We're going to be looking at Galatians, a book that indicates that this is another requirement. The church must embrace the true gospel and embrace the law of God if we are to see us successful in being salt and light in our nation. And I'm going to be reading Galatians 1, 6 through 10. Hear God's Word. I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different gospel, which is not another. But there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men or God? Do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. Amen. Father, we thank you for your word, and I pray that you would help us not only to understand it, but from the heart to embrace it, to love it, to spread it. We desire to glorify your name. So fill us with your spirit, anoint us, and guide my preaching, I pray in Jesus' name. Amen. Martin Luther once said, The epistle to the Galatians is my epistle. To it I am, as it were, in wedlock. It is my Catherine. Catherine was his wife. And when you read through his commentary on the book of Galatians, you realize that this book meant a whole world to him. It freed him. from the bondage to legalism. He loved it, he reveled in this book, and because of the huge influence of his bombastic, it really is, everything he wrote was bombastic, but his bombastic commentary on Galatians, the entire Protestant world spoke of it as being the battle cry of the Reformation. It is a book that defends the gospel against all counterfeits. As I just read in verse eight, But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed." And every age has had people who have tried to change, minimize, counterfeit the true gospel of Jesus Christ. Our age is no different. You're seeing some of these problems even entering into the Reformed circle. So let's dive straight into the text beginning at verse 1. And actually the first five verses contain the main themes. It's like an introduction. It contains the main themes and encapsulates what the gospel is about. And I believe that the book divides up into 15 sections that are very watertight, very logically connected to each other. But let's start with verse one. Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through men, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead. So, this is introducing what he's going to be doing at much more depth. He's going to be defending his apostleship, which had come under attack by the Judaizers, And you can always expect that if heretics cannot win the argument with you, the theological argument, they will attack your character. They will attack your person. And that's what they did with Paul. They tried in any way they could to undermine his authority. He wasn't one of the original twelve. But he will show how he met all of the qualifications of a true apostle who represented Jesus Christ as his mouthpiece, as his prophet. He was an apostle not sent by man, but sent by Jesus, the risen Lord. And the implication is, if you reject Paul, like these Judaizers did, you have rejected Jesus, because he is the representative of Jesus. Verse 2, and all the brethren who were with me. Paul's not a loner. He will show in this book that he has the backing of the churches, the apostles, and most importantly of Christ himself. He's not in any way inferior to the other apostles, and he has been recognized in his apostleship by the rest of the church. Verse 2 continues, to the churches of Galatia. Now, there is debate, even among evangelicals, on what he's referring to by Galatia. The Northern Galatia theory says that he's referring to the racial distribution of the Galatians, the Gauls up in the northern part. Well, it was a number of years before Paul planted churches up there, which means that they would date the book of Galatians much later. And then there is the South Galatia theory, which is what I hold to, that says he's just referring to the province of Galatia, and if that is the case, then he's referring to the churches that he planted in Acts chapter 13 and 14. And in my Acts series, I looked at the arguments on both sides of that, and there's good men on both sides, but I tried to show how the Galatia Theory really, it far, far better answers all of the questions that people have. Again, legitimate debate. I've, don't look at it now, but on the back of your outlines, I've given you 13 reasons why you should see this, the South Galatia Theory, as really answering all of the issues perfectly. And so there were numerous churches in the southern part of the province of Galatia that have been planted by Paul's team during this first missionary journey. It's my belief that the book of Galatians was written somewhere in the little tiny time period between Acts 15 verses 2 through 4. So, sometime in there. Please, in fact, why don't you go ahead and turn to Acts, because this is an absolutely essential background to understanding the book of Galatians. Acts 15, and I'm going to read the first five verses. And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. And I want you to notice that statement, very important. Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. This is why Paul wrote the book of Galatians. These men from judea did not understand the gospel now. They were members of the church They were still brethren at least outwardly, but paul indicates they really should be cast out. We'll look at that later They did not understand the gospel They were forcing the newly converted galatians to get circumcised before these people These Judaizers were willing to treat them as saved. No wonder Paul was so angry in the book of Galatians. Jerome, church father, said that this epistle thundered. And it had to thunder because it was dealing with issues of eternal destiny of souls. They were hanging in the balance as the stakes were incredibly high. If you add anything to Christ for our justification, you have created another religion. Please, brothers and sisters, do not treat Roman Catholicism as Christian. It is another religion. It is apostatized from the faith of the first 1,200 years. And there are Protestants, even Reformed people, who treat them as a true church, but they, in doing that, show that they do not fully understand the gospel of Galatians. They do not understand it. Verse two, therefore when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question. Now I find it fascinating that Paul and Barnabas were quote-unquote unable to solve this problem by themselves Was this really, this calling of the Jerusalem Council, a strategic move on Paul's part? I believe it was a strategic move. He could have settled the issue, but Paul chose in one fell swoop to settle this issue that was distributed everywhere. If you look at Paul's epistles, you will see the Judaizers had crept into the churches of Judea and Samaria and Galatia and Corinth, and they were all over the Roman Empire. And so this was a strategic move. By dealing with it at this general council, he could kill several heretical birds with one stone, so to speak. Verse three, so being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles, and they caused great joy to all the brethren. So there was real excitement about the success of missions And it was mixed with the depressing news of heresy that was largely unopposed. And Paul was upset that people were not taking this problem seriously. This tends to happen in even good churches, where Christians don't want conflict, and so they let heresy go unopposed for way, way, way too long. Verse 4. And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all the things that God had done with them. But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up saying, it is necessary to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses. Now, I want you to notice they don't word this quite as strongly as they did in verse two. Earlier, they had said that it was necessary to be circumcised in order to be saved. But the apostles would have all instantly recognized that as heresy, and they would have opposed it. And so they're a little bit more subtle here. Stakes are higher, so they soften the message, and they simply say it is necessary to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses. What could be wrong with the law of Moses? I mean, for generations, new converts had to follow the law of Moses, right? But they were hiding the fact that the Judaizers were making all of this a condition for justification for salvation. And that highlights two very interesting things about heresy. It is deceptive You know, they enter into churches with cross fingers, they're very subtle, they're behind the scenes, they don't always let everybody know. It's deceptive and it keeps resurrecting its head no matter how many times you think that you have successfully dealt with it. You kill it in one place, it pops up in another. Now, I couldn't find out who came up with this statement first, whether it's Patrick Henry or someone else, but I really like the expression, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. That is true in politics, it is true in the church, in religion. This issue of the Gentiles not being forced to become Jews Listen to this, it had been settled already in Acts 10, verses 9-48. It was settled a second time in Acts 11, verses 4-18. And according to Galatians 2, 1-10, it was settled a third time during the visits mentioned in Acts 11, 27-30. where Paul pushed the issue with the case of Titus, a man that he refused to circumcise. Paul was okay with circumcision so long as you did not tie it in with salvation. So it was a test case and the apostles agreed that Titus did not need to be circumcised. So the apostles had settled this issue three times already and yet here it comes up again in Galatians and in Acts chapter 15. Why? Well, there are three reasons. First, demons will ensure that heresy keeps getting resurrected. You can count on it. That's why you have to have eternal vigilance. They never give up. Second, Christians tend to believe the best about fellow Christians. I mean, we do, we want to love people, we want to believe all things, hope all things, right? Third, there were eight things going on that made it harder for the church to recognize and deal with this problem, and these eight things kind of clouded the issue. Let me outline those eight things. The first thing that made it tough is that Jews were immersed in a culture that made it hard to mix with Gentiles. The converted Pharisees actually accused Paul of trying to destroy the Jewish culture. It's almost like they were saying, Paul, you must hate Jews. You must have something wrong with you. You hate Jewish culture. Paul was doing things that were unthinkable to Jews. They were unthinkable socially, aesthetically, morally, and culturally, and they make that false accusation as late as Acts 21, verse 21, and Paul denies it. He always denies it. He says, I value Jewish culture, but he distinguishes between what is cultural and what is morally required. Not everybody clearly did that, and so this first issue kind of clouded people's understanding of what's going on. Second, just as people tend to bring their political philosophies, whether Republican or Democrat, into the church today, and we should not, we should not identify those with Christianity. We need to be Christian in our thinking, not Republican in our thinking, right? These Jewish Christians were doing the same thing back then. There was a conservative Jewish movement back then that was opposing Jews fraternizing with the Gentiles. In fact, the Zealots were very actively, during the period that this controversy was going on between 80, 46, and 52, there was a Jewish political movement that was trying to stop Jews from eating with Gentiles. They would actually lynch fellow Jews if they caught them eating or fraternizing with Gentiles. And when you've got friends who have been lynched, it kind of puts a damper on your wanting to go out to lunch with people, right? I've had black pastor friends who were metaphorically tarred and feathered by their fellow black pastor friends because they went to lunch with me. And they just felt that that is not appropriate to be eating with a white man. It's easy for Christians to feel such social pressures that they begin to have a tendency to want to avoid trouble, especially if they like the Jewish customs anyway, right? And so they were basically saying to the Gentiles, hey, we love you, but if you Gentiles care for our safety, why not play it safe and get circumcised? That way we can all avoid these political dangers. But Paul calls out such cowardice, especially since the gospel is involved. But Acts 15 verse 1 shows that there were at least some who took things one step further than the previous two and insisted you couldn't even be saved unless you were circumcised. Now this is so clearly heresy, and yet it gets hidden in with the other eight issues. People didn't notice it because of the other eight issues. And actually, there was a certain plausibility to what they were saying. Think of it this way. If we bring it into our own day, it's a little bit easier to understand where they're coming from. I believe, and there are many others who believe, this was 100% parallel to the views of some Christians today who think you can't get saved until you are baptized. After all, doesn't Peter say baptism saves us? And we say, yeah, but Peter explicitly says he was not talking about water baptism that cleanses the flesh. He was talking about spirit baptism. So he's not talking about sign. Others are more specific and they say water baptism regenerates you or justifies you. And that can be confusing because the Bible does indeed require water baptism, doesn't it? In fact, you can't be a member of the church unless you are baptized with water. And so people jump to the conclusion that if the sign of the covenant is needed in order to treat you as a church member, you know, a fellow brother, which it is, then the sign of the covenant is necessary for justification, which it is not. We believe that just as circumcision didn't save anyone, baptism doesn't save us. Spirit baptism does, but not water baptism. The baptism is a sign of what saves us, God's grace. And Paul says the same thing about circumcision. In Galatians, he points out that Abraham was justified before he got circumcised, which ipso facto proves that circumcision did not justify him. It's a great argument that he gives. So even in the church today, we wrestle with people on the same issues that Paul did in this epistle, even in Reform circles. Reform people pride themselves on being much tighter on their doctrines, right? But we still got muddied issues with some people on this. There was a third group that went even further. They said that the rest of the ceremonial law was also necessary for justification. They were the most obviously heretical, because not even the Jews could keep the ceremonial law. Nobody could perfectly keep it. And Acts 15.5 points to that group. A fifth issue that came up was that some thought that Gentiles didn't have to keep the ceremonial law, but that Jews like Peter and Paul were in sin for not keeping it. And so they actually had the illusion of completely submitting to the will of God that was made known by the apostles earlier in the book of Acts. Oh yeah, we're not imposing the ceremonial law on the Gentiles at all. But Jews need to. If you're a Jew, you need to live like a Jew. And so they insisted that Paul and Peter were in sin when they ate with Gentiles. And Galatians 1 addresses that argument as well. The sixth group were people who thought that the ceremonial law was indeed binding on the Gentiles, but they say, oh, we disagree with those other groups. It's not binding for salvation. It's just out of love. We do this in obedience to the Lord, and this would be equivalent to what goes on in some of the modern messianic congregations. In Galatians, it was obvious that every aspect of the ceremonial law was being required of the Gentiles, including numerous Jewish day-keeping laws, food laws, cleanliness laws, sacrificial laws, etc. And some of those actually were only intended in the Old Testament to be kept until the Messiah came. So, you know, once Messiah came, those were not supposed to be kept. This is not a mild issue. The book of Hebrews was later written to convince people that the ceremonial laws are no longer binding and to say they are binding is a denial that Jesus was the final sacrifice. So you can see this was really a very complicated issue for some of these Christians to navigate. The seventh issue that is addressed in Galatians is showing the logical implications of requiring circumcision. If it is followed as a mandate, then it initiates you into keeping the whole ceremonial law, which not everybody saw clearly, but Galatians shows that's the logical implication. The last issue that was raised in the debate is whether Jews and Gentiles should continue to be separate. So these guys disagreed with the other groups. They said, no, no, no, we're not imposing anything on the Gentiles. They just thought, okay, Gentiles should worship in that church. Jews should worship in this church. We're not going to mix the cultures. In fact, it would be a sin to mix those cultures. So they were the kinists of that day. Okay? In Galatians, Paul will insist that these Kinnists were absolutely wrong, that Gentiles must be welcomed into the same body and the same fellowship as the Jews. They must be able to eat together, fellowship together, worship together. So if you've got Kinnist friends, Galatians is the book you need to go to, to deal with them. Okay, enough by way of background, and we kind of interrupted our flow in Galatians, but if you turn back to Galatians 1, we're going to finish off this first paragraph which introduces the whole book. And shows, in a nutshell, the good news of freedom. Starts with God, not man. Verse 3. Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. It's based upon the merits of Jesus alone and not our merits. Who gave himself for our sins? It's not an antinomian gospel since it not only saves us without our merit, but it also makes us holy and law-keeping without our merit. And the next phrase in verse 4 shows that in a nutshell, that he might deliver us from this, what, present evil age. Too many commentaries on Galatians think that Paul is opposing and overthrowing the moral law of the Old Testament. Nothing could be further from the truth. Now, law keeping doesn't save us. Whether that's law-keeping of the moral law or the ceremonial law, but salvation definitely saves us from lawlessness, from sin, from evil. And who gets the credit on that deliverance? Well, it's God. It's all of grace. And that grace starts with God's will and eternity past. So the next phrase says, according to the will of our God and Father. And that means God alone gets the glory for our salvation. Verse 5, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. What an amazing introduction. In kernel form, that paragraph includes in it everything he's going to deal with in the rest of the book. It is free grace unearned by us. It is a grace that frees us from sin. It's a grace that's 100% based upon Christ's merits, not ours. It's a grace that redounds to God's glory alone. And in the remainder of the book, he's going to unpack that. And even though it's an incredibly emotional book, it's a very logical book as well. So, verses 1 through 5 introduces us to the good news of freedom. Verses 6 through 12, Paul tells us it's the only good news of freedom. It is the only gospel. Okay, there's an exclusivity that must be maintained. And here's what Francis Schaeffer used to say, you have not defended the truth until you have opposed its opposite. Until you have opposed the error. And that's what Paul is going to do in these next verses. He's going to say all of these counterfeits, because they eviscerate the gospel, are heresy. They are false. They lead to works righteousness that robs us of assurance. And Paul really is astonished that these Galatians would trade in the wonderful news of the true gospel for a different gospel. Verses 6 through 7. I marvel that you're turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different gospel, which is not another, for there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. There are people today who say baptism justifies you. That is another gospel and not the gospel of Jesus Christ. Others say that good works done by the grace of Jesus justifies you. That is another gospel and not the gospel of Jesus Christ. Others say, hey, we are justified progressively and it's not really until heaven that final justification takes place. That is another gospel and not the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul says that we are justified forever at the moment of conversion before we have done any good works whatsoever. And Paul has very strong words for any deviation from this justification by faith alone, through grace alone, based on the merits of Christ alone, and to God's glory alone. Look at verses 8 through 9. But even if we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. There are books purporting to be reformed that add to the gospel of Jesus Christ other requirements. You must view such things with the same emotion that Paul did and want nothing whatsoever to do with it. No matter how eloquent the preacher, no matter how sincere, no matter if he is an angel himself, Paul warns us, if you deviate from the simplicity of the gospel, you have wandered from Christ and will be accursed, which means you're going to burn in hell for all of eternity. That's exactly what he means. These are high stakes. And Paul says that's why he was not in a popularity contest. Verse 10, for do I now persuade men or God? Do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. And so verses 1 through 5 show in a nutshell what the good news of the gospel of freedom is. Verses 6 through 10 shows that there is only one good news of freedom. Everything else is a false gospel. In the next section, Paul kills two birds with one stone. He defends his apostleship and he uses his own testimony of his calling to show what the good news Which is the same translation as? Greek as gospel gospel good news the same thing what the good news is like and this answer is the twofold strategy of the legalist now these legalists had been preying upon the immaturity and the ignorance of the of the Christians they didn't have the doctrinal depth that they should have and And they were trying to convince them, hey, what we're doing is biblical too. Roman Catholics do this. What we're doing is biblical too, but it's not only in the Bible. But hey, Moses gave the tradition, oral traditions right along with the scriptures is basically what they were saying. They're giving this illusion of antiquity. Second, they cast doubt on Paul's apostleship. Now Paul's answer is so simple and yet so devastating. First, like Christ, Paul throws out all man-made traditions and says if you cannot base your gospel on the Bible alone, you have a false gospel automatically. Automatically. So you can see how all five points, all five solas of the Reformation are embedded right in chapter one. Now Roman Catholics say that the gospel is not in the Bible alone. If you want I can give you hundreds of quotes on that regard. They say you need the Bible plus tradition. Paul disagrees. Look at verses 11 through 12. They say, but I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man, for I neither received it from man nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. We'll continue reading in a bit, but he's pointing out that the Judaizers were adding man-made traditions to the gospel. And then Paul points out, hey, They've got nothing on me. I was an expert in these man-made traditions. In verse 13, he said, those traditions made me actually persecute Christians. It's contrary to Christianity. In verse 14, he says, he advanced in Judaism way beyond his contemporaries. In fact, he had studied under Gamaliel. He was one of the top Pharisees in Israel. He called himself a Pharisee of the Pharisees. These Judaizers had nothing on him in that department, and yet he said, when I became converted and saw the true gospel, I rejected all of that stuff as absolute rubbish. Verse 16 says he didn't confer with humans to learn the ropes of Christianity. Verse 17 says he didn't go to Jerusalem to confer with the other apostles. Instead, he retreated to Arabia. Where for three years he was taught directly by Jesus just like the other apostles had been And in verses 18 and following he gives a chronology. He says I didn't even see peter for three years. So after three years he saw Peter for the first time, then James, and then he was sent by Christ to plant churches on his first missionary journey. And in the last two verses of chapter one he says, even though the Judean churches had not seen me, the apostles themselves made sure that the churches of Judea glorified God through what Paul was doing. Why is he saying all of this? Well, to show that he didn't get his gospel from man, but directly from Christ, and to show that the other apostles backed up both his gospel and his apostleship. He is completely undermining the Judaizers' contention that he's out of step with the rest of the church. He proves the exact opposite. He proves that his gospel is the gospel of the whole church. The next section, which is the first 10 verses of chapter 2, shows how the counterfeit gospel that had been robbing the Galatians of their liberty had been discredited by the apostles long ago. Now this incident happened about 14 years after Paul's conversion. And Paul back then wanted to make sure that whatever decision was made was not simply a theoretical one. So he brought along Titus, and Titus was the perfect test case. Why? Because Titus had been a Christian for a long time. Are you going to be denying all these years he was a Christian? And he had been a leader of the church. He was a fellow missionary. Would they make Titus get circumcised? Would they make him start all over as a brand new Christian? Well, obviously some thought it would be good, but Paul held his ground, and the apostles agreed with him. Again, this is a powerful argument that completely undermines the Judaizers. Not even the apostles in Jerusalem agree with these Judaizers. They did not make Titus get circumcised. So, the Judaizers are really being deceptive when they say they represent James. They don't. They are misrepresenting the situation. In the next section, Paul takes it a step further and proves how much freedom the Gentiles have. Not only do they not have to be circumcised, they don't have to keep the food laws. In fact, Paul proves that the Jews don't have to keep the food laws. Now, if Paul can prove this, he has destroyed the Judaizers. And the story Paul uses is a little bit of an embarrassment to Peter. because Peter had succumbed to peer pressure for a time. By the way, any of us can succumb to peer pressure. It is such a dangerous enemy. There are people who will compromise their most dearly held principles because in the moment they feel such pressure from other people. You've got to always ask God to guard your heart from peer pressure. It is a horrible, dangerous enemy. It means fearing man more than fearing God. Anyway, Verses 11 through 12 show that Peter used to eat Gentile food with Gentiles, but when certain men from James came, Peter knew they would be grossed out by what he was doing, so he quickly separated from the Gentiles and started eating only kosher food with the Jews. Paul saw this, he called Peter out publicly, showing how his actions could actually undermine the gospel unintentionally. Since the Judaizers were insisting on ceremonial observance for salvation, Peter could have completely undermined their influence by eating pork with the Gentiles, but he caved in out of fear. After Paul called him out on this, the issue was settled once again. Jewish ceremonial laws could not be imposed on Jew or Gentile and God intended for both to fellowship together in unity in one body. For those of you who have compromised, not on food laws, maybe you've compromised on something else because your friends want you to or you just want to feel like you fit in with a group. You need to ask God to work on your heart, to give you more of the fear of Him than you do of others. Sometimes it can be that you're being shamed on Facebook, and you just feel like, oh man, I don't want this person to say bad things about me. And you cave in, you cave in on principle. Ground yourself in scripture, recognize your weaknesses, and plead with God to keep you strong. Now in verses 16 and following, Paul ties all of this previous information, interestingly, in with justification by faith and not by the works of the law. He says, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. Then he repeats himself. And then a third time he says, by the works of the law, no flesh shall be justified. So why on earth does he bring up this justification by works in connection with food laws? What does that have to do with that? It's not moral laws he's dealing with here. He's dealing with food laws, ceremonial laws. And the reason for it is that the Judaizers, some of them at least, required following the ceremonial laws before they were willing to treat you as a Christian. Now this logically meant that you're justified. That's how you become a Christian, right? Justified by keeping the ceremonial laws. Now, they probably wouldn't have said so so boldly. Maybe some of them would. But Paul indicates logically this is where you have to come out. They're philosophically committed to it. It's works righteousness. And Paul is so consumed with the importance of this truth, he lets Peter have it. Verses 17 and following show that God intentionally made perfect keeping of the ceremonial law impossible. Why? So that the gospel in that ceremonial law would drive them to Jesus. Now not everybody agrees that it's ceremonial law, some people say it's moral. Whether it's ceremonial or moral law, we must die to the law in order to be saved and find our new identity in Christ. In fact, Paul goes on to say that even the life he lived in his sanctification was not by his own works. It was Christ living in him by the power of the Holy Spirit. It's really a God-glorifying view of salvation. Verse 21, I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain. And that was the end of Paul's speech to Peter in front of everyone. What an embarrassing speech. And the room is left silent, probably stunned silence. Nobody could answer his logic. So the question at stake had been settled once again So the whole section really is a powerful Argument on Paul's part it answers the question of how much freedom we have We have total freedom from the ceremonial laws and also from the man-made oral traditions of the Pharisees Salvation is by grace alone. It is received by faith alone. So in chapter 2 Paul has taught us that the gospel frees us from many things. It frees us from those who would enslave us. It frees us from the fear of people. It frees us from ethnic prejudice. It frees us from self-absorption and motivates us to liberate others. It frees us from judgment and hell. And Paul applies that theology in chapter 3 in an interesting way. saying, O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? This only I want to learn from you. Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? Have you suffered so many things in vain? If indeed it was in vain? Paul's definitely getting intense. Very intense. That word bewitched has the idea of a seductive power of falsehood, but it's got this idea of black magic with it. There's a demonic power that was at work in these churches to try to deceive them. A lot of people don't even think of their theology as, is this from God or are demons influencing me? Demons can influence Christians. 1 Timothy 4, Paul called these doctrines doctrines of demons. Now I'm sure that the people who were promoting these doctrines did not think they were doctrines of demons. They probably thought they were honoring the Bible, but they were deceived. And interestingly, Despite that demonic deception, Paul holds them accountable, responsible. Despite the deception or the bewitching, Paul doesn't let them blame the devil, he blames them, and then he uses two more arguments to convince them of the simplicity of the gospel. Now the first argument's easy. He's just using their own experience that they cannot deny. He asked them if they have received the Spirit by a simple request of faith, or did they earn the Spirit? And they know the answer to that. They received the Spirit the moment they were converted, the moment they professed faith. And so Paul argues, if that is true, why do you think you can mature in the Christian walk in your own strength? Here is the point that many Christians fail to realize. Even sanctification is not pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps. It is a total dependence upon God's grace. In verse 5 he says, sanctification comes exactly the same way that miracles come. So therefore he who supplies the spirit to you works miracles among you. Does he do it by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith? He says, you can't earn the miracles that you're performing. You don't earn it. They're performed by reliance upon divine grace. Now, are we active? Of course, we're very active. But no one would say, oh, look at Paul. Paul is so powerful. Look at the miracles that he performs. No, they would say, wow, God is so powerful. Look at the miracles God is performing through his lousy instrument. Paul right his finite instrument Paul. I shouldn't call him lousy. He probably didn't have any lice, but So Where was I William Hendrickson summarizes this whole section saying, the Galatians by yielding to this influence had failed to understand that a Christ supplemented is a Christ supplanted. Now most Christians realize that is true when it comes to justification, but they don't apply it to sanctification and that's exactly where Paul is applying it. A Christ supplemented is a Christ supplanted. How do we supplant Christ in our sanctification? Well, John MacArthur wrote an entire book on this called The Sufficiency of Christ. He points out that Galatianism is alive and well in the modern church when it comes to sanctification. Evangelicals believe in Christ plus something else. So, for example, counseling, which definitely deals with sanctification issues. I don't see how anybody could deny that counseling deals with sanctification issues. They say it is Christ plus secular psychology, right? In other areas, they say it is Christ plus philosophy. In the diaconate, it is Christ plus some principles of socialism. They're always adding in some other things, thinking the Bible is not sufficient. For fundamentalists, it is Christ plus a few rules. Don't drink, don't dance, don't smoke. For some Pentecostals, it is Christ plus mysticism. For some hyper-guilty, super-sensitive Christians, it is Christ plus asceticism. So really, don't think of Galatians as only a book that's correcting false notions about justification. It is relevant to our whole lives. And MacArthur rightly says that Paul's admonition for our whole Christian life is that it must be Christ plus nothing. Of course, the Judaizers claim to be following Christ, right? They claim to be following Abraham. After all, didn't Christ get circumcised? Well, of course he did, you idiot. Didn't Abraham get circumcised? Of course he did. We're following Christ. We're following Abraham. And Paul says, no, you totally misunderstand the story of Abraham. In verses Six through nine, Paul makes clear that they have misunderstood Abraham because, well, let's just go ahead and read it. He's going back now to the beginning of our walk. Just as Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness, therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. The scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand saying, in you all the nations shall be blessed. So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham. Abraham was justified before he had done any works. He was justified by faith alone. And so Paul really gives us a choice. two choices actually, either live by faith in what Christ has done or live under the curse of self-effort. Really, those are the only two choices, faith in Christ plus nothing, or the curse of Christ plus something. And Christ plus anything is a burden, it is a curse. Paul wanted them freed. Verse 10 summarizes the second choice rather well. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse, for it is written, curse it is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. If it is Christ plus law keeping, then you feel hopeless because even as a Christian you cannot perfectly keep the law. It's impossible. The better choice is summarized in the phrase in verse 11, the just shall live by faith. This was Martin Luther's theme verse, the just shall live by faith. Our eyes must be fixed upon Jesus, who is the author and the finisher of our faith. Okay, we fix our eyes on Christ for justification and our sanctification. Our whole life is fixed upon Jesus. Everything comes from Jesus. Jesus said, without me, you can do nothing. I don't think you can wiggle anything into that statement. Paul's saying the same thing here. Now, to the objection, okay, then why did God give the law? Paul answers that the ceremonial law was added long after God's covenant with Abraham, and it did not annul the covenant of promise. People under Moses were justified in exactly the same way that the ceremonial law that they did under Abraham. The ceremonial law was not given for justification. Indeed, the ceremonial law given under Moses was intended to be a tutor teaching the gospel that Jesus would bring. And thus, to continue keeping the ceremonial laws after Jesus had fulfilled them, is to totally miss the gospel that they portray. Failure to see the Christ of the ceremonial law is to miss the gospel of the ceremonial law, and ultimately to substitute a good news that is not good news at all. That's the logic of his argument. Now in chapter 3 verse 23 through chapter 4 verse 7, Paul uses the analogy of a child under a tutor versus a child who has graduated from school to illustrate how silly it is to follow the ceremonial law. He likens the ceremonial law to these guardians, these tutors, who are preparing a way for a son to enter into his inheritance. Well, the ceremonial law had the function of teaching Jews about the coming Messiah and his good news. Now that the Messiah has come, we've graduated from that, we can enter the freedoms of maturity. And the sonship that justification ushers us into is incompatible with the bondage that the Judaizers wanted to impose. Look at verses 6 through 7. Because you are sons, God has sent forth the spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying out, Abba, Father. Therefore, you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." And so, what Paul has been doing is he's been warning them, and then wooing them, and in the next section, Paul pleads with them. There needs to be more pleading and concern and grief when it comes to these issues. In chapter 4, verse 19, he says, My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ is formed in you. He is experiencing so much pain watching them slipping away from the faith. He feels like he is a mother giving birth. He's in pain. He loves them. He considers them his children. He reminds them of the good times they had together and the gospel that they first believed. And when they were sick, Paul and Barnabas were deathly sick, they ministered to them and treated them as if they were angels. He says that everything they formerly stood for is now contradicted by their succumbing to the ceremonial laws. This is the emotional, this is the connectional level of his argument, which many times We leave out. We just use logic. But this is the connectional part of his argument. He expresses his deep love and concern for them. Concluding in verse 20, I would like to be present with you now to change my tone, for I have doubts about you. They were scaring him to death. It's like his own children running away, and he is heartbroken. Paul then goes on to use an illustration from the Old Testament. that is symbolic of the difference between the true gospel and the false gospel. I'll just read it and then explain why this is such a brilliant illustration. Chapter 4, verse 21. Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondwoman, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the free woman through promise. Which things are symbolic? For these are the two covenants, the one from Mount Sinai, which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar. For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to Jerusalem, which now is and is in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, O barren, you who do not bear. Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor. For the desolate has many more children than she who has a husband. Now we, brethren, As Isaac was, are children of promise. But as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless, what does the scripture say? Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. So Isaac and Ishmael were two sons of the same father, Abraham, that illustrate quite well how people in the same church can believe two quite different gospels and yet appear to be so similar. Both Isaac and Ishmael were in covenant of Abraham. It was a covenant of grace. They grew up in the church together. And yet one of them represents a different covenant. How is that possible? Well these two sons represent two covenants, not historical covenants, but two covenants that traverse every age of history and are found in every historical covenant, including the New Covenant era. So don't think of this as being purely a contrast between Abraham and Moses era. He picks Mount Sinai because that was the generation of unbelief, right? It was just approaching the law without Christ. But anyway, don't just see it that way because Ishmael and Isaac are both in the Abrahamic covenant. Neither one is in the covenant of Moses, right? So he's trying to illustrate something else. Just take a look at the chart of the two covenants. And actually, I think I forgot to put the chart into your bulletin. Sorry about that. I'll just read it to you. Ishmael was conceived naturally and represents what our flesh can do, whereas Isaac was conceived supernaturally, miraculously, and represents what God's grace can do. Quite a difference there. Ishmael was a product of Abraham not living by faith. Whereas Isaac was the product of Abraham living by faith in God's promises. I want you to notice that even an Abraham, a hero of the faith, can revert to not living by faith. Any of us can. It's a very easy temptation. So we need to watch out. Okay, back to the chart. Ishmael, thirdly, was the son of Hagar, bondwoman representing bondage, whereas Isaac was the son of Sarah, a free woman representing the freedom brought by being in union with Christ. Fourth, Ishmael represents the flesh, which is the strength we get from Adam. We inherit it from Adam. Whereas Isaac represents promise, which is the strength we receive from Christ. Fifth, Ishmael corresponds to Mount Sinai. What was at Mount Sinai? Not the temple where the law was under the blood, the mercy seat. Sinai, it's just pure law, it's terror. You're approaching it without any blood, without any sacrifices. And who was at Sinai? Almost all of them died in the wilderness in unbelief, right? So anyway, it says, Ishmael corresponds to Mount Sinai, where the law was delivered, but without the blood sacrifices. Whereas Isaac corresponds to the new covenant where Christ bore the penalty for sin and enables us to approach the law under the sprinkled mercy seat. Sixth, Ishmael corresponds to Arabia. Where's Arabia? Not in Israel. Arabia is outside of Israel, right? Outside the faith. Ishmael corresponds to Arabia, which was outside the promised land, whereas Isaac corresponds to heaven, which is in part what the promised land represented. Both covenants have the law, but only one covenant approaches the law through Christ. Seventh, Ishmael corresponds to unbelieving Jerusalem, whereas Isaac corresponds to the heavenly Jerusalem. See, unbelieving Jerusalem, they kept following these laws, but they didn't believe the ceremonial law because it pointed to Christ, right? They rejected Christ. Ishmael, this is number eight, represents the persecuting Jews, whereas Isaac represents the persecuted church. Nine, Ishmael was cast out, which is a subtle reference to what needs to happen to these Judaizers. They need to be cast out of the church, whereas Isaac was the heir and son who would receive the promises of God. So on so many levels, I can't get into it in depth, but on so many levels, it's an amazing illustration of why you ought not to be fooled by people who, like Ishmael, claim to be in covenant with God, but their work's righteousness denies it. There are evangelicals and Reformed people today who are brilliant ishmaels. They teach much truth, but they undermine the true good news by teaching Jesus plus something. Now, based on that illustration, Paul logically concludes in chapter 5, verses 1 through 6, that Christ is the only thing that counts. They might have argued that Christ plus circumcision is such a tiny, small thing, but Paul says, stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed, I, Paul, say to you, That if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ. You who attempt to be justified by law, you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything but faith working through love. And there's a whole mouthful there I don't have time to get into. But that last phrase, faith working through love, begins his treatment now that he said we cannot be justified or sanctified by the law, it's by grace. He now goes on to say, hey, but it's not an antinomian grace, right? And he's going to give you a couple of ways in which that is true. Antinomianism is a philosophy that throws out the law rather than approaching the law through Christ plus nothing. When we are saved by faith, that same faith causes us to cling to Christ in love. And what does love do? It wants to please Christ through his instructions in the law. Not to earn God's favor, but because we already have God's favor. There's a world of difference between those two phrases. We don't keep the law to earn God's favor. We keep the law as those who already have God's favor and are secure in Christ. We keep the law because we love Him. Love Christ. Verses 13 through 14. For you, brethren, have been called to liberty, only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the laws fulfilled in one word, even this, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. So love is not the opposite of the law. Love is the fulfillment of the law. So the moral law of God definitely has a place in the Christian life, but that place is not as a means of being justified. Obedience to the law is, in effect, our PS. Thank you, Lord, for having saved us. It is the evidence of our union with Christ. It's the evidence we've been filled with the Spirit. If you're lawless, by definition, you cannot be filled with the Holy Spirit. Because the Holy Spirit loves his law. He's going to move you to his law, right? So in verses 16 through 26, he outlines all the ways that our flesh violates God's laws. Each of those sins is law-breaking. And says that the spirit moves us against those lawless deeds and replaces them with the fruit of the spirit, but it's all supernatural, right? Law-keeping is thus christ living his life through us by the power of the spirit has nothing to do with getting saved It is the evidence that we are saved. It is the evidence. We are indwelt by the holy spirit So then he says, well, how do you deal with a brother who's been flagrantly breaking God's moral law? Well, the first five verses of chapter six says we humbly approach that brother. We lead him back to Christ. We help him to say, hey, you've been bought with a price. You're not your own. You need to live your life in service to Christ. Everything leads back to Christ in this book, and those who restore this brother, they recognize, hey, I can't be judging this brother. There but for the grace of God go I. I'd be in exactly the same position as he would. We restore with humility, considering ourselves lest we also be tempted. When your eyes are fixed on Jesus, you don't have pride in yourself. You don't trust in yourself. You know anything you have achieved is because of Jesus plus nothing. The next verses, verses 6 through 10, show another way in which grace is not antinomian. It leads us to sow to the Spirit. and not to the flesh. This is a passage I get my eight laws of harvest from. Without exception, you reap what you sow, you reap an increased harvest of what you sow, you reap in a different season than you sow, etc., etc. And interestingly, he even applies it to financial blessings you reap when you are financially investing in a preacher, for example. God says he loves to bless people like that. Even that is grace, not works, since you cannot outgive God. And then finally, in the last section, Paul deals with the boasting and the false glorying of the Judaizers. If you're going to boast about anything, verse 14 tells you what it should be. But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me and I to the world. As Timothy George words it, When confronted with the infinitely amazing grace of God, the very thought of self-glorification or spiritual ego-stroking vanishes away. It must vanish away if Jesus is the author and the finisher of our faith. So you can see, Paul has poured his heart out in this book. And it's exhausting to him. And at the end of it, he's weary from his emotions. And Paul tells these people, look, please don't do this anymore. Don't trouble me anymore with these things. And then he wishes God's grace upon them. So even though this is a small book, it's an incredibly densely packed book, and it carries a punch. It's a book that will help to anchor you in the doctrine of justification by faith alone. and the realization that even our sanctification is by Jesus plus nothing. May we always value the true good news and never allow it to be diluted. Amen. Father, this book that has been so confusing to so many people, is a book that you intended us to embrace, to understand, to live out, to bring antithesis into our lives. And I pray that once again the Church of Jesus Christ would begin to have this antithesis of rejecting heresy and embracing your Word and every part of your Word. Leaving nothing from Genesis to Revelation out, help us, Father, to glory in the cross of Jesus Christ. Help us to glory in this beautiful gospel that you have proclaimed to us, a gospel that liberates us, frees us, gives us power. I pray that you will bless this people with more and more insight into the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ, in whose name we pray. Amen.