Paul’s Accepted by the Apostles

One thing I believe today’s church is missing is a connection to the long history and tradition of the church

I grew up completely disconnected from the universality of the church

We spoke about being interconnected, and had relationships with other congregations, but it was not much more than words

It was more than word. But not much.

I believe this is one of the weaknesses of the modern, post reformation church

Obviously I believe the reformation was drastically needed

and that the catholic church and catholic doctrine is not Christianity

but since the reformation, there has been a quick separation amongst churches

That separation probably peaked around the rise of the baptist movement

One of the key baptist distinctions is the independence of the local church

This is the idea that there is not authority beyond this congregation

This movement away from denominational hierarchy and toward congregational independence is distinctly a response to Catholicism and the control of Rome over the individual congregations

Most of today’s church, in name or not, are baptist

Most churches are either part of a baptist conference where there is no denominational control over the congregation or is a non-denominational church that holds to what are referred to as “the baptist distinctives”

The independence of the local church has some advantages

Specifically: It prevents the abuse of power that large centralized authorities tend to have (Think Rome)

And this is a really good thing

But it also has some disadvantages when it goes too far

When churches are too disconnected we lose the reverence that comes with the ancient traditions of the church

We lose the depth of unity that the creeds bring

We lose the accountability of church members to church leaders

If you’re leaving a church because of church discipline, it’s easy for you to avoid sanctification and leave for another congregation

Could you imagine if our pastors reached out to each other about members that change congregations???

It becomes more difficult to fight heresy

What we see in chapter 2 is a good example of how individual congregations should be independent but also work together to defend sound doctrine

What Did the Early Church Look Like?

The early church was drastically different than it is today

The Early Church Still Had Apostles

Today our ultimate source of authority is the scripture

In the early church they did not yet have the scripture, they had apostles

When there was a lack of scripture, the ultimate source of authoritative truth was the apostles

Today with the lack of apostles, our ultimate source of authority is the scripture

But back in the days of the early church, with only the Old Testament to learn from, they had access to the Apostles

If we remember back to Acts 1, when the apostles came together to select a replacement for Judas, the requirement they put on apostleship was:

To have been with them since the baptism until the ascension

They were to be a witness of the resurrection

An apostle was someone that learned directly from Jesus

Today, we do not have people that meet the definition of an apostle

But In the early church, during the time of Galatians, they still had the apostles to learn from

This gave the early church authoritative figures we do not have today

The Early Church Was Location Oriented

We often see the phrase “to the church at…” in the beginning of Pauls epistles

We also see this phrase through the 7 letters to the 7 churches in Revelation

This gives us a picture of what the early church was like

There was no “Grove Church” and “Bridge Church” there was just 1 church

The church would often meet in various people houses and be lead by elder

But there was not “church that meets at Bob’s house”

They were all united

They were all one family

In fact, while they would spend most of their days (notice I didn’t say once a week) meeting in people homes, they would often meet in bigger congregations on Sundays

A common meeting place was the river bank

The early church did not view themselves as different churches, but all as members of 1 church

The Early Church Had an Hierarchy

Being that they viewed themselves as 1 church, they also had a natural hierarchy

There would be elders and bishops to lead the church

Elders may be called to oversee small groups of people and the bishops would oversee the larger group

There may have been 20 house churches with 20 elders in a city and 1 bishop leading those 20 elders

This hierarchy, was not what we would see in todays denominations because there were no buildings, land and money to have control over.

Instead they oversaw the teaching of sound doctrine

They made sure there were no heresies growing up

And when there were, the elders and bishops of multiple congregations would come to gether to correct, reprimand and even excommunicate when needed

At the top of the hierarchy was Jerusalem

Not because the temple or anything Jewish of nature, but because the Apostles were there

When in doubt, the Apostles were able to be the “final word” on matters of doctrine

The Early Church Was United

If you have not started to catch on to this yet, the early church was united

The church did not view themselves as independent congregations, but all members of one body

If one congregation was hurting, another would send help

Could you imagine what it would be like if big, well funded churches were willing to send money to smaller struggling churches?

Or better yet, were willing to send people?

The church of Antioch was a strong, well established church, so what did they do?

They sent out Paul and Barnabas

Two of their best

Why did they do this?

Because they didn’t see themselves as the church, they saw themselves as part of the church

and if one part of the church is hurting, every part of the church is hurting

The reformation, as great as it was, did away with much of this thought

We speak like we agree that we are united, but we don’t often act that way

Paul Appeals to the Other Apostles

Paul Presented His Gospel to the Apostles in Jerusalem

Paul shows he accepted the authority of the apostles in Jerusalem

Paul put himself on the same level as those apostle, but did not take away from their authority

When he went to Jerusalem, he took with him Barnabas and Titus

Barnabas, probably because his reputation in Antioch and to be a witness of what Paul has seen on his missionary trips

Titus, probably because he was an example of the conflict at had

Titus, being Greek, would be a perfect example of one who came to Christ not out of Judaism and was never placed under the law

Paul, wisely, went privately to “those who seemed influential”

Most likely this was the apostles

Paul sticks to his beliefs that will be expressed later, that no one is better than another, by stating they seemed influential

The Jerusalem Apostles Approved of Paul’s Teaching

v3-8

With the apostles, Paul and “false brothers” debated

Paul could be calling them “false brothers” for two reasons

First, they may be “false brothers” with the word false referring to their doctrine being false

in this case, they are brothers, but through a misunderstanding they are teaching falsehoods

He may also be referring to them as false brothers because they are not brothers at all

It is very likely what Paul is teaching here is that if you believe faith and circumcision are required then you are not a Christian

Again, we see Paul speaking in a way today’s church would not accept.

To call someone a “false brother” today, would not even be accepted by many scripture believing Christians in America

The results of the debate with the false brothers was positive

The apostles agreed with Paul, confirming the Gospel and teaching of Salvation by faith through grace by Christ alone.

They agreed so much that not only did they not support circumcising Titus (surely to his joy) but they also did not add anything to Paul’s Gospel

They even came to such an agreement on the teaching of Paul that Paul was able to compare his ministry to Pauls ministry

and how it is the Lord working through both of them

Paul Left in Unity With the Other Apostles

We find out here who was involved in this conversation

We know there are “people of influence” in other words, people well respected by the church

We know there are false brothers that snuck in

But now we find out by name that the people of good report are James, Peter and John

Paul then, calling them pillars, shows his respect for these three men.

But what is especially important is they gave the right hand of fellowship

In todays terms, we shook hands, or better yet, hugged

The outcome of this meeting is essential to Pauls purpose for writing Galatians.

Notice, he didn’t get into any debate over proving his point

He didn’t tell us what he said or what Old Testament passages he may have taught on

All we know is they talked and agreed.

Paul is not yet trying to make a theological argument, he is simply trying to prove his authority

The approval of the Apostles was essential to Paul being authoritative

Essentially, this part of his argument is “I’ve already told you I am an apostle, chosen by the Lord, but now I want you to know that those in Jerusalem agree”