GALATIANS: Neither

Of course, we have potentially created a couple problems for a number of readers. Some will cry that, historically speaking, this task of being one body or, as Paul will put it in Ephesians, a “new humanity,” is an unrealistic task and far too difficult. Not only will the world of archaeology uncover some startling pieces of history to prove this wrong, but Paul moves on to address this issue in the concluding chapter of the letter to the Galatians.

Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. If anyone thinks they are something when they are not, they deceive themselves. Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else, for each one should carry their own load. Nevertheless, the one who receives instruction in the word should share all good things with their instructor.

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

Throughout this presentation of an inclusive gospel, Paul is certainly not throwing out our ability to have objective conversations about appropriate behavior and what the way of Jesus looks like in our lives. He encourages us to hold fellow believers accountable and to restore them in gentleness. Of course, he moves on to say what sounds contradictory; he tells the Galatians to carry each other’s burdens, but also says everyone should carry his own burden. What’s up with that?

But closer inspection shows us Paul is actually making a great claim to how these relationships, whether they be with like-minded or different people (i.e., Jew or Gentile), are fostered properly. Immediately after Paul tells us we ought to restore our brothers and sisters in gentleness, he suggests we help others carry their burdens by being concerned not primarily with their behavior, but our own. “Everyone should test their own actions.” Everyone ought to take the list from Galatians 5 and ask themselves if their actions are producing the fruit of the Spirit. This will tell us if we are doing relationship correctly.

See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand!

Those who want to impress people by means of the flesh are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised keep the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your circumcision in the flesh. May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.

From now on, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers and sisters. Amen.

But Paul’s not done taking every opportunity to remind us about fighting for the place of all people in this Kingdom narrative. He reminds us that in this new Jesus economy, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything. What matters is whether we are being made into a new creation.

Some will also cry that this inclusive gospel we’ve been talking about sounds like a soft, gutless, everything-goes kind of mentality — that there is no call in this understanding to hold people accountable and no way to establish right and wrong. They’ll say that an inclusive gospel is just another way of describing universalism. And they’ll talk a lot about slippery slopes.

But all of these accusations are based on a fallacy of logic; they create a false dichotomy and dilemmas that aren’t dependent on bifurcated choices. The ideas of inclusion and absolute truth are not mutually exclusive. Just because I believe there is a correct and an incorrect way to bring order to chaos does not mean I cannot fight for the value and place of all people. It does not mean I cannot practice humility and examine the story of people and question my understanding of the Scriptures. It could be that our situation might resemble that of the people of Galatia. It could be that our fundamental beliefs might be structured in a way that more closely resembles Shammai’s thinking than Hillel’s — let alone Jesus.

We might need a reminder that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything.

The only thing that counts is that we are being made into a new creation.

GALATIANS: The Curse

The next section of Galatians seems to undo everything that we’ve been talking about up to this point.

For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”

At first glance, this appears to say that anyone who follows the Law is cursed. (And this has certainly been taught in far too many Christian circles!) But a closer inspection of the Text (especially when translated appropriately) reveals what Paul has just said within a Jewish context. That same phrase which refers to the “works of the Law” (remember the miqsat ma’asay haTorah, or ergu nomu in the Greek) is used here. Paul’s statement in context clearly says that those who rely on the miqsat ma’asay haTorah for their justification are under a curse. He then quotes Deuteronomy to make his case. Whenever a book is quoted like this, it is important to ask ourselves about the context of the quotation in order to understand what the author is driving at.

In the context of this Deuteronomy quote, the people of God are being reminded of their charge to carry the Law as they enter into the land God is giving them to possess. The story has the people of God being split up on two mountains; one party shouts out the commands of the Torah and the other party shouts back their agreement to follow the commands of God (see the story in Deuteronomy 27). The clear implication of Paul’s quotation is that if you are relying on the “works of the Law” for your justification, you have to live under this dark cloud that follows you everywhere you go; such reliance ends up being a curse.

Mt. Gerazim, where the people of God stood to renew their covenant

Paul continues to say (again) that we understand this, in fact, is not where justification comes from:

Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”

This time, when Paul wants to make the case that they are justified by faith, he goes to Habakkuk for his quotation. This is a brilliant move employed by Hillel when making his arguments about justification. Hillel noted that when Habakkuk talked about righteousness, he talked about “living by emunah”; this Hebrew word for “faith” refers more to “faithfulness” and putting your faith into action. By following the Habakkuk passage with another quotation from Leviticus connecting the idea of “living by,” Paul (employing a rabbinical interpretation method called gezerah shavah, something only the most educated could do) ends up making a case that the Law is not there for our justification; it is there to teach us how to live faithfully.

I realize all of that was probably incredibly confusing, so I’ll sum up Paul’s point like this: If you try to find your justification in the “works of the Law” you will find yourself under a curse. But the Law wasn’t given to find your justification; on the contrary, the Law was given to teach you how to live by faith.

Paul continues:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

By employing another gezerah shavah, Paul connects the idea of the curse to Jesus. By referring to Christ’s crucifixion in reference to being “hung on a pole [tree],” Paul says that when Jesus subjected himself to crucifixion, he redeemed us from that faulty way of thinking and showed us what God’s true plan is. When we properly understand where justification comes from and what God desires from that redemptive process, it opens us up to welcome the Gentiles into the family of God — not as theosabes, but as full-fledged children of Abraham.

Paul then uses an example to go back to his larger idea introduced in the last section:

Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

Paul's illustration demonstrates how he views the story of God. Just as you do not undo a covenant (we might think “contract” in our world) by entering into a new one, so this is the case with God’s story. Paul makes the point that God’s story is aboutpromise. The story of Abraham is a story about promise and not a story about Law. Just because God enters into a covenant relationship with his people through the Law over four centuries later, it does not undo the larger story of God as a story of promise. This is a story about believing in God’s promises — it always has been, and it always will be. This story is not about following rules; it’s about living by faith in the promises of God.

This will have extraordinary implications for the Gentiles.

But Paul has to explain why God would give the Law in the first place.

GALATIANS: Children of Abraham

After sharing with the Galatian believers about his confrontation with Peter and the leadership as they struggled to live in accordance to this gospel, he turns his attention to them. The same understanding of this gospel and this justification is what Paul stresses to the Galatians. This interpretation is apparently one they should have and understand.

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?

Paul calls them foolish Galatians, which happens to be a cultural play on the region of Galatia. We mentioned before that the region of Galatia was like the backwoods corner of the Roman empire. The people there were considered barbaric, uneducated, and primitive. This is one of the regions the Shammai Jews had settled to remain unbothered by the culture around them. This play of Paul’s is a direct attack on a very educated group of people who should know better than to believe the lies they are tempted to believe. It’s safe to say that Paul is upset.

Paul asks them to think about their own experience. Was it by faith or by being Jewish (the miqsat ma’asay haTorah) they received the Spirit? They aren’t Jewish; they are theosabes who are being tempted to convert to Judaism. So the answer to all of Paul’s questions is obviously faith. It is by faith they received salvation. It is by faith they experience the Spirit. It is by faith they are justified. Their whole story has been about faith — so why would they want to give that up and make it about the “works of the law”?

And Paul also mentions their suffering being in vain. But what suffering is Paul talking about? How have these Gentile believers suffered? The answer would be at least twofold. First, they have suffered by holding a very unpopular worldview within the Jewish world of Galatia. In a corner of the Diaspora where the Jews follow the teaching of Shammai, to hold to this view — which is even more progressive than Hillel’s — would antagonize the world where you belong and make you the source of intense religious persecution. Second, they would also be the source of serious Roman persecution. Remember, if these Gentiles are not accepted by the larger Jewish community of Galatia, they will not fall under the great “Jewish Exception” and would be required to engage in emperor worship (idolatry). At different times in history, refusal to do this would be punishable by death.

Yes, these early Gentile believers have suffered a great deal, and that is why they want to convert. But Paul’s point is that this is the very story they are trying to tell to the world of Galatia. They have suffered for the sake of the gospel. If they convert now, all of that suffering will have been in vain. But it hasn’t been in vain, because the gospel has been put on display through their refusal to give in to popular opinion.

Paul then uses a typical Hillel argument to say that Abraham is their great example when it comes to being justified by faith.

So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

Hillel used to make the point that in Genesis 15, Abraham was justified by his faith. He was justified before he was circumcised; he was justified before he had one single rule to follow. If this is the case in Genesis 15, then Shammai is wrong; you cannot be justified by your works. Abraham was justified long before there were any works to be done. However, Paul takes this reasoning one step further than Hillel ever did. It will be helpful here to review our conversation about brothers, “children of Abraham,” and theosabes.

Paul makes the case that the gospel was announced to Abraham himself; Paul sees his gospel in the very story where God announces He is going to bless ALL nations through Abraham. Paul says if this is the story of God (the gospel, as he calls it), then what makes a person a covenant member of Abraham’s family is not circumcision. Contrary to all Jewish thought at the time, Paul says faith is the marker of being a child of God in the family of Abraham.

To a Jew, a “child of Abraham” is a proselyte — someone who has taken on circumcision and converted to Judaism. They are actually Jewish and distinct from the theosabes. But Paul’s argument is that a Gentile with faith is adopted into the family of Abraham.

For Paul, the story of God has always been about the promise, not the Law.

For Paul, the story of God has always been about being a person of faith, not about being Jewish.

For Paul, the story of God has always been about believing in the promises of God, not about obeying the rules.

For Paul, this has always been about trusting the story of God.

If a person will trust in the promises of God, then they are of the same stock as Abraham.

But what of being Jewish? Does that mean nothing?! Why did God waste all of his time with the Law?

Well the Law will certainly have its purpose, but before he tells the Galatians about that, he has to make his case about the Law and the Promise.

GALATIANS: Through the Law

Even though Paul has given the community the authority to speak into his life, ministry, and calling, he is far from rolling over and thinking they are anything more than humans themselves. The ability of Paul to be a mature and well-balanced human being is astounding here. He not only submits to the authority of the church leaders and community of the early church, but he is also adamant about standing for truth and confronting inappropriate behavior when he finds it. Apparently Peter, the great leader of the church, is far from perfect and infallible. Paul tells the Galatians about an encounter he had with Peter in Antioch.

And remember Peter is the guy who had the first experience with these “outsiders” being welcomed into the community of faith. He was the one who had to fight for their place within the world of the gospel and help pave the way for their entrance into the family of God.

When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

The leaders in this early Jesus movement remind me a lot myself at times — full of mistakes and a concern for self. These leaders know what the gospel calls them to do; there are times when they don’t have any problem living up to the call of the gospel. When it is these leaders and the Gentiles, they are gracious and hospitable companions. However, when some of the folks from Judea showed up — those from James and the “circumcision group” — Peter and even Barnabas sought to keep the peace by switching to the traditions and practices of the Torah-observant Jews.

What is often missing from the conversation surrounding this passage is a proper treatment of Jewish halachah, or oral tradition. Halachah is the set of oral interpretations that surround the written law; in a more poetic sense, halachah is “how you walk.” After God gave you commandments, you needed to understand how you would walk these commandments out. The oral tradition provided that framework, but in the new way Jesus is inviting us to live (and even during his own ministry, I believe Jesus made this clear), some of these understandings were going to get in the way of the truth of the gospel. One in particular would be the restrictions of eating with Gentiles. While God never commanded this in Torah, the halachah of the Jewish world had deemed it inappropriate to eat with Gentiles as an issue of ‘cleanliness’ and remaining distinct.

The belief of those in the ‘circumcision group’ was that this distinction needed to remain intact. So Peter and Barnabas find it hard to shake the halachah they had lived with for their entire lives (you can see Peter reference this to Cornelius in Acts 10). But Paul sees this as inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus and he calls them on it.

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”

“Jewish customs” is the reference to halachah. While Peter and Barnabas are not asking the Gentiles to be bound by these commandments (or even the miqsat ma’asay haTorah), they are having a hard time not playing the role of Judean when the “good ol’ boys” come to town. Paul confronts Peter publicly and makes it quite clear he no longer lives by this halachah, so why does he hold people (including Gentiles) to it when the folks from Judea are here? Peter is putting on a show for the Judeans; he’s acting like he is somebody else who believes something other than what he believes.

I believe the NIV is correct in keeping the quotations marks through the rest of the chapter, indicating it is part of Paul’s address to Peter:

“We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.”

First, the old NIV (copyright 1984) put “sinful Gentiles” in quotes. I believe this is the correct move, as it helped communicate the nature of the statement. It is not a derogatory dig on Gentiles as being a bunch of sinners. The Jews understood the “nations” of the Old Testament to be the pagan people groups; it was their mission to remain distinct from them and display God to them. The phrase refers to their status as pagans and not their nature (or value) as human beings.

Second, notice Paul’s direct reference to the rabbinic argument surrounding the idea of justification. We have referenced multiple times in this series the debate that existed between the schools of Shammai and Hillel on whether or not a Jew was justified by faith or by the “works of the law.” The “works of the law” are referenced directly in the passage above (ergu nomu in the Greek). We said Shammai believed a person was justified or “declared righteous” (my favorite expression, like Lancaster, is “exonerated”) by following the miqsat ma’asay haTorah (the “works of the law”); Hillel disagreed and said that, just like Abraham, they are justified by faith and simply believing in the promises of God. The New Testament community decided the way of Jesus (almost always) sided with Hillel. Paul reminds Peter of this decision — a decision that those of the “circumcision group” disagreed with.

“But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

Paul mentions that “through the law I died to the law.” What he means by this is NOT that he stopped following the law; this is quite clear by simply examining the other arguments, assumptions, and behaviors of Paul in the New Testament. Paul is still observing Jewish festivals, worshipping at the Temple, and the taking of Nazarite vows. Paul is certainly still living according to kosher law. However, he is also saying it is through Torah itself that he learned he is not justified by following Torah. He agrees with Hillel and states that Torah itself testified to justification by faith. It is through the Law that he died to the need to be justified by the Law. This will be seen when Paul, in the next chapter, uses the books of Genesis and Leviticus to argue for the gospel and justification by faith.

Paul is looking at great leaders like Peter (and Barnabas) and claiming that if they — in these moments, with people who disagree — rebuild what the community of Jesus has worked so hard to tear down, then the gospel would be stripped of its power. If they rebuild what others worked so hard to tear down, then people don’t see the story God has been telling since Genesis. If they rebuild what others worked so hard to tear down, they will actually be lawbreakers — people who are abolishing the teaching of Torah itself!

“For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

"Not to burden you"

So Paul and Barnabas continue on their way through the region, heading to places like Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. They have very similar experiences in these places as they had in Pisidian Antioch. If you read through Acts 14, you will find they are initially received quite well in all these areas. As they go throughout Asia Minor, they proclaim a gospel of inclusion for the Gentiles. We are told they are quite persuasive in Iconium and a great number of Jews and Gentiles believe. They also have quite a successful beginning in Lystra and a wonderful time in Derbe. At each location, they have a group of Judeans (as it would be translated more literally, not simply “Jews” as most of our translations have it; these Judeans are from the Jerusalem church that has rejected this newfound inclusion of the Gentiles) who follow them, causing controversy, division, and, over time, their rejection at these locations.

They eventually return to Antioch after causing quite a Jewish ruckus in Asia Minor. The church is forced to deal with the mounting tension within this very Jewish church.

They head to Jerusalem for what many have called the “Jerusalem Council” to discuss what to do about these Gentiles. What is the Church’s position going to be regarding this huge influx of Gentile believers? Will they have to become Torah observant like everyone else? As we mentioned before, this conversation is not new, nor is it even a conversation unique to the Jesus movement. These Jesus followers have taken the same conversation to whole new levels, but it’s far from new dialogue.

We spoke about how Shammai and Hillel kept their typical form in disagreeing about how to handle things. Shammai thought a Gentile would only be justified through obedience to Torah. If this is true, then while a Gentile is welcome to worship God, they will never experience true justification without conversion to Judaism. Hillel argued everyone is justified by faith. If this is true, it would mean Gentiles do not have to become Jewish in order to experience justification; while they still aren’t full children and heirs of God’s chosen household, they are fully accepted cousins and welcome to worship the God of Israel. However, more context will help us understand the guts of the arguments of Shammai and Hillel.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has done much to help the understanding of the context of the New Testament in some incredible ways. One of the things it helped us discover is how we have much of our reading all wrong (particularly with the teaching of the Apostle Paul). One of the scrolls found is titled Miqsat Ma’asay haTorah, or “The Works of the Law.” Through our study of Mishnaic Judaism, we now understand some things about how first-century Judaism understood Torah. Much of this was prompted by the very argument Shammai and Hillel were engaging about the Gentiles. 

The Jews had broken down the Law into three sections (please note that these are not the typical three sections that are often arbitrarily imposed on the Law [moral, civil, liturgical], which have not produced any historical credibility; these are unrelated distinctions that are being defined more and more thoroughly in modern scholarship through scholars like Mark D. Nanos):

CULTIC LAW: This is the part of the law that has to do with liturgical worship at the Temple. This is the Levitical system of priesthood, sacrifice, and Temple worship. In short, you need a Temple to engage in cultic law. As believers in Jesus, we would say Jesus has become the cultic law for us (which is the argument of the book of Hebrews).

ETHICAL LAW: Ethical law is simply true. No matter who you are or where you are, these laws are universally true for all people. Ethical law isn’t true just because “God said so.” Ethical law is true because it’s the way God made the universe to function. The Ten Commandments would be a good example of ethical law. It’s not an issue of whether or not you are “bound” or “under” the law of the Ten Commandments — “do not murder” is a good idea for everyone. It’s ethical.

“MIQSAT MA’ASAY HATORAH” (The Works of the Law): This is the part of the law that makes you Jewish. After presenting the ketubah of the Ten Commandments at Sinai, after God’s people said “Yes!” to God’s wedding vows, they voluntarily agreed to carry the Law that would make them a “kingdom of priests.” God wanted them to be different than the world around them and put their God on display for the nations. He did this by giving them the “works of the Law” that would do the work of making them different. This includes circumcision (which happens to be the mark of carrying miqsat ma’asay haTorah), kosher eating, wearing tassels, not wearing blended fabrics, etc.

Shammai had decided that you were justified — you were declared righteous (please note, this has nothing to do with salvation) — when God saw you being obedient to the miqsat ma’asay haTorah. This would mean that a Gentile has to become Jewish and begin carrying all three parts of the Law.

But Hillel said God declared you righteous when you believed — just as he did with Abraham in Genesis 15. This would mean that carrying the miqsat ma’asay haTorah was a function of being Jewish, not an expectation from God in order to be justified.

Now, back to our story in Acts 15.

The early Christians are battling through this same argument, only they have more at stake. In the new Kingdom order Jesus brought, this won’t just be about justification; this will be about sonship. This will be about God’s household. This will be about these pagan, rough-around-the-edges, former idolaters becoming full-fledged heirs of God’s promises.

There are some Jesus followers who are adamant that this is too much, and the gospel is going too far.

There are some who say this is what God has always been up to.

And they don’t agree. And they argue. And when they are done, they decide Hillel is right and Shammai is wrong.

And just like their Rabbi Jesus, they decide Hillel hasn’t gone far enough. But more on that later.

Those People

Paul stands up and addresses this mixed crowd with a teaching that boggles the mind. In typical fashion for the record of Acts, Paul begins by outlining the narrative history of the Jewish people in a way that sets up the point he’s trying to make.

Paul doesn’t sugarcoat the history of his fellow Jews: he talks about their history as a stubborn people led out of Egypt — about how God had to endure their conduct and help them find their inheritance. He sums up the history of the judges and Saul as their first king, alluding to the frustrating story that lay behind Saul’s rule. He mentions the pinnacle of Jewish history (particularly as seen from the first century) by speaking of the reign of David as a king who was after God’s own heart.

From this history, Paul connects Jesus directly to David and the work of John the Baptist. He speaks of the anointed calling of both and alludes to the fact that Jesus is Messiah. He then points out how Judaism’s leadership (the Judeans) did not recognize Jesus and made the foolish mistake of putting him to death. He speaks of the resurrection and the coming of the Kingdom.

Paul then goes back to recap the amazing story surrounding the resurrection by teaching through a series of brilliant remez quotations — which happen to function as a sermon in and of themselves — before ending the sermon with a direct and challenging application: it is the job of the Jewish people to carry on this story and be about the ministry of the forgiveness of sin. He warns that if they miss this calling, they would be the foolish scoffers spoken of in the Psalms.

Paul’s message is directly aimed at the Jews in attendance. While Paul recognizes all those in attendance, his first “sermon” that day was a sermon for the Jewish audience. He spoke of the Jewish story and how Jesus fit into the grand narrative of God. He continually referenced the “we” of the Jewish people throughout the telling of this story. “It is to US,” Paul said, “that this message has been sent.” Paul’s point is that this is THEIR story. It’s the calling of the Jewish people to carry this story well.

Paul is certainly not “playing it safe” for his first public teaching. Paul is a fiery preacher on his first day. As Jewish teacher, trained under Gamaliel, he is directly confronting the Jewish audience. He isn’t trying to hedge his bets. He refers to their background as a stubborn people, he critiques their leadership as being blind to the purposes of God, and he even closes the sermon with a thunderbolt challenge not to be a scoffing fool. Paul isn’t concerned with making or keeping friends.

Now, how do you suppose the people respond to this message that day in Pisidian Antioch?

Did you say, “They loved it! They welcomed it with open arms!”?

Of course you didn’t. Because you’ve likely been taught your whole life that those stupid Jews hated the gospel and everything from Jesus and rejected Paul everywhere he went. But, unfortunately, you have been taught all wrong. Have a look at Acts 13:

As they went out, the people begged that these things might be told them the next Sabbath. And after the meeting of the synagogue broke up, many Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who, as they spoke with them, urged them to continue in the grace of God.

Wait. What?

Let’s recap. Paul spoke a challenging word that day, he spoke very directly about the crucifixion of Jesus, and he taught at length on this teaching about the resurrection.

And the people begged them to come back and teach them more.

Brothers and sisters, the Jewish assembly didn’t have a single problem with the message of Jesus and what so many of us would call the “gospel.”

In fact, if you were to begin scouring the book of Acts, you would find the rejection of the Jews to the early followers of Jesus is hardly EVER connected to the story of Jesus, the crucifixion, or the resurrection.

So what will they get upset about? Let’s keep reading.

The next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began to contradict what was spoken by Paul, reviling him. And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,

“ ‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles,    that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ”

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. And the word of the Lord was spreading throughout the whole region. But the Jews incited the devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city, stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district. But they shook off the dust from their feet against them and went to Iconium. And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.

It was difficult for this group of religious God-worshippers to accept the fact that all of “those people” might be allowed into the family of God. While the debate was open between Shammai and Hillel regarding the place of justification in the life of the theosabes, what no rabbi had suggested was that a Gentile could ever be a full-fledged child of God. While the argument is initially intriguing to them, when they see the synagogue fill up the next week with unclean Gentiles, they cannot continue.

So Paul and Barnabas confront their brothers about the very message they spoke the week prior. This is their message to carry into the world! This is what God has always been up to! But since they don’t want to be a part of God’s great project (“…since you judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life…”), Paul and Barnabas must now turn their attention to the good news they are there to proclaim. If the people of God are going to reject their calling, then Paul and Barnabas will fulfill it.

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord.

I worry that if we miss this part of the story, we are missing THE great backdrop to the New Testament. This is what the gospel does to the world of Asia and Asia Minor. It brings all those on the outside, inside. This is found all over the New Testament! This is the story!

“If you let yourself become circumcised, the gospel is of no use to you…”

“You are no longer strangers and foreigners, but citizens and fellow members of God’s household…”

“…and now those of you who were far off have been brought near.”

I fear we may have missed the point. And somewhere along the way, we have exchanged the good news and the truth of the New Testament narrative for a message about heaven and hell and escaping a world doomed to destruction.

But the story has never been about that. The story has always been about a God who is redeeming this world. The story (a very Jewish story, by the way) has always been about a community of folks — a kingdom of priests — confronting the world and showing them God is, in fact, for them, and they do have a place at His table.

God’s story has always been an invitation to trust — to trust the story that there is Sabbath rest available to all.

Available to ALL.

You see, things don’t change much over the course of 2,000 years. There are still groups of people and entire institutions who claim to speak for God and are certain they have finally figured out who gets to be in and who is out. They seem to believe, contrary to the teachings of the very Jesus they claim to worship, that they have stumbled across the guest list to the great wedding banquet and they know who’s getting in and who’s staying out.

There are even people who talk about the gospel being for all people. Until your synagogue is full of a bunch of people who don’t look like you. Or until a handful of “those people” come and sit in the front row of your church.

You know who “those people” are.

It’s their economic status, skin color, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or dress code. Or a myriad of other things even less significant and humiliating to admit.

Quite frankly, they just aren’t like us.

And to hear God is inviting all people to the table to be his kids… Well, that just doesn’t sit well with us.

But it’s the gospel we’re called to carry into the world around us. It’s the announcement of a better Kingdom.

But it’s what He’s been doing since the dawn of creation. It’s the story He’s been telling the whole time. And I believe He’s hoping, with tears in His eyes, that we will be humble enough to accept it.

The Theosabes

Barnabas and Paul arrive in Pisidian Antioch and follow their typical script. They immediately find their Jewish brethren and join them in fellowship and worship at the local synagogue. After the normal synagogue service, visiting guests are invited to share a word of encouragement with the people gathered there. This is a basic gesture, especially for visiting teachers — let alone the fact that Paul is a student of one of the most renowned Jewish teachers of their day. I’m sure people couldn’t wait to hear from Paul.

And hear from Paul, they do.

We are told Paul stood up and motioned with his hand for the assembly’s attention. One thing to notice is this thirteenth chapter of Acts seems to signify the arrival of Paul as a teacher. Prior to the story of Pisidian Antioch, Luke is very intentional to say “Barnabas and Saul/Paul,” which would signify Barnabas is the leader (by putting his name first). After this story, it will become, for the rest of the book of Acts (with one exception), “Paul and Barnabas.”

This story appears to be a defining moment for Paul. It seems the church in Antioch sent Paul out with Barnabas as his teacher, and it is in this story where the roles switch. Barnabas will give Paul the nod, Paul will seize the moment, and Barnabas will become the student. Incredible humility.

Paul stands up and begins his presentation, “Men of Israel and you Gentiles who worship God…”

Now wait a minute. We have to unpack a lot of context in this brief address.

We need to expound on the rabbinical climate of Asia Minor in the first century. Decades before the ministry of Jesus, the Jewish world in Asia Minor was having to figure out what they did with the Gentiles in their synagogues who wanted to worship the God of Israel. While this was not a problem in the world of Judea and Jerusalem, the rest of the Roman world was a different story. We are told by modern scholars that the population of Asia Minor was somewhere close to 20% Jewish.

That’s significant — one out of every five people.

Folks knew about the Jews; people in Asia Minor had exposure to the Jewish faith. And some of them really liked it. They learned to love the God of Israel and to love His words. They came to synagogue and tried to find a place of worship. And the Jews had to figure out what to do with that.

Is it acceptable for a Gentile to worship the God of Israel? All Jews were in agreement. “Of course.”

But one rabbi said, “Hey Gentiles, we are glad you are here. We love that you love the God of Israel. But it won’t do you any good unless you convert, take on circumcision (and the rest of the law that it represents), and become Jewish.” If you're thinking that such a position sounds a lot like Shammai, then you’re dead on.

But the other rabbi — indeed, a guy by the name of Hillel — said, “Gentiles, we are thrilled you are here and we love that you love the God of Israel. You are welcome to worship God and you can even find justification. If Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised, so can you!” Now, Hillel would have remained quite steadfast that these Gentiles were not Jews; they were not brothers in the family of God, but they were welcome to be distant cousins.

This is all well and good, but what does this have to do with the story of Pisidian Antioch? Well, Pisidian Antioch sits on the edge of the region known as Galatia. While almost all of Asia and Asia Minor was very Hillel driven (which makes sense; a Jewish world finding its place within a Roman context would like to lean toward inclusion), the region of Galatia was very definitely Shammai country. As we mentioned in the last post, Galatia was very rugged, primitive, “off-the-beaten-path,” backwoods territory. The Jewish population that settled there purposefully did so NOT to assimilate into a Roman context. There are six quotes from Galatian rabbis in the Mishnah and all six of them are Shammai quotations.

So this argument created three different people groups referenced in the land of Asia Minor within a Jewish context. There are people the Jews would call “brothers”; this indicated they were fellow ethnic Jews. They also spoke of “children of Abraham”; this was a designation given to proselytes — converts who were not born Jewish but had decided to take on circumcision and follow the law and become completely Jewish. Then there was a group of people who were called in the Greek theosabes; it’s a term we translate “God-fearer” or “God-fearing Gentiles.”

The Jewish argument was swirling about the theosabes. What do we do with the God-fearing Gentile? Everybody agreed about the “brothers” and the “children of Abraham,” but what do we do about the theosabes? It’s impossible to know which direction the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch leaned, but it’s safe to say the cultural argument was a tense one.

We also know that, whatever their position, Paul references the presence of all three groups more than once. When Paul stands up and says, “Men of Israel (Jews) and you Gentiles who worship God (theosabes),” that tells you that you have a little bit of everybody in the room.

Paul will later address all three groups directly. If Acts 13:26 is translated correctly (as it used to be in the 1984 edition of the NIV), it will read, “Brothers, children of Abraham, and you God-fearing Gentiles…”

Brothers (group one), children of Abraham (group two), and you God-fearing Gentiles (group three).

Paul has some good news that’s going to stir the pot. What will their reaction be? I think we may be surprised.