This Is How the Judaizers Felt Paul Was Bringing in New Members to Their Club Without Any

1

Imagine for a moment you are a member of some exclusive country club that you and your family worked hard to get into and sacrificed a lot of money to purchase membership. None of the rabble of society can step foot within the walls of your little fortress. However one day, the country club decides entrance is now free and everyone is welcome. Now one of the main reasons you liked the club is gone. It is no longer exclusive. You sort of liked it being exclusive…it made you feel special…unique. However, you can no longer take pride in being a member of this club…it’s open to everyone. You’re not special anymore and these new people coming in have no idea how to act in your opinion.

This is how the Judaizers felt…Paul was bringing in new members to their club without any screening process or initiation fees. The rabble was getting in to their little fortress and they did not like it. The Judaizers reacted strongly to this and questioned not only Paul’s methods but also his motives. They alleged Paul was bringing in the riff-raff to come off as some kind of hero to the down-trodden. In fact, he’s probably making this whole free grace of the gospel up just so he can appeal to these people and expand his base of influence.

There’s a story about a little boy whom a pastor was trying to teach a lesson about courage. The pastor says, “Imagine you’re at summer camp in a cabin with your friends and at night none of the other boys stop to say their prayers before going to bed, but you…you are the only boy to say his prayers before you go to bed. That would be an example of courage!” The boy responded, “Well, I have an even better example. Imagine that you’re at a summer camp in a cabin with your fellow pastors and all the other pastors say their prayers before going to bed, but you…you are the only pastor to not say his prayers before you go to bed at night. That would be an even greater example of courage!”

That boy was on to something because we all face pressure to be approved by others. The Judaizers accused Paul of trying to please men by compromising the gospel, but Paul asserts he is no people-pleaser and the grace message is not all that people-pleasing.

Gal 1:10 Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Paul’s opponents accused him of promoting the free grace of the gospel in order to not only attract Gentiles, but also to curry their favor. The charges infer that Paul once sought to please God, but now he only wishes to please men. In other words Paul’s just a “people pleaser” who is willing to compromise truth at the possibility of a few accolades hurled in his direction. However Paul points out that so-called “people pleasers” do not typically tell other people to go to hell which he has just done twice in the first eight verses. In fact, the only time in his life when he was truly a “people pleaser” was when he was a Pharisee and promoter of the Law. Therefore, its not that this accusation could never be leveled against him…it’s just that it is a bit behind the times.

Furthermore if any religious system promoted people-pleasing it was first century Judaism which was primarily focused on man’s self-righteousness as judged by other men.

Matthew 6:5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

Matthew 23:5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

The gospel of free grace, on the other hand, is not people-pleasing in general to men who prefer to preserve some reason to boast in their accomplishments spiritually speaking. The word for grace is where we get our word for charity as in we are charity cases. No one boasts in being a charity case. If Kelly only married me because she thought I was a charity case I would not go around bragging about it!

The true saint can only boast in Christ and their only reason to boast is Christ. The true gospel focuses attention on God’s righteousness as given to men freely apart from their works or performance…therefore in that sense it’s nothing to brag about.

11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Paul now addresses the question of “Was he some kind of self-appointed apostle wannabe?” Paul presents an autobiographical argument to answer the question of his authority. Namely, that Paul was an apostle before he ever met the other apostles and he received the gospel he preached the same way the others did…by direct revelation.

He also points out the absurdity of believing that the free grace of the gospel is anything any man would have ever made up. Men don’t make up religions like that…man-made religions emphasize human merit and the necessity of human works in order to deserve rewards and merit salvation. Furthermore, the apostle declared that he did not receive the gospel from any human source. He was not someone else’s protégé. He did not sit at the feet of someone like he had sat at the feet of Gamaliel. And finally, Paul affirmed he did not receive the gospel he preached by means of some course of instruction. He received this gospel by direct revelation from Jesus Christ.

You see the Judaizers were trying to say Paul received his gospel second-hand and not directly, which is why he screwed it up. Either he didn’t understand it thereforehe twisted it after he received it or he received some twisted version of the gospel from someone else.

13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

By appealing to his personal history Paul is hoping to prove beyond any doubt that he did not learn his gospel from men. His entire training had been anti-grace. As a legalistic Pharisee his only interest in the church was that of a maniacal persecutor of it. Standing before Herod Agrippa II, Paul summarized his fanatical oppression of Christians.

Acts 26:9 "I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10 And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the saints in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. 11 Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. In my obsession against them, I even went to foreign cities to persecute them.

Not only was he not interested in Christianity’s gospel he was zealous to advance as a Pharisee in Judaism. He felt driven to excel over other Jews his own age. He was a legalist among legalist. No one had greater passion for the law and the traditions of Judaism than him. And Paul did not simply talk the talk he walked the walk. Remember that last week we noted that legalism is attractive to some folks because it’s measurable and because it’s measurable it’s easier to make comparisons. Note here how that was definitely true in Paul’s case.

He didn’t just advance; he liked the fact he was advancing beyond many others his same age. Notice also whatever he did he did to the extreme! Paul was so passionately opposed to the gospel of grace he didn’t just persecute the church he did it with intensity, he didn’t just preach against this new ideology he set out to destroy it. When he refers to his persecution he uses the same term often used of soldiers ransacking a city and bringing it to ruin. Paul wasn’t just zealous…he was extremely zealous. Jesus had warned his disciples that the day would come when many would think they were actually doing God a favor by killing them.Paul was one of the people Jesus had in mind.

What drove Paul to these measures was he had great ambition in life. His advance in Judaism is described by a word meaning 'one who is blazing a trail'. He was in, as the theologian John Stott put it, “in no mood to change his mind, or even to have it changed for him by men.”

15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

As a zealous legalistic Pharisee Paul had well-defined plans and purposes for the direction of his life, but he discovered God had a plan and a purpose as well. God's interrupted all of those ambitions in the life of Saul of Tarsus. Paul lists three things that were a part of the plan and purpose of God. First, God set him apart from birth. Saul was living out his life under the delusion that he was in control, but as Paul he would discover that God had providentially set him apart from birth and that all his life to this point was merely a preparation for his ministry as an apostle of the gospel of God's grace.

Second, God called Paul by His grace. Paul in no way deserved or merited this great honor bestowed upon him by the grace of God.

Third, God was pleased to reveal His Son in Paul. Once he was blind but now he sees and ironically God had to blind him in order for him to see it. Some would say that God changed or converted Paul’s heart at the moment he appeared to him on the road to Damascus. I am not one who believes that to be true. Remember in the book of Acts there is rejoicing after every conversion, save one! Paul’s! After seeing the risen Lord Jesus on the road to Damascus Paul does not rejoice…he mourns…he fasts. He is not happy to see Jesus. In Acts it says that Paul did not eat or drink for three days after this event. I actually think it was in that blinded state with all other stimulus shut down that Paul pondered what had just happened and what it meant. God gave Paul an outward vision of Christ on the Damascus Road and somewhere in that three days Paul came to terms with it and had an inner revelation of saving faith concerning the full significance of the person and work of the Savior.

In any event Paul emphasized that both his conversion and his commission owed nothing to man but were fully of God. He did not receive his message from men before his conversion or even at the time of his conversion.

When did he receive his revelation as to the gospel of free grace then? I think the hint as to how that happened is given next.

Having established that he was free from human influences before his conversion he now affirms that he was free from human influences afterward as well. Though Paul met other Christians after his conversion he did not consult them on doctrine and theology. The point of Paul's declaration is clear. He formed his theology not by consulting with others, but independently as God guided him into the truth.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles-only James, the Lord's brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

Paul then reinforced his previous argument by asserting that he waited three years after his conversion to go to Jerusalem, time that was spent in Arabia and Damascus which means he did not enter into some kind of theological instruction from other disciples. Some theologians believe that the Risen Lord Jesus instructed Paul personally for these three years just as He had with the other disciples. There’s no way to know but I like to think that is what happened. I definitely think this is when Paul received his direct revelation either through the ministry of the Holy Spirit or by personal teaching by the risen Lord.

When he did finally go to Jerusalem, it was merely a social visit lasting about two weeks after which time he left because of a plot against his life. To stress the truth of what he had just said - no doubt in the face of the Judaizers charge that he had misrepresented his relationship to the apostles - Paul put himself on oath, calling God to be his witness that he was telling the truth. Under Roman law, an oath was used outside of court to indicate one was willing to resolve the matter in the courts if need be.

21 Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ.

After his abbreviated visit in Jerusalem Paul worked for an extended time in the north, specifically in Syria and Cilicia, which is why he was personally unknown to the churches of Judea. Due to the distance between him and the other apostles in Jerusalem he could not have been under their authority or subject to their oversight.

23 They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." 24 And they praised God because of me.

The churches in Judea heard about Paul, but they didn’t hear from him. The churches in Judea by this time had heard that the one who had once persecuted the church was now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy. And the fact the Judean believers praised God because of Paul demonstrates he was not promoting a false gospel as alleged by the Judaizers. While in chapter 1 of this epistle Paul focused mainly on the source of his message and his independence from the other apostles we shall discover in chapter 2 he will focus more on the content of his message and his unity with the apostles on that message.

Last week we talked about why some people choose legalism over grace. This week let’s take a look at why people resist the notion of grace.

There are still those who have a mindset like Saul of Tarsus.

This mindset distrusts anything that appears to be too tolerant and not sufficiently difficult and demanding. The underlying assumption is the more demanding the duty, the more painful the process, the higher the price of piety, the more likely it is to be of God. Grace is rejected as too lax on the duty of obedience, too easy and non-sacrificial…all gain and no pain. Grace encourages laziness and complacency…the freedom in Christ seems to be the freedom to sin without conscience and fear. The concept of grace mocks a holy God and therefore we must do all we can…serve with all our might…devote ourselves to good works. Try harder…give extra…sacrifice more. For anything to be accomplished there must be some sense of guilt, duty or obligation. These are powerful motivators, and what motivation is there in grace?

To be honest many Christian live their lives as though they held to the Mormon Scripture…

2 Nephi 25:23

"For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."

So we do all we can and hope grace makes up the deficit. But don’t tell me there’s nothing I can do because that’s like telling me there’s nothing I should do and I will do nothing.

Men don’t like the idea of being a charity case.

Men, by nature are religious, and they develop religions that reward them for being religious. Let me give you a couple of examples:

In Hinduism there are three paths to religious realization: the path of works, or karma (by performing sacrificial and ritual acts), the path of knowledge, (by meditation) and the path of devotion to a god. As to human life: After death, the soul leaves the body and is reborn in the body of another person, animal, vegetable, or mineral. This condition of endless entanglement in activity and rebirth is called Transmigration. The precise quality of the new birth is determined by the accumulated merit and demerit that result from all the actions, or karma, that the soul has committed in its past life or lives. All Hindus believe that karma accrues in this way; they also believe, however, that it can be counteracted by expiations and rituals, and by “working out” through punishment or reward.