But That’s Not Good News at All!

There’s one danger to preaching through the Book of Galatians that has held me back from doing it for a while now.

And that’s the danger that all the talk about circumcision and the Mosaic Law might feel disconnected from our modern lives.

We’re not Jews, and most of us are already followers of Jesus, so what does all this talk about circumcision have to do with us?

It’s the same problem I remember having with history back when I was in high school.

What difference did it make in my life that the Portuguese explorer Vasco de Gama sailed around Africa’s Cape of Good Hope to discover a sea route to India?

How could it possibly be important to a 16-year-old in 1980 that Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin?

Only as an adult have I come to appreciate history, and then only because I’ve grown to recognize the interconnectedness of historical events.

I’ve come to see the way they build on each other, with effects that continue long after the original event has faded into memory. Now, I can understand the relevance of those events to our lives in modern America.

Take Eli Whtney’s cotton gin, for instance. He invented it in 1793 and had it patented in 1794.

For those of you who might not know, the cotton gin separated cotton fibers from the cotton seeds in a boll of cotton. Prior to the gin’s invention, this was an incredibly time-consuming process that limited the usefulness of cotton in mass production.

But after Whitney’s invention, preparing harvested cotton for use in the manufacture of textiles became much simpler. And cotton became an incredibly profitable crop, especially for those farmers who kept large numbers of slaves to harvest the cotton crops.

And that’s one of the things I wish my history teachers had explained. Because understanding that development of the cotton gin would lead directly to a radical expansion of slavery in America would’ve helped me learn an important lesson: that even beneficial technology can be used in service to great evil.

So, what does this have to do with circumcision? Well, nothing, at least not directly.

But what I want you to remember as we continue our study of the Book of Galatians is that Paul’s argument against circumcision as being necessary for salvation is REALLY an argument against legalism, the idea that our salvation depends upon ANY work we might do.

For the Galatians — indeed, for the Church as a whole at the time of Paul — this false doctrine of legalism was manifested in the Judaizers’ claim that Gentile believers in Jesus had to be circumcised in order to be truly saved.

And that’s not really an issue in the church these days. In fact, it hasn’t been an issue since the second century A.D.

But LEGALISM as a false doctrine is still alive and well in the Church. And because legalism is still a problem, the Book of Galatians is still relevant to us.

You’ll recall that we’ve been looking at Paul’s defense of his apostolic calling and message during the past few weeks.

After he’d left the Galatian churches he’d founded on his first missionary journey, Paul learned that a group of Jews had come to these Gentile churches, teaching that these new Gentile believers had to be circumcised and follow much of the Mosaic Law in order to be truly saved.

In other words, they had to become Jews before they could become Christians. The Judaizers were claiming that Christianity was simply another sect of the Jewish faith.

And in order to prop up their false gospel — a gospel which wasn’t good news at all — they first had to tear down the Apostle who’d brought the true gospel to Galatia.

They’d assassinated Paul’s character in order to call into question the message he’d received from Jesus — that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Last week, we saw Paul defend his calling as an Apostle by showing that both the calling and the message he preached had come from Jesus Christ, Himself.

In the passage we’ll look at this week, Paul continues his defense of his apostolic authority, but now, instead of focusing on the source of his message, he focuses on its content.

“What we have in Galatians 2 is a snapshot of the early church grappling with the problems of law and gospel, faith and freedom, historical particularity and evangelical inclusivism. The issue was not finally resolved by this conference, nor indeed by the later Jerusalem Council. Yet Paul’s stubborn resistance on both of these occasions to those who would water down the gospel of grace was an indispensable factor in the triumph of the orthodox Christian doctrine of salvation.” [Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 139.]

In other words, Paul’s focus on circumcision in Galatians and elsewhere helped the Church understand how to deal with legalism in all its manifestations.

We’re going to look at the first 10 verses of chapter 2 today. This passage represents the second leg of Paul’s three-pronged argument that the gospel of grace is the ONLY good news.

Let’s read this passage together now:

Galatians 2:1–10 NASB95

1 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 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. 3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. 5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. 6 But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.

So, 14 years after his conversion experience on the road to Damascus, Paul visits Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus.

This is probably his second post-conversion visit to Jerusalem. You’ll recall that in the first visit, three years after his conversion, he stayed with Peter for 15 days and then went back to his home in Tarshish, where he planted churches in and around the area.

This second visit seems to align with the events at the end of Acts, chapter 11. Listen to Dr. Luke’s account, beginning in verse 27 of that chapter:

Acts 11:27–30 NASB95

27 Now at this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 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. 29 And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea. 30 And this they did, sending it in charge of Barnabas and Saul to the elders.

When Agabus and others from Judea visited Paul in Antioch, Agabus prophesied that a great famine would take place during the reign of Emperor Claudius. This is probably the revelation Paul refers to in verse 2 of today’s passage.

So, the disciples in Antioch raised money to send to Jerusalem to help with famine relief. And they sent Paul and Barnabas, along with Titus, to Jerusalem with the money.

While he was in Jerusalem on this visit, Paul spent time in private with Peter and John and James, the half-brother of Jesus, describing his ministry to the Gentiles and the gospel message he was preaching to them.

The time had come for Paul to connect with the Jerusalem apostles to prove unity among their positions and uniformity of the messages they preached.

Remember that the Judaizers had been accusing Paul of having brought a corrupted gospel from the other Apostles.

If this meeting hadn’t taken place, those same people would likely claim that his separation from the Apostles of the Mother Church proved there was disagreement about the gospel between Paul and the other Apostles.

As always, Paul had a high view of unity within the church, and this visit would serve to confirm the unity of those who were planting all the new churches.

If there were disunity between the Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus — if there weren’t a uniform gospel message preached among both groups — then Paul would feel as if all his work had been in vain.

Now, it’s important to remember that this visit was almost certainly prior to the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15.

In that public meeting, the church leaders would consider the question of Gentile circumcision. And they’d determine that Gentiles didn’t need to be circumcised or follow the other parts of the Mosaic Law in order to be saved.

But Paul seems already to have worked out this answer for himself, since he allowed Titus, a Gentile believer, to come along without having been circumcised.

And I think it’s likely that one of the reasons Paul had brought Titus with him on this visit to Jerusalem was so he could serve as a living example of a Gentile who’d been saved by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

And if you read between the lines of Paul’s account here, what seems to have happened is that some of the Judaizers In Jerusalem interrupted his meeting with Peter, John, and James, the half-brother of Jesus.

We can easily imagine them banging on the door and saying, “Hey! What are you guys doing in there, meeting with an uncircumcised Gentile?! You’re bringing dishonor to Moses and to God!”

Circumcision was important to the Jews, and it was supposed to be that way. All the way back to Abraham, it had been a sign of the covenant God had made with His chosen people, Israel.

Among the Old Testament prophets of Israel, circumcision was extended metaphorically to describe the complete repentance and devotion to the Lord that was supposed to characterize God’s people.

But the Jews came to rely on the physical acts of circumcision and temple sacrifice, instead of demonstrating the heart-change of people focused on justice, mercy, and faithfulness because of a relationship of complete trust in God.

So, the prophet Jeremiah, for one, spiritualized circumcision, telling them to circumcise their hearts. In other words, he was telling them that an inward change was more important than the outward change.

The outward change was intended simply to be a SIGN of the inward change.

Paul, too, would later spiritualize circumcision, calling even the uncircumcised Gentile believers “the circumcision” in his letter to the Philippians. He could call these Gentiles “the circumcision.” because their hearts had been changed by the Holy Spirit.

And all this mattered very much to the early church. They were trying to work out the best way to honor God in their new faith. Was this new religion just some new sect of Judaism, or was it something completely different?

But the debate over liberty and legalism continues even today.

Here’s what Martin Luther said was at stake in this debate: “For the issue before us is grave and vital; it involves the death of the Son of God, who, by the will and command of the Father, became flesh, was crucified, and died for the sins of the world. If faith yields on this point, the death of the Son of God will be in vain. Then it is only a fable that Christ is the Savior of the world. Then God is a liar, for he has not lived up to his promises. Therefore our stubbornness on this issue is pious and holy; for by it we are striving to preserve the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to keep the truth of the gospel. If we lose this, we lose God, Christ, all the promises, faith, righteousness, and eternal life.” [Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 152–153, quoting Luther]

Now, you should understand that Martin Luther wasn’t worried about circumcision. That matter was settled nearly 1,500 years before he was around.

What Luther was concerned about was the works-based legalism of the Catholic Church of his day. But even now, 500 years later, legalism is still a problem in the Church.

As one commentator puts it: “Today it would seem ridiculous for anyone to insist that all non-Jewish males be circumcised before they could become Christians or unite with the church. However … Paul’s struggle for Christian liberty and the truth of the gospel is far from being a dead issue. As Luther’s comments show, human beings are forever trying to add something to God’s completed work of salvation. It may be Jesus Christ and the mass, or Jesus Christ and water baptism, or Jesus Christ and good works, or Jesus Christ and a charismatic experience. Paul’s argument is that nothing, absolutely nothing, can be mingled with Christ as a ground of our acceptance with God. Our hope is built on nothing less—and nothing more—than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.” [Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 153.]

This is what Jesus meant when He said, “My yoke is easy and my burden is light.” We don’t have to strive for God’s love. And nothing you can do can make Him love you any more or any less.

That’s what Paul is talking about when he mentions the “liberty which we have in Christ Jesus” in verse 4.

But the Judaizers were advocating for a continued bondage to the idea — which was ALWAYS false, anyway — that we can somehow earn God’s approval.

And what was at stake was the very truth of the gospel, which was a matter that always caused Paul’s stubbornness to show itself.

So now, having been confronted by the Judaizers demanding that Titus be circumcised, the leaders of the Jerusalem church — James, Peter, and John — didn’t grab a knife and tell Titus to lie on his back on the floor. They didn’t correct Paul’s theology. They didn’t try to convince him that it’d be expedient to give in to the Judaizers.

No. They saw the evidence of Titus’ faith in Jesus. They heard how Paul’s gospel of grace echoed the words they’d heard from Jesus. And they recognized the grace of Christ operating in Paul’s life and ministry.

They saw that the same God who was bringing growth to Peter’s gospel ministry to the Jews in Judea was ALSO bringing growth to Paul’s gospel ministry to the Gentiles.

And so, they shook the hands of Paul and Barnabas — and, assumedly, Titus, as well — and sent them on their way, with their blessings.

There was now a plan for evangelism among the Apostles. Peter and the others would preach in the Jewish areas, and Paul and his companions would preach in the Gentile areas.

And they could all be confident that they were preaching the same message to both groups.

And because all the new followers of Jesus would be united in the faith they affirmed, the Church could be a unified body that no longer recognized the external things that so often divide us. There was no longer Jew nor Greek, slave nor free man, for we are all one in Christ Jesus.

We are still unique individuals, but our identity in Christ holds us together. And we can only have that shared identity because of the finished work of Jesus at the cross.

We contribute nothing to our salvation but the recognition that we are spiritually bankrupt without Jesus. We contribute nothing to faith except the recognition that it’s a gift from God.

Next week, we’ll look at the third leg of Paul’s argument in defense of his apostolic calling and message. And I know that all this sounds a bit like your 10th-grade teacher talking about Eli Whitney.

But I hope you’ll begin to see that this matter of legalism STILL constitutes a problem within the Church — and that it’s a problem that keeps people from truly knowing Jesus.

In the end, legalism — this idea that we have to clean ourselves up so God will accept us and save us — removes all the power from the cross.

If I can do something to save myself, then why did He die there? And if Jesus didn’t have to die on the cross, then He was wrong, or He lied. And if either of those things is true, then He’s not God.

And if Jesus is not God in the flesh of a man, then we are all lost. Because God has said that the wages of sin is death. And if God Himself, in the person of His Son, didn’t take that punishment upon Himself, then each one of us must take it for OURSELVES.

That’s why the message of legalism isn’t the gospel. It’s not good news; it’s TERRIBLE news.

Praise God for the one true gospel, the ONLY good news. God sent His unique and eternal Son, Jesus, to live among us as a man, yet without sin.

Jesus gave Himself as a sacrifice at the cross, taking upon Himself your sins and mine and their just punishment, so that all who turn to Him in faith can be saved.

He did what we could never do. He reconciled we sinners to God through faith alone. And that’s VERY good news, indeed.

This week, I want to encourage you to think about what JESUS did to save you. Thank Him for that, and thank Him that He didn’t wait for you to clean yourself up to save you.

He doesn’t lift us from the nice, clean space we’ve created to prepare for Him. No, He lifts us from the miry clay and sets our feet upon the rock.

Now, THAT’S good news!