistent. Indeed, Paul could have saved himself a whole lot of trouble by preaching circumcision, but instead he preached the truth that Jesus is the only way.

Paul rounds things off by calling on the Judaisers to castrate themselves. Often our debates are way too polite!

Galatians 5:4-6

Trying to gain approval on the grounds of keeping the law is diametrically opposed to being justified by grace. Jesus came so that we could receive grace. In fact it is better to read this as "being alienated from the Messiah". In sticking to the Law the Jews were rejecting their only hope of salvation. Indeed, their whole identity was tied up around the hope for a Messiah who would vindicate them, yet when He came they rejected Him.

Paul declares that through faith we await the righteousness for which we hope. Now our inclination is to read this as meaning that we wait for Christ to make us morally righteous. Now this will happen. When Christ returns we will all be transformed in an instant. In the meantime we are being transformed from one degree of glory to the next. However, it may be more in line with Paul's thinking to take it as meaning we wait for the Christ to return and vindicate us.

Note that Paul says we eagerly wait by faith, and we do so through the Spirit. We tend to think that waiting for the return of Christ means what happens inbetween does not matter, but nothing could be further from the truth. We wait through the Spirit, He continues His ongoing work of transformation in our lives day by day, while we wait for the final fulfilment.

Verse 6 makes it clear that Paul is not actually arguing directly against circumcision, but against putting trust in the fact that one is circumcised, making something other than Christ the basis for our hope and justification. Faith expressing itself through love is the only thing that counts. So again we see the emphasis on practical outworking in our life, for faith will show itself through love.

Galatians 5:1-3

Jesus came to set us free, so we should beware of any doctrine or teaching that effectively enslaves us. Even if you are in a charismatic or evangelical church that considers itself to be free, you still need to be on your guard. For false teachings do not come with a big warning sign attached, but are much more insidious.

A teaching advocating circumcision would hold no attraction for us, but consider why it would do so for 1st century Galatians. Circumcision is taught in the Old Testament. From Abraham onwards they had been circumcised (or were supposed to be). Nowadays it is easy to forget the Jewish roots of the gospel, but in Galatia they were still very close to it. Taking all these things together, it is easier to see why they would be attracted to this teaching. They would want to feel that they truly belonged, so if someone said they needed to be "more Jewish" in order to do so they would be inclined to believe them.

We should beware teachings that carry the hook "if you want to really belong ...". Jesus Christ, the Cross and faith in Him are the only grounds for "belonging". Indeed if we give in to false teachings then we are saying that Jesus need not have bothered dying on the cross for us. A couple of examples of such "false teachings" would be "you must speak in tongues" (as opposed to encouraging people to ask for the gift of tongues, which is totally different), " you must use the KJV of the Bible" (or any other particular version).

Galatians 4:24-31

It is hard for us to appreciate just what these words of Paul would really mean to any Jewish readers. The Law and Jerusalem were absolutely central to the Jewish faith, yet Paul is now saying that they represent slavery. We need to beware of things that we have deep emotional attachments to, for it is very easy for them to become an idol to us.

Paul is convinced that God had a far greater purpose in mind than slavery to the Law, and he quotes Isaiah 54 to express his belief. In Christ there is freedom and fruitfulness.

Paul goes back to the Ishmael and Isaac analogy to illustrate a further point. Ishmael mocked Isaac, in the same way the Jews mocked the church. God commanded Abraham to get rid of Ishmael, in the same way the Christians needed to have no reliance on the Law for salvation.

Galatians 4:21-23

Paul is effectively saying here, look how things work, this is what happened to Abraham. He then draws attention to the fact that Abraham had two children, one by Hagar, the maid servant, and one by his wife Sarah. Ishmael, the son born of Hagar, was the result of human effort. It was the result of an ill-conceived plan of Sarah and Abraham to fulfil God's promise (Genesis 16). Isaac, on the other hand, was born of the promise. Naturally speaking there was no way Isaac could have been born for Sarah was barren, but Isaac was born because of the promise of God.

Now all Jews knew that God's plans and promises were to be fulfilled through Isaac, not Ishmael. Indeed Abraham was told to send Ishmael away. The Judaisers were looking for a human way to fulfil God's promises, but this was never God's way of working.

We need to realise this today as well. God's kingdom comes as a result of the promise, not as a result of human effort. Yet we are so conditioned to looking to fulfil things through human effort, and it always ends in frustration, or producing fruit that we eventually need to get rid of.

Galatians 4:12-20

Paul has just completed a “theological argument” section and will shortly introduce another one, but in between he makes the argument very personal. Why does he do this? It is because theology, personal relationships and personal behaviour are all interlinked. We love to separate them, but the Bible does not.

Paul draws attention to the way he lived among them, and how they treated him so kindly. Paul had an illness at the time, but he persevered. There is an interesting side point here. In the Bible, and in the New Testament in particular, we see many miracles, we people being cured if various diseases. Indeed Paul himself carried out some miracles. Yet, we also see they also suffered diseases like everyone else and sometimes just dealt with them without miracles, as in this case. Sometimes, in churches which believe (as I do) that miracles should be a part of the church’s life today, and our outreach to the world, we can implicitly teach that if we got everything right there would be no illness in the church. It has to be said that the New Testament does not support this. It is of course, equally unbiblical to discount the possibility or place of the miraculous.

The Judaisers were zealous, but were zealous for the wrong things. Zeal and commitment in themselves are not good, for they are dangerous if directed towards the wrong things.

Paul closes this section by stating his concern for the people. He did not give the theological arguments in order to prove an academic point, but in order to save people and to see them enter in to all that God has for them.

Galatians 4:9-11

Paul now seems to be turning his attention to looking at things from the perspective of those who are not Jews. Before they came to Christ they worshipped all sorts of things and were enslaved to them. When they came to know God they became free and found life. So Paul is amazed that they are turning back to slavery. Note also the implicit assumption that turning to circumcision and Jewish Law is equated with worshipping idols. Circumcision was not the only aspect of their turning to Jewish Law, they were observing special days and seasons.

Paul had not spent his time with them so that they could just get a different form of slavery. This is something that all types of churches need to watch out for, for we are very good and introducing new forms of slavery. We will impose some form of regulation or rule of conduct that really has little foundation in the Bible.

Galatians 4:4-8

The Jews had failed to realise the enormity of what had happened when Jesus came. He is the fulfilment of all God’s plans. He is the Son of God, He is fully human, and He was born under the Law, ie He was fully Jewish. He came to redeem those under the Law (and everyone else as well), so that we could be adopted as sons.

There were two things fundamentally wrong with the Jewish approach. They did not realise who Jesus was, and they thought their current way of life (living under the law) was it. These faults can apply to most people. We do not realise who Jesus is, and do not see that life could be so much better. As human we have a strange tendency to settle for slavery. People become slaves to money, drugs, drink. Indeed there is even a sort of security in slavery. When the Israelites came out of Egypt they were forever wanting to go back to the slavery they had come from. But our destiny is to be sons of God, we have a glorious future and should grab it with both hands.

It is the Holy Spirit who assures us that God is our Father, and this means that we are also heirs. We need to focus on our relationship with God. Being a Christian is not just a matter of a set of beliefs, or a way of life (though both these are important), it is fundamentally about a relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If we neglect this relationship, then things start to go wrong. If we focus on this relationship then we start to grow into the life and future that God has for us.

Galatians 4:1-3

The Judaisers thought they had arrived, Paul says the exact opposite. He uses the analogy of an heir to a great estate. Before the heir inherits the estate he is subject to guardians and is restricted in what he can do. Indeed in some ways he is like a slave. Only when the father says so can he have the inheritance. (In those days you did not necessarily have to wait for someone to die in order to inherit something).

Paul says that they were under slavery to "elemental spiritual forces". This can be translated "elemental spirits" or "basic principles of this world". Whatever Paul's exact meaning, he is saying that the Jews were not indeed free, but were in pretty much the same state as everyone else, subject to the same slavery.

Now this would really have offended the Jews. They thought that they were free (John 8:32,33). Just because someone claims to be free does not mean that they actually are free.

Galatians 3:26-29

These verses sum up the crux of Paul's message. In Christ we are all God's children through faith. The Law is not the means on qualification, faith in Christ is the only means of qualification.

If we were baptised into Christ, then we have been clothed in Christ, nothing else needs to be done. Anyone who tries to introduce any extra criteria is going against the gospel. It makes no difference whether we are a Jew or not, what our social status is in the society we live in, whether we are male or female. We are all one in Christ.

God's plan was announced to Abraham in Genesis 12, and we are heirs of that promise, we are part of the fulfilment of that promise.

Now to most of us the difference between Jews and non-Jews has little day-to-day relevance, so what does all this mean for us today? Well the habit of putting extra requirements on people is a very human trait. We can do this consciously or sub-consciously. It means we need to beware of the distinctions that society around us has imposed upon us, for they do not apply in the kingdom.

Sometimes we may, like the Judaisers, even introduce extra tests saying we are being Biblical. It doesn't seem so common today, but in the early days of the charismatic renewal there was a tendency to put those who speak in tongues at a higher level than those who don't. Now speaking in tongues is good (1 Corinthians 14:5), but it is a gift from God, not a means of distinguishing between one believer and another.

Galatians 3:23-25

The Law was not the destination, but a temporary stopping place. The Law was a kind of guardian for the people of Israel, but only until faith came. Notice that it says "the faith that was to come would be revealed", this is not faith as an abstract entity, not faith in anything, but only faith in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Law was put in charge of the Jews so that they could be justified by faith. Now that Christ has come, no one is any longer under the supervision of the Law.

What does this mean? How did the law act as a guardian? The Law reveals something of the heart of God. It revealed many things that were right and wrong, it revealed social attitudes and justice. It revealed the need for sacrifice. It revealed that there was only one true God. It also revealed a concern for people outside of Israel. and of course it clearly demonstrated man's need for a saviour.

"No longer under the supervision of the law". This manifestly does not mean that we can do what we like. Murder, lying, adultery, worshipping other gods etc are all still wrong. They were wrong before the Law, wrong during the Law, and wrong now. What Paul means is that the Law is no longer a means of defining who God's people are.

Galatians 3:21,22

So is Paul saying that the Law was wrong, or is opposed to God's promises? Certainly not. We should remember this answer, for it means that any understanding of the Bible that that seems to put the Old Testament in opposition to the New Testament is wrong.

It wasn't the Law that was the problem, but the Judaisers use of the Law. The Law could not impart life, though they imagined that it could do. That was why they went to such lengths to produce all the regulations that were supposed to help prevent people from breaking the Law. Again we can draw a general principle from this. We have to run our churches in some way or other, we have to have a system of some sort. But if we find we are making an increasing number of rules to "make things work" then it is a sure sign that we have got things wrong somewhere.

Sin is the problem that made it impossible for the Law to bring life. We do well to remember that sin is the fundamental problem with the human race, with every individual, including you and me. Sin holds is prisoner, it is not just what we do wrong, but that we are by nature bound to do wrong and go wrong at some point.

God's solution to this problem was faith. The promise is given to those who believe. How does this work? Well through faith in Christ we are forgiven, we receive the Holy Spirit, and He can start undoing the twistedness inside of us. Do you never wonder why you seem incapable of getting some things right? Sometimes you know that there is something inside of you stopping you from seeing clearly, thinking straight, and acting right. Well the good news is that God is in the business of changing that. When we become aware of these blockages within ourselves we should not despair, but start to rejoice that this is another problem that the Lord will solve in our life. We need to believe!

Galatians 3:19-20

What then was the purpose of the Law? Paul now comes to this vital question. The Judaisers saw it as the means of salvation, them means by which someone becomes part of the family of God. Paul says that this is not the case. It was added until Christ came because of our sins. Saw the Law had a temporary purpose. Now this does not mean that the Law is no longer relevant, for it points out what is right and what is wrong. It establishes many general principles (mercy, justice, concern for the poor etc). The Law is good in as much as it shows what is right and what is wrong, but it was never intended as a means of salvation.

We can draw some general lessons from this. One is that we have an enormous tendency today, both in society as a whole and in work situations, to try and solve problems by introducing new laws or systems. Look at the last tragedy that occurred that is reported in the news (eg medical failure, social work failure etc). What is the response? Set up an inquiry, follow this with new laws, systems, codes of practice etc. Now there may be some good things about the new systems, sometimes they may even make things a little better, but they never actually solve the root of the problem. We will never tackle problems if systems are all that we change.

The second lesson is that God is perfectly happy to put a "temporary fix" in place. God always knew that He was going to send His Son, and that Jesus was the focus of the solution and His plan. However, He put the law in place to bring some order in the meantime. We can sometimes be too fixated on achieving the perfect solution, when we need to adopt a less than ideal solution as a means of keeping things going or making some progress.

Galatians 3:15-18

Paul's argument that no one can be justified through the Law raises a natural question. What then was the purpose of the Law? For the Law clearly was important, and occupies alarge portion of the Old Testament, both in terms of pure weight of pages, and in its impact.

Paul goes right back to Abraham again, pointing out that Abraham came before the Law, and the promise of blessing was given to Abraham. The covenant with Abraham was sealed by God and so cannot be broken. Therefore what happened to Abraham is of primary importance.

Paul then draws attention to the fact that the promise was given to seed not seeds, and that the one seed is Christ. Now Paul is not saying that the promise was given to only one person, for seed can be plural. Seed can be taken to represent a family, and what Paul is saying is that it was always God's intention that there be one family, not many. This family is the family of faith in Christ. The Judaisers wanted to divide between Jews and Gentiles, in Christ there is no such divide.

The promise to Abraham came 430 years before the Law, so it must have precedence. If the inheritance depended upon the Law, then it would set aside the covenant with Abraham for that was based on a promise. So Paul is saying that the Judaisers have got their understanding all wrong, for their interpretation introduces a contradiction into God's word, and this cannot be right.

Galatians 3:10-14

“All who rely on the law are under a curse”. A good working definition of the Biblical use of the word “curse” is:

God’s judgement on man’s sin.

The Law pronounces God’s judgement on sin, and no one keeps every aspect of the law, whether one is talking about moral or religious aspects of it. Therefore everyone who relies on the law is under judgement.

Paul sets the Law principle against the faith principle. Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:4 to back up his argument.

Paul declares that Christ became a curse for us. This means that Christ took upon Himself the judgement that should have been ours. If ever we fell under condemnation we should look at the cross and remind ourselves that Christ has taken all the judgement for our sin. As far as God is concerned there is no sin left to be paid for.

The Judaisers thought that the promises given to Abraham could be fulfilled through the Law, but this was manifestly untrue. The Law relied upon us being able to make it, but sin means we are incapable of measuring up to God’s standard. Instead we are to believe in Christ. He died on the cross so that the blessing given to Abraham might come to all and that we might receive the Holy Spirit.

Notice Paul’s emphasis on the blessing going to the Gentiles. The Jews had become very insular and had forgotten about this. Note also the emphasis again on the Spirit. Through the cross we are forgiven for our sins, and we receive new life to enable us to become the people God wants us to be.

Galatians 3:7-9

Verse 7 sums up Paul's argument. The Judaisers said they needed to be circumcised in order to be proper children of Abraham, Paul says that it is by faith that we are Abraham's children. What does it mean to be Abraham's children? It means that we are part of the fulfilment of God's great promise to Abraham in Genesis 12 that through him all nations on earth would be blessed, that he would become the father of multitudes. Now today we would not give any attention to a group claiming we needed to be circumcised, but we do need to watch out for any teaching that claims we need to do something extra in order to be a full member of God's family. All such teachings are wrong, we become God's children purely by believing in Jesus Christ (John 1:12).

Abraham's life was based on faith. He was called by God and given a promise that he could not fulfil himself, so he had to receive it by faith. Paul argues that God always foresaw that His plan would be fulfilled by faith. It was the Christians who were fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, not the Judaisers.

Paul's statement in verse 8 is very interesting. If asked "what is the gospel" we would say something like it is the good news that we can receive forgiveness and new life through faith in Jesus because of what He did on the cross. Now this is all true, but here Paul says the gospel is "All nations will be blesses through you". The Jews tended to have a narrow view of God's plan, they saw Israel as the be all and end all of God's plan. Now Israel is central to God's plan, but not in that way. God's plan was that His blessing should permeate throughout the earth from Israel. Now in Christ, this is being achieved.

We should also realise that God's plan is that others are blessed through us. Our purpose today is to bring God's blessing to others.

Galatians 3:4-6

Paul now calls on them to look back at their experience. In the Old Testament God calls on the Israelites to look back on what has happened. Our experiences matter, and so does interpreting them correctly. They had received the Spirit because of their faith, not because they observed the Law.

Note how the Holy Spirit is crucial. He is crucial to our being able to live the Christian life, but He is also central to Paul's argument. In the Old Testament the Spirit was promised (Jer 31:33; Ezekiel 36:26,27; Joel 2:28); one of the key features of Jesus in the eyes of John the Baptist was that He would baptise with the Spirit; Jesus said it was vital that He return to the Father so that the Holy Spirit could be sent; and in Acts 2:33 Peter speaks of the promised Holy Spirit.

Paul then turns the Judaisers argument back on them by pointing to Abraham as the supreme example of the man of faith. Abraham was counted as righteous because of his faith. The gospel is not an alternative or a replacement for the Old Testament, but the fulfilment of it. Abraham was the one through whom God intended to bless all nations, and he was counted as righteous because of his faith. Abraham believed that God could do this through him, even though at the time he was without children, so God counted him in. The same applies to us. Now Abraham believed that God could do a very concrete thing in his life, give him numerous descendants. Likewise, we are to believe a very concrete thing, namely that through Christ we are forgiven, and that through the Spirit we are given new life.

Galatians 3:1-3

Paul, as usual, does not mince his words. The Galatians are being foolish in their actions by even considering the claims of the Judaisers that they must be circumcised. As far as Paul is concerned there is no sense at all in doing this, it is as if they have been bewitched.

Now to most or all of us an argument that we must be circumcised would carry no weight at all, but we need to look at things from the Galatians perspective. The gospel came out of Judaism, it was the fulfilment of the Old Testament. In the Old Testament men had to be circumcised. Indeed Abraham, the father of the nation, was told to be circumcised (Genesis 17:10-14). In fact, everyone had to be circumcised otherwise they would not be part of God's people. So the argument that the Galatians needed to be circumcised would seem very plausible to them.

Paul counters this first of all by reminding them that when they first believed they were presented with Christ crucified, no one mentioned circumcision. We always need to be wary of teachings that add things on to the gospel, claiming they are essential. He then reminds them of their own experience. They had received the Holy Spirit. Why did this happen, because they obeyed the Law, or because they believed in the gospel? Note that it is clear that they had a real experience of the Holy Spirit. Becoming a Christian is not a matter of mere intellectual or emotional assent to a set of ideas or beliefs, it is about entering a relationship with the living God. Now we must never base things purely on experience, but equally if we have no living experience of God then something is far wrong.

Galatians 2:15-21

We now move into the central theological argument, with the crucial question, "how are we justified?". Paul first talks from the perspective of a Jew, and states quite clearly that it is not by observing the law, but by faith in Christ. Israel's history had clearly shown that they were not justified by observing the law. Again and again they had failed God. Finally, Christ had come and now they were justified because of their faith in Him. They were now acceptable to God. So those who had the law had put their hope in Christ, not in the law.

These verses are at the nub of the current debate between old and new perspective. Reading verse 17 we usually take it as meaning that "sometimes we still sin, so does that mean that faith in Christ does not work, indeed that He promotes sin". An alternative way to look at it is to remember the context, namely of Peter eating with Gentiles, then refusing to do so. Now Jews used the term "sinners" to refer to Gentiles as being outside the covenant, rather than a direct reference to their moral condition. Paul, and Peter before the Judaisers arrived, treated Gentile believers as equals, and ate freely with them. So in the eyes of Jews they would be "sinners". But part of the gospel is that in Christ there is neither Greek nor Jew (Galatians 3:28). Indeed it was always God's plan that all peoples be blessed (Genesis 12:1-3).

The purpose of the Law was not to make people righteous, but to show them their need of a saviour. Paul now trusted in Christ, he does not live out of his own strength, nor relying on fulfilling some law to achieve righteousness. Indeed, if we do not live by faith, then we are saying that Christ died for nothing, that He did not need to go to the cross.

The fundamental point is that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ.

Galatians 2:11-14

If any proof was needed that Paul was independent then this is it, for he was perfectly willing to rebuke the apostle Peter if he thought it necessary. Paul is quite outspoken about what happened, declaring that Peter stood condemned. Ie Peter was clearly in the wrong over his actions.

It is useful to recall the incident in Acts when God called Peter to go to Cornelius (Acts 10). Before He sent Peter, God gave him the vision of all the unclean food, commanding him to eat it. The Law gave whole lists of foods that could not be eaten by Jews, moreover under Jewish Law it was forbidden for Jews to associate with Gentiles (Acts 10:27). Peter realised that God was doing something new, and as he said in Acts 10:34,35 saw that God does not show favouritism and accepts all who fear Him.

When he first went to Antioch, Peter lived in accordance with this, eating freely with the Gentile Christians, but when the Judaisers came he changed his custom. This was a clear act of hypocrisy, and it caused other Jews to copy him.

There are several lessons we can learn from this:

• Even the most important leaders have weaknesses
• If we are leaders our actions and attitudes will influence others, we need to make sure we influence them for good.

A further reason that Paul was so incensed by this is that it went against what the gospel was all about. It had always been God's plan that all nations be blessed through Abraham. Paul saw that in Christ God was fulfilling this plan, making one new people. Peter's actions went directly against this (and what he himself had said in Acts 10), saying that Jews were better than Gentiles.

We need to watch ourselves that our own churches and our personal attitudes do not fall into the same trap. Any racial or social segregation goes against the truth of the gospel, as does treating women as second class.

Galatians 2:1-10

Having stressed that he had received the gospel independently and directly from God, Paul now goes on to show that "his gospel" was the same as that of the leaders in Jerusalem, and that he had their full support. Before we look at how he did this, there is an important lesson here. Sometimes God does speak to us directly, but if He does we should still consult with other respected Christians. If someone claims to hear from God, but then in a proud attitude refuses to even listen to input from other Christians, then that is usually a pretty reliable sign that the person has not heard from God at all, but only from their own self-importance.

It was quite some time before Paul went to Jerusalem again. So by this time his ministry was well established, there was plenty of time for people to know what he was doing and preaching. He met with the leaders there and told them what he was preaching.

In verse 3 the key point is made that Titus, who was a Greek, was not compelled to be circumcised. So if the church in Jerusalem was not insisting on Greeks being circumcised, the agitators in Galatia did not have a leg to stand on.

Other important points are that Jerusalem did not seek to add to Paul's message (2:6), and indeed they recognised the task that God had given to Paul and wished him well in it (2:8,9).

The message is that talk of Paul acting in opposition to Jerusalem was nonsense.

Verses 4 and 5 contain a hint of arguments that are to come, namely between slavery and freedom. The dispute in Galatia was one of great significance, and would profoundly affect the church there and further afield.