Authority of Paul from Christ
Galatians 2:1-3 · Miles Driedger · Jun 1, 2025
Galatians (2025-26), No. 12
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://www.hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/49261939364358

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

All right, so let's hit the book. Last week, we were in chapter 1, verses 18 through 24 of Galatians, and put those verses up again here for a quick review. Paul writes then, Three years later, I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him 15 days.

But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother. Now, in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying. Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ, but only they kept hearing, he who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy, and they were glorifying God because of me."

So a few quick review points. We kind of had to rush through the end of the lesson and I was going to cover some of these things at the end, but we'll just do them now as a review. In this whole section, Paul is defending his gospel. He is adamant that his gospel was directly received from Christ and not from men. is because Paul had received new revelation from Jesus Christ, and so because it was a new contribution to the Church's doctrine, it had to be defended as divine revelation, which is always the case with Scripture. When any prophet was receiving a revelation from God. It had to be authenticated. And so Paul was very careful about that in what he's writing here. So he's defending his gospel, his revelation from Jesus Christ, as being just that, nothing short of divine revelation.

And then we see in those verses that Paul is demonstrating really how little time he spent in Jerusalem. And he does that in comparison with the amount of time that he spent in Arabia. And in part that shows us that there's really not enough time to have formulated some man-made scheme of doctrine in Jerusalem. And in a sense it appears that Paul was not getting his doctrine from Peter, but he was actually kind of questioning Peter, checking if Peter was in line with true doctrine, kind of that showed up in the Greek text.

And then we also see that in these verses something important, that Paul recognized all Christians as being in Christ, whether they are aware of it or not. Because we would say that the believers, the early church believers in and around Jerusalem area there, were not aware of this truth. It had just been revealed to Paul, and he hadn't had an opportunity to teach it in that area yet. And I think this is a very applicable point, because most Christians today are still not aware of their position in Christ. And that doesn't mean that they're not in Christ, it just means that they aren't enjoying the benefits of that, because they're not counting on it, they're not reckoning on it, right? You can't reckon on something that you don't know is true.

And so, like Paul, we have the privilege of being able to share that good news, the good news of our identification with Christ, with other believers. Because there are so many who have not heard or understood that. And this good news, this good news of our identification with Christ, our position in Christ, is the gospel that delivers Christians from the bondage of sin and the yoke of the law and brings them into the the fellowship with Christ in his resurrection life. And that is, that is good news.

So that's kind of brief, uh, three point, uh, summary of some of what we covered last week. So any brief thoughts before we move into this week? No, wait, critically important miles. This is, this is really bread and butter for us. It really is. Absolutely. I agree. Yeah. So, Alright, well let's move into, thanks Paul, let's move into this week's verses. Just three verses, beginning chapter 2.

And Paul writes, Then, after an interval of fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was because of a revelation that I went up and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles. But I did so in private to those who were of reputation for fear that I might be running or had run in vain. But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised."

Now, there are a few things there in this. This is the NASB. A few things in this translation that I'm not a fan of. We'll get to that. But I just put it up there the way I read it. So let's look at that. Like we just said, Paul's whole point in the first part of this letter is to defend the fact that his gospel was from Jesus Christ and not from men.

And as we saw in last week's verses, Paul didn't spend much time with the apostles on his first visit to Jerusalem. And now, in these verses, Paul tells us about the first time that he presented the gospel to the apostles at Jerusalem and what that looked like. How do we know this is the first time? Well, he wouldn't have had to lay it out for them on this visit if he had done so on the previous visit.

That's one of the reasons we can kind of, one of the reasons, one of the things that indicates that Paul didn't share his gospel with them on the first visit because he says here that 14 years later he laid it out for them. So just a couple of thought-provoking questions on these verses to get our minds going here.

Why did Paul bother presenting his gospel to the apostles? What was the purpose of that? And why does he share this particular information with the Galatians, okay? How does this support what Paul is trying to talk to them about, right? And that's really important to see. Why is Paul bothering to bring this up in this epistle?

You know, I think a lot of people, myself included, have a gut interpretation of these verses. And we have to think carefully about whether that interpretation fits with what Paul is actually arguing here in this section. So I just want to throw this out here and see if you guys have the same gut interpretation as me of these verses.

What does it sound like? Any thoughts? Sounds like he's backing up his authority as an apostle. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Does it sound like he has some, now this is probably because I'm an NASV reader. Does it sound like he has some doubts about his gospel, perhaps? Did anyone kind of feel that tone in the text that he's like, you know, wondering? Am I running in vain? Am I preaching a false gospel?

At least I almost tended to get that sense from the text. Like he was losing his confidence in his gospel message, and he had to come to the leaders of Jerusalem to get their support, right? And one of the parts that particularly... Yes, please. I don't believe he was thinking that of himself. I think he was thinking that of the Jerusalem church.

Now, even though most of the Jerusalem church was ruled by the original apostles, Most of them were way off base. That's where most of the Judaizers actually came from once they started following Paul around. So he was afraid once he got there, not so much that they would disagree that his gospel was wrong, but that he would not be able to convince the Jerusalem church. Well, and that's Bob, to build on that, he uses Titus as an example. Yes. In case, if you will, right? Yeah. Yeah, go ahead. Very good, guys. Yeah.

But it's really amazing that the original apostles that spent three years with Christ would be so far negligent on what the true gospel really, really was. But they were so close to Judaism, it's easy to see that happening. It's like a Roman Catholic just coming out of Roman Catholicism. It's going to take a while to get all that out of the system. Yeah, it's hard to get rid of the rosary beads, right? I mean, you've, but, but, you know, Jesus said to his own, his own apostles, you know, have you been with me so long? And yet you do not understand.

There were a lot of things that they didn't understand. Now to their defense, when Jesus came in his three year ministry, he was teaching law, right? He was teaching to the nation of Israel, which was under law and he was clarifying and teaching what the law was, and now all of a sudden things have changed. The church has begun, Israel has been set aside temporarily, and there's this whole new thing going on, but that had not been explained to the Twelve, but it had been to Paul.

So our gut interpretation may be, and the NASB really I think builds into it by saying, for fear that I might be running or had run in vain, Other translations are more accurate to the Greek, which says, less by any means. I might run in vain. And it might seem like Paul went to these superior apostles to see if they approved of his gospel. But does that interpretation fit with Paul's argument in this book? And I think the answer is no. That would really invalidate everything that Paul has said so far. It doesn't make sense for Paul to argue that his gospel was not sourced in men, in chapter 1, and then turn around and tell us that, well, 14 years later, I began to have doubts about my gospel, so I did go back to them, and yes, they approved of it. Well, now all of a sudden his authority is based on men, right?

Now, it's true, and I think this is why we can slide into this interpretation, because it's true that if Paul's gospel was incorrect, then his teaching was in vain. He recognizes that himself in 1 Corinthians 15, 13 through 14, he says, but if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised, and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. So it's true that if Paul's gospel was incorrect, then his preaching was vain.

But Paul never preached a false gospel. He was never concerned that he was teaching a false gospel. And he never had to go to any man to verify whether his gospel is true. Paul knew that he had received it from Jesus Christ, and that was enough for Paul. So he's not going to these apostles to get their approval of his gospel. As Bob mentioned earlier, there's something else going on here. So what else could render Paul's preaching in vain? If Paul's gospel wasn't the problem, then what was the problem? So let's unpack that a little bit. Let's ask some other questions.

What event does this line up with in Acts? We're going to kind of unpack what's going on here. Does anyone know? I could put two options on the screen. One is the Jerusalem Council is in Acts 15, right? Okay. Yep. And some have suggested Acts 15. Another suggestion is Acts 11.

Now, Acts 11 gives us one verse recording that Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem from Antioch with a financial gift. That's in Acts 11, verse 30. And then Acts 15, comes later after the first missionary journey, and there we have almost an entire chapter devoted to that trip to Jerusalem and the Jerusalem Council and so forth.

However, the more that I study these verses, the more I'm convinced that Paul is actually referring to the Acts 11 occasion. for three reasons really quickly here. In Galatians 2, Paul is very clear that he spoke privately to those who were of reputation, which we discovered in 2 verse 9 that this is Peter, James, and John. But in Acts 15 verse 4, we read, when they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, And they reported all that God had done with them. So that doesn't really fit with this idea of a private small gathering with three of the apostles.

So that's one reason. The second is that in Galatians 2 verse 1, Paul's very specific. He says, I went up again or once more to Jerusalem. And if we read the text here in Galatians, He's laying out a very chronological, sequential series of events. And the idea seems to be that Paul is emphasizing that he had not been back to Jerusalem since that first visit 14 years ago, which of course would not be true if this was referring to the Acts 15 council, because we know that in Acts 11, Paul had this other visit. So again, that points to Acts 11. And the third reason is that where Paul says, it was because of a revelation that I went up, kind of seems almost inconsequential in the text. What's that about?

If we look at Acts 15, first of all, we see that it wasn't because of a revelation, but because of a disturbance that Paul and Barnabas had to go up to Jerusalem. In Acts 15, verse 1, it says, Some men came down from Judea and began teaching their brethren, unless you are circumcised according to this custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, their brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. So there we have, it was not a revelation but a disturbance. But in Acts 11 we actually have some interesting An interesting note, the reason that Paul and Barnabas went up is Acts 11 verse 27.

Now at this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius. And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of their brethren living in Judea. And they did this, sending it in charge of Barnabas and Saul to the elders. So there we do have a revelation that motivated a trip up to Jerusalem. And so that also fits.

So that's why I lean towards taking this as Acts 11. I could be wrong, but I think I think we have a fair bit of evidence there to point towards this. But yes. One more reason to use acts 11 is the reason they went down there was to take a contribution for the relief. And if you if you go on in verse, I think it's. Verse 10, they only ask us to remember the poor, the very thing I was also eager to do. So that's in context with what happened in Acts chapter 11. Yeah, you're right, Bob. That's true. Good point. So we're probably referring to the Acts 11 occasion here. I think that fits.

So another question, who did Paul bring with him and why? Now, the text says quite clearly that Paul went up with Barnabas, but that he took Titus along with him. And I think there's some significance to the way that Paul says this. Now, interestingly, Titus is never mentioned by name in the book of Acts, not in Acts 11 or 15, so that doesn't give us any hint. But if it is the Acts 11 event, then all we have there is that Paul and Barnabas were appointed to take gifts up to Jerusalem. Paul's account, he says that he went up with Barnabas, but that he took Titus with him.

And the word actually has even almost a forcefulness to it. It's almost like Titus had no choice. Paul said, Titus, you're coming with me. And it's almost like Paul had a plan in mind. So we're gonna talk about that more when we get to verse 10. What was Paul's plan and why did he bring Titus along? I think if you were Titus, you might have been a little nervous if you knew what the debate was.

So next question, did Paul submit, communicate, or present his gospel? Now, this may seem like hair splitting, but personally, I don't like the word submitted that the NASB chose. Paul isn't submitting his gospel like a term paper to be graded, right? The word for translated submitted is anatithony, which just means to lay out before.

So Paul is laying out or setting forth his gospel. And it's clear in the text that Paul's reason for laying out his gospel is to ensure against the possibility of running in vain. And as I said, the word fear isn't in the text, but nevertheless Paul does have some degree of concern about the possibility that his running may be in vain. We could say that Paul is trying to avoid a possible outcome. And so he's laying forth his gospel to the apostles. And to understand the problem that Paul's trying to avoid, we need to examine the way that Paul talks about running and running in vain. So let's explore that a little bit. Paul actually uses the word run and the expression running in vain somewhat frequently in his writing. So first of all, what does Paul mean by running? Anyone want to hazard a guess? Just to summarize it in one thought, this is Paul's running. He does also use this word for believers. Paul seems to think that every believer has a run. In fact, in Chapter 4, I believe it is, what verse is it now? We're going to get there. We're going to get there. But what is Paul's run?

If you have your Bible and you can flip to 1 Corinthians 9, In 1 Corinthians chapter 9, Paul's talking about his liberty to preach the gospel without receiving pay. He says, you can't pay me if I don't want you to. But in verses 15 through 18, Paul says this, but I have used none of these things And I am not writing these things so that it will be done so in my case, for it would be better for me to die than have any man make my boast an empty one. Then he says, for if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion. For woe is me if I do not preach the gospel. For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward, but if against my will I have a stewardship entrusted to me, what then is my reward that when I preach the gospel I may offer the gospel without charge so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel. So, three times in those verses he says, preach the gospel.

That's what he's talking about. And then, in the next few verses, Paul talks a little bit about his strategy of evangelism and then down in verse 25 and 26, he says, everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath But we, an imperishable, therefore I run in such a way as not without aim. I box in such a way as not beating the air. So Paul used the analogy of running or running a race to describe his teaching ministry. So we see that in a number of places. Here's just one example where it's quite clear that preaching the gospel to people is Paul's race to run.

So what would make Paul's teaching ministry vain? If his running is his teaching ministry, what would make that vain? And we already talked about the fact that he was teaching a false gospel, though that would make it vain. Since that's not the case, what else could possibly make his teaching vain? Depends on to whom he's preaching, right?

Yeah. We'll come back to this a little bit, but I think if we think of the word vain, we can think of empty. That's a direct translation. We can also think of unfruitful or useless. What would make Paul's teaching ministry useless or unfruitful, empty, or vain? Well, Philippians 2, 14-16 says this. Do all things without grumbling or disputing, so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God, above reproach, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among men, sorry, among whom you appear as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I will have reason to glory, because I did not run in vain nor toil in vain. So if the Philippians failed to hold fast to what Paul had taught them, then he says his ministry would be in vain. So how would you define holding fast in that passage? In one word? Faithfulness. Faithfulness, yeah. to trust it, right? To hold on to it by faith, right?

And Paul says that if you don't hold fast to the truth that I taught you, then what I've taught you is vain. It's not going to produce the intended results. He's not saying that they're not going to be eternally saved, by the way, but he's saying that they're going to be unfruitful. Now Paul says something very similar to the Galatians, okay? Galatians 4 verse 11, Paul says, I fear for you that perhaps I have labored over you in vain. Now here the word fear actually is in the text, but He says that that's his concern with the Galatians.

Now the word labor here is the same word for toil in Philippians 2.16 that we just saw where he says, I did not run in vain nor toil in vain. So Paul connects toil, labor with the idea of his run. This is his ministry, his labor. And he says that his concern for the Galatians is that he's labored over them in vain.

What's really helpful is that here in Galatians 4, Paul gives us a very clear picture of the specific problem that made his, the specific problem amongst the Galatians that made his teaching vain or useless. If we back up a couple of verses, in verses nine to 10, we read, but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, notice, he's very clearly believers, they have not lost their salvation, we don't wanna go that direction, okay? Nobody's lost their salvation here. They're known by God.

How is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things? What's that? What are they turning back to? He says, to which you... The law. The law, right? To which you desire to be enslaved all over again. You observe days and months and seasons and years.

I fear for you that perhaps I've labored over you in vain. And if we jump down to verses 19 and 21, chapter four, he says it very, very clearly. My children with whom I am in labor again until Christ is formed in you. But I could wish to be present with you now and to change my tone for I'm perplexed about you.

Tell me you who want to be under law. You don't listen to the law. So this very clearly the problem in Galatia is that these believers wanted to be under law. They wanted to put themselves back under law. Paul's labor over believers didn't end at new birth, right? He labored over them until they were walking in dependence on Christ for his life in them. And putting themselves under law completely derailed that goal. According to Paul, The thing that made his ministry vain or useless was when believers put themselves under law.

So that's pretty clear in Paul's writing. Now, knowing that, how should we understand what Paul is saying here in 2 verse 2? When he says that his concern was that his preaching might be in vain. And I think we've cleared up the fact that it's not the concern that he was teaching a false or unclear gospel. He was concerned that his gospel, or we should say, maybe we should say it this way, he was concerned that his spiritual children, his converts, if you want to say it that way, would be led back into a system of law as Christians. Many of the Jewish Christians, like Bob was saying earlier, still believed that they were under the law. And there was a risk that these Christians were spreading that thinking throughout the newly established churches outside of Judea.

And that's exactly what was happening. We're gonna read that later on in chapter two here. And so what Paul was doing on this visit to Jerusalem, I think, is that he was trying to prevent this very thing. He was trying to get the leaders of the Jerusalem church clear on the gospel that he preached.

Not just the gospel for new birth, but the gospel, the good news, of the believers' co-death and co-resurrection with Christ. It's a teaching that he summarizes very succinctly in Romans 7, verse 4. He says, therefore, my brethren, You also were made to die to the law through the body of Christ so that you might be joined to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. That's the truth that Paul was trying to get across to these three apostles at Jerusalem. The fact that not only have your sins been paid for on the cross, I know you guys know that, But you also were made to die with Christ on the cross.

And that has some very big implications that you guys need to understand. And notice that the resurrection of life bears fruit there, that we might bear fruit for God. There's no spiritual fruit. when we keep ourselves under lock. This is exactly what Paul will unpack later in chapter five, right? The deeds of the flesh versus the fruit of the spirit.

And here in chapter two, Paul's explaining to the Galatians that he had attempted to prevent this whole legal mindset from ever taking root in Christianity. And I think that's what he's referring to here. So understanding verse two in that way, in that light, I think radically changes our interpretation from what I said kind of my gut reading had been probably for years, just not really paying much attention to what I was reading. to now where I understand what Paul's real concern was. Paul wasn't concerned that there was a problem with his gospel, so he wasn't going to Jerusalem for the Apostle's approval or confirmation of his gospel or something. He was concerned that the tendency toward law would bring his converts under the bondage of law and undermine the fruitfulness that God intended by grace. So these apostles understood Christ's substitutionary death, but they struggled to understand the believer's separation from the law.

And Paul wanted to make that clear to them. He wanted to make sure they understood the Christian's death to the law. So that gives us, I think, the real heart of what's going on in these verses. There's one other, a couple other questions we can ask here about the text.

Why did Paul do this privately? Any thoughts on that? Why did he only do this for these three? Why didn't he just go to Jerusalem and get up on a soapbox and tell everybody? Or at least go to the churches, you know, go to these local galleries of believers and start to, you know, drill these things into them. Well, I think Paul was, was aware how sensitive this issue really was. And I think he was being very strategic and quite tactful. Paul was very careful to present this to those who were in leadership positions in the church at Jerusalem. He was also being very respectful of the fact that God had placed these men as leaders of the local church in and around Jerusalem.

And he wasn't going to... Yes. Isn't that true of how we should act in the church today? If we have something we disagree with the elders on, we're not supposed to stand up and shout it out. We need to go to the elders privately. And in my case, if it can't be solved, My solution is to quietly leave and go to another church, not make a big stink. I'm glad you stayed, Bob. Yeah, really. And no matter how much you want to, yeah, stand up and yeah, no, I think you're right, Bob. I think that's kind of the idea here is that Paul, you know, a few factors, right? It was strategic and tactful.

One, I think for the fact that last time he was in Jerusalem, Nobody trusted him. He hadn't been back since. I don't know if he was totally sure that people would listen to him anyway, but also the fact that these three, these men, were, as he calls them, pillars.

They were those who were respected as leaders and teachers in the church. And he knew that the right thing to do would be to address them, get them clear on these things, so that then they could go out and share this same truth in the churches there. I think it's, yeah. So just to interpret verse two a little bit more in detail, the private communication of the gospel to what he considered the leaders of the spread of the gospel, that's not what he was concerned about running in vain, is it not?

I mean, what he's running, he wants to do everything he can to make sure what happens subsequent to that is not in vain. Do you agree with that? Yeah, I think I understand what you're saying. That's why I sort of said he's trying to prevent something here that he may have already been seeing, you know, the beginnings of, right?

This is an Antioch and he's going to explain the situation in the next verses. or a little bit further down here, that this happened in Antioch. He explains the situation in Antioch that happened where men came up from Jerusalem and they were teaching law. And then of course the same thing happened at Galatia. So he's relating these things because it applies directly to what was happening at Galatia.

But yeah, I think Paul was trying to avoid the possibility or the the very real likelihood that these legal believers were going to spread this legal thinking within the church. So... St. Miles? Yeah. Maybe another reason he just went to the elders is because when he was there previously, he got ran out of town. Yeah. And there was probably people that wanted to stone him if he ever came back. Mm-hmm. Probably true. Yeah. So a couple of quick little things here.

One thing, what about Titus? We haven't really touched verse 10 yet. So what does verse 10 have to do with anything, right? Well, it seems that Titus was Paul's test case. Notice what Paul says very carefully in verse 10, not even Titus, who was with me. indicates that Titus was right there with him as he was going through all of this with the apostles, as he was explaining this to them. And I think the point is that if the apostles had presented any valid counter-arguments against Paul, you know, to support biblically, scripturally, the fact that the church must be under the law, well, then Paul and Titus would submit to the Word of God, and Titus would have gotten circumcised, but he didn't. indication, I guess, is that these other apostles didn't have a scriptural support for Christians being under law. And so as a consequence, Titus was not circumcised. So just in closing, what can we take away from this? And we've touched on a few of these things already as we go. Let's just kind of summarize them now. I think this is probably the most important thing.

Paul never questioned the validity of his gospel. What did concern him is when believers turned away from his gospel of grace back to works of the law. And as we see there, Paul took it very seriously when Christians put themselves under law as a rule of life. He knew that under law it was impossible for a Christian to produce the fruit of the Spirit. And so Paul did what he could to make sure that his fellow elders were clear on grace and that legal thinking would not be propagated in the church.

And I think that we should have the same concern as Paul in this regard. We understand that a legal Christian life is completely fruitless. A legal Christian life may have the appearance of being good to some others, but it's completely worthless in God's economy.

And we have the opportunity to share this message with others, right? We understand that the Lord is seeking to produce His fruit, the fruit of His Spirit in our lives. So, you know, this is a message to us as well as to those who we share with. Not only are our lives fruitless if we put ourselves under law, but also our ministry to others is vain if we're teaching believers to be under law, and we're not teaching them about their death to the law and the liberty that they have in Christ Jesus.

I think that's probably the key takeaway from these verses. And then a second one, briefly, is just Paul's wisdom in the way that he approached this problem. Paul went to the leaders. He didn't undermine or challenge their authority. He respected the fact that the Lord had established them as leaders in the church. He didn't go behind their backs. He went directly to them.

And I think that this principle applies when we're talking about leaders who are not false teachers. That's a different issue altogether. We're not to go to some totally false teachers out there and try to correct their doctrine. No, I think false teachers need to be called out as such. These are church leaders who just needed further instruction on some key points.

And remember as well that Paul was in Jerusalem on a benevolence mission, if we're correct about the Acts 11 interpretation. And I think that's helpful as well to Paul's situation here. He was in a position where it was very clear that he was coming on friendly terms. He was desiring to help them and support them. It was clear that he was coming in love.

And I think that's key because if we're going to have an open door of communication with with other believers, they first of all have to know that we love them, that we're on the same team. Proverbs 27 verse 6 says, faithful are the wounds of a friend. So when we come to a fellow believer who needs correction on some doctrine, they need to know that we love them, that we care about them, and that we're not coming with, you know, just out of pride or, you know, intent to shame them or something like that. And so when we have words of correction for fellow believers, they need to know that we care about them. We're their brothers and sisters. So those are a few of the key takeaways from the passage, I think.

Hopefully we see that Paul is in no way questioning his gospel. He's seeking to prevent legal teaching that was so easy, especially for Jewish Christians, to be swept up in in the early church. And I think we can see pretty clearly now why This is actually very helpful to Paul's overall argument in the book of Galatians. What he's saying here really ties in, because the Galatians themselves had been swept up in this same vain, fruitless, legal mentality that was being propagated by the Judaizers. So this little interaction here between Paul and the apostles of Jerusalem actually sets up a lot for what Paul is going to be dealing with later on in the letter.

So any thoughts or questions in closing? I was just to think out loud a little bit about what we're studying in the in the main sanctuary, but it relates to Romans 14 and not being judgmental. And, you know, just an example, verse 19, chapter 14, therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one would be edified. And I think here, you know, in fact, the truth of the gospel as presented here today by you, quite wonderfully, thank you, is one that we can't defend what the gospel says, right? In other words, are we judgmental if we correct someone who in fact is not correct in their use of the law to monitor their Christian life?

What are your thoughts there? Is that being judgmental or is that trying to, in the power of the spirit and in love, correct wrong doctrine? Your thoughts. Yeah, good question, Bob. I mean, I think so much of that comes down to your hard attitude in the way that you approach something like that. Is it out of pride that you have to be right about this? That's easy to do. you know, is it just, you know, maybe you're the one who's wrong on something.

However, when it comes to the clear facts of the gospel, clear teachings of scripture, we always rest on the authority of the Word of God, and that has to be I didn't really touch on it, but I believe that Paul always backed these things up according to scripture.

He praised the Bereans for going to the scripture, which was the Old Testament. He actually backed these things up in the Old Testament. He showed that what he was teaching wasn't taught in the Old Testament, but was set up in no way contradicted. and consistent with the Old Testament. And that would have been the same for the apostles at Jerusalem. If they could have refuted him from any point of scripture, then that would have helped, but they couldn't. There's no scripture that that makes the gospel of grace invalid.

So yeah, so it comes down a lot to hard attitude when you have to approach someone. You have to do it through proper channels, not undermining authority. A great example of this actually is a friend, John Clark, and some other men that go over to Liberia with DM2 Ministries, and they They teach pastors. They borrowed that model, I believe, from Dennis Roxer and their ministry to Central America.

They go in and a lot of these pastors have very poor, very weak doctrine. But they teach pastors. And then those pastors go back to their local churches with clarity and are then able to teach it there. But they don't go into these countries and undermine these local pastors' leadership in their churches. And it's very well received. A lot of these pastors really appreciate it. the opportunity to be trained in the Word of God. So, just one example of how that same principle can be applied.

So, let's close in prayer. Heavenly Father, we thank you for this time in your Word. We thank you for the things that you've taught us, and we pray that you would continue to teach us. And Lord, we thank you for grace. We thank you that not only are we born again by grace, but we are free to live and walk by grace, moment by moment, dead to the law, and free to have the righteous life, your righteous life, lived out through us all the time. We thank you in Jesus name. Amen.