Galatians 1:10-24

The false teachers had told the Galatians that Paul was not a reliable teacher. No matter how false the accusations, Paul knew they would have an effect on the Galatians if they went unanswered. They need to know that Paul was a true apostle, and that both he and the gospel could be trusted. If they thought that Paul was a charlatan then they would not have believed the gospel either. It is also important to remember that in believing the gospel the Galatians were not adopting a well established or respected religion, but going out on a limb. Therefore, it would not be surprising if they felt somewhat insecure.

It is not possible to be absolutely sure what the exact arguments were that the false teachers used were, but they may have gone something like this:

Paul derived his authority from the Jerusalem church (1:12,17; 2:6), but that in saying circumcision was not necessary he was acting on his own initiative and had no right to do so. They said his teaching was man-made (1:11), in contradistinction to the Law. They may also have said that Paul was just trying to please men (1:10), so he preached non-circumcision to the Gentiles, but did preach it to others (5:11). In addition, they may have implied that Paul was a "failed" Jew.

In these verses Paul stresses that far from being taught by men he received the gospel by direct revelation from God (1:11,12,16). In particular he did not receive direct instruction from Jerusalem (1:17-24). On a more general level Paul was certainly not a failed Jew (1:13,14), nor was he a man-pleaser (1:10). While Paul came to the gospel independently, he was welcomed by the church (1:23)

We need to recognise that what people think of us will influence what they think of the gospel. Like it or not we are witnesses and examples. How we live matters.

Galatians 1:6-9

In seeking to understand the Bible it is important that we do not treat it as a purely academic work, for that is not what the Bible is. Paul did give deep theological teaching, but to understand what he is saying it can be helpful to try and put ourselves in his shoes, and sometimes in the shoes of his readers.

Paul is clearly emotionally involved. He is angered and dismayed at the fact that at least some of the Galatians are turning to a "different gospel". Note that the "different gospel" would on the surface at least, not look that much different from the real gospel, yet Paul declares it to be no gospel at all.

Why is Paul so angry? The answer is two fold: (i) it rendered Christ's work on the cross meaningless; and (ii) it would do nothing to help save the Galatians. In turning to the false gospel they were not merely choosing a different set of ideas, but were deserting Christ.

Paul declares that those who preach a false gospel should be under God's curse. Now we often think of a curse as a kind of spell. That is not the meaning here. A good working definition of curse is "God's judgement on man's sin". We will see that this helps us to understand things later in Galatians. Here it means that Paul is calling for these people to be under God's judgement.

Galatians 1:1-5

Galatians in many ways is the ideal book in the New Testament to use to learn how to study the Bible, for their are three main strands to the letter. It deals with personal issues relating to Paul, includes important theological arguments, and has direct practical application. Moreover it is important to note that while the first chapter and part of the second deal with personal issues, the middle with deep theological ones, and the latter part with direct practical matters; all three strands are interwoven and interdependent.

Paul is dealing primarily with a theological problem, but we must not think that this a theological book in the sense that we might find one in a University library. Theology was never an academic matter for Paul, but something he was deeply passionate about, and which he knew would vitally affect the lives of his readers. He also had a deep personal concern for his readers, in some cases being personally responsible for their conversion. There is a tendency today to talk about things being academic or theological in a disparaging manner, but what we think affects how we live.

Furthermore, theological issues are never purely theological. There are always personal issues behind them as well. The Judaisers in Galatia were arguing that the Gentile Christians needed to be circumcised to be full members of God's family, but they didn't just advance this as a theological argument, they also attacked the person of Paul. If they could discredit Paul, then this would help to discredit the gospel. This is why Paul spends the first part of the book dealing with personal matters.

In the first two verses Paul stresses that he was appointed by Christ, not by men. he will expand on this in the succeeding verses. The "and all the brothers with me" also carries the implicit message that he is not a lone voice. The Judaisers would have tried to cast Paul as a bit of a looney, not representative of the church as a whole.

When reading Paul's letters we should be sure that we do not read them as a text book, or a paper in a learned journal. Paul was a man of passion, and he wrote his letters with passion. A passion for the gospel, for Jesus Christ, and for the people he was writing to.

Verse 4 spells out the purpose for which Jesus Christ came. He gave himself up for our sins so that we could be rescued from the present evil age. He did all this according to the will of the Father.

Galatians - Wright, Piper, and the New Perspective

Paul was dealing with pivotal controversies in his day, much later Galatians was crucial in inspiring Luther. Today there are still controversies around issues in Galatians (and related matters elsewhere, such as in Romans). They do not seem to be of the same magnitude nor importance (the issues are, the differences are not), but they are relevant none the less. This is the "old" versus "new" perspective. Now the only "new perspective" writer I have read is N T Wright (or Tom Wright), so any comments I make are based only on his writings, and I no doubt there are some less reliable or balanced exponents of the new perspective. I have also read some of John Piper's response to this. I also need to read more of what they say, and to read again what I have already read. So please do not take what I say here as full and guaranteed summaries of their views, it is only my current perception of what they are saying, which needs to develop a lot more. Best of all, go and read it yourself! I will give a couple of references at the end. Let me also say that I enjoy reading and listening to both of them.

So what is the "new" and "old"? The "old" is what might be called the traditional evangelical or reformed view of justification and righteousness, namely that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, or that God looks on us as if we are morally righteous because of Jesus. Now it is important to point out that Wright is not saying that sin is not the basic problem, nor that Christ needed to die on the cross for our sins. What he does say include the following:

• Being righteous in the context of Galatians means being part of God's family and being justified means being counted as part of God's family. This status is acquired through faith. Conversely, the "old perspective" focuses on the individual.
• Wright sees the "righteousness of God" as referring primarily to God's covenant faithfulness. Ie God made promises, and God will keep them. Piper defines it as God's concern for God's glory.
  

• Piper also says that Wright views justification as the prospect that we will become righteous.

On the first of these it seems that Wright is looking at the big picture, whereas Piper is focusing on the individual, and there is value in looking at things from both angles. This is not by any means the whole of the argument, but is part of it.

On the second point there is a lot to be said for it. If we look at the Bible God has got a big problem. He chose man, and man sinned; then He chose Israel, and Israel became a basket case, (and the church is often not the best advertisement for God). How on earth is God going to succeed, or has He got things hopelessly wrong? God's plans will work, Israel will become the faithful people of God, the whole world will be blessed through Israel, and all this is achieved through Christ. It is interesting in Ezekiel 20:44 says "you will know that I deal with you for my name's sake, not according to your evil ways", and in other parts of Ezekiel God says that He will do His saving acts for "his name's sake". So when our lives are transformed by God, it is proof that He is right.

On the last point I am not sure if Wright is actually saying this, but it is not a point that should be dismissed out of hand. What can we agree on? Before we were saved we were sinners. After Jesus comes back God will have completed the work He started in us, we will be transformed to be just like Jesus, we will then be perfect. In between times we are being transformed from one degree of glory to the next, ie we are continually changing, becoming more Christlike. So if Wright is saying this, then maybe he has a point.

Anyway, enough of this. Go and read the stuff yourself. Read both Piper and Wright, they are both excellent. Here are two good books, and two good websites:

Tom Wright, "Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision", SPCK, 2009
John Piper, "The Future of Justification: A Response to N T Wright",IVP, 2007

Web pages can be found by following the links below.
Tom Wright
John Piper

Galatians - Introduction

Galatians - Introduction

Galatians is one of the most important letters in the New Testament. It dealt with crucial events in Paul's day, and was one of the key letters in establishing the basis of salvation. Martin Luther was deeply influenced by Galatians. Indeed it was his reading and understanding of Galatians that led him to become the fundamental figure in the Reformation that he was.

It was probably written in the early 50's or even earlier. However, there is debate about where it was sent. The answer might seem obvious, the Galatians. However, there is debate over whether it was sent to North or South Galatia. North Galatia was the region where “ethnic” Galatians lived. South Galatia was an administrative region in the Roman empire, and included several people groups (included Pisidians, Phrygians, Lycaonians, Jews and Greeks).

Acts tells of Paul’s missionary trip to south Galatia (Acts 14), but makes no mention of north Galatia.

Some of the arguments for the two alternatives are:

North Galatia

• The view of the Early Church.
  
• The term “Galatians” would only be used of ethnic Galatians.
• The characteristics of the people is typical of Gauls.
• The circumstances alluded to in the letter do not match with those described in Acts 14 (which refers to south Galatia).
• Acts allows for unrecorded missionary trips.
• Paul assumes that the majority are Gentiles. South Galatia had a significant Jewish population, so North is more likely.
• The sorts of problems dealt with in Galatians are more likely to have arisen in the north. In the south they would have been an issue from the very beginning

South Galatia

• There is no direct evidence for a church in North Galatia.
• “Galatians” is the most obvious common name for Paul to have used in addressing the people of south Galatia.
• It is more likely that the Judaisers would have pursued
  
• Paul to the south, rather than the remote northern regions.
• Seems to fit the details given in Acts, e.g. Barnabas is known to them.
• Paul’s list of delegates who accompanied him to Jerusalem (Acts 20:4) includes two from south Galatia, but none from the north.
• Paul’s supposed trip to north Galatia is unlikely.

For what it is worth, I think the south is more likely. The significance of the destination is in how relevant the information in Acts is to helping understand it. If the letter went to the south, then Acts is more relevant.

Galatians is probably the earliest of Paul’s letters, maybe before AD49. The most important factor is whether it was written before or after the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). It seems likely that it was written before this, otherwise one wonders why Paul did not refer to the Council’s decision in Galatians.

More information can be found in commentaries on Galatians, such as the following book from which much of the above information comes.

R.A. Cole, Galatians, IVP,Leicester, 1983.

The book deals primarily with the question of the place of Gentile Christians in the church, and in particular did they need to keep the Law. The Judaizers were Jewish Christians who argued strongly that they did, and in the process attacked the apostleship if Paul. Paul argues the specific points, but also brings out what the gospel is all about, primarily that we are justified by faith and nothing else.

Ezekiel 40-48

I am afraid that I am going to cover all these chapters in a single go as I think it is more useful to look at the broad theme than intricate details about the temple.

There are four main lines of interpretation that are used for these chapters. One is to assume that it relates directly to the building of the temple after the return from exile, laying out a blueprint for this. Another is to assume that it is referring to sometime in the future in the last days. This notion seems ridiculous as it seems to necessitate Israel reinstituting the sacrificial system, when the whole point of the last days is that they will eventually realise who Jesus is, and that He is the one true sacrifice. The fourth, and the one I prefer, is to see it as symbolic.

The most popular chapter in this section is chapter 47, which talks about the river flowing from the temple. The water is living water, bringing life wherever it goes. This is reminds one of Jesus's words that whosoever believes in Him, then living waters will flow from within him (John 7:38). Now we are temples of the Holy Spirit. There is also allusion to this in Revelation (Rev 22:2).

It is clear from these chapters that God has everything worked out, in every detail. When we are called to follow Jesus, or to commit to Him in a new and deeper way, we often ask "what about this" or "what about that". We can be sure that God has worked out every detail. We are not called to work out our how to save ourselves, we are called to trust God and to follow Him. When we do this we will find that He has all the details taken care of, and we will become a source of life and blessing to others. (Matthew 6:33; Gen 12:2).

Ezekiel 39:17-29

All of creation is invited to a great feast, mixed in with terminology of a sacrifice. Note that when animals were sacrificed, the people ate the animals, so there is nothing unusual about them eating here. There is also the idea of the supposed mighty men being defeated.

On that day the nations will see that Israel went into exile because of her sin. The nations thought they were getting the better of Israel, as some may think today. But they are blind, because we cannot understand events unless the Lord's righteousness is our guiding light.All the politics and military developments were serving God's purpose.

The final paragraph speaks more of Israel's restoration. They will forget their shame and unfaithfulness. The Lord will be zealous for His glory. This is a key feature of God's work of salvation. If we just have a man-centred view then we will miss things. The Lord will also pour our His Spiirt on the nation.