Last week, we learned about the debate which occured in the church after the gentiles were introduced into the church. Before Cornelius in Acts chapter 10, people in the church were still keeping sabbath days, being circumcised, abstaining from pork and keeping the law of Moses to the best of their ability. But when Peter saw gentiles receive the Holy Ghost just like the Jews did in Acts 2, speaking with other tongues, they were astonished because this was the first time they saw God give his Spirit to people who were not striving to keep the law of Moses.

This made the church question: Is a person justified by faith in Christ which preceeds receiving the Holy Ghost, like in the case of Cornelius, or by keeping the works of the Law of Moses by being circumcised, abstaining from pork, and keeping Sabbath days?

When Peter first reported what happened to Cornelius to the rest of the apostles, they were convinced that since Cornelius received the Holy Ghost while not keeping the Law of Moses, keeping the works of the Law of Moses was no longer necessary for salvation. But we see that not all the Jewish Christians were convinced and instead would enter into churches telling people that they must keep the Law of Moses in order to be saved regardless of whether they had received the Holy Ghost or not. 

Therefore, Paul found himself consistently writing to the churches to help them stand confidently knowing that a person is not justified before God by keeping Sabbath days or being circumcised, but by faith in Christ. Paul even goes to say that this Gospel of trying to be justified by the Law of Moses while believing in Christ is “another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.” (Galatians 1:6) And he goes to use even stronger words to the Galatians saying “[i]f any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:9) 

But, although he writes so agressively to these churches that they did not need circumcision for salvation, we see him circumcise a man in Galatia named Timothy in Acts 16 shortly after the Jerusalem council in which it was concluded that circumcision and keeping the works of the Law of Moses were not a requirement for salvation. Was Paul contradicting himself? Or did Paul change his beliefs somewhere along the line? To understand this, we should step back and review his first missionary trip to Galatia.

Galatia was Pauls first missionary journey (Acts 13 & 14). Galatia would have included the churches at Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe.

The first synagogue Paul enters into was at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:14) and toward the end of his message he says “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” (Acts 13:38-39)

At first, Paul is well received and even given space to preach about Jesus to the congregation (Acts 13:15). His message is recieved by many of the Jews and proselytes and they even encouraged Paul to come back the next Sabbath day and share more (Acts 13:43). Until the entire city showed up to the synagogue on the next Sabbath day to hear Paul share more and this is when the Jews began to speak against the things Paul and Barnabas spake. When Paul and Barnabas see that the Jews reject to hear their words, they tell the Jews:

“It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles... And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” (Acts 13:46-48)

They are eventually driven out of the city by the Jews (Acts 13:50) and the persecution heats up eventually leading to Paul being stoned and dragged out of the city because they thought he was dead (Acts 14:19). 

One thing we must realize is this message Paul was preaching was not drawing people to become Jewish proselytes who would keep the law of Moses. Instead it was drawing them to believe in Christ which would allow them to be “justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses”. Basically his message was, “you can’t be justified from all things by the Law of Moses, only by faith in Christ”. He was in effect saying that circumcision, keeping Sabbath days, abstaining from pork can’t justify a person and for this reason, Paul was greatly persecuted. 

Do you think persecution would have been less severe for Paul if he commanded the gentile converts to also keep the whole Law of Moses?
If it would have removed the persecution, why do you think Paul didn’t just include that in his message?

Fourteen years after returning from his mission to Galatia, Jews come to Antioch in Syria, which is where Paul was residing, and begin to tell the Christians that they must be circumcised to be saved (Acts 15:1). Paul has just risked his life reaching Gentiles all over Galatia. He was even stoned and left for dead for the message he brought, never mentioning that they needed to be circumcised. And now these Jews come in, telling everyone they need to be circumcised as if Pauls efforts were now in vain. You can imagine that stirred up some fire in Paul. They take this matter to the apostles in Jerusalem and it is resolved as we saw in the previous lesson.

Some time after this or during this period of time, Jews are showing up in Galatia saying the same things, that the gentile Christians must be circumcised in order to be saved. Evidently, this was very convincing to the Galatian churches which challenged the authority of the message Paul preached and this is what stirred Paul to write to the Galatians. And Paul says some astonishing things.

Galatians 3:1-4 “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.”

We see that Paul tells them that they did not receive the Spirit by keeping the works of the Law but by the hearing of faith (Think about Cornelius) and he challenges their belief that they can somehow be made perfect after receiving the Spirit by keeping the Law of Moses. 

Galatians 5:1-6 “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”

Paul goes to say that if a person is circumcised (trying to be justified by the Law of Moses) Christ would profit them nothing and he even says they are “fallen from grace”. He says in Christ “neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”

Galatians 5:11-12 - “And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. I would they were even cut off which trouble you.”

Paul had suffered a lot for this message of liberty which he was stoned for in Galatia and he finishes his letter by saying:

“From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” (Galatians 6:17)

There were these Jews, who never suffered a day in their lives coming in saying that everyone needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. And here is Paul saying “I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus”. Paul was chased from city to city and eventually stoned and left for dead for this message of liberty that he was preaching. If anyone wanted to see his authority, they could just look at his scars.

Paul says “If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing” (Galatians 5:2). What do you think that means?
Do you think suffering for a belief or conviction adds authority to what is said?

So Paul stood firm against those who claimed that everyone needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. But this leads us to a very interesting moment on Pauls second missionary journey in Acts 16.

In Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas desired to go on this second mission to check on the churches which were established on the first mission and also deliver the decrees which came from the Jerusalem council in Acts 15.

Along the way, Paul finds a certain disciple named Timothy in Galatia that was well reported of among the people, and desired that he would accompany them on their journey. But before he lets Timothy accompany him, Paul takes him and circumcises him because of “the Jews who were in those quarters” because they all knew that Timothy’s father was a Greek (Acts 16:3). 

Paul took the matter of circumcision to the Jerusalem council and it was concluded that nobody needed circumcision for salvation. But now Paul is willingly circumcising Timothy? Did Paul have a change of heart somewhere that we skipped over? Or was Paul contradicting himself?

An interesting dynamic emerges from scripture which Paul speaks on in later epistles. Though Paul understood fully that he had Liberty through the knowledge he had, he would not allow his Liberty to cause somebody with a lack of knowledge to turn away from Christ.

Let’s read Pauls explanation of this dynamic his epistle to the Corinthians concerning a similar topic of eating food offered to idols which was one of the few things the Jerusalem council advised the gentiles not to do in Acts 15:29 (“That ye abstain from meats offered to idols...”):

1 Corinthians 8:1-13  “Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him. As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.”

Paul concludes that the simple act of eating meat offered unto idols alone is not a sin if a person has knowledge to know that an idol is just a piece of stone or wood. But if somebody who didn’t have this knowledge saw this person with knowledge eating this food, they could be emboldend to eat this food offered to idols believing that the idol was a god causing this person to stumble into sin which would ultimately mean that the person with the knowledge caused the person without knowledge to sin.

So Paul concludes “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend”.

These early apostles had an understanding that though they had Liberty to eat and drink what they wanted through the liberty they had through Jesus, they needed to be mindful of the level of knowledge others had to avoid offending people that Jesus gave his life for.

It’s possible, when reviewing the timeline mentioned in the book of Galatians, that Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians between his return from Jerusalem after the council in Acts 15 and his second missionary journey. If this is the case, its possible that his letter was not received by all the churches yet since these letters had to be hand copied and carried by foot from city to city. So in effort to avoid offending the Jewish Christians who had yet to receive knowledge of their liberty in Christ, who could have possibly turned away from the faith due to a lack of understanding before even hearing the conclusion of the Jerusalem council, Paul circumcises Timothy so that he can enter into these cities and deliver the the decrees “that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4) which would have included the instruction that being circumcised was not a requirement for salvation.

Why do you think Paul refused to require circumcision for salvation (Acts 15), yet willingly circumcised Timothy in Acts 16? 
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8 knowledge puffs up but charity (love) edifies. Can you think of a time when you had the "right" to do something, but chose not to because it could have negatively influenced another person to stumble?
What are some modern day examples where Christians have liberty, but choosing to limit that liberty could help someone grow in their faith rather than turn away?

This Liberty of not being required to keep sabbath days, abstain from pork, be circumcised, and so much more was a liberty that Paul fought to protect. But he also strove to recognize when somebody could be easily offended through lack of knowledge and catered to their weakness until they were able to grow in the knowledge of the Liberty that Jesus had purchased for them. Though something may not be sinful in itself, and these early Christians had liberty to eat and drink and celebrate how they wanted, they refused to allow their liberty to offend somebody who lacked knowledge and we even see them taking on burdens they didn’t nessecarily have to carry in order to protect those who were weaker in knowledge, such as the case of Paul circumcising Timothy. Paul was not compromising on his convictions through his actions, instead Paul and Timothy were willing to lay down their own liberty if it meant more people becoming free through Christ. Paul says this:

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 - “For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.”

In what way was Paul’s attitude regarding Christian liberty Christ-like?
How can an action become sinful if the action itself is not necessarily “sin”?