1. The First Part!

  If you suggest to the average Christian that they should observe Leviticus 11, for example, the most common response is “read Galatians.”

  So let’s read and test the validity of the common understanding of Galatians.

  We will not just select verses of Galatians, as is often done. We will read and expose the context as well.  I ask that you consider what you read here since Yahweh once spoke through an ass (Numbers 22) and He can do it again.

  I am writing to myself, since I, until recently, held the ‘consensus’ view taught by a majority of Christians.  If, eighteen months ago, you had shared this information with me, I probably would not have been ready to receive it.  I share it now, not that you have a ‘eureka’ moment (though that is always welcome), but that you can refer back and know you are not crazy and you are not alone.

  This sharing will cause great consternation amongst Christian friends, but if you are a serious student of the whole Word of God, then Torah observance is the logical, and ostracized, conclusion.  Torah is not grievous as John tells us (1John 5:3) and as I illustrate in my book GRAFTED: Embracing Torah.

  Grievous or not, what is Yahweh asking us to do?  Isn’t that the standard?

Galatians 1:1-2  —  Paul establishes his credibility

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by 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:

Galatians 1:3-9

³ Grace be to you and peace from God our Father and from our Lord Jesus Christ, ⁴ who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father, ⁵ to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

⁶ I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: ⁷ Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. ⁸ But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. ⁹ As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

  Paul accuses the Galatians of going after a different gospel. Not only that, but Paul speaks curses to those that preach a different gospel.

  Paul will tell us what the “different gospel” is, and how it defines all of his correction to the Galatians going forward.

Galatians 1:10

For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

  Paul mentions that he is interested in God’s approval, not man’s approval. This is to highlight the honorable intent related to his correction to the Galatians. In addition, it appears to hint that the errors of the Galatians might be rooted in the social and religious pressure of appeasing others. This is further evident from what Paul said in verses 7 and 9.

  From this, we can begin to understand that the Galatians were being influenced by a doctrine stemming from a certain group of people. Or perhaps the Galatians are being lead astray by multiple people with multiple doctrinal errors.

  We don’t know exactly just yet, but later we will find that there is a certain group of people teaching doctrines of men and a “different gospel.”

  Before then, Paul wants to highlight that he too was once influenced by the doctrines of others as a Pharisee. He mentions that he was zealous for the traditions of his fathers and he had done many things in error.

Galatians 1:11-17

¹¹ But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. ¹² For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. ¹³ For ye 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: ¹⁴ And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. ¹⁵ But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, ¹⁶ To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: ¹⁷ Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

  Once the truth was revealed to him, he did not consult with anyone, nor let himself be influenced in the wrong direction again.

  In fact, we will find that the group bringing in a “different gospel” to the Galatians, is closely related to the doctrine Paul used to subscribe to in his former life as a Pharisee.  Paul appears to be making a strong case that the gospel the Galatians are following is related to Paul’s former life as a Pharisee. That is not completely established yet, but at this point it seems to be hinted.

  Paul is literally saying, “I have been there, done that – thus, I am the best person available to you to show you some of the same errors you are falling into.” Paul reviews this with the Galatians, early in his letter, to establish credibility once again, and also to build more trust with the Galatians that the gospel he preaches is the correct gospel. And again, he is also making it clear that in his own past he has made the same mistakes that the Galatians are presently making – suggesting he is worth listening to, and that his concerns are valid.

Galatians 1:18-24

¹⁸ Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. ¹⁹ But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. ²⁰ Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. ²¹ Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; ²² And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: ²³ But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. ²⁴ And they glorified God in me.

  Paul spent three years in the Word, reevaluating all he knew and all he had taught – testing it against scripture – before approaching the Apostles. He had thought he was fervently doing Yahweh’s Will – once he was confronted by Yeshua, on his way to Damascus, he wanted to ensure he was not practicing error any more.

In Chapter Two Paul continues his story.  He is leading up to a point that is intended to resonate with the Galatians. It is a point that is intended to illustrate the corruption of the gospel that the Galatians are entertaining.

  The second chapter begins to introduce some of the controversial verses, in which Paul appears to be telling the Galatians that they are not to be observing the Law of God, starting with circumcision.

  As we enter into each of these particular verses, we will highlight some of the context from chapter 1 as well as bring in the new context that continues as the letter proceeds.

  Since context is the key to understanding Galatians, I feel that it is better to over emphasize, than under emphasize and risk that you might miss a valuable connection – I am not trying to insult your intelligence, just being thorough.

Galatians 2:1-5

¹ Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. ² And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. ³ But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: ⁴ And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: ⁵ To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

Some Questions raised:

• Does Paul teach against circumcision and thus teach against God’s law?
• Is circumcision now against the truth of God?
• Is circumcision bondage and against freedom?
• Is circumcision against the gospel?

  The issue of circumcision can be a complicated subject to study in the New Testament because of the debates surrounding circumcision in the first century. Some Jewish sects made it a requirement for salvation and a mark to enter their doctrinal denomination.

  One such group mentioned in Scripture will be referred to as the “Circumcision Party” denomination (Acts 15).  If you were part of their club then you were saved. If you were not in their club, then you were an unsaved outsider (the stance taken by most religions).

  On the other hand, Scripture (and Paul) teach that circumcision is not to be practiced as a requirement of salvation.

  Galatians 2:3-5 is often cited to “prove” that converted Gentiles are no longer to be circumcised according to the Law of God.

  It is often taught today that it is the “false brethren” that were observing the Law of God and the “false brethren” were successfully compelling the Galatians to observe God’s law, which of course, brings them back into “bondage,” which is then said to be contrary to the freedom they have in Christ.

  It is [wrongly] interpreted here, as an example, that Paul and Titus did not yield to those compelling them to keep the Law of God so that the truth of the gospel would continue.

  Thus, it is incorrectly concluded that observing God’s law is bondage and against the gospel. Christianity, today, teaches that God’s law is bondage.

  If such an understanding is valid then the following statements should pass the Scriptural test:

• The doctrine of the group influencing the Galatians observes and keeps the Law of God.
• Observing God’s law is bondage.
• The freedom that we have in Christ Jesus is freedom from God’s law.
• Observing God’s law is against the gospel.
• Paul taught against circumcision because it is part of the Law of God.

  We must not forget that Chapter 1 builds and sets the context that leads into chapter 2. We must consider that this is a letter and it is intended to be read as a letter.

  The problem established in the first chapter is that the Galatians were abandoning the heart of the gospel message (the true process and way of salvation itself). 

  Galatians 1:6-9.  Paul overemphasizes that the Galatians should recognize the importance of the true gospel, which is the same gospel Paul teaches. He then follows with his warning (Galatians 1:10-12)

  Paul distinguishes between pleasing men and pleasing God. Paul states that the gospel he preached is not from men, but from God. Thus, the false doctrine that is confusing the Galatians, is from men and not God. The only reason the gospel from men exists is to please men, not God.

  That being said, is the Law of God from God or from men?

  This is an important question, so please take a moment to consider what needs to be asked here. Whatever corrupted the Galatians is from man, not from God. The Law of God came from God. Circumcision came from God. But something that corrupted the Galatians came from man.

  If the whole supposed point of Galatians is to teach against God’s Law then why is Paul stating that he is teaching against doctrines according to man?

  What we will discover as we progress through Galatians is that Paul is not teaching that we should not keep the Law of God – what Paul is teaching is that there is a right reason, and many wrong reasons, to observe the Law of God.

  This will become clearer as we proceed.

  So far, after reading most of Galatians chapter 1, it appears that Paul is teaching against the doctrines of man, not against the Law of God. Paul continues establishing this context in Galatians 1:13-14.

  Paul is pulling from his own personal experiences in Pharisee doctrine (Philippians 3:5). Paul was one of the most esteemed Pharisees of his day and was training under the top teacher in Pharisee doctrine.

  We learn of the genesis of Paul’s persecution of the Church in the Book of Acts. Paul was actually a witness to the stoning of Stephen that is described in detail in Acts 6:8 and Acts 7:60.

  It is worth mentioning that in Acts 6:12-14 we learn that Stephen was “falsely accused” of teaching that Jesus changed the Law of God.  If this is a false accusation, this of course means that Jesus did not change the Law of God.

  Yet, supposedly, it is now “correct teaching” that Jesus changed the law of God.

  According to today’s popular doctrine and understanding, what was a false accusation for Stephen is now considered to be true accusations according to the modern mainstream Church.

  What really happened, is that the Law of God never changed. Instead men’s misunderstanding and application of the Law of God changed because of the Jewish sects like the Pharisees. This is Paul’s point, and Paul knew better than anyone because he was raised in such a doctrine. That is the reason he emphasizes his background to set the context.

  His point is that he knows better than anyone the errors the Galatians are entering into. Thus Paul is setting the foundation of his correction to the Galatians. Paul is not preparing to declare that observing the Law of God is in error, but that the common false first century doctrine surrounding the intent and purpose of the Law of God is in error.

  In Galatians 1:14, Paul specifically mentions that he became even more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of his fathers. This, in fact, is the crux of the whole problem that Paul is attempting to address.

  Paul was persecuting the Church because they abandoned and taught against Pharisee doctrine.

  In Paul’s day, the two dominant Jewish sects were the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Jesus taught against Pharisee practices, and other such doctrine (oral law / Talmud), that was against the Law of Moses (Matthew 23:1-5). This began to shake up the religious power groups which were the mainstream seminaries and teachers of the first century. In an effort to maintain their power over the people, they fought back against the Church with violence.

  In the first century, mainstream Jewish leadership practiced something called the “oral law” (Talmud). Paul later refers to this doctrine as the “works of law” or “commandments of men.” Jesus also referred to the “oral law” as “traditions of the elders” that violates the “law of God” (Mark 7; Matthew 23).

  There is much that can be said about the “oral law.” However, at a very basic level, the “oral law” consisted of doctrines, teachings, and commandments of men that much of mainstream Jewish leadership of the first century elevated above the commandments of God. In some cases, the “oral law” even contradicted the commandments of God.

Deuteronomy 4:2

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (see also Deuteronomy 12:32 and Revelation 22:18-19)

  This major issue of the first century is also the point and purpose of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5, His rebuking in Mark 7, and many of His other points of contention with Jewish leadership during the length of his ministry. The critical point to remember here is that there is a clear difference between the “commandments of men” and the “commandments of God.”

Mark 7:6-9

⁶ He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. ⁷ Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. ⁸ For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. ⁹ And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Mark 7:13

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

  It is the Word of God that we are to follow, not the doctrines and traditions of men. Even in Mark 7:10, specifically, we see our Lord appealing to what was written by Moses as the Word of God. We must remember that it is every word that came out of the mouth of God, (which happened at Sinai), that is to be food for us (Matthew 4:4). He also taught us to teach all nations to “observe all things” (not just some things), that He commanded (Matthew 28:19-20).

  In Galatians, Paul refers to the false doctrine as “elements of the world (Galatians 4:3),” and that it is bondage. The doctrine that Paul is teaching against in Galatians, is a form of the same doctrine that Jesus also taught against.

  This all leads to Paul’s closing of Galatians 1:23-24

  We already know that the recorded persecuting began with Stephen and that Stephen was falsely accused of teaching that Jesus changed the Law of God. Paul later left the Pharisee doctrine and began practicing true faith.

  It should be becoming rather clear that Paul’s letter to the Galatians is not teaching against the Law of God.  Instead Paul is teaching against men inappropriately using the law of God to create a different gospel.

  Paul states the Law of God is good if it is used correctly.

1 Timothy 1:8

But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully

  One reason that the law exists is to define sin, not to provide us salvation.

1 John 3:4

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Romans 3:20b

… for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

  Therefore, Paul can not be teaching against the law of God or he is in fact promoting lawlessness (transgression). Paul is not teaching against what defines sin for us.

  This is just one example of why Peter himself gave us a serious warning about misunderstanding Paul as it relates to the law of God. This is a warning from Peter that most people ignore:

2 Peter 3:14-17

¹⁴ Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. ¹⁵ And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; ¹⁶ As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. ¹⁷ Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

  Paul is certainly not against the Law of God. For example, Paul also wrote:

Romans 3:31

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Hello?

Romans 7:12

Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Romans 7:14

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Romans 7:22

For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

  Paul believed and taught in the Law of God and taught against the corruption of Talmud (or the Oral Law).

  Let’s summarize what we have covered so far:

1. There are several points that we still need to test to Scripture as it relates to Galatians 2 and circumcision.
2. Paul is afraid that the Galatians are turning away from the true gospel.
3. The false gospel presented to the Galatians is similar to the doctrines and commandments of men that Paul subscribed to when he persecuted the Church in Pharisee doctrine.
4. We learned that the first century believers (starting with Stephen) were falsely accused of teaching that Jesus changed the law of God.
5. We learned that Jesus taught against the doctrines and traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees while still teaching that the Law of Moses is still true and valid.
6. We learned that the doctrine and traditions of the Pharisees were against the Law of Moses which Jesus also called the Word of God.
7. Paul stopped persecuting the Church and left the doctrines of the Pharisees. Like Jesus, Paul now teaches against the Pharisee doctrine.
8. Peter warned us that Paul’s letters could be misunderstood without a proper foundation (Word of God) and twisted to teach others to break God’s law.
9. Paul actually teaches the Law of God in his letters.

  Now let us look at what is being said about circumcision. It is an “everlasting” Biblical commandment in outward application:

Genesis 17:7

And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

Genesis 17:13

He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

  Circumcision has also always been intended as an outward sign (manifestation) of an inward reality:

Deuteronomy 10:16

Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Deuteronomy 30:6

And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

Jeremiah 4:4a

Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem:

  We are to delight in God’s law inwardly first:

Romans 7:22

For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

  Our circumcision must begin in the heart, otherwise we are being motivated for the wrong reasons in practicing God’s law.

Romans 2:29

But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

  The problem with first century dominant Jewish leadership is that their mainstream doctrine taught and focused on outward obedience and the written law for their own glory and praise and failed to focus on what was more important, faith in God’s Word that gives God glory and praise. It is the faith in God’s Word that produces the true desire to observe God’s commandments in a love for God (1 John 5:2-3).

  So why then does it appear that Paul is teaching against circumcision in Galatians 2?

  He isn’t.

  This is the exact same situation that presented itself in Acts 15 (there are several great teachings on Acts 15 online) when Paul took this same issue of circumcision to the Jerusalem council.

  Because the events leading up to Acts 15 begin in Galatia, and further sets the context of the letter to the Galatians, it is necessary for a short diversion. Also, the focus of Acts 15 is centered around the circumcision doctrine circulating in Galatia, making it relevant to the verses in Galatians 2.

  The Galatians are already familiar with the situation presented in Acts 15, which is why Paul uses it as an example. Many today are not familiar enough with Acts 15 to understand how it applies to the letter to the Galatians.

  We need to understand what Paul is attempting to teach the Galatians about this false doctrine and the false gospel that has become the subject of debate and frustration to Paul.

  This circumcision story starts off in Antioch (which is in Galatia):

Acts 14:26-28

²⁶ And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled. ²⁷ And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles. ²⁸ And there they abode long time with the disciples.

  While in Galatia some men come from Judea with this gospel for the Galatians:

Acts 15:1

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

  In Acts 15, this is not a matter of whether we should or should not observe the Law of God, but rather if keeping specific aspects of the Law of God, such as circumcision in this case, is what merits our salvation.

  This was a dominant theological problem of the first century and not so much in the Christian churches today – so try to see Acts 15 from the position of the Jewish culture and what is actually being said. If you rely on modern doctrine and interpretation, then you will struggle with what is actually taking place.

  There is a difference between correctly observing the Law of God because of our faith and the incorrect doctrine of legalism, which attempts to earn salvation through works which forfeits grace.

  Paul and Barnabas decide to leave Galatia to bring this matter to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:2-4).

  As believers they obviously understood the true gospel, which is salvation through faith by grace alone (Ephesians 2:8). Yet, they still believed that one should keep the law of God, not for salvation like those in verse 1, but in obedience because of our salvation.

Acts 15:5

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

  So, these two positions were submitted to the Jerusalem council: keep God’s law for salvation (verse 1, legalism) or keep God’s law in faith after salvation (verse 2, obedience in faith by grace).

  After some debate, Peter offers his input.

Acts 15:7-11

⁷ And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. ⁸ And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; ⁹ And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. ¹⁰ Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? ¹¹ But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

  Peter establishes in Acts 15:8-9 that it is by faith that we are saved and that there is no Biblical difference between Jews and Greeks as it relates to salvation.  Paul teaches the same once we read past Galatians 2 and enter into Galatians 3.

  In the first century, mainstream Jewish leadership had a problem with the idea that Gentiles could simply have faith and thus become believers regardless of what commandments they were or were not immediately obedient to.

  Peter makes the point that no one has been able to bear the burden of the gospel that teaches that we must keep God’s law in any capacity to be saved.

  Peter is NOT saying that observing Law of God as God commanded is a burden, but that trying to keep the law of God for salvation is a burden that NO one can accomplish.

  The point would be is that all have fallen short and thus we need grace through faith.

  Peter states that the Gentile converts have been given the Holy Spirit because of their faith, thus they will begin to learn and practice God’s law AFTER faith is established because that is the whole point of the Holy Spirit (Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 14:16-17; 26, 15:26; 16:13, 17:17, Psalm 119:142, Jeremiah 31:31-33).

  So, Peter’s testimony obviously rebuked the position offered by the legalists in verse 1. Thus Peter would declare that legalism is a false doctrine. Many would subscribe to that today. Those teaching that circumcision is necessary for salvation teach a doctrine that does not hold up.

  This leaves us with the position established in verse 5.

Acts 15:5

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

  The point that these “believing” Pharisees were trying to make is that converts should still be told that following the Law of God is part of being a believer.

  Today, most Christians would agree with that.

  We all agree that we should not murder, or lie, etc. That does not make one a “legalist.”

  These Pharisees were “believers” meaning they were in God’s plan of salvation.  They are not “legalists” like the false brethren in verse 1.

  These Pharisees had true faith in order to be defined as believers. Thus James (head of the ‘Nazarene Sect’) must still address the point established in Acts 15:5 and rule against the point in Acts 15:1.

  In Acts 15:14-18 James makes it clear that he understands that it is prophetic that the nations should begin to come into the faith.

  James also makes it clear that we cannot place heavy expectations on new converts as they come into the faith.

  Thus in some aspects James agrees with the position of those in verse 5; yet there is a critical clarification and distinction that James wants to emphasize. This distinction is important.

  Remember, those in verse 5 said that new converts should keep the law of God, but not keep the law of God for salvation, like those in verse 1.

  James clearly states that it should not be made difficult for a new believer. Here is his decree or decision:

Acts 15:19

Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

  So the solution James offers must be simple and easy for the Gentile converts, but still be in agreement with the position established in verse 5 and against the position established in verse 1.

  In verse 20, James instructs Gentiles that are turning to God to turn away from cultic temple sun god practices and a few other, especially nasty pagan practices.  In verse 21, he states they will learn more by attending synagogue each week.

Acts 15:20-21

²⁰ But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. ²¹ For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

  James did not list these instructions to Gentiles by accident. These are all related to the context of what occurred regularly in the pagan sun god temples in the gentile regions.

  There is a fantastic book resource worth considering titled “The Lifting of the Veil” that focuses on the historical and cultural meaning of Acts 15:20-21. (you can purchase the book online or download a free copy at http://seedofabraham.net/The-Lifting-of-the-Veil.pdf)

  James found it critical to at least set the compass of the Gentile converts in the direction that is of God and not part of their sun god culture. They are told to leave all of that behind. The Galatians were probably mixing sun god worship with worship of our one true God.

These are all practices that were common in the cultic temple ways and practices related to the pagan sun gods. We cannot follow the ways of sun gods and the ways of the true God. The ways are not compatible and God considers that spiritual adultery.

Paul also deals with this exact same issue in Galatians chapter 4:8-11 because the Galatians were turning back to their old ways of worshipping false gods.

Galatians 4:8-9

⁸ Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. ⁹ But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? The bondage Paul speaks of is the following of and turning back to their previous ways of false sun god worship.

  James needed to address this problem first because believers cannot sit at the table of God and the table of devils. The top commandment of all of God’s law is found in Deuteronomy 6:4:

Deuteronomy 6:4

⁴ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: ⁵ And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

  Jesus reinforced this when he answered the Lawyer’s question about which was the greatest Commandment:

Matthew 22:35-38

³⁵ Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, ³⁶ Master, which is the great commandment in the law? ³⁷ Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. ³⁸ This is the first and great commandment.

  James made it clear that the Gentile converts needed to recognize that there are no other gods, that there is only one true God and that we are to love Him with all of our whole heart, all of our soul, and all of our mind.

  We cannot divide some of our heart, soul, and mind after sun god ways and at the same time devote ourselves to God. It is the opposite of faith, which is one of the reasons Paul was so rightfully concerned for the Galatians in his letter.

  If the Gentile converts would cease their false god ways, then the believers in the faith who were teachers of the Law of God (like those in Acts 15:5) would allow them back into the synagogues to learn the rest of God’s law.

  Once the Gentile converts prove that they only have a heart for God and abandon their cultic sun god ways, they will then learn the rest of God’s law every Sabbath. This is how James made it easy on the new converts.

  This is similar to how most Christians evangelize today. We preach and teach the good news that frees us from the bondage of our sin through faith by grace.

  So, learning and applying God’s law is a process in the faith of a believer, it is NOT an overnight event.

  Committing and trusting in God’s Word is all that is necessary for salvation. But once we enter into the plan of salvation, we should want to learn how to practice God’s perfect Word in our lives . . . and that, of course, takes time.

  It is through that same commitment and trusting in God’s Word that directly causes a new believer to seek out God’s ways so they can be applied in their life.

  In the first century, learning these ways primarily happened on Shabbat when the Law of Moses was read (consider the commandment in Matthew 23:1-3 as well).

  Thus learning God’s ways is a process in faith that is already established. The point James is trying to make clear to those in verse 5 is that no one can be expected to learn and apply all of God’s law overnight, but the expectation of following the only one true God must be set and established immediately.

  There are some that teach that Acts 15 teaches against the Law of God. It is taught that James only made his decree to appease Jews and verse 21 is always ignored and rendered meaningless as if James is struggling to find a compromise between right and wrong (which is always wrong).

  What is even more interesting is that when Peter and Timothy left to deliver the decree that James issued, Paul actually circumcised Timothy before they delivered the decree to those that are found in Acts 15:5.

Acts 16:1-4

¹ Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: ² Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. ³ Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek. ⁴ And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.

  Why?

  Because the decree of James proved the position of those in Acts 15:5 to be correct, Paul and Timothy both agreed that Timothy should be circumcised because all of the Jews already knew that he was a Greek.

  How awkward would it have been for Timothy to be issuing a decree that states that Gentiles were to learn the Law of Moses each Sabbath and still not be practicing the Law of God himself?

  Timothy felt as though he was ready to outwardly submit to his already inwardly circumcised heart.

Now remember that many still somehow teach that Acts 15 did away with circumcision thus declaring both groups of Jews in Acts 15:1 AND those in Acts 15:5 to be wrong. Meaning, people teach that James must have inserted a new, but unspoken, debate that supposedly taught that the Law of Moses is not for the converted Gentiles at all. Verse 15:21 is also not cited and basically deleted for theological consideration because it simply does not fit a law abolishing paradigm.

What this means is that we have Paul and Timothy, in Acts 16, leaving to go issue the decree to the Jews that supposedly teaches that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised, but right before they leave, Paul actually circumcises Timothy, a converted Gentile. It simply does not add up.

  Why would Paul and Timothy be issuing decrees to Jews that supposedly abolishes circumcision for Greeks and then feel it necessary to circumcise a Greek before they even begin? That would be the definition of insanity and hypocrisy. Keep in mind, this is what modern Christian seminaries teach as doctrine today.

  Some even teach that Paul is simply trying to please believing Jews by circumcising Timothy. That makes no sense at all either. These Jews are already believers, this was not an evangelizing mission so there is no motive for Paul “pleasing” anyone.

  In addition, would Timothy have actually allowed himself to be circumcised for such an absurd reason if it was not because God commanded it? Why would Luke have documented this in Acts if it was not important and related to the decision in Acts 15, the same decree that they are leaving to deliver?

  Remember, we already read in Galatians 1 that Paul already declared that his motive is to please God not men (Galatians 1:10), thus there is not even a need to debate this:

  Acts 16 is not about pleasing men, it is about pleasing God.

  Paul circumcised Timothy because the decree they were issuing teaches that Timothy should want to be circumcised in the flesh if his heart is truly already circumcised inwardly for the Word of God. This is what he would learn in the Sabbath each week as Moses (Law of God) was read from the Moses’ Seat.

  You can now see how Acts 15 actually proves that all of God’s people are intended to observe the law of God, including circumcision.

  What we need to determine is why was Timothy circumcised and Titus not circumcised in Galatians 2.

  What was the difference?  Unless Paul is random and operating under no principles then Paul establishes a governing difference somewhere for us to understand and apply.

Galatians 2:3

But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

  Circumcision should NEVER be “forced”. It should always be a matter of the heart, out of a desire to follow God, not because one believes that it is necessary for salvation and then forced to do it.

  We covered the “circumcision for salvation” doctrine in the very first verse of Acts 15 while they were in Galatia – and this is a letter to the Galatians.

  This is not a coincidence. This is the false doctrine that Paul was dealing with in Galatia. It was a doctrine that taught that the Law of God was for salvation.

  Circumcision (nor any works) for salvation is simply bad doctrine. Not only might Titus not be ready to practice outward circumcision (because he is not completely inwardly circumcised), but his circumcision should not even be remotely connected to salvation as the reason he is being circumcised. Such a practice must be stopped. Thus Paul travels to the Jerusalem council to expose and put an end to this doctrine (Acts 15).

  We could even draw from our understanding of baptism. Most believers today understand baptism as a critical practice for a new believer, but most would not state that baptism is required for salvation.  That would be a works-based salvation.

  The new believer is encouraged to be baptized when they are ready, as an outward sign of their inward belief in the Word.

  The same process holds true for circumcision.

  Circumcision is an outward evidence of our inward circumcision of the heart (Deuteronomy 10:16).

  The problem here at hand is that others were “compelling” Gentile converts to be circumcised; thus making it a motive of fear, not a heart for God.

  Paul needed to put a stop, NOT to the commandment of circumcision, but to the misuse and misapplication of the commandment of circumcision. That is a critical difference, yet it is not too complicated to understand if we stop just to consider it.

  If Titus would have been circumcised by this group, then he would, in effect, be stating that he agreed with their gospel of being circumcised for salvation. When we are to be circumcised, we are to be circumcised as evidence of the circumcision of our heart in obedience to our faith, not as a vain attempt to earn our salvation.

  The Circumcision Party, or Works of Law, is the group that taught this false doctrine.  They incorrectly taught that to be in the family of Abraham, one needed to be circumcised in the flesh first.

  This is revealed in Galatians 3 and Acts 15. Instead, Paul taught in Galatians 3 that one needs only to have faith in the one true seed, the Word of God made flesh, and thus be circumcised in the heart, to be in the family of Abraham.

  Abraham was saved through faith and not through circumcision which was performed AFTER he believed

James 2:23

And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

  This simply means that we place our full faith and trust in the Word of God, not in our actions. Then and only then, do we have rights to the promises of Abraham. Our actions are actually the evidence of our faith in the Word, not our faith in and of itself (see James 2).

  Paul was constantly re-teaching the true process of inward, then outward circumcision. He was forced to do this as it was a common, incorrect belief in the first century that it was only the outward circumcision that mattered. Paul taught that it is inward obedience and conversion first:

Romans 2:28-29

²⁸ For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:  ²⁹ But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

  We are not to be circumcised in the flesh until we are fully circumcised in the heart (fully desire the Law of God) and are no longer stiff-necked (Deuteronomy 10:16; Deuteronomy 30:6).

  Those of the Circumcision Party were only circumcising to boast in the flesh of their works:

Galatians 6:13

For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.

  To Paul’s point, if one is keeping God’s law only outwardly, as written, then they are missing the whole point of God’s law which is an inward transformation first (Romans 12:1-2). We are to keep God’s law to please God, not to please men. If we are keeping God’s law simply to boast, then we are not keeping God’s law as intended.

  Again, this is why Paul establishes this mindset in the very first chapter of Galatians.

Galatians 1:10

For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

  Contrary to much of the doctrine dominant in Jewish leadership in the first century, God’s law, starting with circumcision, is not a means to salvation in any capacity. Salvation is by grace through faith. Once we have faith in God’s Word, it is then that we practice God’s Word. We are to still walk in God’s law to produce good works, but we cannot place the cart before the horse. We are to keep God’s law not for salvation, but because of our salvation.

Ephesians 2:8-10

⁸ For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: ⁹ Not of works, lest any man should boast. ¹⁰ For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

  It is the Law of God prepared beforehand that we are to walk out in our lives.

(Leviticus 26:3, Deuteronomy 8:6; 11:22; 19:9; 26:17; 28:9; 30:16; Psalm 119:35; Luke 1:6; 2 John 1:4; 2 John 1:6)

  Now we are really beginning to understand and appreciate both WHY Paul is speaking of circumcision and the difference between a true application of circumcision, and a false application of circumcision.

  This is why Paul states what he does in 1 Corinthians 7:19

1 Corinthians 7:19

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

  This is a very confusing statement by Paul because circumcision is actually a commandment of God as an inward and outward commandment.

  However, if we fully consider everything that we have just reviewed, we discover that Paul is once again just teaching against the doctrine of men that teach circumcision (or any work) actually means something as it relates to salvation. In reality, to Paul’s point, it does not. Circumcision is simply evidence of faith in the Word.

  Believing that circumcision provides salvation changes our obedience to men instead of to God. That is a problem. When we believe that our obedience to men’s doctrines can save us, we have consequently misplaced our faith. What Paul is stating, is that only what God’s commandments say and teach actually matters, not what men say and teach. We are to be servants to Christ, not to men. Just a few verses later Paul even makes this very clear:

1 Corinthians 7:23

  Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

  Isn’t that language very similar to Paul’s language to the Galatians? Isn’t being a slave to men instead of Christ (Word made flesh) bondage?

Galatians 2:3-5

³ But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: ⁴ And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: ⁵ To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

  “Is God’s law bondage or are doctrines and commandments of men bondage?”

  Answering that question correctly will also correctly determine if Paul is teaching against the Law of God, or commandments of men in his example of the situation surrounding Titus.

  This seems to be an appropriate time to address the points mentioned in the beginning of this study.  We still need to test each point to Scripture. If these points fail to pass, then we know that Paul is teaching against commandments and doctrines of men and not teaching against God’s law. Given the amount of Scripture we have already covered, these points should be rather easy to test.

  If what has been said so far is correct then the following statements should pass the Scriptural test:

1. The doctrine of the group influencing the Galatians observes the Law of God.
2. Observing God’s law is bondage.
3. The freedom that we have in Christ Jesus (Jesus) is freedom from God’s law.
4. Observing God’s law is against the gospel.
5. Paul taught against circumcision.

1) Does the doctrine of the group influencing the Galatians observe the Law of God?

  We need to answer this because it is assumed, in mainstream doctrine, that the Galatians are being compelled to observe the Law of God. It is not considered that the Galatians are simply being compelled to follow a different gospel and a doctrine that is contrary to the Law of God.

Consider Galatians 6:12-15:

¹² As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. ¹³ For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. ¹⁴ But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. ¹⁵ For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

  Paul makes it clear that this group does not even keep the Law of God themselves. They simply teach circumcision to boast of converts according to their false doctrine. It would be no different than a group with false doctrine today compelling new believers to be baptized into their doctrine.

  Baptism is certainly not wrong, and it is a Biblical practice. Yet, to have those that teach and believe false doctrine and a false gospel go and baptize us certainly sends a wrong message.

  If you are baptized by those who believe you must be baptized to be saved, those watching are going to believe that you also believe that you must be baptized to be saved. It is only logical.

  Likewise, if you are circumcised by those who believe that you must be circumcised to be saved, people are also going to believe that you also believe that circumcision is necessary for salvation.

  This is the same issue presented before Titus. He chose not to be forced to be circumcised for the wrong reasons (meaning for salvation). On the flip side, Timothy was circumcised for the right reasons (obedience from faith).

2) Is God’s law bondage?

  Paul clearly accuses the false gospel and doctrine of the Circumcision Party / Works of Law to be bondage in Galatians. We have a choice. Either the Law of God is bondage and thus Paul is teaching against the Law of God, or men’s doctrine related to the Law of God is bondage and thus requires correcting.

  Scripture declares God’s law to be freedom.

Psalm 119:44-45

⁴⁴ So shall I keep thy law continually for ever and ever. ⁴⁵ And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.

James 1:22-25

²² But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. ²³ For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: ²⁴ For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. ²⁵ But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

James 2:8-12

⁸ If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: ⁹ But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. ¹⁰ For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. ¹¹ For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. ¹² So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

  Thus Paul simply cannot be declaring God’s law to be bondage. Freedom/ liberty is the opposite of bondage. We simply cannot ignore that. As established earlier, God’s law defines sin. Sin is defined as bondage in Scripture (John 8:34). This is why God’s Law is liberty. If we walk in God’s law we are not sinning. This actually leads us into the next point that we need to test to Scripture.

3) Is the freedom that we have in Jesus, freedom from God’s law?

  As John 1:14 states, the Word became flesh. Jesus is freedom because He is the Word in the flesh. The Law of God is the Word. Walking as Christ walked (1John 2:6; 2John 1:6) is walking in the Word of God. Thus it logically follows that the freedom we have in Christ is the Word, which is contrary to the false doctrines and commandments of men. Walking in the Word is the opposite of sinning. Sin is bondage. Walking as Christ walked (not sinning) is freedom. Christ did not afford us the license to break the law of God. He is to be our example in the Word of God, not our excuse to not keep the Word of God.

4) Is observing God’s law against the gospel?

  So much Scripture could be presented here to prove that God’s people are to observe God’s law. Psalm 119 is perhaps the best testimony to that understanding.  God’s Law is mentioned (e.g., Law, precepts, commandments, etc.) in each of its 176 verses.

  Let us ask this, is it good news that our Creator gave us perfect instructions to follow, or is it bad news?

  I just spent a great deal of time setting the cultural and historical context of Galatians using Scripture. The rest of Galatians should now be much easier to understand, as this context is the key to understanding everything going forward.

  I thought I would be able to summarize all of Galatians in about 20 pages.  At the rate I am going, it will be well over 100 pages so I will stop here and pick up with Galatians 2:6 with my next submission. 

  I believe this is a much better format than the trading of scriptures as a kind of sword-fight (“what about this verse?”, “what about that verse?”)

  Until next week?