Concord of Acts and Epistles – Part seven

When the Apostle Paul wrote his letter to the Romans he had not been to Rome. When, however, he wrote the Epistle to the Galatians, most probably in AD 57, he had already visited Galatia twice (Acts 16:6.18:23). These facts explain the difference of approach of the two letters. The main theme of the writings was the same, the refutation of the views of those who held that his teaching that the Gentile believers were free from obligation to the Law of Moses was a dangerous heresy. They could not accept that the law was repealed by Jesus; They held that salvation was available to the Gentiles only if they became Jews and submitted to circumcision and the Law. To strengthen their case, his detractors attacked the authority of the apostle. They said that, not being one of the twelve, he was dependent on others for his knowledge of the Gospel. He was not a real apostle. He had not been with Jesus. None of the twelve, who had been with the Lord, had said anything about the repeal of the Law. He himself, apparently inconsistently, had circumcised Timothy. He had purified himself with four men who had a Naz­arite vow on them and had paid the expenses of their sacrifices (see Numbers 6:14).

All this was a direct challenge to Paul and he answered it by this letter: the Maga Carta of Christian liberty. He does not mince his words in affirming his authority. He affirmed that the Gospel which he preached was not his own or that of any man. He was taught it, not by man, but by the revelation of Jesus Himself. “I marvel that ye are so far removed from the Gospel of Christ” to another Gospel”. I stand in doubt of you.” He Lad met them and could speak to them with authority.

His letter to the Romans, whom he had never seen, was completely different in tone. His authority had not been established in Rome by personal contact and he therefore does not assert his authority to them, but relies on arguments appealing to the Jewish Scriptures, especially to the fact Abraham had lived long before the Law was given and was justified by faith did not make void the Law, but established it. The Law was not sin. There was much advantage in being a Jew, and there was still profit in circumcision, “‘Wherefore the Law was holy and the commandment holy, just and good.” The Gentiles had been made partakers of the Jews spiritual things. Paul, emphasized, that when the Gentiles, which had not the Law, “did by nature the things contained in the Law,” they showed the work of the Law written in their hearts.” In effect, the letter relies on the decision of the Jerusalem Council that no difference should be placed between Jews and Gentile believers and that there was no compulsion on the Gentiles to be circumcised as to keep the Law, but that they should “obtain from pollution’s of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.”

Thus, a comparison of the two epistles in the light of the history in the Acts of the Apostles, indicates the agreement of history and correspondence.