Works of the law - Lesson 5

The most common interpretation of Paul’s term “law” has been “Old Testament commandments.”  Likewise, terms such as, “works of the law,” “under the law,” and “works” fell into the same category.  As I really studied Galatians, which lead me to read several of Paul’s writings on a deeper level, I became very confused when using this interpretation.  Translating the word law this way just seemed create contradictions within Paul’s own writing.  Paul was a proud Jewish Pharisee and scholar (Acts 23:6, Gal 1:14, Acts 22:3).  It just wasn’t making sense that Paul would write in this letter, and in letters written after this, about his background, being zealous for God, even using phrases supporting the law (Gal 3:21, Rom 7:12, Rom 7:22, Rom 3:31).  He even went so far as to prove, through a purification ceremony in Acts 21:20-26, that he had not abandoned the law.  In Romans 3:31, he specifically makes the point to not throw the law away because of faith.

Paul does not use the terms “works of the law,” “works,” or “under the law” as positive phrases.  The more I read these examples of Paul’s life and his teaching, the more it didn’t make sense when I read terms that appeared to be against the law.  I knew scripture would not contradict itself, so I know there’s an explanation.

In my search, I found that the Greek word nomou was used for different purposes, very much like the translation of the base word for Jew in Galatians 2:14.  Nomou translates directly into English as law.  The problem with that translation, at times, is without understanding the cultural relationship to this word, we think of the word law as a very concrete and flat term.   Imagine using the word law to describe the legal code, washing your hands before eating dinner, holding the door for someone behind you, or always having mom’s pecan pie at Thanksgiving dinner.  One is law, another is hygiene, one courtesy, and another is tradition.  The problem is that some Jewish hygiene, courtesy, and traditions had been considered as important as law, and at times even enforced as such, even though it was not actually law.  So when writing, the word nomou (law) was used to convey this sentiment in the culture at that time.

Once again, in order to understand the point Paul is making, it is imperative to understand the cultural relevance of Jewish living at that time.  Matthew 15:3 and Mark 7:8-9 tell the story of Jesus rebuking certain Pharisees for holding stronger to traditions than God’s written scripture.  We also know that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees when questioning him about picking grain on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23-28) and healing on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6).  The relevance of these passages is exactly the same point that Paul is making.  Traditions had become synonymous or even superseded the scriptural commands.  Tradition had become law.  These traditions had become the yoke of burden that was impossible to bear.  Paul is speaking against this form of law.

In Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus said, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach but do not practice.”  Notice that Jesus specifically affirmed to the crowd to “do and observe whatever they tell you.”  Teaching and being a leader within the synagogue, like Jesus is talking about, required reading directly from the scrolls of Moses, which is what Jesus is telling the crowd to obey.  What he didn’t agree with was the “works they do.” Jesus was teaching the crowd not to follow “the works they do” in the exact same manner that Paul wrote that “a person is not justified by works of the law.”  These two phrases are pointing towards the same teaching.  Pharisaic teaching at that time was to adhere to the “traditions of the elders” (Matthew 15:2) with as much obedience, or more, as one would obey God’s commandments. 

In the last several years, a lot of research and study has been done connecting Paul’s use of the term “works of the law” to a Dead Sea Scroll (MMT) that uses the same phrase in Hebrew, ma-ase ha-Torah.   Martin Abegg, professor of religious studies and co-director of the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia, Canada, expands on the language used within this particular scroll in The Biblical Archeological Society book entitled, “Paul: Jewish Law and Early Christianity.”   (http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/free-ebooks/paul-jewish-law-and-early-christianity/)

·         Hebrew: ma-ase ha-Torah

·         Hebrew to English: precepts of Torah

·         Hebrew to Greek: erga nomou

·         Greek to English: works of [the] law

Abegg explains that the primary teaching within this particular scroll is the understanding of purity laws and the requirement for separating what is pure and not pure.  Abegg explained that the “MMT claims that adherence to the works of the law will be accounted to you as righteousness.”   Abegg further explains that this is the exact theology that Paul was preaching against. 

This segregation law was manmade, potentially under a healthy concern that by associating with Gentiles, whom did not adhere to the laws pertaining to purity, let alone even understand these laws, one would be at risk of touching or consuming something unclean.  Initially due to a legitimate concern or not, the custom or tradition had become equivalent to Jewish law.  Peter speaks of this law in Acts 10:28, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation…”

Paul expresses this argument, not only in Romans 3:21-31, but also in Ephesians 2:14-16, “For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility  by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,  and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.”  These ordinances are the traditions of the elders written into law.

When Paul makes reference to these works of the law, he is doing so in the context of being justified or not.  Paul was directly opposing the theology that these works justified a person or made them righteous.  On this particular point, Paul was using the exact same logic and referencing the same theology that Jesus used when rebuking some of the Pharisees for holding stronger to traditions of man rather than God’s scripture.

It seems that Paul uses the word law for two different purposes.  As explained above, he uses the law to convey the intent that the traditions had become as important as law.  He also uses the word law to reference the laws of Moses (Torah), which he is a strong supporter.  Gal 3:21, Rom 7:12, Rom 7:22, Rom 3:31, Acts 21:20-26

Scripture will not contradict itself.  It is critical to read an entire context of Paul’s writing, and the cultural context of that writing, to understand what he means when he is using the word law.  Depending on the context of the message, law could be translated as traditions of the elders or teachings from Moses (Torah). 

Paul's Opening Argument - Lesson 4

Galatians 2:11-21 

Typically this is referred to as "The Antioch Incident" or "Paul Rebukes Peter."  While this story is about Paul correcting Peter, it is much more than that.  He is telling a story, to be used as an example and to lay a foundation for a much larger argument that he will use repeatedly in his letters.

During the first several verses of chapter 2, Paul writes that he submitted his teaching to the authoritative beit din or Peter, James, and John.  He points out at the end of verse 6 that the beit din “added nothing” to his teaching, giving Paul their blessing to continue teaching.

In the next passage, Paul tells a story to further support the point that he is making to the readers of his letter.  The custom of telling stories, supporting a theology was very common.  This is how precedent was set regarding scripture interpretation.  These stories were often used as testimony when presenting information to a beit din or the Sanhedrin, much like an attorney provides statements, reads from previous legal rulings, or uses witnesses.   This story is essentially Paul’s opening argument providing a real world example to the assembly reading his letter.

The timing of this story isn’t clear, and probably inconsequential.  However, in an effort to provide as complete of a picture as possible into the surrounding events, it doesn’t hurt to make an attempt to place the timing of the events.  In a previous lesson I connected Galatians 2:2 and Acts 11:27-30. The timing of Paul’s confrontation with Peter, most likely correlates to Paul and Barnabas being in Antioch at the end of Acts 12 and beginning of Acts 13, but most certainly before the Jerusalem council event of Acts 15.  There is mention at the end of Acts 14 and beginning of Acts 15 that some men came from Judea teaching that circumcision was required, at which time Paul went to Jerusalem to discuss the controversy with the Jerusalem council, however, there is no mention of Peter being present, unlike in Acts 12-13. 

Paul wrote in Galatians 2:12 that some men were sent from James and at the end of the same verse pointed that Peter feared the circumcision party.  Assuming that my timeline is accurate, this would have to be James, brother of Jesus because the brother of John was killed at the beginning of Acts 12.  This assumption provides further evidence that this event and the writing of the letter to the Galatians occurred before the Jerusalem council in Acts 15.  James, brother of Jesus, announced the decision that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised.  Obviously, after being presented with testimony from Peter, Paul, and Barnabas, including scriptural references, James reverses his formal position regarding circumcision.  Had the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 been the event that Paul was referring to in Galatians chapter 2:2, then why would James have sent people from the circumcision party to investigate Peter’s behavior in Antioch?

Different translations place the quotation marks in different places.  Some claim that only verse 11 is a quote from Paul to Peter.  Other versions use quotations around verse 11 through 16, and yet others place the quotes all the way through verse 21.  I find that by reading the entire passage, Paul is referring to his conversation with Peter until the end of verse 21, when he clearly begins addressing the Galatians again in Chapter 3.  In v2:15, 16, and 17, Paul continues to use the pronouns we and our when making a point about being a Jew.  Paul must be speaking to Peter, a fellow Jew.  Otherwise, if he was addressing the Galatians, he would not be speaking to them as though they were Jews also.  The Greek text did not have quotations, so it is up to the translator (or reader) to determine the best option. 

·         v2:11-13 - Paul is pointing out the behavior of Peter, leading Barnabas and other Jews to act hypocritically. 

o   “eating with the Gentiles” v12 is not written as a sin in the scripture, however, according to Jewish law (traditions), it was not allowed.  The possibility that the food being eaten could be unclean, or that the person preparing the food could be unclean was too high of a risk for them, so they adopted the custom of forbidding Jews eating or even associating with Gentiles.

§  Paul points out in v14 that this is not part of the truth of the gospel (not written in scripture).

§  Acts 10:28 “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation”

o   This law was out of cultural necessity for the Jews.  In Leviticus 11 God provided a very specific set of guidelines to establish what was acceptable to eat and what was not (clean or unclean).  He even provided instructions just in case someone came in contact with unclean food, how to become clean again.  Jews took this very seriously and went to full lengths, as much as possible to follow these guidelines. 

o   A typical Gentile would have no understanding of the instructions in the Torah for clean or unclean food.  They did not read and study the Torah or the oral traditions (Talmud) as the Jews did, daily.  The probability was high that by Torah standards, a Gentile was unclean, therefore the food and the way the food was prepared was also unclean. 

·         v14 – Paul almost seems to use a circular reference.  Here are a few different translations of the same verse.

o    “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (ESV)

o   “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?” (NIV)

o   “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?” (NKJV)

o   “Since you, a Jew by birth, have discarded the Jewish laws and are living like a Gentile, why are you now trying to make these Gentiles follow the Jewish traditions?” (NLT)

o   The base word “Jew” is used 3 times to explain 2 different meanings. (http://biblehub.com/text/galatians/2-14.htm)

§  The first use of the word Jew (Ioudaios) is clear and precise.  Paul is using the word in such a way to describe Peter’s nationality. 

§  The second instance of the word Jew or Jewish (Ioudaikos) is a form of the word to describe the culture or style that one lives.  Notice in the NKJV the translation reads “in the manner” and in the NLT the translators wrote “have discarded the Jewish laws” in an attempt to capture the point.  We see by the context of the passage, he is referring in the previous verse to eating and associating with Gentiles, which is not a scriptural commandment, but a Jewish tradition.

§  The third instance of the base word Jew or Jewish (Ioudaizein), like the second instance, is a way to explain the customs or manner in which Jews live.  This word from the Greek is also commonly used as the word Judaize.  Judaize is a verb meaning the act of converting to Judaism.

o   The Jewish custom that Paul is referring to is the custom of not eating or associating with Gentiles, which was actually a Jewish law, but not a law or instruction written in scripture.  Peter also refers to this law in Acts 10:28 when visiting Cornelius, a Gentile.

o   Peter was teaching at the synagogue in Antioch, which had an assembly comprised of Jews, proselytes (Jewish converts), and Gentile believers (non-converts aka Godfearers). This assembly was obviously worshiping together, eating together and probably even friends with each other.  It sounds like some members of the circumcision party, sent by James, brother of Jesus, were visiting.  When these men visited, Peter must have been intimidated and possibly was worried about retribution because he was not following the Jewish law of segregation. 

o   In Romans 3:29, Paul emphasizes that there is one God for all.  He also wrote about this in Ephesians 2:14-16, “For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,  and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.” referring to bringing Jews and Gentiles together to worship.”

o   Taking these differences from the original Greek word into consideration, I think blending the above English translations could give us a better picture of what Paul was trying to say.  If you are Jewish by birth, but have set aside traditional Jewish customs while living amongst and ministering to the Gentiles, how can you expect the Gentiles to start practicing Jewish traditions?

·         v15-16 – All people are justified by the same standard

o   Paul uses the identical argument in Romans 3:21-31

o   Jew or Gentile – Both or Neither?

§  Paul used very specific language to Peter, “Jewish by birth”

§  By v16, Paul, very intentionally, said “a person is not justified” which seems minor, but is very significant that Paul is essentially lumping Jews in with the Gentile sinners

§  Paul is reminding Peter that neither Jew nor Gentile, are justified by works of the law

§  He also says the converse that both are justified through faith in Christ

o   Consider the word justified (some versions say counted righteous) as, “not held legally responsible.” 

§  Being given a warning ticket for speeding does not mean you are not guilty.  It just means not having to pay the consequence for breaking the law. 

§  Being justified does not mean one is not guilty of sin, it only means that we will be forgiven and not be given eternal consequence during judgment.

o   Both passages (Romans and Galatians) are making the point that God is the same God for Jews and Gentiles and that He saves both by faith. 

·         v17 – This verse seems very similar to the argument he uses in Romans 6:15 and 3:31

o   It seems that Paul is asking a rhetorical question.  I believe he is making a point to Peter here by asking, if we admit we are saved though faith, but we still make mistakes and sin, does that mean Christ promotes sin, so we should go back to the old works of the law?

o   It seems Paul’s point to Peter is that they don’t go backwards, looking for justification or righteousness through the old method of works.

·         v18 – “rebuild what I tore down” Paul is talking about his and Peter’s efforts over almost 20 years to break down the mentality that salvation is only for the Jews. 

o   If he, Peter, or any other leader, begin acting in such a way as to differentiate between Jewish believers and Gentile believers, he is only rebuilding the symbolic wall between the two.  

o   Ephesians 2:14-15 references the same “wall of hostility” – (which in some synagogues had become a physical wall of separation.)

o   Paul is pointing out the obvious to Peter.  Peter was the first to have a vision from God that Gentiles can be saved, and to not call Gentiles common or unclean.  Why would Peter, after defending his actions with Cornelious, go back to segregation?

o   Paul is probably not only speaking about the segregation law, but the entire concept that seeking righteousness through the law. 

·         v19-20 – “through the law I died to the law so that I might live to God” – Say what?

o   The very act of trying to find righteousness in the law proves that one is not righteous.  “Through the law I died to the law.”

o   He had to let go of his human desire (put to death – crucify).  Symbolically he is saying, Christ took those human desires with him during his crucifixion.

·         v21 summarizes his whole point - If righteousness is earned through the law, then the Messiah died for no reason.   

Remember that this is Paul speaking to Peter.  He is retelling the story of his encounter with Peter as a way to build up to his own point and argument with the Galatians, and specifically the part of the assembly that is contradicting his teaching and confusing the message.  Paul is going to follow through, beginning in Chapter 3, by further teaching his point directly to the assembly in Galatia.

This passage is commonly referred to as “The Antioch Incident.”  In researching and reading commentary, I found it to be the topic of many arguments.  Many disagree on Paul’s point.  Some believe that Paul is claiming he told Peter to abandon Judaism.  Some believe that Paul is showing off, in a sense, and putting Peter in his place by rebuking him publically.  Many believe that this is the first stance Paul took to prove his point that as Christ followers, Jews must abandon the whole idea of Judaism, including following the Torah, and all that is needed is faith.  I don’t think it’s any of these. 

First, aside from the meaning of Paul’s confrontation with Peter, remember that for Jews, even today, it is common, and even encouraged, arguing about scripture.  This is normal, and considered every day practice.  This is how Jews gain knowledge and wisdom.  I have heard, it is not uncommon to see two Jewish men, even today, in a synagogue having a heated argument over how to interpret a passage of scripture.  Those two men can argue, even come to no agreement, and leave the synagogue and have a meal together as friends.  Consider the Sadducees and Pharisees.  They had heated arguments, but still worked together.  One is even recorded in Acts 23. 

As I have shown, Paul shows many examples throughout his letters that he still claims his Jewish heritage.  Towards the end of his life, approximately 30 years after becoming a believer, he still claims “I am a Pharisee.”  He doesn’t say he was.  He writes a handful of times not to abandon the law.  The confusion is that Paul uses the word law in two different ways.  On the one hand, he is referring to the laws of Moses.  On the other, he is referring to the traditions of the elders, which were enforces as much as or more than God’s laws.  Most commentary I have read interprets Paul’s use of the word law with one meaning, referring to the laws of Moses.  In the next lesson I’m going to expand on this idea and hopefully lay to rest this confusion.  Without having a clear understanding of what Paul is really saying, all of his writings are taking out of context and have a completely different meaning.

Personal thoughts

After the first few posts, I look back and realize I have only really posted my outline notes, and not so much my thoughts, which is probably what some would prefer to read.  Of course, I assume that "some" are interested in even reading these thoughts in the first place.  If you're here, you're either bored, or interested.  Either way I'll share my thoughts, and if you find them interesting, leave a note and let me know what you get out of this.

The journey into Galatians was not one that I was planning.  You'll notice that the overall title of my blog is "Wrestling with Scripture."  I chose this title with the purpose of conveying that I am indeed, wrestling with the scriptures.  Over the last few months, I have come to realize that we should, in some way, feel obligated to wrestle with scripture.  Obligated in the sense that out of a desire to know God, we must, in some way, work at getting to know Him.  That sounds like a circular reference, which it is intended to be.  Getting to know God should feel like work.  But it should feel like the type of work that you look forward to.  I have a friend that says since he started farming several years ago, he has felt like he is on vacation because he loves farming that much.  I am sure at the end of 100 hour work week during harvest, he feels exhausted.  Yet, that exhaustion is in some way something he probably looks forward to every year.  Those of you that enjoy raising a garden, know the work that I mean.  Days of sweat, bugs, weeds, rodents, heat, and wondering how things will turn out are all worth it when you stare at the harvest sitting on your shelves or in your freezer.  We need to be at a point that we work to get to know God.  It will take time, confusion, frustration, u-turns, forks in the road, rabbit trails that lead to more rabbit trails.  There will always come a time that you find the answer you need.  It may not be the answer you were looking for, but it's always the one you need.  You will feel rewarded.

My journey with Galatians started in the middle of the night.  Actually several nights.  I would wake up at 2 or 3am, feeling wide awake, with the idea I needed to study Galatians and teach it for the bible study that I am involved.  For 3 nights, I laid there for hours, usually not sleeping at all, sometimes fighting and sleeping a few minutes at a time.  Every night asking God, "Why Galatians?  Why me?  That letter has too much complexity, and I don't have that knowledge yet.  What if others, much wiser than me, ask questions and I don't know the answer?  Or worse, I give an answer and it's wrong!  Why not another study guide with a DVD that I can just facilitate?  How about a study guide on Galatians?" By the 4th night, I gave in.  I got out of bed, and started reading.  I read through Galatians twice that night.  I spent an hour reading and praying.  I told God I would do it, but was going to need His help.  No study guide.  Just me, Him, and scripture.  Sleep came easily.  It wasn't until after this happened that I realized I wasn't tired that whole week, despite getting no more than 3-4 hours of sleep each night.  

So here I am, heading into week 3 of Paul's letter.  I already have the lesson prepared and posted, and am working on the next segment where we read Paul's brief statement of confronting Peter.  So far, it's been an incredible journey.  I have found things in scripture that I didn't know were there.  I have found concepts that make the letter come alive.  I have even found some items in scripture that don't seem to add up to popular teaching (see my Lesson 3 - Galatians 2:2 about Paul going to Jerusalem because of a revelation).  I won't repeat what is already in the outline.

Here's my whole angle... I want to do justice to Paul's writing.  Some of the last words that Peter left us, which became scripture, is that Paul's letters contain "some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist" (2 Peter 3:16).  The last thing I wanted to do was twist any scripture, intentionally or unintentionally.  

I have decided to not use a specific commentary or study guide.  I wanted to.  God really worked on me to tell me not to.  My approach has been to pray, read Galatians, write my thoughts out, pray more, look for other scripture, and after having what I feel is a solid understanding of what Paul's intent was, then I will search the web for commentary to validate what I've already written.  I do not use any commentary that does not have multiple scripture references to back up their theology logic.  I seem to be drawn to commentary that is approaches from a perspective that incorporates cultural history in their dialogue.  I haven't dug a lot into history at this point, but I anticipate I'm going to have to start reading more.  I hear Josephus is a good resource.  Anyone else?

I decided to approach Paul's letter by getting to know who Paul was.  Paul was a brilliant man.  He was educated, articulate, intelligent, and zealous for God.  He definitely got on the wrong path at one point, but thankfully God corrected that, and used his zeal for good.  

I have found that contrary to what some would believe, Paul did not abandon the Torah (poorly translated into the word law).  Paul did not create a new religion.  I keep finding evidence in scripture that proves just the opposite.  Paul simply opened the existing religion of following the God of Abraham to a world that had no idea who He was.  Paul extended the words of God to the nations.  Never with the intention of segregating into a new religion.  He didn't open new churches and abandon synagogues.  He tried to keep all believers in the Messiah together as one assembly.  He wanted the metaphorical and physical wall between Jew and Gentile torn down (Ephesians 2:14).  

Paul seemed to address three different types of people in his different letters.  Brothers (fellow Jews), Sons of Abraham (proselytes), and Godfears (non-converted Gentiles who believe in the God of Abraham).  Notice the URL of my blog.  I believe that Paul wanted us Gentiles to be able to worship right next to the Jews, in the same assembly, to the same God, praising and believing in the same Messiah.  I believe that was his ENTIRE point.  Not that we are one in the same.  We are two different sets of people.  God separated His chosen, the Israelites, for a purpose, made a covenant with them, and I am fully confident He will make good on His promise to His people.  I pray that I will be one of the many in the Nations allowed to tag along.

Paul, or any apostle, never intended to abandon God's word, the Torah.  Paul, absolutely preached against following the law (which I believe he meant Torah + Traditions) as a means for salvation.  But I do not believe for a second that he intended for God's law to be abandoned or done away with.  I am still weeding through that concept and trying to understand which part of Torah applies to all of us, and which applies only to Jews as part of a covenant.  That's a whole different study that I am taking slowly.  For now, I do the best I can to understand.  

As I read through Acts, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, etc, I see more complete pictures.  I can see how there is one reference after another of the apostles did not abandon their Jewish roots.  They stayed in synagogues and taught.  They participated in the feasts.  They kept the Sabbath. 

Paul did make it very clear that the law was not to be used as a standard for salvation.  He was perfectly clear that faith in Jesus as the Messiah was the only way to salvation.  The water seems to have gotten muddy in the last 2,000 or so years as to whether he was giving instruction to abandon the law.  I will be digging into that during this study, God willing.

This has turned into a long post, but those that know me are not surprised in the least.  My future posts will have a lot more of my complete thoughts.  I will probably still include the outline I'm using for the bible study, but I will be sure to add complete thoughts for those that are interested.  

In Him...

Paul submits to authority - Lesson 3

Paul seeks validation of his teaching (v2:1-10)

·         In the last lesson, I pointed out that Paul seems to show great confidence that his vision was from God.  He makes a very specific point in claiming he did not consult with anyone, or seek out the apostles immediately.  Understanding the cultural context of his statements is critical in order to understand the next point Paul is making.  During my life, I have heard claims that Paul essentially “broke rank” and did his own thing.  I would agree that Paul’s eyes were opened, and he was given a specific understanding of existing scripture, which was radically different than what had been the major Jewish doctrine.  However, I would disagree that he “broke rank” and did his own thing.  Hopefully this segment of what I’ve learned does justice to how I believe we should understand Paul. 

·         Paul writes that he went to Jerusalem because of a revelation – v2:2

o   It is commonly misunderstood that Paul is speaking of his own revelation, and testifying at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. 

§  This does not make sense because if Paul was speaking of his own revelation, why would he have waited 17 years to seek validation with the beit din? If it was a new revelation, why was the new revelation not explained further?

§  Luke records Paul’s visits to Jerusalem

·         First Trip: Acts 9:26-30 – 3 years after conversion he visited Peter (Cephas) for 15 days, and met with James.  (Gal 1:18)

·         Second Trip: Acts 11:27-30 – short trip to bring donations to the poor in Jerusalem because of revelation about a famine. (Gal 2:1-2)

·         Third Trip: Acts 15 – Jerusalem Council

·         Fourth Trip: Acts 21 – Proves Torah observance. Ultimately arrested and sent to Rome

o   Paul’s reference to a revelation lines up with Luke’s record in Acts 11:27-30 about the revelation from the prophet Agabus that a famine was coming.  (same prophet that binds Paul with his belt in Acts 21:10 and warns him about traveling to his last trip to Jerusalem.)

o   If Paul would have been referring to the trip taken to Jerusalem to testify in front of the council in Acts 15, it would only be logical that he wouldn’t need to prove his point independently, through a letter.  He would have been able to present the council’s letter as the official halachic ruling, which would eliminate all question of validation or authority.

·         Although confident, Paul knew that he had to get official authority from “those who seemed influential” (v2:2 and v2:6)

o   Paul has a pattern of submitting to authority.

§  Acts 9:1-2 – Though zealous to do what he felt was right for God, he sought a letter of permission from the high priest (Sadducee) and did not act on his own.

§  Acts 21:17-26 – Rumors were being passed that Paul had abandoned the Torah and was teaching others to abandon.  In order to dispel the rumor, instead of arguing, he proved the rumors false by submitting to James’ directive to perform a ceremonial cleansing in the Temple.

o   There was and still is great significance to getting confirmation of a vision, and also getting approval for what you are teaching.  It was imperative that permission, or a stamp of approval, be given by someone in authority and that it does not conflict with scripture.    Deuteronomy 12:32 – 13:5

o   Was Paul really concerned he could be found “running in vain” v2:2?

§  He knew that the leadership had authority to make legal decisions regarding teaching.  Even though he was fully confident in his vision and his understanding of scripture, he knew that if leadership disagreed, he would be fighting a significant uphill battle, and perhaps would have to re-evaluate his teaching and vision.  I don’t believe he was truly concerned because of his confidence that his revelation was from God.  I believe he is making a point to those listening to his letter that he was willing to submit to authority.

§  Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18 – Jesus issues authority to bind and loose.

·         Jesus was most likely referencing Deuteronomy 16:18-20 regarding the appointment of judges and officers

·         Binding and loosing is a term used regularly to explain authority to interpret scripture in order to forbid or permit certain activities or teaching.

o   Forbidding (binding)

o   Permitting (loosing)

·         Binding and loosing is not the authority to change, add, or remove scripture, but only the authority to interpret scripture.

·         Binding and loosing decisions made by a beit din are referred to as halacha or halachic rulings

o   Beit din (pronounced bait dean) is a council of 3 community elders, Rabbis, or judges, depending on the type of ruling or decision.

o   Halacha (pronounced hall-uh-hah) or halachic rulings (pronounced hall-ah-kick) are similar to legal precedent.  These rulings would be recorded and referred to in future issues of similar nature.

o   Halacha is still the word used for legal rulings in Jewish law.

·         Talmud is the official book holding all of the ancient halachic rulings. 

o   These were orally passed down from one generation to the next, and is what the scripture is usually referring to when speaking of “under the law” or “traditions.”

o   All oral traditions and halachic rulings were written down around 200CE after the destruction of the 2^nd temple threatened the idea that these would not be passed down orally any longer.

o   Talmud is 38 volumes, 6200 pages and is still studied today by Jews, and even used as a beginning foundation Jewish law.

§  v2:9 identifies James, Peter, and John as the beit din, which would make sense considering Jesus seemed to also separate them as leaders in Matthew 17:1, Mark 5:37, & Mark 14:33. 

·         Some speculation whether this is the same James, brother of John or brother of Jesus but the possibility is high since James, brother of John mentioned in these verses, wasn’t killed until after Acts 11.

·         Assuming the timeline I have identified is correct that Paul’s second journey is the trip the trip identified in Acts 11:27-30, then this is before James, brother of Jesus leads the Jerusalem council in Acts 15.

§  At this point he had been teaching his gospel for over 14 years, all over the Diaspora (term used to refer to all of the territories outside of Israel).  He would enter a synagogue, proclaim his gospel and the prophetic evidence in the scrolls (Tanakh), then teach other leaders and leave for the next part of his journey.

§  Because of the controversial content, Paul’s teaching was causing confusion and division in synagogues.  He knew that if his vision and teaching was validated by respected leaders (beit din) those teaching his message in synagogues would have more confidence. 

·         Titus was used as a witness - v2:3

o   Paul brought Titus, a Godfearer (uncircumcised Messiah believing Gentile) with him to this private meeting so he could later serve as a witness to the Diaspora synagogues.

o   Most likely, Titus would have been interviewed by the beit din to determine that Paul had been teaching accurately.  Titus would have been a living witness to the beit din proving Paul was teaching a complete and accurate doctrine.

·         Who are the false brothers and why were they spying? – v2:4

o   The word spying used here could be replaced with investigating.

o   No scriptural evidence is given to who these people are.  Using some logic, I would speculate that these were non-Messiah believing Jews that had been attending synagogue pretending to believe in the Messiah in order to observe what was being taught.  Then taking this information back to Jerusalem as an attempt to dispute that Paul was teaching.  Pretending to believe in Messiah could have been what Paul meant by “false brothers.”

o   Perhaps they did believe in Messiah, but were just in disagreement of the teaching that Gentiles did not require circumcision.  Pretending to agree with all of the teaching, and being friendly, could have been what Paul meant by “false brothers.”

o   Maybe from the “circumcision party” referred to in Acts 11:2

·         Is Paul being disrespectful when referencing the beit din?

o   He uses the terms “those who seem influential” or “seem to be pillars” 4 times in a short period, v2:2, twice in 2:6, 2:9. 

o   v2:6 – “(what they were makes no difference to me: God shows no partiality)”

o   Some speculation is that Paul is showing his status as an educated Pharisee, and in a way dismissing the lesser educated, or non-educated, apostles in a leadership position. 

o   Others speculate that Paul is dismissing the leadership authority of the beit din because he received his mission directly from God, so his only authority, or influence, is God alone.

o   These two ideas seem contradictory to Paul’s later writings,

§  “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.” (Philippians 2:3)

§  “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;” (1 Cor 13:4-5)

§  “For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.” (Romans 12:3)

o   If Paul was being dismissive, then why take the time to travel to Jerusalem at all?  Why not continue to preach, claiming God’s direct influence and mission?  He has already spent plenty of time using scripture to convince thousands that Jesus was the Messiah.

o   In light of Paul’s references to not boast and to not be arrogant in his other letters, combined with the fact that he voluntarily sought a meeting with the beit din, what seems more accurate is to consider the context in which he has used this phrase. 

§  Verse 1:7 references those that are trying “to trouble you and distort the gospel of Christ.”  Could Paul have been phrasing his argument in such a way to make a point to the people making an accusation that Paul’s teaching was inaccurate?

§  Could Paul have been phrasing his argument in such a way to simply point out that he didn’t listen to the distorters or false brothers, but instead took his influence from God and those appointed by God as leaders?

§  Why specify that God shows no partiality (v2:6)? 

§  Perhaps, it is a combination that Paul is annoyed that some are trying to unravel his work, and that the faith of the assembly seems to be so shallow.  A halachic ruling from the beit din seems to pale in comparison to the evidence in scripture that he has been preaching.

§  Perhaps it is Paul’s way of reminding the assembly that everyone is fallible, but to submit to God’s appointed leadership anyway. (Consider that David submitted to King Saul even when he knew King Saul was in the wrong.)

·         Validation is granted – v2:6b-9

o   After presenting his vision, teaching, scriptural evidence, and Titus’ interview, the beit din “added nothing” to Paul’s teaching.  They did not modify his message, and further, gave their official blessing. 

o   The beit din would not have done this without thoroughly reviewing scripture, praying, and more than likely fasting. 

o   More than likely they also considered Peter’s vision and visit to Cornelius (Acts 10-11), especially since he was a member of the beit din. 

·         Remember the poor – v2:10

o   Another reference back to the revelation and reason Paul went to Jerusalem in the first place.  Galatians 2:2 and Acts 11:27-30

o   Also serves as a reminder to the assembly to remember the poor in their giving especially during the famine.

Paul's revelation - Lesson 2

Paul received his teaching through revelation, not man.  (Galatians 1:6-24)

·         v7 – “those who distort” – would most likely have been believers, more than likely either Jewish or proselyte.  Non-believers would not distort the truth, they would deny or refute. 

o   Jews, both those that accepted Jesus as the Messiah and those that did not, believed that salvation was reserved for Jews, either natural born or proselyte.

o   Paul was teaching that conversion was not required.  This was a very radical concept in that day.  Gentiles, of course, loved this message.  Some Jews would hear him and see the proof in his scripture teaching. 

o   After Paul left synagogues, those that didn’t agree, including proselytes that had converted, would try to sway others to back into thinking it was required, thus dismissing Paul’s teaching.

o   At this time, there were very valid reasons to become legally Jewish, mainly to avoid Roman or Greek god worship, by law.  The pull to convert and be circumcised was strong for this reason also.

·         v11-12a – “not man’s gospel” –

o   Refer back to v6-7 to see that Paul is not claiming he is teaching a different gospel or anything contrary to scripture.   

o   He’s pointing out that the typical method of learning the gospel would have been through the apostles or disciples of Jesus. 

o   These eye witnesses to his life, ministry, and resurrection were preaching in synagogues. 

o   Paul is explaining the extraordinary circumstances surrounding him becoming a believer.  Similar to someone today giving testimony about being healed or seeing a vision from God.

·         v12b – Jesus revealed himself to Paul through a vision. Acts 9:1-9

·         Paul was confident in his teaching – Acts 9:22

o   “in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ” – at this point in history there wasn’t a New Testament, so Paul would have been using the Tanakh (what we call the Old Testament) to prove the prophecy that Jesus was the Messiah. 

§  Tanakh (pronounced tuh-knock) is the original Hebrew scripture and is an acronym:

·         T stands for Torah – translation: Teachings or Instructions (not law)

·         N stands for Neviim – translation: Prophets

·         K stands for Ketuvin – translation: Sacred Writings

§  Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Tanakh

o   “increasing in strength” is referring to his confidence and boldness in which he was able to prove Jesus as the Messiah through scripture.

o   Paul was extremely knowledgeable with scripture.  Having studied at Gamaliel’s feet, he would have had most, if not all scripture memorized.  At the very least he would have been intimately familiar with the scripture. 

o   Paul knew the prophet writings, but prior to his revelation, the “light bulb” just hadn’t been turned on that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.  As soon as the light bulb was turned on by God, all of the scripture proof was probably jumping out at him.  This would have continued to just “increase his strength.”

·         Paul was confident his vision was from God

o   Confirmed by Ananias in Damascus. Acts 9:17-19

o   v1:16-17 – “did not immediately consult with anyone” – Implying that he was confident from the beginning that he had been chosen by God to have his eyes opened to Jesus being Messiah and God revealing through scripture this truth.