Audio restored with Diffio. Diffio processed the original archive recording to reduce noise and produce a cleaner listening version; the original stays available.
Speech quality score (model-estimated, SCOREQ): before 2.65 → restored 4.37
Use the player's Original switch to compare.How Diffio restores old speech recordings
What I had thought to do by way of epistles is to take first the Epistle to the Galatians and then the First Epistle of John. And to take them, assuming, of course, that both of them you will know very well, do you see, having read them and studied them many times, so that we look at the Epistle to the Galatians, not simply for its, uh, uh, content, but as a lesson in how to argue. Now, some people think that that's the last thing on earth a Christian should do.
Christians should not argue. They should just be content to witness for the Lord and to allow the Holy Spirit to convict the person concerned or illuminate them, but you should not argue. I think Christians that talk like that, uh, objecting to arguing because in their mind arguing is the same thing as wrangling, losing your temper, trying to win a debate, and they say you don't, you don't get anybody led to the Lord by winning a debate. So they say, do they? Well, certainly we shouldn't wrangle, and we shouldn't lose our tempers, do you see?
And we're not in it to see who is the best debater and all that. When you said all that, a vast amount of the synoptic gospels is giving to out, giving over to a record of our Lord's arguments. As John Stott wrote a book once, years ago, Christ the Controversialist, and had a study of the long arguments that Christ had with his contemporaries. And page after page in the New Testament is given over to the arguments, that is, uh, they weren't discussions, they were very, some of them very pointed arguments that our Lord had with the Pharisees and Sadducees and scribes, you see, and ordinary straightforward Jews.
Moreover, the epistles are many of them primarily arguments. As Paul has to deal with false teaching and wrong teachers and the doctrines they were propagating and refute them, for which purpose he has to argue. So that if we would be faithful Christians, we sooner or later, in our witness for the Lord, will find it necessary to argue. And even those who say you shouldn't, if you listen to them carefully, you'll find them using words like for and because.
And you can't use the word for, can you, without the fact that you are arguing. You are giving reasons. I don't believe that. Why don't you believe it? Well, because. Oh no, that's not right. Oh, why isn't it right? And you give your reasons why it's not right. You're arguing, in other words. Yes. If somebody said to you, somebody earnest, look, I believe that, um, so long as I, uh, uh, have faith and I do believe that if I do my best, I shall be saved.
You normally wouldn't let him away with that, would you? Say that, no, that's not right. Why isn't it right? Well, look, because, um... So you're arguing. And in that sense of arguing, we must follow the Lord, and we must emulate his apostles at our levels and know how to argue in a Christian way. It is not simply a matter of get- winning a debate, of course, because if you take Galatians, which is one long string of arguments. Why does Paul spend so much time arguing? Why?
Because of what is at stake. The Epistle to the Galatians can, I suppose, be summed up in its thrust by the famous words of chapter five verse one: With freedom did Christ set us free. Stand fast, therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage. This issue at stake is freedom. And the danger is that dear Christian people who have been brought into freedom by Christ could be, without their realizing what is happening, brought back into bondage, entangled again in a yoke of bondage.
And no truly Christian heart can stand by and see people that should be free, enjoying their freedom, being entangled again in a yoke of bondage. Something must be done, and if we really love people, we shall want to see them free, enjoying the freedom of Christ, aren't we? And we shall be indignant if we see them, uh, being trapped once more, taken back into bondage, yes? We are for people's freedom. Marvelous, you know, how folks will give up their freedom in the name of religion.
Let me turn aside and, uh, cite an illustration. Our Lord was in the synagogue one day, and there came a woman, had a spirit of infirmity. She could no wise lift herself up. She was bound, right, bent right over, poor dear soul. She came shuffling into the synagogue, and our Lord healed her. The ruler of the synagogue objected, if you please, and cited the Bible to reinforce his objection. Uh, next six days in the week, and then come and be healed, not on the Sabbath. Our Lord, of course, rebuked him.
But, um, it is interesting, isn't it? The Sabbath day in Israel had two or three purposes behind it. One of them was that they should, uh, remember the Creator, that in six days he made heaven and earth and rested on the seventh. Another was, according to Deuteronomy, that they had been slaves in Egypt, and God had broken the yoke of their bondage and brought them out of slavery to freedom. Yes? Describing that deliverance, the book of Leviticus has a delightful phrase. I broke the yoke of your neck, says God, and I made you go upright.
Oh, that's delightful, isn't it, Otto? You see, in Egypt they were literal slaves. But the term yoke can become a metaphor for slavery, for bondage. You put a yoke on people's necks so they can carry heavy burden, and the burdens eventually bow them down, of course. Uh, and the old vertebrae get bent. Mm-hmm. So that is the posture of a slave, isn't it, you see, to be bent down at his work, and so they were in Israel making their bricks and things, bent over slaves. And God delivered them. He took the yoke off their neck and made them go upright.
And Sabbath was to remember that. And here comes a woman bent over. And the man says, oh, she mustn't be set free to go upright on the Sabbath. She must keep bent till tomorrow. How perverse can you get? That's religion for you. Religion, as religion, is so often against freedom. And it is a curious thing, isn't it? How Christians down the centuries have, from time to time, it happened surreptitiously at the beginning, lost their freedom.
We want, don't want to stir up old disputes, but it is the fact. Now, for centuries, people weren't even allowed to read their Bibles. In the name of God and religion and Christ, they weren't allowed to read the Bible. I just this recent months got interested in Tyndale and have bought a copy of his translation. Delightful translation, Tyndale is, isn't it? And his works, marvelous. Burned at the stake in the name of God and the church and Christ and the Holy Spirit, burned at the stake for translating the Bible so that people could read it. Curious, isn't it?
And John Bunyan, put in prison for daring to preach without permission from the magistrate. And now in Russia again, things are looking bad. As now, uh, the Orthodox Church is trying to get all Western missionaries banned. You see? Curious thing that religion so often goes to making slaves of people. The other kind of thing that was happening and that provoked Paul to write Galatians, we could look for a moment at Acts chapter fifteen.
m I'm not saying that the men mentioned in Acts fifteen were the men that were spreading false teaching in the province of Galatia, but you'll get an idea of what they were saying and who they were. Acts fifteen one says, and certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, saying, except you be circumcised after the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. And when Paul and Barnabas had no more, no small dissension and questioning with them, the brethren appointed that Paul and Barnabas and certain other of them should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
They therefore, being brought on their way by the church, passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles, and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church and the apostles and the elders, and they rehearsed all the things that God had done with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believe, saying it is needful to circumcise them and to charge them to keep the law of Moses. So first of all, you notice where this false notion came from.
This was not an attack from the pagan world outside. This was a false idea within the Christian community itself. There rose up certain of the Pharisees who believed. You say, what did they believe? Well, they presumably believed that Jesus was the Messiah. They were, of course, Jews. And before they became Christians, they were circumcised, as the law of Moses laid down they should be. When they believed Christ, Jesus to be the Christ, it didn't occur to them at first to ask themselves, now what relation does our circumcision bear towards salvation?
Was that a necessary preliminary? Or is faith in Christ by itself sufficient for salvation? Naturally enough, perhaps they never did think it through until a whole lot of Gentiles began to get converted. And then the question arrived, oh, these folks have, these Gentiles have believed in Christ, uh, but they haven't been circumcised. So now the whole issue raised, well, what is the relation of circumcision to salvation? Do you have to be circumcised in order to be saved? Or, being saved, do you have to be circumcised in order to keep saved, so to speak? What is the relation? And now they were forced to think it through.
Notice there were therefore some in the Christian community itself who have said that to be saved, the, the, um, Gentiles must be circumcised. And you notice that that is what they are implying by the verdict that Peter gave when he got the chance to speak. Verse seven: Peter rose up and said unto them, Brethren, you know how that a good while ago God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, which knoweth the heart, bear them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit as he did unto us.
And he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why tempt you, God, that you should put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear. Good old Peter, standing up for the true liberty of the gospel and protesting vigorously in Christian spirit, of course, but protesting vigorously about this false teaching, which either intentionally or unintentionally, I suspect, would nonetheless have had the effect of reducing the freedom, putting a yoke upon their necks.
And Peter regards it so seriously as he charges them with tempting God if they do it. They're strong words, aren't they? Very strong. But that is his charge, faced with people that would say that circumcision is necessary for salvation, for receiving salvation, or it is necessary thereafter in order, so to speak, to keep saved and be accepted by the Christian community as being genuinely saved. To insist on that, says Peter, is on our side putting a yoke on the believers' necks, making them slaves once more.
And for God's side, it is tempting God. Why does he use such, uh, uh, vigorous language? Because he's just explained God himself authenticated the faith of the Gentiles by giving them the Holy Spirit. There can be no greater authentication of the salvation than God giving these Gentiles the Holy Spirit, like he gave to the others on the day of Pentecost. If God has accepted them, if their hearts have been purified by faith, and purified enough by faith that God himself can give them the Holy Spirit.
You're telling them that they're not purified enough, and now they must be circumcised before they can be accepted as believer, is to tempt God himself. That would be serious, wouldn't it? So here is Peter, reasoning anyway, if you don't like the word arguing, reasoning among the, uh, believers as to what the basic gospel of Christ is. This is not some little denominational dispute. This is about the very basis of the gospel. Look at verse eleven as Peter summarizes what he has to say.
But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus in like manner as they. So says the Revised Version, but I didn't have to pay much to buy it, so you have to excuse its inexactitudes. You see. It's, uh, you know, well, it's a right in a way, isn't it? But to suppose that Peter sat up that day, uh, stood up that day and said, by brethren, we believe we shall be saved. Misses the point gloriously, doesn't it? Of course they believed they should be saved. Of course they did. What do you think? The question at stake is how and on what conditions they would be saved.
Do you see? And to translate this sentence as it should be translated, it would run something like this. Now we believe our belief is that it is by the grace of the Lord Jesus. That is not by circumcision, not by works, that it is by the grace of the Lord Jesus that we shall be saved, let alone them. What do you mean? Well, we Jews, says Peter. We Jews, that is what we Jewish Christians believe, that we are saved simply by the grace of Christ.
Our circumcision didn't help, didn't contribute anything whatever to salvation. That is our belief, that we are saved simply by the grace of Christ, as well as they. You see. So that Jews and Greeks are saved on the same terms. It's not that the Gentiles are saved, uh, but not quite as saved as Peter was, because Peter was circumcised. No, we're all in the same boat. We're saved on the same conditions, you'll see, is the point of Peter's remark. So in Galatians, this is the kind of, uh, difficulty that the false converts were now suffering, having believed on the Lord Jesus, now they were being told, uh, uh, by men like these Pharisees who believed that either to be saved or to remain saved or to be fully accepted, they must be circumcised.
And Paul reads it as a, a very denial of the gospel, and he now sets out to oppose it, and therefore he argues so that his fellow believers may be delivered from this danger of renewed bondage. Oh, uh, he says, with freedom did Christ set us free. Stand fast, therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage. We need to get that in our hearts. It will affect our motives in arguing and our persistence.
We're not just having wordy debates. What we're at is the delightful freedom of the people of God, and we won't stand by and see it infringed. Similarly, Paul says, just to pick up another verse, uh chapter two verse five of Galatians. Uh, do you see, verse four rather. Oh, well, we took, sorry, we better get verse three. But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised, and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty, our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage, to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour.
Why not? Here were people, and they were trying, I put enormous pressure on Paul and others that Titus, uh, who was a Greek, should be circumcised. And he said, I wouldn't, I wouldn't stand for it, I wouldn't put up with it, I wouldn't give way, not for a single hour. I stuck my toes in. I said, never on your life. I would not have it. Why all the fuss? Well, he tells us that the truth of the gospel might continue unto you. If Paul had given, had given way on that occasion and said, yes, well, Titus has faith in Christ, but to be saved he must be circumcised, or admitted that circumcision does contribute something to salvation, then you and I sitting here this morning would be uncertain of what the gospel was, you know, wouldn't we?
And so Paul wouldn't, wouldn't compromise, because he's concerned with the gospel remaining without being fudged, right down to the Galatians and all down the generations to us. Good old Paul is so concerned for our freedom and that we get the gospel con- uh, conveyed to us without being fudged to it. It's very clear to say he was prepared on that occasion to stick his toes in and stand for, notice how he calls it, not a party line, not a secondary thing of indifference, but the truth of the gospel.
Righto, well, you know the epistle, as I say, and you know its contents. What I want to do is to look through it and see if we can, uh, notice the different kinds of arguments that Paul uses, and then the order in which he uses them. Why so? Well, we can learn, it seems to me, from Paul, dear old Paul, whom God used so much, we can learn ourselves from him how to argue. Not in any bad sense argue, but how to to maintain or, uh, deliver people from bondage or to maintain their freedom, you'll see.
What kind of arguments would you use, and what order would you use them in, in order to affect this purpose? We shall see there are a whole different kinds, there are kinds of argument. There's the argument from apostolic authority, which he uses at the early verses. Then from one eleven to two twenty one he has an argument from church history, that is the ch- uh, the early history of the church. Then from three one to seven, he has an argument from experience, the experience of his converts.
Then a long passage from three eight to twenty nine, an argument from explicit statements of Old Testament scripture. A whole lot of, about seven different quotations, one after the other, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. Uh, actual verses of statements of scripture. Then in seven four one to seven, he argues from analogy, the analogy of a child and the way a child has to be educated while it's a child, and then the difference that comes in its treatment when it grows up and becomes an adult person.
Argument from analogy, therefore. Then four eight to twenty, another argument from experience. From four twenty one to five one, very interesting argument, this one, an argument from Old Testament prototype. Say. Mm. Then from five two to twelve here's a very strong argument by calling attention to the imprecations of the false doctrine.
That is to say, not only what it taught, but the imprecations it would carry if it were true. And then from five thirteen to six ten, the argument from the fact that the gospel does make provision for holy living, and what that provision is and what it involves. The point of that argument is this: when Paul preached that we're justified by faith and not by circumcision and not by the works of the law, the standard argument that would come back at him was, but Paul, that cannot be right, for that would mean that if you could be justified by faith, accepted by God, and know it and be sure of it, that would mean that you could live a self-indulgent, sinful life, and it wouldn't matter.
And Paul says that is nonsense. The doctrine of justification by faith does not mean that a believer is free to live a sinful life. Oh? No. How do you make that out, Paul? Because God has a provision by which a believer shall live a holy life. And that is, to use technical terms, that he is led by the Spirit. The famous words of chapter five, Led by the Spirit and walking by the Spirit. But because this is part of an argument, verse chapter five, verse 18 rounds the argument up by saying, but if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
He's, he's having an argument. He's saying we're not saved by circumcision or by the keeping of the law. Does that lead to sinful living? No, it doesn't. Why doesn't it? Because God makes provision by his Holy Spirit, the living Spirit of the living God, leading us and guiding us and lusting against the flesh. And that's how God gets us to live a holy life. But notice, he says, if that is God's way of doing it by the Spirit, then you are not under law. They are two different ways of producing holiness. And the fact you are under the Spirit shows, says he, that you are not under law.
Actually, law cannot sanctify anybody. Law cannot justify anybody, but the principle of law cannot truly sanctify anybody either. It is the Holy Spirit's power that sanctifies us. Yeah. That too, then, is an argument. And finally, in chapter ten, six: eleven to sixteen, an argument which rests on an exposure of the true motives of the false teachers. What I mean by that is Paul's, uh, pointing out that actually these false teachers, he says, who keep on telling you you must be circumcised, actually they don't keep the law either.
And they're doing this that they might glory in your flesh. Now that is to, uh, uh, to attack the motives of the false teacher. It would be a wise thing for us to notice at what stage in the argument Paul uses that particular argument. It is the very last argument he uses. He does use it as the last argument. He first establishes uphill and down there by all kinds of arguments what the true doctrine of the gospel is, and that the other thing is false. He establishes it at first, before at last he points out that the false teachers themselves are grossly inconsistent in the way they live.
They would have you be circumcised and keep the law. They don't even keep the law themselves. It doesn't produce true holiness, in other words. So that is I thought we could look at. This is stern stuff, but it's in a wonderful cause. If we love our brothers and sisters in Christ, we shall want to help to keep them free from any yokes of bondage. We love our unconverted friends who are religiously inclined and have their faith in religion rather than in Christ, we shall... it is good to have some knowledge of how we can help them, how we can reason with them, you'll see, and how we can do it effectively and lovingly.
That will be very important. It is a service to them and to the Lord, therefore, to learn how to argue. Now, I'm not saying, of course, that when you get folks that you think have not enjoyed true freedom, you want to lead them into it or stop them from giving it up, that you have to go through all these arguments in this order. Of course not. Circumstances and the different people you'll meet will determine how you go about it. But these are the way an apostle, an active apostle, a working missionary. He'd gone and preached, and a number of coasts were converted. That was marvelous. And to see them being dragged back into slavery, spiritual slavery, they couldn't tolerate it, of course.
How would he do it? Not being able to visit, he wrote a letter. And of course, it comes out of the burning heart of love to see their liberty maintained. So let's, uh, look to them. We mustn't now spend a lot of time, perhaps, uh, we can spend some time tomorrow on it, but, uh, just if I could point out some of the, some of these arguments and, uh, how they work. Paul, an apostle. Not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead. And all the brethren which are with me unto the churches of Galatia.
Grace to you and peace from God our Father, God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins that he might deliver us out of this present evil world, according to the will of God, our God and Father, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen. Now, Galatians is a letter, ladies and gentlemen, and in the ancient world there was a style of letter writing, just as there is today. Well, there used to be in my boyhood. Um, um, I don't know what they do now, particularly when people have internets and things and describe themselves as Williams- Williamson.co.uk.co, uh, you know, that kind of thing, and have internets where the people bother to.
In Isabore, you began a letter dear, you so generally dear. Well, there were occasions when you would say my dear, but you had to choose them with great care. You'll see, uh, sometimes you wrote and said dear sir. Well, that was very formal. If you said dear sir at the beginning, you ended up yours faithfully. You didn't write to a friend, dear sir, and end up yours faithfully, do you see? Uh, do you see? Or if you were more familiar with somebody, you didn't say dear Mr. Smith, you said dear Smith. That meant you were very on friendly terms, but of course he wasn't one of the family, you see. And then you might add up, end up yours sincerely, you see.
You had your formal way of starting letters and ending them, and you signed the letter at the end. Yeah? Greeks and Romans had their way of writing letters in their standard form, you see. You didn't, uh, begin dear so and so and end the letter with yours truly in Christ or something. No, you put the, uh, your name first, do you see? Uh, and then you, uh, addressed it to people, you see. Now, how you describe yourself, eh, uh, do you see, uh, would be determined by the circumstances. So here you've got Paul to start with. Instead of signing it at the end, he put his name at the beginning.
That's Greek form, Roman form of writing a letter. Paul an apostle. And then next, you cite the people that are to receive it, do you see, unto the churches of Galatia. And then you normally added a greeting, do you see? An ordinary one, cheri, hail, hope you're well, like a Jew or a Hebrew would, Israeli would say to you today, shalom, do you see? Uh, assalam aleiku, says the, the, the Arab, uh, um, so in Greek you would give a greeting. But the man who's writing it, his name, then the recipients to somebody or other, and then the greeting you say. And if you knew the folks, there's some flowery phrase you could have.
Notice how Paul, in writing, is adopting the ordinary form, but he makes even that serve the purpose that he's writing for. No waste of time on mere formalities. Paul, an apostle. And then he adds, not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. This is Paul not only announcing who he is, but claiming his apostolic authority, right from the word go. Why?
Because this is going to be enormously important, as we shall see later, when he comes to the establishing of the doctrine of the gospel that he preached. What authority did he, authority did he have to preach it? You'll see. And he says here he's an apostle, and then adds, not from men, neither through men. You see. Um. I remember years and years and years and years and years ago, in the nineteen sixties, before some of you were born. Uh, uh, I was new in Ireland, you see, and like new brooms do, I was sweeping in those days moderately cleanly.
When some folks rang me up, they were some Church of Ireland folks, I think, at the time, uh, civil servants. They had a friend who was Church of Ireland, and they said to me, uh, down the phone, you see, um, alas, this good man is now going to, uh, join the Roman Catholic Church and become a monk. And they'd been talking to him, and uh, uh, could they send him to me? Would I be willing to talk to him? Well, I said, my dears, if you, I don't know you either, but uh, if you think I could do any help, uh, please, um, you must first ask the man whether he wants to come and talk to me. Would you send him to me so I wa- you know, uh, uh, he hasn't been asked and you're forcing him to come if he wants to come and talk to me, uh, that's okay, do you see?
So, well, eventually, uh, he came, you see, of his own will, apparently. Nice, very nice chap indeed, very sincere chap. And he told them, he he he told me, he said, though, I'm a church of Ireland, he says, but um, uh, I feel that God would have me, um, um, join the Church of Rome, become a monk, you see. What did I think of that? Well, that put me on the spot. I said, well, I find it difficult, my dear friend, because your church curses me, so I find it very difficult if you say you're going to join it, you see. This was before Vatican Council too, I might remind you. So what do you mean it curses you? Well, I said, you see, I'm one of those people who believe you could be saved and know it simply through faith in Christ, what the Council of Trent calls fiducia, confidence in Christ.
And if anybody says he's saved simply by confidence in Christ, let him be a Natha man. I says, I, I, I do. I'm sorry, I, I, from your point of view, they all think it's terrible, but I, I, that is, I have to be honest, I do. I believe I'm saved, you see. Uh, through Christ, and and I know it. Oh, he said, you shouldn't know it. I said, how is that? Well, he says, it all depends on your works, my boy. You can't know you're saved until the final judgment. Well, I said, that's very funny. And I read him Romans four, you know. I said, what do you make of this then? To him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. I said, so that says here, look, to him that worketh not, but puts his faith in him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness. We said, I don't know what that means, he said. I didn't know that was in the Bible. Well, there you are, he said. I don't know what it means at all, he said. That's the trouble with you Protestants, you see. You think you can interpret the Bible by yourself. You can't interpret the Bible by yourself. It is the church that gave us the Bible, and you have to let the church tell us what it means, he said.
You should take that verse to a priest and let the priest tell you what it means. Well, he said, that's very curious. I said, I said, for instance, is I, if I get you right, um, I said, uh, this Paul that wrote this in Romans chapter four, um, uh, to him that worketh not. When he was in Arabia in the desert, as he says in chapter two, and we shall come across that, or chapter one, Uh, when he was in Arabia in the desert, and I had been concerned about my spiritual state, and I had made the trouble and had gone to see Paul, and I said, Paul, uh, are you the apostle? Are you, sir, the apostle?
Yes, I'm the apostle. Oh, glad. Would you mind turning out to me a question, sir? Uh, no, I want to know how I can be saved, how I can be justified. I said, suppose Paul had said to me by word of mouth what he here writes to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifies the ungodly. Could I have listened to what he said, understood what he said, believed it, and been saved? Or should I have to take that what he said and said, all right, thank you, sir, for telling me that. Now I I'll take that and I'll go up to the, uh, leaders of the church in Jerusalem, and I'll ask them, uh, whether that's right, and uh...
What should I do? Could I have believed it on the spot just listening to Paul, or would I have to take it to Jerusalem to get their approval as to whether it was right or not? Of course, you should have to take it to Jerusalem. You'd have to take it to the church, you see. Because it's the church that appointed him as an apostle, and the church gives us the Bible. It's the church that gives us the epistle to the Romans. Oh, I said, I said. Uh, uh, Paul actually says here, uh, Paul an apostle, not from men. The church didn't appoint him as an apostle.
I said, I s- I suppose you'd say that, that yes, well, Paul was an apostle, but not from men, but through men, you know? His apostleship came from God, but it was given to him through the church. Yes, he said exactly so, it came through men. Well, he said, actually, it says here, not from men, neither through man. They may be small words, but they are colossally important. That Paul got his apostleship straight from the risen Lord. You may take what he says straight.
That is very important. You could come to Paul in the Arabian desert when he was there, ask, how can I be saved, Paul? And he tells you by word what he writes in his epistles. You could hear what he said, understand what he said, believe it and be saved. You didn't have to go up to the church of Jerusalem to see whether Paul was talking the truth or not. I said, you know, that's why Paul gives us this long argument from church history in Galatians. He tells us he went up to Jerusalem at once, uh, a time, and when he got there, they who seem to be pillars of the church, they added nothing to him.
Yes, they did, he said. Of course they did. They gave him the gospel. No, he didn't. I said they, they added nothing to me, the apostles at Jerusalem. Oh, he did, they said. Uh, well, now that became a big point, and it remains a very big point. And in a sense, our freedom depends on it. The epistle to the Romans, do we get it from God through Paul, or is it the church that gives it to us? Did the church appoint Paul an apostle? Was Paul appointed direct by the Lord?
In actual practical terms, that means a great deal. Means if he go- is an apostle straight from God, you can come to what he writes and what he says. Hear it, believe it, receive it, be saved. That immediate access is one of the ground foundations of our freedom. And you'll see that remains still true. As you know, I work for Russia, if not, I don't visit very often, but I write a lot of things for Russia.
The great Orthodox church there holds the view of unreformed churches that, uh, ordinary folks shouldn't read the Bible. Why, the church gives us the Bible. And therefore, it's no use you're trying to read the Bible and understand what it means. You must let the church tell you what it means. That's a very big issue at stake, isn't it? So here is Paul, and what he's at, why is he, uh, emphasizing his apostolic authority and the source of it?
Not to exalt himself being proud. He's standing for our liberty, our freedom to come direct to God through him, through him and his preaching and his gospel and his written ministry, direct each man and woman to God. Of course, we don't despise the evangelist and the teacher and the prophet and the pastor. Of course not, we should be stupid. We don't neglect what great men and women of God have thought about scripture all down the ages. Of course we don't. But ultimately, our freedom depends on being able to come to our apostle, be Paul or which one, direct.
You don't have to come through the church. That is very important. Secondly, here in his thing from, uh, about through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead. Notice that Paul is an apostle appointed by the God who raised Christ from the dead. The authentication of Christ, uh, person and his work and his ministry, uh, rely upon his resurrection, of course. It is the God who raised Christ from the dead that appointed Paul the apostle. He associates all the brethren which are with me unto the churches of Galatia, gives them the grace.
But then notice how he expands the grace. Not simply grace to you and peace from God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, but now expends it to say what? To present the gospel, of course. And in what terms does he present the gospel? Who gave himself for our sins that he might deliver us. Listen to that. That's the bell striking a theme that's going to run through the epistle. Freedom. He gave himself for us that he might deliver us. Rescue us, redeem us, if you like, out of this present world with all its evil, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forever and ever.
Amen. Not only freedom, of course, but freedom not simply from the guilt of sin, certainly not a freedom that having forgiven us allows us to live as we like. It's freedom from this evil world with all its evil behavior. That is true freedom, of course. The gospel of grace does not mean that a believer is free to go on sinning as he pleases, without control. Right, argument from apostolic authority, and it continues, of course, down to verse ten. I marvel that you are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel, which is not another gospel.
Only there are some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ. Though we or an angel from heaven should preach unto you any gospel other than we preached unto you, let him be anathema. As we have said before, so say I now again, if any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which we received, let him be anathema. For am I now persuading men or God, or am I seeking to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ. The argument from apostolic authority. Now, what is it about, therefore? It is about, look how many times he mentions it, it is about the gospel.
We need, therefore, very clearly to get into our heads in all the many, uh, discussions and controversies that rise in Christendom and the Christian community. The thing to keep our eyes on is the gospel. That is the thing that is fundamental, and that is the thing that, if we're not careful, gets fudged. Church organization and all these other things are but secondary matters compared with this fundamental thing, what is the gospel? Let me diverge just for a moment on that and illustrate what I mean.
The church at Corinth was a brilliant church, full of brilliant spiritual gift, but they were in very serious trouble, were they not? As is evident from Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, full of all sorts of things. If there was a right way of doing something and a wrong way of doing something, you could rely upon the Corinthians to do the wrong way. So Paul has to write them a letter and point out what they are doing wrong, eh, eh, and tell them how they should recover. What I have found very interesting in these last years is the way he brings them back, the way he tries to correct the faults in the church.
He doesn't just write to them and saying, look here, you can't do that, uh, uh, my dear brothers and sisters in Christ, you can't do that. Why not? Because it breaks rule one thousand two hundred and forty five a subsection D of canon law. No. What he says, you can't do that. Oh dear, dear, dear, you, you, you must stop behaving like that. Why must we stop? Because it conflicts with the very basis of the gospel. That's why you mustn't do it. For instance, they were dividing up into parties, and some were calling themselves after Paul, and some of Apollos, and some of Cephas, you see, uh, uh, and that kind of strife within the church. You have to quit doing that, says Paul.
You really must, gentlemen. You can't go on like that. Why can't we? It conflicts with the basic doctrine of the cross of Christ. That's why you can't. Yes, and he works out, he then works it out, how it conflicts with the basis of the gospel, which is the cross of Christ. You'll see. Paul crucified for you. Don't you, haven't you begun to wake up why God saved you by that extraordinary tactic, which is the cross of Christ? Why your behaving in your party spirit denies the very purpose that God had in mind when he designed the cross of Christ to be the way of our salvation.
And then they were all, uh, uh, uh, well, some of them, a large number of them, were puffed up with their supposed liberty. They were allowing such sexual immorality as shocked the very Greeks. And Greeks took some shocking, you know, ordinary pagan Greeks took from shocking, wow. But it was shocking the very Greeks. You can't go on like that, says Paul. Why can't you? Well, it conflicts with the very gospel, says he. Do you know Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us? That's basic gospel. So we are obliged to keep the feast of unleavened bread. Like the Israelites had the Passover, had to be followed by the unleavened bread, and you couldn't separate the two.
So when Christ, our Passover, dies for us, then it is obligatory on us to, uh, to purge out the old leaven of sinful behavior that we might be a new lump. You'll see, uh, uh, your behavior is contradicting the gospel. And so he goes on through his epistle. Your behavior when you come to church, he says, okay, frankly speaking, absolutely shocking. What's wrong with it? Well, you come to eat the Lord's Supper, but it is actually, in fact, impossible to eat the Lord's Supper the way you're behaving. And the Lord's Supper, is that some sort of, uh, small little matter that... Well, no, it goes to the very heart of the gospel. When the Lord took bread and took wine and said, this is my body given for you, my blood shed for you, there's nothing more fundamental to the gospel than that.
And the way they were behaving was going straight again it. It's the gospel that goes in Christendom, ladies and gentlemen. You've observed that in history. In the end, it's the gospel that gets fudged. And all the great revivals have been revivals about recovering the gospel. So that you will, uh, understand the vigor of Paul's arguments here in Galatians. We need vigorous arguments. It's the gospel we contend for, and upon that depends people's freedom. So verses eleven now of chapter one right down to verse 21 of chapter two.
It's a very long passage, and very often the preachers, eh, preach, take certain verses out of it, don't they? Wonderful verses at the end of chapter two, verse twenty and twenty one. I have been crucified with Christ, yet I live, and yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me, and that life which I now live in the flesh, I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me. We quote it very often in its own right and simply say there here is the secret of a truly Christian, devoted, holy life. But actually, it's part of a long argument that starts in one eleven and goes on to the end of chapter two.
And you'll see that by the comment in verse twenty one that follows. I do not make void the grace of God. For if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nothing. Those lovely verses, uh, nineteen twenty, I through the law have died to the law, and that the life I now live i- i- is no longer I, yet Christ liveth in me, are part of this big argument. And Paul makes the deduction in verse twenty one: that being so, if this is the principle on which I live, I do not then make void the grace of God. For if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nothing.
Part of the big argument. So the big argument starts with early church history. Now, when we think of church history, we're very often thinking of the post-apostolic age and the church fathers and all that stuff, important as that is. This is church history right from the very start, and this is Paul is telling us a bit of history. What happened, I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me. Now, here's a very important bit of history, therefore, that it is not after man. It is enormously important that we know our church history. And the history of how Paul got converted, and what he did, and where he went when he got converted.
And the point of his history is to show us that his gospel is not after man, he got it direct from the risen Lord. That it is not after man, neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ. You heard my, uh, manner of life before I got converted, the next verses. Verse fifteen, but when it was the good pleasure of God who separated me even from my mother's womb and called me through his grace to reveal his son in me that I might preach him among the Gentiles, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither went up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and again I returned unto Damascus.
Now people say that he did go up to Jerusalem, and the historians will argue about it. Uh, for the moment, let's take what Paul himself is telling us. As far as getting his gospel from other apostles or from the church at Jerusalem, no, says he, I did not. I got it direct from the blessed Lord, and I went off into Arabia. Do you see? I've already said why that was, eh, important. Why, uh, do you see? Similarly, eighteen to twenty four: After three years, I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and tarried with him fifteen days.
But of others of the apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord's brother. Now, touching the things which I write unto you, behold, before God I lie not. Then I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, and I was still unknown by face unto the churches of Judea which were in Christ. They only heard say, he that once persecuted us is now preaches the faith of which he once made havoc, and they glorified God in me. His insistence then that his apostleship and the gospel that he preached is not from men. They glorify God in me. Then after the space of fourteen years, I went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus with me.
And how did I go up, and why did I go up? Because the Jerusalem church summoned me to go up. No, no, no. Went up on my own wheels. I went up on my own account. I went up by revelation, not by invitation, certainly not by command. I went up by, uh, revelation, it was God, uh, uh, had revealed it to me should. I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately before them who were of repute, lest by any means I should be running or had run in vain. What does that mean? He wasn't quite sure of the gospel he preached, and uh, if it had been wrong, then, then he'd wasted all his labor.
No, no, he doesn't mean that. He means that if when he got to Jerusalem, the apostles and, and who were before him, the elders didn't agree with his gospel, then the repercussion on his work throughout the areas where he had preached would be very serious indeed. And what he had, uh, built up could have been destroyed. You see that kind of thing in the thing that we read from Acts fifteen. The church in Antioch had been founded by, not by apostles, but by Greek-speaking Christians, uh, largely, or Hellenistic Jews.
That had been set up, and folks were converted, and they were going on very nicely, thank you. When there came down these fellows from Judea. And made out they came from the apostles. And they taught the brethren that except you be circumcised, you cannot be saved. And because they came down from Judea, the local believers were saying, oh, oh, oh, well, well, is this right then? Perhaps Paul and company have not taught us the gospel as they should. It was arranged that Paul should go up to Jerusalem, not to find out what the gospel was, but to get a statement from the apostles at Jerusalem that they, in fact, believed the same gospel that Paul did.
So he went up to Jerusalem and laid before them the gospel that he preached, and they agreed absolutely and entirely and a hundred percent with Paul. And they then issued eh letters that went like this: We understand that certain men have come down to you purporting to come from us. They had no authority from us whatsoever. We stand with Paul and Barnabas. We agree with them one hundred percent. That was the purpose, uh, of the letter given from the council at Jerusalem. So he didn't go up because he was summoned. Secondly, Titus, who was a Greek, he was with me.
He was not compelled to be circumcised. And we s- withstood, put stuck our toes in. We wouldn't submit him to circumcision. Now, that's interesting because on an occasion, Paul did circumcise his other colleague, Timothy. Why did Paul circumcise Timothy, one of his colleagues, and refuse to have Titus circumcised? And the answer is this. When Paul circumcised Timothy, Paul was not agreeing that circumcision was necessary for salvation.
No. If you said circumcision was necessary for salvation, Paul would chase you round the earth and say, no, it is not. But with Timothy's case, there was a practical reason. Timothy's mother was a Jewess. His father was a Greek. He hadn't been circumcised, but his mother being a Jewess made him a Jew. And there were many Christian Jews who said, yes, well, we don't get circumcised to be saved. We're very clear about that. You don't have to be circumcised to be saved. But we have a conscience that because the Old Testament tells Jews that they ought to be circumcised, we feel, well, that's God's will for Jews, so we ought to be circumcised.
We're as clear as you are, Paul. It's not for salvation. But we think that Christian Jews ought still to keep those commandments from the Old Testament. We have a conscience about it. And if you're going to teach Jews that they, Jewish Christians, that they don't need to keep the Bible, well, Paul, that's very funny, that to us. So Paul said, okay, we're clear enough, it's not for salvation, but you feel as a Jew that you ought to keep this thing. Righto, that's okay, let's let Timothy be circumcised because he is a Jew. Titus wasn't a Jew. I wouldn't, I wouldn't, uh, I wouldn't give in on that case if he was a Greek.
There was no reason on earth why he should be circumcised. The Old Testament didn't say that Gentiles had to be circumcised. You get a similar thing today, do you not? There are some believers, the west of Scotland, you'll meet them, who feel that Christians are an obligation to keep Sunday as a complete Sabbath. There are other Christians, you go to Spain, and Christians there don't think you ought to keep Sunday as a Sabbath. No conscience about it at all. What should we say? Is it necessary to keep the Sabbath to be saved? Well, no, indeed not. And if somebody told you that you can't be saved if you, if you don't keep the Sabbath, like our Seventh-day Adventist friends tell you, then they're saying something very serious indeed.
You have to keep the works of the law, and Sabbath is one of them, to be saved. But now, if you are saved, should you, as a matter of conscience, because you feel that's the Lord's will for you, keep the Sabbath? And some dear Christians say, yes, of course you should. And they have a very big conscience about it. So in the west of Scotland, there are many such. What would you do if you went to the west of Scotland to preach the gospel? Well, one thing you shouldn't do, and that's drive your car into the village on a Sunday. Or if you do that, you might as well go and rob the bank and then stand up and preach the gospel. You see?
Because to them, you are breaking a command that's a binding on Christians, not for salvation, but the thing that Christians ought to do. So you would say, right, well, I walk then, inconvenient though that is for my corns and my rheumatism. I, I, I, I, I walk, uh, you see, so I cannot offend their conscience and I can get the gospel to them because they're very keen, some of them, in keeping the Sabbath, but some of them are not, they're not personally born again. They don't know what it means. Do you see? So Paul was like that. Yes, he would circumcise Timothy, not for Timothy's salvation, but for, for the Gentiles. Titus, no, not on your life.
So he quotes this incident. Why? To show that he would not give way to pressure. I wasn't compelled. I didn't yield to the pressure of compulsion, but you must do it. No, I mustn't. Why? Because the gospel, so that it should be unfluffed, uncompromised, and come right down to you, he says. We deserve to praise God for Paul and his daring to stand. If he hadn't have stood, we should have said, well, what about us Gentiles? Paul, after all, had to admit that the titans must be circumcised. Do we have to keep the law to be saved? That is very important.
Then he comes to his visit to Jerusalem, you notice, and he says in verse six to verse ten, eh, those that were reputed to be something, when I heard how I preached the gospel, they added nothing to me. The only addition that they mentioned was that we should remember the poor, and that I was doing already. And there was no division amongst the leaders of the church in those early days. They gave me the right hand of fellowship. Exceedingly important then. And therefore, you see again how that we would have been quite justified to go to Paul in Arabia, listen to what he said as he preached the gospel, believe and been saved.
We should not have had submitted, to have submitted his preaching to the church to get their approval, and certainly not their interpretation. Next he comes, verses uh eleven to the end, to that unfortunate incident. When Peter, himself the great champion of Christian doctrine, on one occasion fluffed the gospel and got himself into a bit of a bother. Verse eleven onwards, but when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face because he stood condemned.
For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas before them all, if thou, being a Jew, livest as do Gentiles and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? What happened was there was this nice, um, conference of Christians, this convention, uh, for the deepening of spiritual life or something, and, uh, they had this conference, and of course there was the interludes and the mealtime periods, and Peter had been, uh, eating with the, uh, Gentiles, do you see, happily with the Gentile Christians, yes, uh, do you see?
When these fellows came down from James, one day, Peter got up from the table and he said he didn't feel well, he had a stomach ache or something, I don't know what it was, and that he was going to his room. Uh, he, the food had upset him or something, and Paul stood in the doorway and said, no, you don't see this old boy. No, you don't. Trouble is not that Peter. What you are doing now, you're doing out of fear of these fellows from Jeru- from Judea, from James. And you are now refusing to eat with the Gentiles because they're not circumcised, and what you are in effect by your behavior saying, Peter, is that these Gentiles are not as equally saved as you are.
That faith in Christ has not purified them enough for you to accept them as fellow believers and to eat with them. They're not circumcised, and until they get circumcised, they wouldn't be pure enough for you to sit down and have table fellowship with them, Peter. And Peter, you're acting the old hypocrite. Notice the words he uses. They're strong words, aren't they? He, uh, uh, dissembled, verse thirteen, that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. The word in, in Greek is hypocrisy. That's a strong word to use, isn't it?
But you see, there are two forms of hypocrisy. The one is to pretend that you are what you're not. To believe what you don't in fact believe. The other form of hypocrisy is to pretend that you are not that, uh, what you are. That you don't believe what you do believe. Two forms of hypocrisy.
One is to pretend you believe what you don't believe, and the other is to pretend you don't believe what you do believe. And Peter, you do believe, don't you, that these Gentile Christians, although they haven't been circumcised, you do believe that their hearts have been purified by God through faith, and God has given them the Holy Spirit, and they're as pure as you are, Peter. That's what you believe. But by your behavior now, you're pretending not to believe that, when all the while you do believe it. And then you're pretending to believe something that you don't believe.
You're pretending that circumcision is necessary for purification, is necessary for salvation, and you don't believe that, Peter. You are guilty of hypocrisy, my dear man, and hypocrisy about the basic doctrines of the gospel. That is serious, isn't it? And you see how serious it was, uh, because Barnabas, good old Barnabas, he was a nice kind chap, was Barnabas. You read all about Barnabas in the New Testament. A lovely, gracious, helpful brother was Barnabas.
Nice chap. Uh, he didn't suspect anybody's motives. That's the kind of chap. Barnabas was a nice chap. But he was carried away by Peter's dissimulation. And if a Barnabas can be carried away by inconsistent behavior on the part of Peter like that, that's serious, isn't it? And that speaks to my heart. We must be as gracious as Barnabas, but when it comes to the gospel, we must not by our behavior, give the impression that we don't believe what we do believe, and we mustn't give the impression that we do believe what we don't believe.
We must, as Paul put it now, uh, walk uprightly. But when I saw, verse fourteen, when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel. That is, they walked, that is, they behaved. It's not merely what they taught when they were preaching. This is how they behaved. And that bit of behavior on Peter's part was not consistent with the gospel he believed. And therefore it beclouded him. So much so that Barnabas was misled by it. We must behave, we must walk uprightly, says Paul, according to the truth of the gospel, that we must never compromise.
That is a very important principle, isn't it? What is at stake now in these final verses? Paul points out to Peter and to the rest of us how vastly important this matter is. We being Jews, uh, by nature not sinners of the Gentiles, yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, save through faith in Jesus Christ, even we Jews believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if while we sought to be justified, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ a minister of sin?
What does he mean? Well, presumably this. Peter, you have admitted that you are justified by faith and not by the works of the law. Haven't you, Peter? Circumcision, you've admitted, cannot save you. You must be justified solely by faith. Are you now turning around and saying that though you have put your faith in Christ, Peter, Christ isn't enough? And faith in Christ has left you still an impure sinner who cannot be accepted by Christ in the sight of God until you've been circumcised. Is that what you're saying, Peter? The faith in Christ is not enough, and you need this extra ceremony to purify you.
That would be serious, wouldn't it? That would be saying the gospel by itself is not enough. Then verse eighteen and nineteen: If I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor. Peter, if you're now going to say circumcision is necessary, well, now you admit that all the while your gospel has been a transgression of the law. What does that do to the Christian gospel? For I through the law, he now explains what the true position is.
I through the law died unto the law that I might live unto God. God's holy law with all its demands laid its penalty on me, and I died to it, that I might live unto Christ. And the secret of Christian living now, and the secret of true holiness, is that, uh, I have been crucified with Christ. Let's notice what that means. It means in God's sight and before the law, that I admitted that I was bankrupt, having done the best I could to keep God's law.
I failed, and the law sentenced me to its penalty, which is to be executed. I admitted it. All my law keeping, circumcision, all the ceremonies of Judaism, and when it was all over, I deserved still the penalty of the law, which was to die, and I've died. You say, how, Paul? Well, when Christ died. You see, I accepted him as Savior. I've been joined to him, and in God's sight, when Christ died, I died. And now I'm risen with Christ. Though I live, yet not I, it's Christ in me.
I live by faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me. That's my secret. I do not make voice void the vo- grace of God. What do you mean? Well, I believe I'm saved by grace. I could be saved no other way. I could not be saved by keeping the law, by being circumcised. Nothing that I could do along that line, even so much as contributed anything to my salvation. My salvation was all of grace. If you are saying now, Peter, that we must add circumcision, else we're not properly saved, then you're cancelling out the grace of Christ, aren't you?
If circumcision could have saved us, or the law could have saved us, then Christ died for nothing. We didn't need to be saved. We didn't need him, sorry, we didn't need him to die for us to be saved, Peter. But if Christ had to die so that we could be saved, that shows how bankrupt we were. The law and circumcision and all the ceremonies combined have left us absolutely bankrupt, condemned before God's law, fit only to be executed. And if we're saved now as we are, it's solely by the grace of Christ. Peter, you must not, you must not fluff the gospel by your behavior.
You must always, by your behavior in these things, leave it crystal clear in the eyes of people how and on what conditions we are saved. That's the first two big arguments in the Epistles of the Galatians. One, apostolic authority. Two, church history. There are a whole host of others. Perhaps in our first session tomorrow, we ought to look at them. But they put, they put, um, perhaps ammunition is not the right word.
We're not, uh, terrorists firing at people, but they put the sword of the Spirit, don't they, into our hands. It is to be used vigorously, but with the love of Christ. It's people's salvation we're concerned about and their freedom, not in party spirit, not in denominational wrangle, but for the truth of the gospel upon which people's salvation and their freedom depends.
