As false teachers infiltrated the church in Galatia, they attacked Paul’s authority as an Apostle to discredit the gospel he was preaching. Today, R.C. Sproul shows that Paul received his calling and his message directly from Christ Himself. Get R.C. Sproul’s commentary on Galatians, plus lifetime digital access to his teaching series Galatians and Pleasing God, for your donation of any amount: https://gift.renewingyourmind.org/3609/pleasing-god Meet Today’s Teacher: R.C. Sproul (1939–2017) was known for his ability to winsomely and clearly communicate deep, practical truths from God’s Word. He was founder of Ligonier Ministries, first minister of preaching and teaching at Saint Andrew’s Chapel, first president of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine. Meet the Host: Nathan W. Bingham is vice president of ministry engagement for Ligonier Ministries, executive producer and host of Renewing Your Mind, host of the Ask Ligonier podcast, and a graduate of Presbyterian Theological College in Melbourne, Australia. Nathan joined Ligonier in 2012 and lives in Central Florida with his wife and four children. Renewing Your Mind is a donor-supported outreach of Ligonier Ministries. Explore all of our podcasts: https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts
When the truth of the gospel is at stake, then the Christian has another obligation. Paul, elsewhere, he's lenient, he's flexible, he's pliable. But now, the issue of the truth of the gospel is at stake, and so Paul resists it.
Not only was the gospel under attack by the false teachers in Galatia, but Paul's authority was also under attack. Who was Paul to boldly declare what the true gospel was? And in our portion of Galatians today, Paul outlines his authority and why he was so bold in his defense of the gospel. I'm Nathan W. Bingham, and this is the Friday edition of Renewing Your Mind. Thanks for being with us.
There are many issues and causes that can attract our attention today, but central for the Christian should be the faithful proclamation of the gospel. Galatians so clearly reminds us of this, so I recommend that you request R.C.
Sproul's series on Galatians and his hardcover expositional commentary that walks through this letter line by line when you give a gift of any amount at renewingyourmind.org before this offer ends at midnight tonight. Here's Dr. Sproul on the credentials and passion of the Apostle Paul.
I think we should begin this morning then, still in the first chapter, and I'm going to start with verse 11. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man, for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Let me just stop with that particular point there and just look at those two verses.
Paul is saying, I am going on record here. I want to make it abundantly clear. I want this to be certified and be known and published. This is not an aside comment, a casual remark, but with all the earnestness and seriousness that I can muster, I want to guarantee to you is what the force of this verse is by Paul, that the gospel...
That I preach to you, that gospel which was preached by me is not something that comes from men. Its origin and its authority rests ultimately not with men, but as Paul goes on to say, but it rests upon the authority of Christ himself. Verse 12 is significant. He says, For I neither received it of men, neither was I taught it.
Now, the words here in this particular verse that Paul uses are a bit more specific in their meaning than perhaps the English words convey that are used here in the King James Version of the Bible. When Paul says, I didn't receive it, he has something special obviously in mind. The word that he's using there is a technical term.
It's the term that a Jewish scholar might use in terms of the receiving of the tradition. The receiving of the oral tradition, which is passed on by word of mouth over and over and over again. Paul is saying, I didn't just get this gospel from listening to other people pass it along from generation to generation or from community to community. That's not where I got it.
At this point, he's not even suggesting that he got it from the apostles. Secondhand. When he says he doesn't receive it, in a sense, what Paul is doing here is eliminating the middleman. He didn't receive it, and he wasn't taught it. This gospel I received from Christ by revelation. So, in a sense, what Paul is saying, if you reject this gospel,
You're not just resisting the consensus of academic opinion. You're not just resisting the highest truths that I was able to learn through the scrutiny of my very sharp mind. If you resist this gospel that I've taught you, you are resisting not my authority, but the authority of Christ, because my gospel is gained from revelation, from Him, from Christ.
Now Paul goes on to give us a lengthy rehearsal of his personal background And let me just preface this by saying that what Paul is having in mind here is that he's trying to give us enough information of his background to validate his claim of apostleship. That's what he has in mind. This isn't just a biographical personal testimony. but rather a defense of the authenticity of his apostleship.
And so he selects that material from his background that is relevant to that particular point. He said, you have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion. How that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God and wasted it. In other words, my reputation as an intensely devout person in Judaism is known to you.
Paul had been commissioned by the Sanhedrin to pursue his vast work of persecution of the Christian sect, as it was considered from the Judaistic viewpoint. And so he did that with all of the energy that Paul could muster. He said, you want to talk about somebody who was committed to Judaism, take a look at my dossier. The Judaizers are nothing.
They're small fry compared to the position I had in my zeal and my intention. He's trying to say, look, I've been there where they are. They don't have to persuade me, you know, as if I don't understand what those guys stand for. I stood for it in spades. I was more zealous than they were. But God, through Christ, has revealed to me my error.
And, of course, if it's been revealed to me that my particular mentality and my particular work was in error, what does that say about the Judaizers? By implication. See, they're also resisting the church of God. He says, and I've been profited in the Jews' religion above many of my equals in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the tradition of my father's.
Verse 15, But when it pleased God who separated me from my mother's womb and called me by His grace to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the heathen, Let me stop with that. And now Paul talks about the fact that his call, his vocation, his purpose was established before he was even born.
Paul makes the statement that God not only had separated him from his mother's womb, but as he had consecrated him from all eternity. He's not suggesting here that Paul was converted. in the womb or that Paul was born a Christian or anything like that. Obviously not. The details of his conversion are made abundantly clear to us as a later experience on the road to Damascus.
He wasn't a Christian all his life, but he was ordained by God before this even came to pass. This ordination was realized concretely in Paul's own personal history on the road to Damascus. But the point that Paul is saying is that his conversion was not an accident. And his ministry was not an accident.
This has its roots in the sovereign ordination of God for the purpose of establishing his church. Verse 16, "...to reveal his Son in me." What does that mean? There's some dispute about that. Is Paul saying that God has ordained that Christ's Son be revealed to Paul to reveal his Son to me so that I may reveal it to others?
Or is Paul speaking here of a higher sense in which Paul is not only a bearer of revelation in the sense of verbal revelation, but he himself manifests the revelation of Christ in his own person. To reveal his Son in me that I may preach him among the heathen. My distinctive past, my particular vocation as apostle is what? I am the apostle to the Gentiles. That's the distinctive.
Paul's task in the history of redemption is to be the missionary par excellence of the early church, carrying out the commission of Christ, taking the gospel to the Gentiles. Now, immediately, I conferred not with flesh and blood. Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me, but I went to Arabia and returned again unto Damascus.
And then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter. I think that's significant. I don't think we can deny the fact that Peter emerged in the beginnings of the early church as the leading apostle in the Jerusalem church. We see this through the book of Acts, that Peter is obviously the spokesman and the leader of that community of believers in Jerusalem.
I don't think you can deduce from this that Peter is somehow catapulted into the position of some kind of pope. in the early church. This is our dispute here with the Roman Catholic Church, of course. And, of course, they want to locate him as the first bishop of Rome, which is a questionable matter from a historical perspective. But Peter did have a preeminent position in the Jerusalem church.
It seems to be pretty clear. And this is assumed here when Paul, he doesn't say, I just want to talk to the twelve. I went to visit Peter in Jerusalem and abode with him 15 days. But other than the apostles saw I none save James, the Lord's brother. All right, now verse 20. Here's an interesting thing. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God I lie not.
You see, he's saying if I want to tell you that before God Almighty, I'm telling you the truth. And that's a very, very serious thing for the Jew to do that. The Jew understood in a way that we've missed the sanctity of that file. So when Paul goes to the extreme here, I'm taking a holy vow before these people. Say, I swear to you, before God I lie not. What I'm saying is true.
Afterwards I came to the regions of Syria and Cilicia, and was unknown by faith unto the churches of Judea which were in Christ, but they that had earned only, that he which persecuted us in times past now preached the faith which once he destroyed, and they glorified God in me. There's a little subtle undertone here.
These other churches, they got it secondhand that I was converted and I started preaching the gospel. These churches were rejoicing. You people is the implication here. I've been there in your midst. I've labored there. You've seen. the genuineness of my conversion, and you guys are still raising questions.
Then 14 years after I went again to Jerusalem with Barnabas and took Titus with me also, and I went up by revelation and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles. but privately to them which are of reputation, lest by any means I should run or had run in vain. Okay, now look, I want to tell you something. I went up to Jerusalem and I conferred with these people.
I explained to them my program. I'm not just some isolated missionary running out there doing anything I want to do and not sending back home any word of what I'm doing, what the content is. But I've talked this over with the apostles. Don't you start appealing to the apostles in Jerusalem and set them over against me? What I have done, you see, I've done through conversations with them.
My ordination doesn't rest there. My authority doesn't rest there. I didn't get my gospel from them. But don't take from that that I'm working apart from them or in opposition from them, you see. But neither Titus, who was with me being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. Now, the first time the issue is laid on the table. Circumcision.
Paul's saying, hey, look, when I went down to Jerusalem, I took Titus with me, and Titus was my co-labor, and he was a Gentile. And I was going out to minister to the Gentiles' churches. Now, the argument, you know, I'm reading between the lines now.
What Paul's saying, he says, look, if the apostles in Jerusalem believed that circumcision was necessary for salvation, as the Judaizers are teaching the people here in Galatia, What do you think they would have said about my taking as my co-laborer an uncircumcised Gentile? Don't you think they would have insisted at that time that Titus be circumcised? But just the opposite was the case.
Neither Titus, who was with me being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. And that because a false brethren, unawares, brought in who came in privately to spy out our liberty... which we have in Christ Jesus, that they may bring us unto bondage, to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
All right, then there's this false brother who came out to take a look at us and started raising questions. I did not subject myself to them, not for a minute. This raises a question. In the Corinthian letters, the first Corinthians, Paul deals with the whole business of the conscience of the believer, the whole business of Christian liberty.
In those areas where God has left us free, where he has not legislated, where he has not given us any commandments, but those areas which Paul calls adiophorous, those areas which are ethically neutral, you see, without ethical bearing. Some people have certain scruples, right? Let me take an illustration of this.
I remember going into a church one time where the head pillar of the church was convinced that playing bridge was of the devil, that card playing intrinsically was evil. And here I am playing in the amateur bridge tournaments. as a sport, see? And all of a sudden, the minister, he's involved in playing bridge, and the pillar of the church believes that playing bridge is sinful. Okay, what do I do?
I'm convinced that bridge in and of itself is not intrinsically evil. There's no bearing on the kingdom of God, which of course ethically all he offers. But this lady is convinced in her conscience that it is indeed evil. Now, what do you do? Paul says what? About the meat offered to idols. If that's going to offend my brother, I'm not going to eat meat for the sake of the weaker brother.
This particular moral dilemma came to me while I was still in seminary. I had a church as a student pastor, and this was an issue. Here's what I was faced with. If I submit to this woman's insistence of my not playing cards, it saves the peace of the relationship. And so maybe what Paul's statement is to the Corinthians should be followed here, that I should just not do it.
On the other hand, this woman is making this a big issue and that a person cannot be a Christian if they play cards. Now the truth of the gospel is at stake. And if I submit to that, am I allowing her to perpetrate the idea that the kingdom of God in a person's life is decided upon whether you play cards or not? Did you see the dilemma? I'm in there.
Because obviously she has now taken this issue and made it a substantial, intrinsic aspect of the gospel itself. And that's devastating. That's a radical misrepresentation of the gospel. I didn't know what to do. I went down to see Dr. Gerson. You know, as a student. No, I do not, Chief. You know. Oh, I ain't a list. Paul says in Corinthians, and I said, submit.
And I said, I'm perfectly willing to submit, to give up card playing and all the rest. He said, ah, he said, you're called to yield to the weaker brother, but not to allow the tyranny of the weaker brother. I'll never forget that distinction. You see, when the truth of the gospel is at stake, Then the Christian has another obligation, you see.
Paul, elsewhere, he's lenient, he's flexible, he's pliable. Oh, well, I'll bend it. If eating meat bothers you, I won't eat meat. But now, the issue of the truth of the gospel is at stake. And so Paul resists it and refuses to subject himself to it. The point here is, if you follow that subtle distinction there, this is not inconsistent with the principle of humility and
and self-abasement that he preaches elsewhere and indeed practices. Now, we're going to see how crucial that is as we go on. For these who seem to be somewhat whatsoever they were, it makes no matter to me. God accepts no man's person. This, of course, is a Hebraic expression. God is no respecter of persons.
The word that is used here for person, the word prosopon, suggests the outward appearance of the person. God is not impressed by the outward credentials of a person. God's not fooled by that. God's interested in the inner man. "...for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me.
But contrarywise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter..." For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.
And when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave to me and to Barnabas the right hands of fellowship that we should go unto the heathen and they unto the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor.
If the only point that they were jealous to preserve was that we should remember the poor in Jerusalem and send our gifts and contributions down there. But the point that Paul is driving home now is that when I left to go to the Galatian church and establish this ministry, we went with the full endorsement of the pillars of the apostles. This is the point he's laboring over and over and over again.
Now comes the problem. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles. But when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. Hypocrisy. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If you, being a Jew, live after the manner of Gentiles and not as do the Jews, why do you compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
We who are Jews by nature are not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even when we believe in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law. For the works of the law shall no flesh be justified, etc.
But the point that he's saying here is, look, he says, I had to reveal Peter publicly. After this conference, after we endorsed him, after we agreed on the strategy of the gospel, the guy who deviated from it was not me, but Peter. And the apostle Peter was rebuked and was stood openly by Paul.
Not only openly did he do it, but now he incorporates that in Scripture for the whole history of the church to read of his description. Paul is saying here is not that he's any less committed personally to the ministry of Peter, that he loves his brother any less than he did before.
But what Paul is saying is that even if somebody who has the stature of Peter departs from what Christ has revealed and what God has ordained, that he's going to resist him. Peter had deviated at a crucial point, and what had he done? What had he done? When Peter went out to the Gentiles, remember the vision he had in Cornelius' household where God abrogated the dietary laws?
And Peter, he's had this vision, and the vision said, take and eat all these unclean things. And Peter said, God forbid I would eat any of that stuff. I won't do it. It's not clean. And then the vision of Christ rebuked him and said, hey, don't you call common or unclean what I have declared clean. So now the way is open. for the Jewish Christians to participate in the Gentile dietary laws.
This is a big issue here, this business about eating with the Gentiles. Remember in the Babylonian exile, what happened? If they didn't take all the Jews into exile, who did they take? the cream of the crop, the best of Israel. And they took them up there, and what the Babylonians did was that they invoked a systematic Babylonianization program of the Jews.
They really wanted to assimilate the Jews into the pagan culture. In other words, to have them really abandon their Judaism. And one of the first things they went after was their dietary laws, because that was a critical distinctive that separated Israel from the other nations.
And at that point in history, the Jews, such as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, such as Daniel, were willing to pay with their lives rather than sit down there and eat the food that was set before them by the Babylonians. In other words, for them to break kosher, they would die first. The reason I brought that in is to understand this was no small thing.
This was part of the Orthodox Jews' heritage, of his being a wholly set-apart person involved such mundane things, as you will, as eating food. This particular food, not that particular food.
If we're going to zealously and tenaciously hold to the fact that we are a chosen people, that we're set apart, that we are to be the light of the world, then we're going to keep that law down to the smallest detail. And so what I'm saying is that for the pious Jew to give up this long heritage... of kosher food. Really, it was difficult.
Now, I want to do that so that you understand that Peter just wasn't crassly and grossly going out, you know, flippantly. He had an inner struggle to beat all inner struggles. I mean, even the vision didn't totally convince him of this. For a while, it did. But then, you see, Peter vacillated. The vision Christ told him, okay, now look, this is okay. Go ahead and eat it.
So he went out and he ate with the Gentiles. Then all of a sudden, all the Jews come up. Peter says, what are they going to think of me? They see me up here eating all this pork. I'm going to be in trouble. So all of a sudden, Peter withdraws, and he doesn't eat pork anymore. And now, is Peter going to come to the position where after he himself has eaten with the Gentiles,
Where he himself has broken kosher, is he now going to change to the degree of arguing that the Gentiles can't eat Gentile food? That they've got to be Jews? Hey, Peter, this is serious. This has to do with the whole question of whether we're justified by the law or justified by faith. Are we still in the old covenant or are we in the new covenant?
Are you going to repudiate the finished work of Christ? That's what's at stake here. And we'll see that more clearly as we go on in the text, what really is at stake. And so Paul says, I was willing to resist even Peter on this point because he vacillated. Now that should be a warning to us practically. That as somebody of the stature of Peter, you see...
could be so much a slave to public opinion, how much are we? How much are we like that? When we're with people who believe like we do, we take such a tremendous stand. But when I find myself surrounded by people who don't share my opinion, you know, we're a little less militant, a little less convinced, you know, a little less strong in our convictions.
We have a tendency to which we are all prone, even to somebody like Peter. It's a whole business of being a man pleaser. Peter himself is a common one. Temporarily.
With the noise of today's world, we need frequent reminders like today's message on the centrality of the gospel. That was R.C. Sproul on this Friday edition of Renewing Your Mind from his series on Galatians.
If you would like to hear the rest of this series on Galatians, you can request lifetime digital access until midnight when you give a gift of any amount at renewingyourmind.org or when you call us at 800-435-4343.
And to thank you for your generosity, in addition to this series, we'll unlock Dr. Sproul's series, Pleasing God, and we'll send you his hardcover expositional commentary on Galatians as well. Only hours remain for this offer, so click the link in the podcast show notes or make your donation at renewingyourmind.org while there's still time.
Renewing Your Mind