Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
The Harvester Podcast is brought to you by the Florida School of Preaching. Listen weekly to take a dive into biblical topics and thoughtful studies on things that matter to our eternal souls.
Welcome to the Harvester podcast.
We are glad that you are joining us today to listen as we discuss, and we're calling these
the
bumper soweds and these are episodes in between our seasons we finish season four not too
long ago and so we're gearing up for the next season five and it's going to be a study on
the minor profits and some practical applications along those lines but in in the meantime
we're gonna have a few lessons here episodes that deal with doctrinal unity in practical
matters my name is Brian Kenyon
And I am hosting this episode, or as we say, bumper-sowed, and that name comes from, you
know, bumper music on radio shows, and that's music between segments, and so we are doing
episodes between seasons, and so that's why we call it the bumper-sowed in between our
seasons.
Well, last episode in this series, we looked at Doctrine of Unity, and we took a look at
Apollos and studied him.
that although he was teaching false doctrine, he was not a false teacher as per Romans
chapter 16, 17, and 18, and other passages because he did it thinking that he was teaching
right, but Aquiline Priscilla took him aside.
And we pointed out from there that, you know, it says a lot about Apollos who was able to
be corrected because of his humility, but it also says a lot about Aquiline Priscilla.
because they knew the difference between, in that case, Great Commission baptism versus
John's baptism, and they knew that the difference mattered.
And so out of love and concern, they went to directly to Apollos and pulled him aside, as
it were, and taught him the way of God more accurately.
And that's something that should be done as well.
In this episode, we want to discuss the idea that floats around that's about white
doctrine,
versus black doctrine.
When we realize that there's only one doctrine, and that is the doctrine of Christ.
But this has caused disunity, that is this idea that there's black doctrine and white
doctrine, has caused disunity in the brotherhood, unnecessarily, of course.
Now, when discussing the Bible, sometimes with those opposed to God's truth,
it is quite common for people to commit informal fallacies.
Now informal fallacies are fallacies that do not have to do with the logical structure of
an argument, but have to do with statements, with wording, with pieces of evidence.
aren't really evidence contradictions and things like that.
Well, contradictions are more structural, but uh informal fallacies and the two types are
involved in this
controversy or in this idea about black doctrine versus white doctrine.
Number one is a red herring.
Now, red herring gets its name from, you know, the scent dog, the dogs that would go by
scent and somebody would drag some fish across the scent to try to throw the dogs off.
Well, a red herring is an informal fallacy in which attention is deliberately deflected
away from the issue under discussion.
And secondly, there's the appeal to the populace, and these two definitions come from
Copey's book on logic.
But an appeal to the populace is a fallacy in which the support given for a conclusion is
an appeal to popular belief.
Now, each of these fallacies, along with perhaps others, is involved when someone asserts
that a doctrine being discussed
is merely a white doctrine or black doctrine.
I put quotes under these, white doctrine, quote unquote, black doctrine, quote unquote.
For example, when brethren from different cultures discuss issues such as whether the
preacher or the eldership has oversight over the local church or congregation, or even
sometimes whether baptism makes a person's current marriage acceptable to God,
no matter how many times or for what reasons that person has been divorced in the past and
remarried prior to baptism.
Some will say that the doctrine in opposition to theirs is simply white or black doctrine,
as if doctrinal truthfulness is culturally derived.
In fact, the last time I checked, you the Bible nowhere distinguishes doctrine based upon
the color of one's skin.
But the only doctrine that matters is the doctrine of Christ.
And there several equivalent terms to the doctrine of Christ, such as the truth.
Of course, we find that in, well, we find the Apostles' doctrine in Acts 2.42.
We find the doctrine of Christ in such passages as 2 John, verses 9 through 11.
Other things maybe in 2 Timothy, chapters 3 and 4,
the truth, the scriptures.
holy scriptures, so there several terms that can be equivalent to the doctrine of Christ.
But by such appeals though to doctrine based upon skin color, the person claiming these
things are trying to distinguish between cultural things and, you know, what we believe,
what you believe, or whatever, and those
commit the fallacies mentioned above the red herring sometimes is is used there because
it's kind of diverting the issue and then of course the appeal to the populace because
we've done it this way uh...
all these years we've understood it this way and then sometimes it'll be brought up about
oppression in the past and slavery and things like that but those things have nothing to
do with the issue of whether the preachers in charge of the congregation
or the eldership has delegated forty those issues of skin color and what happened in the
past of nothing to do with what the bible teaches about marriage divorce and remarriage
and so these things are thrown in to try to i don't know to try to bias the crowd or
whatever but you know those things have nothing to do with what the bible teaches you know
it doesn't matter skin color doesn't matter what happened in the past concerning
you know, slavery or whatever, or prejudice or bigotry or racism or whatever, what the
Bible teaches, the Bible teaches.
And, you know, if it could be shown, and I realized that back in the day, people would use
the Bible to justify slavery and so forth, and people today will use the Bible to justify
all kinds of antics that just are not true, and I realized that that goes on.
But if the Bible truly teaches something, it doesn't matter what skin color, it doesn't
matter what ethnicity, it doesn't matter what side of the tracks or what language we speak
or what our culture is.
If the Bible teaches it to be true, then the Bible teaches it to be true.
And we've had seasons before, you know, if God exists, if the Bible is the inspired Word
of God, and if the Bible teaches a certain thing to be true, then we know that that thing
is true.
And so why not simply examine
a doctrine based upon how it measures up with Scripture.
In Matthew 18, 18, the disciples were told, Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
And so, and as we've discussed before, the tenses of those verbs, you the apostles are not
inventing doctrine, but rather it's, whatsoever you bind on earth will have already been
bound in heaven.
And whatsoever you loose on earth will have already been loosed in heaven.
And so it's not the case that the apostles, and of course Matthew 18, 18 is almost exactly
the same as Matthew 16, 19, only Matthew 16, 19, it's Peter,
you know whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and here it's
whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.
That's King James that does bring those pronouns out very well.
But again it's you know it's already been bound.
It's like no apostle, no preacher, no pastor, no anybody has a right to bind what God has
loosed or to loose what God has bound.
And may God teach us, give us the wisdom to know the difference.
Remember, Paul said, we are an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than
that which you have heard, let him be accursed.
Galatians 1, 8.
And so say I again, verse 9, though we or any man preach any other gospel than that which
you have received, let him be accursed.
And so no one has a right to bind again what God has loosed or loosed what God has bound.
Also in 1 Corinthians 14, 37, if any man thinks himself to be spiritual,
Let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of God.
In 2 Timothy 3, 16 and 17, all scriptures given by inspiration of God is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of
God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work.
And I like the ESV translation on that really well, all scripture breathed out by God.
And that's what that word means given by the inspiration of God.
We have five or six English words and most English translations that come from that one
Greek word.
And I think that Greek word is captured really well, again, in the ESV, God breathe, and
that's literally what it means, breathe out by God.
But Scripture teaches truth no matter what our culture.
And so doctrine should be based upon the doctrine of Christ.
not what white people taught or what black people taught through the centuries.
And so we need to realize that and uh respect that and accept what the Bible teaches.
And so we want to get, you know, the purpose of this discussion here is not to address who
has oversight of the local church or to settle the marriage, divorce, and remarriage
issues, but to show that doctrinal truth is not dependent upon culture, but on the Word of
God.
Now it is true that culture plays a role in some expedient things that we talk about.
For example, in 1 Corinthians 6-12 we have the, all things are lawful but all things are
not expedient.
And in 1 Corinthians chapter 8 verses 1 through 13 we have Paul's discussion, the
beginning of the discussion on whether it's scriptural to eat meats sacrificed to idols.
And of course in 1 Corinthians 3 chapters deal with that, chapters 8, 9, and 10.
but he concludes in chapter eight that culture here is not the deciding factor that
there's nothing wrong with eating meat however if in some cultures it causes a brother to
sin then you know paul says i'll be a vegetarian the rest of my life but you know culture
again is not the deciding factor in these things you know who has the oversight of local
churches given you know to an eldership in scripture marriage divorce and remarriage jesus
said you know who sir puts away his wife except to be for fornication and marries another
commits adultery, Matthew 19.9.
And so those things are there, but we need to realize that no matter what the topic, if
Scripture addresses and teaches, then we know that it is true.
Now, the doctrine of Christ, that explicit phrase, only occurs in a couple places in the
New Testament.
In most translations it appears only, actually only one place, in 2 John 9, although it
appears in some translations in Hebrews
6 verse 1 in the King James and the uh English Standard Version.
Now in 2 John 9, that passage reads, the New King James, whoever transgresses and does not
abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.
He who abides in the doctrine of Christ, he has both the Father and the Son.
Now the word transgresses here is from a word
uh...
parabi no which means to receive their release in the received text that the king james is
based upon and the new king james the word means to break to disobeyed to turn away to
leave in the ubs text and the nesley and alan text the greek word is from parago and so
there's a textual variant here but parago is translated goeth onward
in the ASV is translated goes too far in the New American Standard and is translated goes
ahead in the ESV.
And there's one definite article that governs both participles, transgresses or goes on
ahead in the ESV and does not abide.
And so thus the clause must be understood as one concept which means going ahead and not
remaining
That is, should say, going ahead and not remaining, go together.
Thus John is not condemning all progress, but only such progress as does not fulfill the
added condition of abiding in the teaching or abiding in the doctrine.
Now the standard of what constitutes transgressing or going too far, as well as abiding,
is found in the doctrine of Christ.
Yes, the doctrine of Christ is the standard.
While some view the doctrine of Christ as the teaching about Christ, that is, He came in
the flesh,
When considering the rest of John's evidence favors the view that the doctrine of Christ
refers to the teachings of Christ, that which Christ taught.
Now we have a couple passages that we want to take a look at here in John 7, 16 and 17.
John 7, 16 and 17.
Here, John addresses some things, but in verse 16, Jesus answered them, here he's talking
about the Jews marveled in verse 15, saying, How does this man know letters having never
studied?
And then in verse 16, Jesus answered them and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his who
sent me.
If anyone wills to do his will, he shall know concerning the doctrine whether it is from
God or whether I speak on my own authority." All right?
And so Jesus here is saying that even he doesn't have his own doctrine, but my doctrine is
not mine, but his who sent me.
So here's another passage that tells us that God the Son and God the Father are exactly
the same page.
I think it's interesting.
My doctrine, he says, is not mine.
Well is that a contradiction?
No.
His doctrine is not his original.
My doctrine is not mine, but his who sent me.
you contrary to popular belief jesus couldn't just do anything he wanted to do because he
was a son of god he couldn't just unconditionally forgive the thief on the cross he could
just unconditionally grant the mother of zebedee's two sons james and john one on the
right hand one on the left when he comes in his kingdom he says matthew twenty it's not
mine to give but my father who has prepared it
And so my doctrine is not mine, but him who sent me.
If anyone wants to do his will, that is the one who sent me, which by extension would be
Christ's will as well, but if anyone wills to do his will, he shall know concerning the
doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on my own authority." Now, in the Old
King James, you know, it reads something like, anyone who wills to do his will.
or anybody who will do his will.
And that will do is not future tense, but it's the idea of willing.
If anyone was willing to do his will, he will know concerning the doctrine, whether it's
from God or whether I speak of my own authority.
In other words, if a person really wants to know what God says, because he wants to do it,
he will understand it.
There will be no misunderstanding about it because
you know what the bible teaches it teaches clearly in john eighteen as jesus was before
pilot in john eighteen verses nineteen and twenty
Jesus, well in verse 19, the high priest then asked Jesus about his disciples and his
doctrine.
And Jesus answered him, so here's the high priest before he went to Pilate, but Jesus
answered him, I spoke openly to the world.
I always taught in synagogues and in the temple where the Jews always met.
And in secret, I have said nothing.
Why do you ask me, verse 21, ask those who have heard me,
what I said to them, indeed they know what I said.
And so Jesus taught clearly, he taught plainly, and so there's no mistake about what his
doctrine is.
And in fact, he even states in a few places that what you heard, you have heard from me
from the beginning.
For example, in 1 John 2 and verse 24, 1 John 2 and verse 24,
And in that epistle, part in the background of that epistle, John is teaching against
this, against what's often called incipient Gnosticism, that is the inception, the
beginning of Gnosticism.
And one of the Gnostic doctrines was that Jesus could not have come in real flesh, because
in their mind all flesh is evil and only what is spirit is good.
And so much of the beginning chapters of John refutes that.
But in 1 John 2 and verse 24, John writes, let that abide in you which you have heard from
the beginning.
If what you have heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son
and in the Father.
And he's talking about doctrine, what you heard from the beginning, and you know, Jesus
taught.
But if that doctrine abides in you,
then you will also abide in the Son and in the Father.
And, of course, in 1 John 2 and verse 7, brethren, I write no new commandment to you but
an old commandment which you have had from the beginning.
That old commandment is the word which you have heard from the beginning.
And then also in 1 John 3 verse 11, for this is the message that you heard from the
beginning.
that we should love one another.
And so what Christ teaches is clear, he clearly teaches it, and we can know it if we want
to know it.
And so it refers to the totality of what he taught, that is, the doctrine of Christ refers
to the totality of what he taught, not just a particular teaching or two.
Now of course the difference in understanding the doctrine of Christ
as the teaching about his nature or what he himself taught is of little importance because
both must be accepted to be pleasing to God.
In 1 John 2, 22, who is a liar, but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ.
He is Antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.
Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either.
He who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
Therefore let that abide in you which you have heard from the beginning.
If what you have heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Father
and in the Son." Now, of course, all this business about Antichrist is a whole nother
lesson by itself, but it's in the context, and it's only found in the epistles of 1 John
and 2 John.
But in this context, it's one who denies that Jesus came in the flesh.
And so when we are applying it to this, what we're discussing here, you you have to
believe that Jesus really came in the flesh, because if we don't believe that, then we
don't believe in the true Christ.
But also in these verses, we have to believe what he taught, the doctrine of Christ.
And so there is no, I mean, it doesn't matter what we're
what our perspective is, it doesn't matter what our culture is, what our skin color is,
the doctrine of Christ is the doctrine of Christ.
And so we must believe and apply both Jesus' nature as well as his teachings.
Remember in John 8 24, if you do not believe that I am he, you shall die in your sins.
And if you notice in most translations that word he is in italics,
John 8 24, added by the translators.
And so really if you read it without that he, except you believe that I am, you shall die
in your sins.
I am that I am, going back to Exodus 3, that Jesus is truly God.
And so the doctrine of Christ based upon these things, what the doctrine that Jesus
taught, is neither a quote white doctrine end quote, or a black doctrine end quote.
It is simply the teaching of Jesus Christ.
It should also be noted here that the doctrine of Christ is not limited to the material
covered by the red letters, as some Bibles distinguish the words of Christ, the words that
Christ spoke.
Now, I like the red letter additions.
I really like it.
In fact, I won't buy a Bible if it's not a red letter addition.
I just like that as a help.
And there's just a few places where it's uncertain whether it should be red or not, but...
I mean, I like to see what Jesus said and that kind of thing, but the Bible is not just
red letter.
The red letters don't have more authority than the rest of New Testament, because Jesus is
behind the whole New Testament and the Old Testament for that matter, but the red-letter
hermeneutic idea is just false.
Again, it should also be noted here that the doctrine of Christ is not limited, as we
said.
Paul said, anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that
the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
So all that Paul wrote are the commandments of the Lord.
And as we referenced 2 Timothy 3, 16, and 17, all scriptures give my inspiration of God.
But also notice that the entire New Testament accurately handled constitutes the doctrine
of Christ.
2 Timothy 2, 15.
We must handle or write or rightly divide the word of truth.
And so why seek to dismiss doctrine based on the culture of those holding it?
Why not impartially measure everything taught by the God-inspired scripture?
Again, it's all inspired of God.
And again, it does not matter where we're coming from, where our perspective is.
Now, there are some cultural things, you know, like when Paul discusses
you know, long hair and 1 Corinthians 11, when he discusses eating meat sacrificed to
idols, sometimes culture is involved in that, but the principle that's behind all that
culture, the principle involved in those scriptures of, you know, whether we should do
something or not do something that's optional, those principles are found all over the
place, and those things are applied even in our day.
Alright, let's consider some insight from Paul's defense.
In the book of Galatians, remember, Paul had to defend himself and his work against those
who attempted to undermine his apostleship.
And sometimes we call those Judaizing teachers, or just plain old Judaizers, and those two
terms are not explicit in the Scriptures.
But this opposition was based upon, they insisted, you know, the Judaizers insisted on
binding parts
of the law of Moses.
Acts 15-1 and Acts 15-5 mention this, and you remember in Acts 15 we have what's often
called that Jerusalem Council or that Jerusalem Conference as it is sometimes called.
where the apostles got together to discuss some things.
And of course, they didn't formulate doctrine.
but they just acknowledged what the Holy Spirit taught and gave them.
But in Acts chapter 15-1, and certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren,
unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.
Then down in verse 5, some of the sects the Pharisees who believed rose up saying, is
necessary to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Well, that's not binding anymore, the law of Moses, and Paul taught against that quite a
bit.
In fact, in the book of Galatians, he does speak against circumcision as a requirement for
salvation.
Circumcision is no longer binding as it was under the old law, although it is optional in
some situations, and so it's not wrong to be circumcised, but it is wrong to require it
for salvation.
And so Paul's initial defense to the Galatians sheds light on the subject of this episode
here about is there such thing as white doctrine, black doctrine?
No.
uh In the book of Galatians after stating his concern about the Galatians moving away from
the gospel Due to the influence of these Judaizers again Galatians 1 6 through 10 Paul
begins his defense And he writes in verses 11 and 12 chapter 1 verses 11 and 12 of
Galatians But I make known to you brethren that the gospel which was preached by me is not
according to man For I neither received it from man, or was I taught it, but it came
through the revelation of
of Jesus Christ.
Again, Galatians 1, 11, and 12.
And so the gospel Paul preached was not of human origin.
He did not learn it by human authority.
He did not get it by human transmission or by human teaching.
But rather, he received the gospel through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Then, after recounting his former life,
Paul's former life, his commission by God and his conversion to Christ, Paul showed that
he could not have received the gospel from the apostles or other leaders in the church.
In fact, in Galatians chapter 1 and verse 18, Paul writes, then after three years.
Well, actually, let me go back and we read verses 11 and 12.
And then verse 13, for you have heard of my, Galatians 1.13, of my former conduct in
Judaism, how I persecuted the Church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it, and I
advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries, in my own nation, being more
exceeding zealous for the tradition of my fathers.
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His
grace to reveal His Son in me,
that I might preach him among the Gentiles I did not immediately confer with flesh and
blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went to
Arabia and returned again to Damascus." And so Galatians here gives us some details that
Acts leaves out that after he was converted he did not go right, I mean, you know, in Acts
it says, and it might even say immediately,
that he went to preaching after his conversion.
But here he says he actually went into Arabia, and then he returned to Damascus.
And what did he do in Arabia?
Well, he received the revelation of Jesus Christ.
And so he's pointing out, again, the Galatians were trying to undermine his apostleship by
saying, he's just a Johnnie-come-lately apostle, and his doctrine comes from men.
But he says in verse 18, then after three years,
I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter and remained with him 15 days.
And so he didn't even meet Peter until three years later.
So he didn't get his doctrine from Peter.
He didn't get his doctrine from mankind.
And 15 days to us would be a long stay.
But in that day and age, when you travel all that time and just stay 15 days, that's not
considered a long time.
And then he talks about later on.
verse nineteen but I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother now
concerning the things which are right to you indeed before God I do not lie afterward I
went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia verse twenty two of Galatians one and I was
unknown by faith to the churches of Judea which were in Christ but they were hearing only
who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy
and they glorified God in me.
Then chapter two, verse one, then after 14 years, I went up again to Jerusalem with
Barnabas and also took Titus with me.
And I went up by revelation and communicated to them the gospel which I preached among the
Gentiles, but privately to those who are the reputation, lest by any means I might run or
had run in vain.
And so 14 years, it took him to meet the others.
And again, he went up there by revelation, but he was already preaching the gospel before
that 14 years.
He was preaching to the Gentiles.
And so again, Paul received his gospel from Jesus Christ, not from humankind.
And so his gospel was not of human origin.
He did not learn it by human authority, transmission, or teaching.
but rather he received the gospel through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Then, of course, after recounting his former life and his commission, but he showed he
could not have received the gospel from other apostles, again three years and then
fourteen years, Paul went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas and he took Titus with him.
You know, whether the fourteen years were after the three years or included in the three
years, the point is still clear, Paul could not have received nor relied upon
human element for the gospel he preached.
And so although the gospel was offered to the Jews first and to the Gentiles, Romans 1-16,
it did not originate with any particular human culture, but with the impartial God.
And so after those 14 years, Paul went to Jerusalem in order to present the true and
unadulterated gospel, Galatians 2-2.
He spoke with the influential members of the church privately,
Probably so not as to incite the Judaizers who looked for every opportunity to discredit
him and the message he preached.
Now the term of no reputation, or as the ESV translates that, seemed influential.
That comes from a word that means to seem, to recognize, to have a reputation.
It's used in Galatians 2.6 as well as in verse 9.
The word is also used in Mark 10.42.
But the word is used here in the sense of authorities, those who are in a position of
honor.
And he does talk about pillars of the church later on in Galatians 2.
But you see, it seems that Paul feared that if the Jerusalem church disapproved his
Gentile mission, his work would be in vain.
If the truth of the gospel were not upheld, unity would be broken.
in the formation of a Jewish church and a Gentile church might result.
And so Paul thus demonstrated through Titus that there is only one genuine gospel.
Paul goes on to say in Galatians 2 verse 3 through 5, yet not even Titus, who is with me,
being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
And this occurred because of false brethren
secretly brought in who came in by stealth to spy out the liberty which we have in Christ
Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage, to whom we did not yield submission even for
an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you." And so notice Titus was
Greek and would be primarily an example of those whom the Judaizers would say needed to be
circumcised.
Again, Acts 15, 1 and 5.
However, Paul did not force Titus to be circumcised.
And the reason why is because these false brethren, and these would be Judaizers, were
trying to enslave Christians to the law of Moses.
Galatians 2 verse 4.
Now, this is unlike Timothy, who was circumcised as an expedient
to labor among the Jews.
Now again, if we go back where we're first introduced to Timothy in the book of Acts,
chapter 16, Acts chapter 16, verses one and two, remember it was here on Paul's missionary
journey that he came to Derbe and Lystra and abode and behold a certain disciple, Acts 16,
one was there, named Timothy.
the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek.
He was well spoken of by the brethren who were at Lystra in Iconium, and Paul wanted to
have him go with him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in
that region, for they all knew that his father was a Greek." And so here Timothy is
circumcised, and the Bible tells us why, not as a requirement for salvation.
But, because of the Jews who were in that region, end quote, Galatians, excuse me, Acts 16
and verse 3.
That is, would be working, Paul and Timothy would be working among Jews, and Timothy would
not even get a foot in the door unless he was circumcised.
Now, there's a whole lesson involved in that that we won't have time to unpack here, but
can you imagine Timothy at his age being circumcised?
I couldn't imagine that.
But yet for the gospel, he did it.
For the gospel, he did it.
And that's a lesson just by itself.
But here the point is, you know, circumcision, can be an expedient, and it's an optional
expedient.
It's not required.
It's not prohibited, but it can be done.
And so we see Paul, in this case, having Timothy circumcised to work with the gospel.
But yet, in Galatians 2, Titus was not circumcised.
In fact, we gave in to them, Paul says, no, not for an hour, because they were requiring
circumcision as a matter of salvation.
And so, even though Paul received the gospel he preached independently from the leaders of
the Jerusalem church, it was still the same gospel.
And as Paul reflected on his visit with them, he realized they added nothing to the gospel
he already taught.
What the Jerusalem leaders seem to be to the Judaizers or anyone else mattered nothing to
Paul because it mattered nothing to God who shows no favoritism to man.
Galatians 2 verse 6.
Rather than making up for an insufficiency in Paul's gospel, the Jerusalem leaders were in
total agreement with it.
And so what Paul's gospel ministry and the one gospel was to the Gentiles, Peter's
ministry,
in the one gospel was to the Jews.
In Galatians 2, verses 7 and 8, well verse 6, but from those who seemed to be something,
whatever they were, it makes no difference to me.
God shows personal favoritism to no man.
For those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.
But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcision had been
committed to me as the gospel for the circumcision was to Peter,
for he who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked
effectively in me toward the Gentiles." And so Paul's gospel that he preached was the same
as the one that Peter was preaching.
And Paul didn't receive it from Peter, he received it from the Lord.
And so that tells us that his gospel is from God just as Peter's gospel was from God.
There is no difference.
that one was working in one culture, the Jews, one was preaching in another culture, the
Gentiles, it was the same gospel.
And so the terms of the gospel for the uncircumcised and the gospel for the circumcised
refer to the same gospel but apply to different cultures, Jew and Gentile.
And again, Paul would say later in 1 Corinthians 9, 19 through 23, I have become
all things to all men that I might win some to Christ.
You know, to the Jew I became as the Jew, to those without the law, without the law, etc.
But he did this for the gospel's sake, and we can set aside culture, we can take on
different cultural elements to those that we're preaching, as long as those elements don't
violate scripture, we can take on those elements to have a better influence on people and
teach them the gospel.
And so there is no separate Gentile gospel or separate Jewish gospel.
God is the one who commissioned and empowered both Paul and Peter and their respective
ministries.
Galatians 2 verse 8, as He does through His written word concerning preachers today.
2 Timothy chapter 4, and again, I think it's very significant if you just ignore the
chapter breaks as you go through this.
you know in chapter three verses fourteen through seventeen he's talking about how the the
scriptures need to be preached they need to be learned they need to be studied and then
when he gets to second timothy chapter four he'll say preach the word be instant or be
ready be instant in season out of season reprove
reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and teaching for the time will come when
they will not endure sound doctrine verse 3 but according to their own desires because
they have itching ears they will heap to themselves teachers and they will turn away their
ears from the truth and be turned aside to fables but you Timothy be watchful in all
things endure afflictions do the work of an evangelist fulfill your ministry
And so we have the authority to preach the gospel, the same authority that Peter had and
Paul had.
We can't change the gospel, but we are to preach the gospel.
Remember, whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.
What you ever lose on earth will have already been loosed on heaven.
And so furthermore, as we go back to the discussion in Galatians, the Jerusalem pillars,
that is James and Peter and those,
They acknowledged the sameness of Paul's ministry in the one gospel by extending
fellowship.
Notice what Paul wrote in Galatians 2, 9, and 10.
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had
been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship that we should go
to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
They desired only what we should remember, the poor, the very thing which I also was eager
to do." Again, Galatians 2, 9 and 10.
Now, James, Cephas, and John were metaphorically viewed as pillars, and this term was used
in Jewish circles to refer to the great teachers of the law.
And this order of names seems deliberate when speaking of missionary activity among the
Jews, Peter is most
prominent, thus his name is listed first, Galatians 2, 7, and 8.
But when speaking of matters in the Jerusalem church, James is prominent, thus his name is
mentioned first, Galatians 1, 19.
Now the right hand of fellowship extended to Paul and Barnabas is significant.
According to some sources, the clasping of right hands was a sign not only of unity in the
gospel, but also a friendship and trust which was a blow to the Judaizing teachers.
Now the only thing these pillars mentioned was they wanted Paul to remember the poor,
which of course he was already eager to do.
Acts 24-17, Romans 15-26, and 1 Corinthians 16-3-4.
in Corinthians chapters 8 and 9.
All these talk about taking up that collection for needy saints in Jerusalem and for
others too, and that's another lesson as well.
He didn't say just for the saints in Jerusalem, but for all people especially, those of
the household of faith, Galatians 6-10.
And so Paul was already teaching those things.
And so four truths particularly stand out from Paul's defense against the Judaizers here
in Galatians.
Number one, because a person has been comfortable in his religious culture for a long time
does not make his religious cultural right, or we might say binding on others.
The Judaizers were comfortable in the Law of Moses, but that did not make the Law of Moses
binding today.
Some people are comfortable with their cultural take on doctrine.
but that does not make that take correct.
Secondly, the gospel or doctrine of Christ is not according to man, Galatians 1 and 11.
Thus it does not come from culture, but from the revealed mind of God.
1 Corinthians 2, 7 through 15.
And that revealed mind of God
In the first century, it was revealed by prophets and others, but for us, since the end of
the first century, that revealed mind of God is only recorded in Scripture.
What is written?
Ephesians 3, 1 through 7.
And so we cannot appeal to our cultural understanding as if that's the doctrine of Christ.
Thirdly, God does not want two or more churches based on culture.
That is, God did not want one church founded on Jewish culture and another founded on
Gentile culture.
Christ only has one church.
Matthew 16, 18, upon this rock I, Christ, will build my, his church singular, and the
gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
I've known churches.
People just disband and start visiting around.
And they don't like the churches.
are several scriptural sound churches.
And so they want to go out and start their own.
And they'll call it the blank Church of Christ.
Well, we are the blank Church of Christ.
And they'll name some kind of cultural background.
You know, we're this regional Church of Christ.
Or this or that.
And then when you see how it plays out, it's like they just want to do their own thing.
They don't want to assimilate into sound congregations in the area and all work together.
And just think of how much is missed out in a community when a certain culture, instead of
being in a congregation and mixing with other cultures to show that the church is not
just one group of culture, instead of showing that, that different cultures can get along
in Christ, they want to go start their own little congregation of that culture and their
leadership and all this kind of things.
All these kind of things that they don't talk about eldership, they don't talk about
shepherds, but it's the leadership this, the leadership that.
you can't appoint elders who do not qualify, but when you have men that qualify, at least
seemingly qualify, and they're not appointed as elders, even enough in a congregation
where you have a plurality and they're not appointed, something seems wrong with that.
And so culture should not be the basis of forming a congregation.
And I realize that back in the past, due to some of the shameful history of our country,
that segregation was there and congregations had to be that way.
But I'm going tell you what, there's a lot of good stories.
In fact, I heard one just recently in our area in Florida.
This is an awesome story of a predominantly black congregation.
This going to celebrate their 88th or 80 something 85th or 88th anniversary.
And they're in a city that was very racist, we might say, or skin colorism is.
I know some people don't like the term racist, but if there's only one race, and there is
the human race, and you're attacking a human, then I guess you could call it racism,
right?
But mostly what people mean by racism, I call skin colorism.
And it happens all the time.
But anyway, there's a town in Orlando,
actually in town of Florida.
I just gave it away, Orlando.
In fact, I'll just give you the history of it.
The Westmoreland Church of Christ.
They're gonna celebrate their 80-something anniversary this year.
their start, they got a lot of help from Concord Church of Christ in Orlando.
And back at that time, it was uncool.
know, they were helping...
uh
the african-american population they were helping that church at a time when it was on
cool
And I don't know, I would love to talk to some people who were alive back then, but I
don't know if anybody was alive, still alive, back then that could remember that kind of
stuff, know, adults.
But that's a great story.
And so I don't know what, 88 years ago, this is 2026, I'm not good at math, but that had
been like in the 50s, 40s, 50s, 60s, something like that.
But you had a predominantly white congregation that actually made it happen for that
congregation to get established.
And think that's a great story.
And you won't hear that probably from some, but that's a great, great situation because
they work together.
And they still may have been segregated, but at least they had a church.
And of course, times have changed a lot since then, but we need to change that segregation
attitude.
And I know it can come from both sides, but in my experience in the South, Central
Florida,
Louisiana, Tennessee, these are places I've lived and it's one group seems to want to hold
on to that culture.
They want to have it the way they've had it for years.
They don't want to assimilate.
They don't want to come together.
And I don't know, maybe assimilation is not the right word, but they want to have their
own little group to run things their way.
yeah, they'll fellowship, you know, they'll come to gospel meetings and stuff, but why
not?
joined together in congregational things, why have that separate little congregation
that's in the midst of a whole bunch of congregations?
But I mean, I think it sends the wrong message.
But anyway, like Paul would say about some people who preach the gospel in Philippians 1,
at least the gospel is being preached, even though maybe the origins of some of those
congregations are questionable.
at least the gospel's being preached, and so that's a good thing.
when we think of going back into Galatians,
the terms of admission and continual faithfulness to the church are the same, no matter
the culture of any individual.
Again, in 1 Corinthians 12-13, by one spirit we are baptized into one body.
In Colossians 3, 1-11, if you then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are
above, where Christ sits on the right hand of the throne of God.
Again, to go over those four truths that particularly stand out from Paul's defense
against the Judaizers in Galatians, number one, because a person has been comfortable in
his religious culture for a long time does not make that religious culture correct.
Secondly, the gospel or the doctrine of Christ is not man-made.
Thirdly, God does not want two or more churches based on culture.
That is, he doesn't want a Jewish church
in a Gentile church, but he wants churches to come together to show the world that all
cultures are one in Christ when they obey the gospel, and there's only one way to obey the
gospel.
Then the fourth one of these, finally, those seeking to be guided by the truth recognize
the same gospel.
They are unified by that same gospel, and they happily extend the right hand of fellowship
to each other.
based upon that same gospel.
And so as we conclude this episode, let us note that in the Lord's church, quote, there is
neither Jew nor Gentile, there is neither bond or free, there is neither male nor female,
for we are all one in Christ Jesus, end quote, Galatians 3.28.
The standard that holds Christians together is the doctrine of Christ, or the gospel
and its equivalent terms.
We are not held together by culturally based doctrines.
If we are, then we are not following the doctrine of Christ.
And when faced with different beliefs, may we as God's people never forsake studying
scripture by claiming any view contrary to what's found in the Bible.
Let each of us abide in the doctrine of Christ, for then we will have God and His Son,
Jesus Christ.
2 John 9-11.
And so let us not appeal or use that as an excuse to not accept the truth on such things
as elderships overseeing local congregations,
such things as divorce and remarriage and number of other things, let us not use as an
excuse, well, that's just a white doctrine or that's just a black doctrine.
Let us instead appeal to the doctrine of Christ.
We thank you for listening to today's podcast and we'd to hear back from you.
And so if you have any questions, any comments, if you'd like a written
transcript of this or some further discussion, we'd love to hear from you.
And so we look forward to studying again with you on this next episode of our bumper-soad,
which is our episodes between seasons.
Thanks for joining us and we look forward to being with you again very soon.