ENERGIZED FOR MISSION

Christ commissioned His church to carry out a global mission. The strategy of the early church was to divide and conquer. Christ entrusted the gospel to Paul to reach the uncircumcised while He commissioned Peter to lead the mission to the circumcised (Gal. 2:7). We (the modern church) follow in their footsteps to fulfill our mission to reach the world for Christ. Not only did Christ call the church to a global mission, but God also energized the church to carry out the mission. Paul wrote, "for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles" (Gal. 2:8).

Paul uses the same word twice to make his point. First, the Aorist participle is translated "the one who effectually worked" (ἐνεργήσας). Then the Aorist indicative is used (ἐνήργησεν). The intransitive use of the verb means to be at work, to operate, or be effective. The transitive use of the verb means to produce results. In either case, the preposition "to" (εἰς) is used to introduce the goal or objective of the work (BDAG, 265). God, not Christ, is most likely the subject of the verbs in keeping with the other passages where this verb is used (1 Cor. 12:6; Phil. 2:13: Col. 1:29; Meyer, Galatians, 70). God, not us, makes our mission effective. We depend on God's power to drive the success of our mission. He produces the results of our gospel mission.

The fundamental exegetical question is this: Does God qualify them for the office of apostle, or does God accomplish His mission through them? If the verb is used intransitively, Paul could mean that God was making them fit for their apostleship. If the verb is used transitively, Paul would be saying that God produced the results (the converts) of their mission. Either view is theologically valid and exegetically possible. What is the sense that Paul intends by his use of "effectively worked" in this context?

1. To qualify them for the office of apostle (Burton, Galatians, 93-94).

The indirect object is personal in both cases. The datives "for Peter" (Πέτρῳ) and "for me" (ἐμοὶ) are datives of advantage indicating that God worked for the benefit of Peter and Paul. The object of the preposition in the clause about Peter is "apostle" (εἶς ἀποστολὴν) indicating that the act of making effective had to do with his apostleship to the circumcision. God was endowing Peter to be an apostle, qualifying him for his position.

2. To accomplish the mission of the gospel (Meyer, Galatians, 96).

God was not just making them fit for their position, but Paul intended to point to the entire efficacious work of God in carrying out His calling for their lives. Paul is using the word to mean produce results, not merely make them fit for the job. In the second clause, Paul does not use the word "apostle," and the preposition focuses on the goal of reaching the Gentiles. This would imply that the effective work of God was not limited only to apostleship but to the results of the broader mission.

I think view #2 brings out the force of the passage. Paul's use of this term elsewhere adds support for the fact that God energizes the mission - God produces results. The verb is used for the power that raised Christ from the dead (Eph. 1:20; Col. 2:12). The preaching work Paul did was by the energizing power of God (Col. 1:29). The Word of God is not only living but effective (ἐνεργὴς) in judging the hearts of people (Heb. 4:12). The works (ἐνεργημάτων) we do as members of Christ's body, we do because God energizes (ἐνεργῶν) us to do them (1 Cor. 12:6). The Spirit of God works (ἐνεργεῖ) all things in each of us according to His will (1 Cor. 12:11). "For it is God who is at work (ἐνεργῶν) in you, both to will and to work (ἐνεργεῖν) fo His good pleasure" (Phil 2:13). God energizes us for His global mission.

Make us, Lord, dependent servants who trust in your effective power to accomplish your great mission in this world.

WHO'S MORE IMPORTANT?

We put great stock in the appearance of importance. Who is the biggest or tallest, finest, or greatest? The trappings of success become the symbols of power. The church, sadly, succumbs to the world's measures of importance. Our credentials and endorsements advertise our authority. Who we know and who we follow opens doors in ministry, so we name drop strategically for maximum effect. A hierarchy of reputation rests on the outward appearances of importance, like the size of our church, the success of our ministry, or our circles of fellowship.

The early church was no different. Paul faced challenges to his authority based on the credentials that Christians valued in his day. He wrote, "But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) - well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me" (Gal. 2:6). The opening clause is an anacoluthon (broken grammatical construction), and the thought is picked up again at the end of the verse (Meyer, Galatians, 64). The middle section is best set off by dashes (see UBS, 3rd edition and Nestle-Aland, 26th edition). The main idea is: those who were of high reputation contributed nothing to Paul.

Unfortunately, the repeated expression "those who were of high reputation" (τῶν δοκούντων/οἱ δοκοῦντες) is translated in the past tense when these are both present participles. Paul is not saying that they were reputable in the past. His concern is that the people treated them as superior authorities in the present tense (Lightfoot, Galatians, 107). "Those who are of high reputation" in the minds of the Galatians - at the time Paul was writing the letter to them not sometime in the past - added nothing to his message. Paul is using the term in a dismissive sense to refer to the way the Christians were diminishing him while elevating the apostles. Paul does not depreciate Peter, James, and John, personally. Paul respects these apostles too, but argues that the Christians should not treat their status and authority as superior to his. Some were idolizing them to diminish Paul's authority, and such a hierarchy of reputation is not right (Bruce, Galatians, 117).

The apostles who "seemed to be something" (τῶν δοκούντων εἰναί τι) added nothing to Paul's preaching. The pronoun "to me" (ἐμοὶ) is in the emphatic position (Meyer, Galatians, 68). Paul stresses his authority here. The verb "contributed" can mean to offer something or to confer with someone. However, it is best understood as presenting information in addition to what Paul said - adding to his gospel. The criticism of the legalizers was that the apostles had to teach Paul. Paul is arguing that they taught him nothing in addition to what he had already learned (Burton, Galatians, 89-90). His gospel message did not depend on their teaching. His authority to preach stood alongside their authority to preach. "To me, the apostles, who seem to you to be something, added nothing!"

Paul lays out the foundation for his argument between the dashes. "Whatever they were in the past" (ὁποιοί ποτε ἦσαν) makes no difference to Paul in the present. The general relative pronoun "whatever" (ὁποιοί) emphasizes the quality of the person - "what kind of people they were" (Blass/Debrunner, Grammar, 159). The particle ποτε means "formerly" or "once." There is an intentional contrast between the two "be" verbs. What they seem to be in the present (εἰναί) has nothing to do with what they were in the past (ἦσαν). The second verb is in the imperfect tense, indicating what they used to be on an ongoing basis.

Paul appears to be thinking about the fact that Peter, James, and John had all walked with Jesus during his earthly ministry. Paul, of course, had not. Some treated the other apostles as superior to Paul because of their past connections with Jesus. They were all founding members of the church. Paul came along later (Bruce, Galatians, 117-118). Consequently, the Christians put them on pedestals because of their outward credentials, but whatever they were in the past does not guarantee them superiority in the present because we all are new creations in Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 5:16-17). They should be respected but not idolized.

The theological basis for Paul's assertion is that "God shows no partiality." Literally, the text reads, "the face of man God does not receive." The expression "to receive the face" (πρόσωπον λαμβάνει) translates a common Old Testament expression "to lift the face." To show favor to someone, a king would lift the face bowed before him (Bruce, Galatians, 118). The word for face (πρόσωπον) means the outward countenance of a person. The word could also be used of a mask worn by actors on the stage. They played a part in a play (TDNT, 6:769). Paul is saying that God does not favor the outward credentials or the mask of authority that someone has over someone else. What we are outwardly does not determine how God treats us or the validity of our message. We wear our connections like masks of authority to persuade others to listen to our message. The masks of success, credentials, positions, or connections should not determine the value of the message!

Martin Luther said that judging things from outward masks and trusting in people based on their positions was "popery." He wrote: "the prince, the magistrate, the preacher, the schoolmaster, the scholar ... are persons, and outward veils, which God will have us acknowledge, love, and reverence, as His creatures, which must needs be had in this life, but He will not have us so to reverence them and put our trust in them, so as to forget Him" (Luther, Galatians, 51).