Bible Study: Meaning of the Book of Galatians Part I

Okay, well thank you. Once again, I've been asked to cover the meaning of the Book of Galatians in Galatians chapter 3. And I'd like to do that. However, I think it's only fair that I give us a little bit of background before we get into the Book of Galatians. It is one of the two most common books that are used by people who don't believe in the Sabbath and Holy Days as a reason not to keep the Sabbath and Holy Days. Romans is the other book and Galatians is a very prominent book that is used by individuals to say that the Sabbath and or the Holy Days have been done away.

So I think we need to have a little bit of background on the Book of Galatians before we get into chapter 3. We will cover chapter 3 verse by verse this evening. But again, before we do that, let's have a little bit of background. First of all, the Book of Galatians is about the third book that Paul wrote. He wrote it while he was on his second missionary tour about 52 AD before he wrote the book of 1 Corinthians. It was written from Corinth, the book of Galatians. And later, his next book he would write, which is 1 Corinthians, was written from Ephesus.

And that will make a little more sense to you in a few minutes why I made that particular distinction. So the theme of the Book of Galatians is that justification is not by the works of man, but by the grace of God.

Unfortunately, in Galatia, there were false teachers who were coming in who were claiming that one had to keep Mosaic rituals and sacrifices in order to be saved, particularly that individuals had to be circumcised to achieve salvation. Now this particularly rankled Paul. The Book of Galatians, Paul is sarcastic, and he's more angry in the book of Galatians than any other book that he writes.

He can get a little snarky in 1 Corinthians at times, but he is downright angry. He says some unkind things about some other people in the Book of Galatians, including, he says, I wish that those who believed that circumcision is required for salvation would just go and cut the whole thing off.

So, I mean, he is just frustrated. He is angry in this book. This was a topic that had been covered a few years earlier in the Ministerial Conference in 49 A.D., which is recorded in Acts chapter 15. Paul was hoping that the matter had been settled, that it was done, but unfortunately, in virtually every one of his writings, he has to make some comment about circumcision, because it kept coming up over and over again about circumcision being required for salvation. So, the first thing we have to understand is the primary topic of the Book of Galatians is not the Sabbath day.

He does not use the word Sabbath in the entire book. It is not Holy Day. He does not use the word feast or holy day in the entire book. But over and over and over and over again, he talks about circumcision and why circumcision is not required for salvation. Let's just take a look at a few verses here in the Book of Galatians. Galatians chapter 2 and verse 7. I just want to, at this point, and I won't go deeply into any of these verses, I just want to make the point very clear that the main discussion in the Book of Galatians is circumcision, and by extension, people who believe that you have to keep Hebrew rituals in order to achieve salvation.

Galatians chapter 2 and verse 7. He says, But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter, for he worked effectively in Peter, for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me towards the Gentiles. So again, that's chapter 2 and verse 7. He's talking about his visit to Jerusalem.

He's talking about circumcision and those who are circumcised versus those who are not circumcised. Let's take a look at verse 9. And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right-handed fellowship that we should go to the Gentiles as they to the circumcised. Drop down to verse 12. For before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles, but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.

He's talking about Peter, and he said Peter acted like a hypocrite because Peter fellowshiped with the Gentiles. He was just fine for a while, but then very conservative members of the church, the Jerusalem church, because he mentions they came from James. James was a very conservative leader of the early New Testament church. When they showed up, his whole demeanor changed, and suddenly Peter started avoiding the Gentiles as if they were second-class Christians or as if they were unclean.

And he says he accuses Peter and Barnabas of hypocrisy. And again, that's something that we'll talk about in a little bit when we get to that part of the Scriptures. Let's take a quick look at Galatians chapter 5 and verse 6.

In this reoccurring theme, for in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything but faith working through love. So again, what's the topic? The topic is circumcision. Verse 11. What's the theme of his book? And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. Some were spreading the rumor that well, Paul still believes that you need to be circumcised to be saved. That's what some were saying about Paul. And of course, that wasn't true. Galatians chapter 6 verse 16. Let's take a look at this. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them and upon the Israel of God. For now let no one trouble me, for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now that's softened in the New King James. These are his scars that he received preaching the gospel. He says, don't, here's what he means by this.

Don't tell me about some little boo-boo you got when you were circumcised. I have real scars that I bear because of preaching the gospel throughout the world. That's what he means when he makes this comment. The Greek word stigmata is the work for marks or his scars. So it's just, let's not talk about little slice marks made with a knife. Let me show you what real scars look like because I have them is what Paul is saying here. So from the beginning, going all the way back to chapter 2 into chapter 5, ending the book, it's all about one main theme. And that main theme is the context of whether circumcision is required for salvation. Now, why would this have been important to some Jews? Let's put ourselves in their shoes for a minute. Circumcision was the mark of the covenant. The way that you entered the old covenant, the way that you were welcomed into the old covenant was that you were circumcised. That was the mark of entering the covenant. But as Paul would say, well, that's really nice, but we're under the new covenant. We're not under the old covenant.

And what should be circumcised is our heart, our attitude, our mindset. Paul would bristle at the thought that to be under the new covenant, you had to be circumcised. What does that do for the other half of the human race? If you're not a male and you have to be circumcised to be part of the new covenant, where does that put females? Sure enough, Paul has a statement about that in here when he says we are no longer male and female. We're one in Christ. We're no longer free and slave. We are one in Christ. So again, I want to emphasize as we get started, this is not about the Ten Commandments, not about the Holy Days. He doesn't use that phrase, and he certainly knows how to say it. In the book of Colossians, he mentions the Sabbath and Holy Days. So when that is his topic, Paul mentions what his topic is. So he doesn't say Sabbath, Holy Days, Ten Commandments.

Those are not the theme in the book of Galatians. Let's turn to Colossians chapter 2 and verse 16 to 17. Again, I just want to emphasize here that if this had been Paul's topic in Galatians, he knew how to say it. He knew what the Greek words were. He would have said Sabbath and festivals like he does in Colossians chapter 2 and verse 16 and 17.

It isn't the intent of the Bible study tonight to talk about Colossians, but what's basically happening here is that there are some Gnostic people in Colossae who are aesthetic, meaning they think that anything that's pleasurable is bad. Eating good food is bad because that's fleshly.

Drinking fine wine is bad because that's fleshly. Celebrating a festival, that's bad because that's fleshly. You had to rise above the flesh. They said you have to deny things. Don't touch. Don't eat. Don't drink. Don't enjoy life because that's just fleshly is what they were telling the brother in Colossae. What Paul is saying here is, let no one judge you in food or in drink regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths. He says no one has the right to judge you how you celebrate God's Sabbaths or festivals. Only the church of God has the right to do that. That's why he says, which are a shadow of things to come but the substance is of Christ. So don't let any of these people judge you in the keeping, how you keep and how you are celebrating the Sabbath and new moons. One other thing to point out here. I've had people read this to me and say, well, doesn't this say that these things were done away? Well, what does Paul say here? Which are a shadow of the things of the past? No, he doesn't say that. They're a shadow of things to come. They're not obsolete. They're not something that's in the past. The Sabbaths, the new moons, the festivals all picture part of God's plan. They picture the millennium. They picture a time of celebration, a time when the world is at peace. They picture things to come, not obsolete things of bygone days of the past. So again, what I really wanted to point out here, however, is that when Paul wants to discuss about the festivals or Sabbaths, he knows how to use those words. He doesn't use those words in the book of Galatians. Let's begin. Take a look at, go back to Galatians chapter 1 verses 6 through 8. Chapter 1 verses 6 through 8.

I'll take a drink of this fine water.

So here's how he begins the book of Galatians. I marveled, some translations, I'm astonished that you were turning away so soon from him who called you into 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. We're going to talk about what the gospel of Christ means in a minute, and Paul says they are perverting the gospel of Christ. And the whole reason is, is the gospel of Christ is because of our belief. God gives us his grace. We achieve salvation because of God's grace.

The perversion of the gospel is anyone or anytime someone tells you that you need to do something to be saved, that you can possibly earn your own salvation, because that is not true. That is not the true gospel. Continuing here, verse 8, 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 a curse. Have you ever heard the word anathema? That's the Greek word that's translated into English, a curse anathema, meaning let that person, he says also, or an angel be set aside for destruction. Anyone who is preaching a gospel that you somehow can do anything to earn your own salvation by your own words. That is a perversion of the grace of Jesus Christ.

So what is the genuine gospel? And I think this is very important. The genuine gospel is that Jesus Christ shed his blood for our sins, and when we were converted, when we were baptized, when we received his Spirit, we believed in that shed blood, he dwells in us through his Holy Spirit to make us righteous in God's sight. His sacrifice and righteousness are what save us.

Now our obedience and our love of God is a reflection or a byproduct of salvation and the gift of the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. We are saved by his grace. Let me explain this a little more detail. I've been doing this for 49 years now. I've been in the faith. I do not keep the Sabbath to be saved. I keep the Sabbath because I am saved. I do not keep Holy Days to be saved. I keep the Holy Days because, by the grace of Jesus Christ, I have been saved. I want to be obedient to my Father's teachings. I want to willingly obey his commands and his instructions.

I do none of those things to think that somehow I can earn salvation. I do all of those things as a response of a loving child looking to my Father for direction and wanting to please him with my obedience. That is why I do those things. That's why all of us should keep the Sabbaths and the Holy Days and the Ten Commandments. Now here's the different kind of gospel that Paul was talking about. He also called it no gospel at all. What Jesus Christ did, according to a different gospel, isn't enough. There's something that you have to do. You must obey the law. Any law. It doesn't matter what you want to define as law, but you have to do something to earn salvation. Our obedience, our good works, that's what earns us salvation. And that is a different gospel. That's not the gospel that Jesus taught. That's not the gospel that Paul taught when he came into this particular region of the world. And Galatia was a region, not a city, and taught them about Jesus Christ.

So the different gospel implies that somehow we are saved by our works, that there's something that we do that earns us salvation. And this is what is under Paul's saddle, the burr, and his saddle that really irritates him over and over again. Now, let's go to Galatians chapter 3 verses 1 through 2. We don't have the time to go through all of the book of Galatians tonight. We can't do that in an hour and a half or so, but we can cover Galatians 3. And I was told that Galatians 3 had some questions with it, so I think it's very fair that we do that together. So we're going to take a look at Galatians chapter 3 verses 1 and 2.

He says, O foolish Galatians, who 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.

He's talking about when he came and first preached the gospel and founded this congregation.

This only I want to learn from you. I want you to answer this question, Paul says. Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith?

And they could only answer this one way. It was by the hearing of faith. Paul came in, he preached the good news, they accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior, they acknowledged him as the Messiah, they repented of their sins, they were baptized, they received God's Spirit.

That way, because of Paul's instruction, they received the Spirit by the hearing of faith, by accepting the message that Paul gave them, not by achieving anything of their own through obedience or doing something extra or doing something extraordinary.

Beginning in verse 3, are you so foolish, having begun in the Spirit that you are now made perfect by the flesh? And this is one of Paul's little sarcasms in here. Most of the time, when he talks about flesh, he means carnality. But here, he literally means the flesh, the flesh of a male member. Are you made perfect by cutting off a little piece of your flesh? Is the question that he has. Have you suffered so many things in vain, if indeed it was in vain, therefore he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does he do it by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith? And he's referring, of course, here to Jesus Christ who supplies the Spirit.

And they know that it was by the hearing of faith. By hearing the gospel message that Paul gave them, by accepting and believing that Jesus Christ shed his blood for their sins and becoming members of the body of Christ. Not by doing something else beyond that. Not by circumcision, certainly.

So again, Paul is referring to the literal act of circumcision when he says here in verse one, Are you now made perfect by the flesh? This is a little play on words for him. The context, I want to remind all of us, again, is not the Ten Commandments, not Sabbaths, not Holy Days.

The context is circumcision, which was required by the law of Moses to be considered part of the Old Covenant. And Jewish members of the church, conservative people with Jewish backgrounds, were coming into this congregation and others saying, ah, you have to be circumcised in order to receive the New Covenant, to be in the New Covenant, to have this relationship with God.

And Paul does not agree with that. He vehemently does not agree with that. Verse six.

He begins to tell the story of Abraham, how the promises to Abraham were before anything that was ever given to Moses. Obviously, Abraham lived before Moses. So that anything that was promised through Abraham is superior to anything that was given to Moses. Verse six. Just as Abraham believed God, and it was counted, accounted to him for his righteousness. So God said, Abraham, Abraham said, yes, Lord, here I am, Lord. What can I do, Lord? What do you want me to do? He's his belief. As Paul is quoting from the Old Testament, he believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Verse seven. Therefore, know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.

He's going to allude. He's going to get to the point here where he's saying, the true sons of Abraham have nothing to do with your DNA. They have nothing to do with who your mom was or your great-grandfather Levi. To be a descendant of Abraham has to have everything to do with believing in God and believing in God's promises when you do that, no matter whether you're Jew or Gentile, you are a descendant of Abraham. This is what he's going to teach here.

Therefore, know that only those who are of the faith are sons of Abraham, as the scripture foreseen that God would justify the Gentiles by faith. Not through cutting something off, but by their faith. Preach the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, in you all nations shall be blessed. So not just the Hebrews, not just the descendants of Abraham, but because of his faith, all nations, Gentiles from one end of this globe to the other, shall be blessed. Verse 9. So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham. He's justified by faith. He's saying, and those who today have faith are also justified by that faith. Verse 10. For as many as thereof the works of the law are under the curse, for it is written, cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident. Then he quotes from the prophet Habakkuk. The just shall live by faith. So saying the works of the law are very demanding. You have to keep the whole law. You have to keep the whole law perfectly, or you are cursed. The law is important. The law gives us instruction, but the law can never redeem us.

The law, through its obedience, can never provide salvation, can never make us justified in God's sight. Let's go to Deuteronomy chapter 27 verse 26. Obviously, keep your place in Galatians 3, if you would. Deuteronomy chapter 27 verse 26.

I'm going to read this from the New Century version. Certainly follow along with me with whatever translation you have. But it says, anyone will be cursed who does not agree with the words of these teachings and does not obey them, then all the people will say Amen. And they did.

And the purpose of this scripture is to emphasize that when you fall short of the law, that you are under a curse. And Paul, in a few minutes, is going to tell us that thankfully someone took that curse from us, and that someone was Jesus Christ. Okay, back to Galatians chapter 3 and verse 12.

We're going through chapter 3 here, verse by verse. Continuing, yet the law is not of faith, but the man who does them shall live by them.

Now, no act of redemption, no act of salvation. It's not of faith. It's just simply of obedience, which of itself is fine, but it has no ability to save us from our sins. Verse 13, but he gives us a solution. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us, for it is written, curse it. Is everyone who hangs on a tree—and of course we know Jesus Christ was crucified on a tree. Verse 14, that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. So he said, Christ died not just for the sins of the Jews. He also became a curse for the Gentiles so that they could receive the blessings that were promised through Abraham. The promise of the Spirit through faith, not the promise through observing obsolete rituals and other Hebrew ceremonies in order to achieve some level of salvation.

All right, verse 15. Galatians chapter 3 and verse 15. Brethren, I speak in the manner of men, though it is only a man's covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. When you have a covenant, that covenant is sealed, and you don't add to that covenant, it's confirmed. You don't annul it, you don't add to it. It's a done deal, is what he's saying. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. And again, his point here is this happened before Moses wrote a single word. These were specific promises to Abraham that all the nations of the earth would be blessed, all the Gentiles would be blessed through the obedience of Abraham, and they could share in his blessings. And how was this possible? Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He does not say, and to seeds as of many, but as of one, and to your seed who is Christ. So he's saying it's the same Christ who forgives the sins of the Jews, who also became a curse for the Gentiles. The same Christ who offers the blessings given through Abraham to Jews is the same Jesus who offers the blessings made through Abraham to Gentiles. Paul is saying there is no difference. Let's see if I want to read this scripture.

Let's take a look at chapter 3 and verse 17. And this I say, that the law which was 430 years later cannot annul the covenant which was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. So he's saying the rituals that were added at Mount Sinai 430 years later after this event cannot annul the promises that were made to the Gentiles through Abraham regarding that one seed who would be born, which Paul says, of course, was Jesus Christ. Again, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. I'd like to just read you something real quickly here from the treasury of scriptural knowledge regarding these 430 years. Here's what they say, quote, the period from Abraham's entry into Canaan to the Exodus is exactly that number. Thus from Abraham's entrance into the promised land to the birth of Isaac was 25 years. Isaac was 60 at the place or the birth of Jacob. Jacob was 130 after his going into Egypt, where he and his children continued 215 years more, making in the whole 430 years. So this is the time that Paul is talking about here. Verse 18. Let's look at and dig into this a little more deeply. For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise, but God gave it to Abraham by promise. What purpose, then, does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions.

Till the seed should come to whom the promise was made, and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now, a mediator does not mediate for one or one side or one person only, but God is one. You have to have a mediator when you have a party of at least two different individuals or two different sides. So what is his point here? Well, he's speaking about the addition of rituals and sacrifices that Moses added as part of the Old Covenant this many years after this discussion with Abraham. 430 years, to be exact.

I want you to notice verse 19. Put into effect through angels using a mediator.

So some people immediately jump to the wrong conclusion and say, ah! He's talking about the Ten Commandments! Sorry. You see, the Ten Commandments were not given by an angel or through a mediator. The Ten Commandments were given directly by God to the people. Let's read about that in Deuteronomy chapter 4 and verse 11. Deuteronomy chapter 4 and verse 11. Moses is recapping what happened when God came down onto Mount Sinai.

My battery is... I'm going to need to plug my laptop in. Hang on one second.

I need 120 volt power source, please. We don't have a little plug tap to add onto that, huh? Make it easy on ourselves.

Wonderful. Thank you.

Awesome. Thank you. Voila. All right. We were in Deuteronomy chapter 4 and verse 11 before I was so rudely interrupted by technology. Again, Moses is recapping what happened when God gave the Ten Commandments to Israel. Then you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire to the midst of heaven with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness. And the Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of the words but saw no form. You only heard a voice. So he declared to you, not Moses, not an angel, not a mediator. He declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform the Ten Commandments. And he wrote them on two tablets of stone. Well, if this isn't what happened on Mount Sinai, what did a mediator give on Mount Sinai? What many people fail to realize is that Israel didn't leave Mount Sinai until Exodus chapter 33.

So here are some of the things that the mediator Moses instituted to the people on Mount Sinai.

The offerings for the sanctuary in Exodus chapter 25. The furniture in the tabernacle, Exodus chapter 25. The altar of burnt offerings, Exodus chapter 27. Garments for the priesthood, Exodus chapter 28. The daily offerings, Exodus chapter 29. The altar of incense, Exodus chapter 30.

So while they're at Sinai, a lot of additional things are being added to the law of God because of sin, because of Israel's carnality. Lots of things are being added to the the mosaic law in order to appease sin until Jesus Christ comes to earth to remove the curse.

Back to Galatians chapter 3 and verse 21. Is the law then against the promises of God?

Well, certainly not, he says. For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. He's saying if there was any way that law could have given us salvation that Jesus Christ didn't need to die, he would not have needed to come to earth if there was another way to do it. There is no other way to do it. The law points out our sin and our need for a savior. That's the importance of the law. It's a rule book. It's a yardstick that lets us know how we're doing, lets us know if our conduct is conforming to the values of God, particularly the Ten Commandments and what we might call the moral law, which is another whole issue when people want to talk about the law. What do you mean when you say law? Do you mean the law of Moses, the first five books of the Old Testament? Do you mean the Ten Commandments, which is also referred to as the law? Do you mean rituals, which is oftentimes referred to as the law? So one has to define what law they're talking about before they just start making comments about the law. The law is this, or the law is that, here in verse 22. But the Scripture has confined all under sin that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe, not through law, the obedience to any law, certainly not through circumcision, but the faith comes in the belief that Jesus Christ is our personal Savior and that He shed His blood on the cross, on that tree, and became a curse for us so that we could have a relationship with God.

All right, verse 23. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore, the law was our tutor.

The law reminds us of how much we need a Savior. The law pushes us towards understanding the need for repentance, the need for changing our lives, because we fall short of the precepts of the law. We cannot keep the law on our own. So as a tutor, as a teacher, as a coach, it reminds us how far short we fall of God's love and grace and the fact that we need the repent of our sins. So the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor, for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

So we no longer need that tutor reminding us of our need for repentance, because we have repented of our sins. We have received God's Holy Spirit. We have received the righteousness of Jesus Christ inside of us that makes up for our own personal lack. The reason that the Scriptures can refer to God's children as holy is because the righteousness of Christ dwells in His people through the gift of the Holy Spirit. Verse 24, therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ. It pointed out our shortcomings. It pointed out how far we fall short of the glory and the mercy of God. It brought us to Christ so that we realized we needed a Savior to bring us to Christ, so we might be justified by faith. But after the faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. So again, it reminded us we're sinners, or we're the only of death, because the penalty for sin is death. And the law, what does the law do? It brings us shame and guilt and condemnation, but it cannot ever offer salvation. It can't offer hope. But when the Holy Spirit dwells in us, we're justified by faith, and it becomes our spiritual guide and mentor rather than the tutelage that was under the law before we were given God's Spirit. So again, Paul is saying that rituals and sacrifices were like a guard or a tutor to remind us that we were sinners, incomplete, alienated from God, needing a Savior, directing us towards our need for repentance. And since Christ came and dwells in us through His Spirit, we're no longer under the need for rituals to remind us of our need for God. We are now literally considered His children. Verse 27, Galatians chapter 3 and verse 27, for as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. He's saying, here's how you become part of the new covenant. It's not having a piece of flesh cut off from, you know what, it's those who are baptized have put on Christ, not those who have been circumcised have put on Christ.

And he goes into this verse, there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. There are no inferiors.

Because you were born a female and can't be circumcised does not make you a second-class citizen in Christianity. It did with other religious faiths, but it does not under the new covenant. And this is one reason Paul would get so angry about this topic coming up over and over again. And if you were Christ, he continues, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. And it doesn't matter whether you were Jew or Gentile. He's speaking about spiritual equality in this verse. And yes, granted physically, we're still of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. Some of us are poor, some of us are wealthy, some of us are male, some are female, but he's talking about spiritual equality in the eyes of God, that there are no second-class believers in the new covenant. Again, a major problem with claiming that circumcision is required for salvation is because it eliminates half of the human race.

So let's spend a few more minutes and I'll open it up to some questions. I'd like to go to the book of Acts and review the chronological time when this book was written in Acts 18 and verse 11. Acts 18 verse 11. This is the time when the book of Galatians was written. Remember, I mentioned earlier that it was written from Corinth. Acts 18 verse 11. Speaking of Paul, it says, and he continued there in the context in Corinth. If you read back a little bit, you'll see where he's at. A year and six months teaching the Word of God among them. So chronologically, the letter to the Galatians was written about 52 AD from the city of Corinth during the time when he's there a year and six months. He finds out where it gets to him, there are problems going on in Galatia, and he writes the letter to the Galatians. Let's take a look now at Acts chapter 18 and verse 20. Acts chapter 18 and verse 20. I just want to read to you something here from Galatians, if I can find it, because I want to ask you a question. The question I want to ask you is, do you think Paul was a hypocrite? That's a very sensitive issue to Paul. Again, I want to read. Let's see if I can find this here. Here's what he says. I'm going to pick it up here in chapter 2 of Galatia, verse 11. Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face because he was to be blamed. What's he to be blamed for? We'll find out. For before certain men came from James, he would eat with Gentiles. He treated them as equals. Everything's great.

But when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. So peer pressure, because people came in who were circumcised, he began treating the Gentiles differently than he had before these individuals arrived. And the rest of the Jews, Paul said, also played the hypocrite with him so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. So Paul's very sensitive about the issue of being a hypocrite, saying one thing and then doing another, pretending, being a phony, a fraud. Paul is very, very sensitive on this issue. So with that background, we just read in Acts 18 the time context of when he wrote the letter to the Galatians, Acts 18 and verse 11. Now let's take a look at Acts 18 and verse 20, obviously after verse 11. Even though I'm a product of the Cleveland school system, I know that 20 comes after 11. Acts chapter 18 verse 20, and when they asked him to stay a longer time with them, he did not consent. What? Isn't he a preacher? Isn't his job to evangelize and preach the gospel everywhere? What in the world is so important that he would stop his missionary journey on a dime?

When they asked him to stay a longer time with them, he did not consent, but took leave of them, saying, I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem, but I will return again to you, God willing. And he sailed from emphasis. He's referring to the Feast of Tabernacles in the fall of 52 AD. So what kind of a hypocrite would tell the Galatians that the holy days are done away, and then later that year, stop dead in a ministerial journey, say, bye, because he feels a compelling need to keep the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem that year? So again, I want to ask the question, do you think Paul is a hypocrite? Or do people try to make the book of Galatians say something that it doesn't say, like the Sabbaths are done away, or the holy days are done away, or the Ten Commandments are done away? I just read Galatians chapter 2 in this situation with Peter.

I want to bring up another example, and that is what he tells the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians was written in 55 AD. This was a few years after he wrote the book of Galatians, which was in 52 AD. I've mentioned that a couple of times now. When he wrote the book to the Corinthians, 1 Corinthians, it was six years after the ministerial conference of 49 AD, in which they discussed the law of Moses and circumcision in Acts 15. It also happened to be 24 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus when he wrote 1 Corinthians. 24 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus, everything that's ever going to be nailed to something has been nailed to crosses or any other structure long ago by the time he writes 1 Corinthians. Let's go begin in 1 Corinthians chapter 12 and verse 2. I think we need to see something important about the new covenant, because again Paul wrote 1 Corinthians from Ephesus at 55 AD. So let's see what he states. This is a few years after writing the book of Galatians. 1 Corinthians chapter 12 and verse 2. This is important to understand who his audience is, just so there's no wiggle room for people.

We need to understand whose audience is. It should be obvious, of course, that Corinth is a Greek city, that this is a Gentile congregation, that there may be a handful of Jews in the Corinthians congregation, maybe merchants or people who happen to live in Corinth who were called, but it's primarily a Gentile congregation. How do we know? We know by this verse. You know that you were Gentiles carried away to these dumb idols, however you were led. So who does Paul say the audience is? He says the audience are Gentiles. Is that pretty clear?

Not too confusing, right? All right, let's see what he tells them in chapter 5 beginning in verse 6.

years after the ministerial conference in Acts 15, years after he has written the book of Galatians, decades after Jesus Christ was crucified and was resurrected from the dead. Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?

Therefore purge out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened.

Beautiful analogy about the days of unleavened bread. Let me ask this question. How would Gentiles even get the connection about unleavening unless they were taught?

Verse 7, therefore purge out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us. Verse 8, therefore let us keep the feast. What feast is he talking about? The days of unleavened bread. Now again, I want to ask that question. Is Paul a hypocrite? Would he tell the Galatians the holy days and Sabbath and everything is done away? And then a few years later tell Gentiles and Corinth, let us, that's you and me, keep the feast? Not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. Well, brethren, I don't think Paul is a hypocrite. I think most people try to read from Galatians what it doesn't say. It doesn't mention the Sabbath. It doesn't mention holy days. And people want to have an excuse not to observe God's obvious commands in Leviticus 23. Paul's obvious example here in 1 Corinthians chapter 5, 2 Gentiles. And so they look for loopholes and reasons to not have to do the things that are clearly taught by the Apostle Paul decades after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to a Gentile congregation, just like Galatia was. Okay, that's my formal Bible study tonight. Does anyone have any, we've looks like we've gone about an hour, does anyone have any particular questions about the Book of Galatians that maybe I can answer?

Don't let him get away without any questions.

Thank you. I think that was nice and clear.

Thank you.

By the way, that was fantastic. Thank you. Hopefully that's a recording that we can, there were so many good points coming that I've never heard of and put together before as many times as I've read those verses and that was, it was wonderful. Galatians 3, 14.

Okay. So as we were, early in the conversation, one of the questions that we've been asked many times is, people will say that these laws are for the Jews and not for the Gentiles. So the connector there then that Christ brought, and maybe realization, I'm just trying to make sure my thinking is correct, it's not really a question, it's just more of a validation.

Sure. So the Jews were given the law, but they are also given God's Spirit.

So our Gentiles did not have the Spirit before Christ came, and that was the link, was the Holy Spirit was given to the Gentiles at that point, or was the Holy Spirit given to the Gentiles prior.

So the bonding glue or the connectivity after Christ with the Gentiles, was that the Spirit, I guess is my question. Okay, it's a good question, and you're very close. But the truth is that God's Spirit was given to very few individuals in the Old Testament. Most Jews never received the Holy Spirit. The Old Covenant was physical promises for a physical people. It was a promised land. There were no promises of eternal life. There were no deep spiritual promises to ancient Israel in the Old Covenant. It was you be obedient, you receive physical blessings, you get lots of great crops, and the sun will shine, and your kids will be healthy. All physical blessings, because the Old Covenant was a physical covenant between God and the physical descendants of Abraham, and very, very few people who would be spokes like David, it says, had God's Spirit. Saul had it, but lost it, unfortunately. Most of the prophets had God's Spirit, because it says God's Spirit fell upon them. Moses obviously had God's Spirit. But aside from those examples of key individuals and leadership positions, the Spirit did not come upon ancient Israel, upon the people.

Yeah, and actually, as you were talking, I was thinking of Balaam, would be one that was a gift of prophecy that he had. But again, there are some, but it's a handful of non-Ji... I believe that Balaam was a non-Jew, right?

Yeah, non-Israelites. Right, correct, yes.

So ponder that a while. That is a big difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Now, the second part of your question, you're right on, and that is that God gives his Holy Spirit under the New Covenant, and that Spirit comes through Hebrew, Gentile, anyone who repents of their sins and is baptized and receives the gift of God's Holy Spirit. And that is a definite difference, a remarkable difference, between the New Covenant and Old Covenant. Old Covenant were strictly physical blessings and promises, New Covenant, eternal life, spiritual blessings, and the ultimate reward of sonship in the family of God and eternal life. The big difference between the two covenants. Did I answer your question? Yeah, we're... yes. Okay, cool.

Okay. Any other... any other questions about the book of Galatians at all? We have to hand down here, John. Mr. Miller? John. You look older than I do, Mr. Miller.

Thank you very much. Galatians 2, 14, the very last phrase, talks about customs, plural, not just one custom of circumcision. What were some of the others? I know you rattled off some customs there real quick, but what were some of the other customs that Peter was pushing on the people? Let me get to Galatians. Chapter 2 you said? 2 verse 14. Thank you. Let me get back there.

Almost there.

I thank you for your patience. 2, 14.

But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, if you being a Jew live in the manner of Gentiles and not as Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews, we who are Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles? Is that what you're referring to? Right, but in the NIV that I'm reading from, the very last sentence in 14, the very last sentence says, how is it then that you forced Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? More than one custom, more than just the circumcision. What were the other customs?

Well, they could have included things like washing of hands, the Jews fasted two twice a week, don't want to hurt anyone's sensitivities, but tassels, for example, because now Jesus said that we would receive the Holy Spirit to remember things. It could be clothing, could be any number of rituals, it could be sayings, it could be any number of things aside from circumcision. Certainly, anything that would be an act of sacrifice in which someone thought that it would give them superiority over the Gentiles. And this is why Paul is so sensitive to Peter about this, because Paul is saying that because you're circumcised, you're no better than an uncircumcised person. And that rankled of faithful Jews. That would bother them, that statement. He would say, that's okay and that's good, but you have nothing over the Gentiles. Yes, they're uncircumcised. Yes, they came from Gentile backgrounds, but they have been grafted in where, frankly, most of the Jews rejected the Messiah. They have been grafted into the tree, and they are just as equal as anyone else because of their belief in Jesus Christ. Any other questions?

Okay, sure, you bet. We've got time. We're recording this, so wait for the mic.

So you said tassels. Yeah. My question to John. So the... No, one of the... I knew that would... I didn't know about what you said to John, but I know that can be a sensitive topic sometimes. Go ahead. I'm sorry for your question. No, I'm curious, because one of the... I have like three points that really stood out tonight. One of them was the law spoken by angels, so separate from the law spoken by God. And so tassels, you would say then is the law that was brought by angels or the mediator, and thus is not required anymore. It's not required under the... and it gets back to your question about the Spirit. The typical Hebrew did not have God's Spirit, so they needed physical reminders to keep the law. They needed physical reminders about things, and that's why a lot of the rituals and so on was to remember. Remember this, to do this. But Jesus said that if the Spirit would help us to recall all things, the Spirit would give us into remembrance things that had been said. So when you receive God's Holy Spirit, you no longer need physical rituals like tassels in order to comply with the New Covenant. And in all honesty, can I tell you, the way human beings are, no matter what you do, you soon forget it just becomes like a person wearing a wedding ring. After a few years, they don't even know they have their wedding ring on, because you just get so used to it. Even though it's a reminder, you just become hablasé to it. Oh, hum, it's there. It's just something that's part of me, but it really no longer has that compelling reminder that it did early on. So I didn't mean to get into a controversial issue, because I know some people, and I've had people attend my congregation who wore tassels, and that's fine. As long as they don't try to influence other people to imply that tassels make you more righteous or more godly by wearing them, as long as they don't do that, that's fine. I don't have an issue with someone wearing tassels.

But on the other hand, I'm not going to insist that as part of the New Covenant, because you would have to tell me where Paul ever talked about tassels. You can't. You'd have to tell me where Peter wrote about tassels. You can't. You'd have to tell me where John wrote about tassels. You can't, because it's not there. Which kind of leads me into one other statement. I'm glad you actually reminded me of this. I'm often asked, Mr. Thomas, well, how do we know what laws from the Old Covenant are still applicable today? How are we supposed to know? And the answer is probably more simple than we appreciate. The answer is to go to the Book of Acts, which is the early church history, and see what the disciples brought with them as far as teaching the New Covenant. If you go through the Book of Acts, you see over and over and over again, Paul going to the synagogue on the Sabbath day. That's a no-brainer. The Sabbath comes from creation. The Sabbath observance existed even before the Ten Commandments. It was reinforced in the Ten Commandments, but it existed from creation. So that's an easy one. How do I know that I should be observing the New Covenant Holy Days? I read a couple of scriptures tonight, showing Paul decades later, after Jesus died and was resurrected, he's teaching the observance of the days of Unleavened Bread. We didn't, because that wasn't our topic tonight, go more deeply into Acts, but you'll see that Paul kept a number of Holy Days, including later in the Book of Acts. His traveling companion, Luke, refers to the Day of Atonement. Why would a Gentile like Luke refer to the Day of Atonement during their travels if he wasn't keeping the Day of Atonement? Why use that as a time demarcation if you're a Gentile? Why not use the Ides of March or some other Gentile holiday term? Why would you refer to the fast, which is the way that is worded in Greek in the Book of Acts? So the answer to, well, how do we know what we should still be observing today is what we see decades later being taught by Paul or observed by Paul and Luke and John and Peter in their writings.

Any other questions? No, I... So then, Paul leaves the Council in Jerusalem. Is it Acts 15?

Um, well, no, it would be... It leaves with Timothy and says, your mother was, I believe, an Israelite. Your father was a Gentile, so thus we need to stop and circumcise you. So that was obviously an act of obedience. So he was doing that because this shows you Paul's spiritual maturity and sensitivity. He had the right to say that he doesn't need to be circumcised, but for the sake of not offending people in the church who would want him to be circumcised, that's why Paul wanted it to happen.

Paul was not a person who said, this is my right and I don't bend an inch. Paul was a person who would say, this is right and this is wrong, but if this will offend you, it's not going to hurt me to do it, so I'll go ahead and do it anyway. So it was more of a show instead of an act of obedience to circumcision? It was... I wouldn't say a show. It was more of Paul respecting the sensitivities of the circumcised.

In the book of Galatians itself, let me see, I'll give you an example here, where Paul really didn't care.

He makes a comment when he visited Jerusalem.

All right, Galatians chapter 2 and verse 3.

The Gospel might continue with you. So he's talking about, after 14 years, he went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus and Titus wasn't circumcised and no one gave him a hard time about it. None of the apostles gave him a hard time about Titus not being circumcised. Says he was being a Greek, not even him was he was compelled to be circumcised. That's verse 3.

Yeah, okay.

Again, I'll give you another parallel of that with the circumcision of Timothy.

If I were to say to Paul that eating broccoli deeply offends me, I think it is against the law of God between you and I, probably should be. But eating broccoli deeply offends me. Paul would say I won't eat broccoli in your presence. That's how sensitive. If that's going to offend you, if that's going to be a stumbling block to you, even though I could eat broccoli, I have the right to eat broccoli, I will not eat broccoli in your presence. In the book of Romans, he talks about fast days in the same way and he talks about certain foods the same way. He uses the sensitivity not to do things that though he may have the right to do it, he won't eat if he knows it offends people.

And because Timothy was half Jewish and half Gentile, probably the best thing to do was to have him circumcised just to eliminate any offense or dispute or problems.

Yes.

When you repeat the question, so we have it on. Sure.

What was the time sequence between Timothy, between those two instances?

That's really an excellent question. And offhand, I don't know. I can tell you the Galatians and 1 Corinthians were some of his earliest writings in the mid-50s. And when that happened with Timothy, I really don't know. John, could you? I don't know.

I'm sorry, first time I've heard that question. It's a good one, but any answer would be guessed at. Maybe you don't know. Thank you.

Next question.

Thanks.

I have a comment on what you were just talking about. I heard Mr. Petty say in a message that, and I just want to say it because it kind of confirms, does it confirm what you're trying to say?

Mr. Petty said that if it was an after Easter sale and there were Easter bunnies on sale, and his wife loved Easter bunnies, he would want to get them because they were cheap. And he was cheap, but if he was with someone who would be disturbed or questioning why you who don't celebrate Easter, why would you even go near that? So that he said at that time, he would not purchase those. So is that kind of what you're saying? Yeah, I obviously can't answer, would not answer for Mr. Petty. I think the lesson basically is the same. You have the right to do something, but because of other people's sensitivities and how they may perceive it the wrong way and be offended by something you do, you don't do it. Even though technically under the authority of Scripture, you would have no problem doing it. That's part of, I think, spiritual Christian maturity. I have, rather than in my congregation, who are former alcoholics, when I invite them to my house, I never have a drink. I would never, because that would, that's insensitive. Do I have a right to drink? Yeah, I've never had a problem with alcohol. I certainly have the right to drink in front of anybody, but would I drink in front of someone who's had a problem with alcohol in the past? Absolutely not, because I wouldn't want to offend them or cause them to have a problem.

Or to stumble. A stumbling block, exactly. Okay, and then I have another question. Okay.

I have a question about the shofar, like the same kind of thing as the tassel, you know, and it all goes back to the old and the new covenant to me. I'm going to die before I understand all that, but it's just, there's so much, you know, to, so like what about the shofar? Is it on the same lines as the tassels? Like, it's not offensive if you do it, but it's certainly not required. Is it, you know, is it something that's offensive if you're blowing the shofar? Because, like, from what I'm reading, you know, they blew the shofar to call the congregation together, to call the people together, the people of God. So, yeah. Well, I personally, I wouldn't consider that a ritual, except maybe if you want to say blowing the shofar on the feast of trumpets to introduce or inaugurate the feast of trumpets, but aside from just doing it to call the congregation together or to prepare for battle or whatever, that's not necessarily a ritual. That was just part of their custom. And certainly there wouldn't be a problem with someone owning a shofar, blowing it, or whatever. I mean, on the feast of trumpets, just, you know, just to respect the day, we we toot a shofar a couple of times. But then again, you have to be balanced. Realize that the trumpets spoken about in the book of Revelation are not shofars. They're Greek trumpets. The Greek word emphasized the fact that they are straight Greek trumpets with a bell on the end and with a bone as far as the piece that you blow into. So it's not a trumpet, anything like a ram's horn when you look at the trumpet blast or any of the trumpets in the book of Revelation. Totally different instrument altogether. So then it would be inappropriate to, it would be inappropriate for the United Church of God to feel that a shofar would be blown prior to a Sabbath assembly or a holy convocation? I don't think the Church of God wouldn't have an opinion on it one way or another. That's just a personal choice. That's not, again, that's not really a religious matter. If you choose to do that, that's fine. It would only become a problem if someone said, I do this and this makes me better or a more faithful Christian because I do this and you don't. Only then does it really become a problem. Okay, so then in my head right now, I'm thinking it's kind of on the same lines as the mask, you know, like where, you know, it's kind of like a preference, but it's not something that we need to be judging or assuming. Sure, correct.

Okay, thank you.

This is your last chance. You may never be able to ask another question.

I'm not trying to confuse or mix it up, but some of the examples he gave, aren't they somewhat similar to meet sacrifice the idols where Paul said he wouldn't do it if, you know, I can't explain the entire scripture, but the example is if it's going to offend somebody, even though it really wasn't blessed by the Gentile priest and it really wasn't sacrifice on the altar, but you got it from there. You're better off not eating that meat when you have this weak person next to you here, even though you have the right to.

Aren't these parallel or similar examples or am I reading something in this? No, I think you have something that's a similar thread. Paul would say that it's just a piece of meat. The meat doesn't know any better. And even though the meat was sacrificed to idols, if you don't have a problem eating that piece of meat, then scripturally there's not an issue with that. But Paul would also say that if you could offend your brother by doing that, then you should not eat meat sacrificed to idols.

What about the messages to the churches in Revelation? Isn't there a place where it talks about not that you shouldn't eat meat sacrificed to idols? No, it does say that.

So how does that fit in? I'd need scriptural verse. Scriptural verse.

Maybe we can table that one. Yeah, maybe we can table that for another. I know it says that I just don't know the exact verse. Let's go to the next one.

Thank you. Just on the lines of that question that brought to mind about letting the blood drain from the meat before you eat it, now how does that apply to me eating meat today? And I ask that because I don't like my steak. If it's done mooing, it's overdone for me. So is that what that means? Is it that literal? Does that carry over to today?

No, it really doesn't carry over today without getting too much into detail.

You know, when you're eating a steak, you're eating the blood that's naturally part of that meat. Where in contrast, the Gentiles did not drain the blood from the animals at all.

That animal that you're eating most likely had its... I'm sorry, I don't want to make anyone else upset... in the slaughterhouse had its throat slit and had his blood drained. And what you're seeing in a piece of meat is the natural blood residual that was in that tissue of that animal. And that's a totally different topic than the way the Gentiles would not drain the blood from animals at all. It'd be more likened to dishes we have today, like blood sausage, where you're literally consuming copious amounts of blood as part of the meal. And that's something we shouldn't do.

Okay, Revelation 2.14.

Revelation 2.14 is where that Scripture is. Okay. My Bible does not say meat. It says, things sacrificed. To eat things sacrificed to idols. Let's read the whole verse, though. But I have a few things against you because you have done... because you have those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. Now, I'm going to take a pass on this and ask the answer to this another night. My gut feeling is, is this is talking about the specific example of what Balaam did to Israel. Okay, but I'm going to take a pass because I wasn't really ready for this question tonight. So let us have 24 hours or so to ponder this. I'll give you a good answer. Okay, last question. Last one. It's getting hot up here. You're just feeling the heat.

Yeah, that's what I mean. So we're then with eating clean and unclean. Does that fit in the midst of the context of all this? It really doesn't. We'd have to go back to Peter's vision in the book of Acts and talk about clean and unclean, clean meat, really in a different context than what we've been talking about. The book of Galatians is not about clean or unclean meat, so it's not really associated with that topic. That topic is another Bible study, and it's a good topic, but it's not really related in any way to Galatians, to what we talked about tonight.

The old law compared to the new, or what we keep and what we don't keep.

Because that's how I take calculations in the conclusion for me tonight. There's a lot of awesome, it was truly wonderful for us. My wife and I are sitting here, and there's just three or four things that really stood out. It was quite a wonderful discussion.

So you would say clean and unclean don't necessarily follow on the category of grace or the shedding of the law. No, it's a doctrine. I said earlier, you may recall that, I said we know those things that were carried over from the Old Testament to the New Testament by the examples of the apostles. And clean and unclean meats is one of those things that was carried over.

From the beginning of the call of the first Gentile in which Peter had this sheet come down, and it had unclean animals on it, and the voice said, eat. And Peter said, no, I just won't eat, which is kind of direct disobedience to God, because he couldn't believe what he was being asked to do.

And it repeated itself and said, eat. And the whole picture of that wasn't that it was now okay to eat unclean meats, as he himself recognized, I should not call any man unclean. That was his conclusion. That was his conclusion. So the discussion in Acts 15 was not over clean or unclean meats, or over a lot of things that people say the council was, like the Sabbath and Holy Days. It was primarily over circumcision. It was also over some Mosaic rituals, but then, frankly, the decision, what they told the Gentiles to continue not to do, were from the book of Moses, to be honest with you. So getting back to your question, again, you would have to see the example of the disciples to decide whether clean or unclean meats would be something that, or eating unclean meats would be something that would be acceptable today.

And their example tells us that it would not be acceptable for us to eat today.