Friday, December 6, 2019

THE PRESSURE TO COMPROMISE

Compromise is subtle. Like black sheep in a flock, we accept false teachers as brothers and sisters in the church while their influence slowly grows more powerful. We work and feed side by side until truth forces a choice. Paul and Barnabas in Galatians 2 forced a choice. There are three parties to this fight (Burton, Galatians, 77). First, Paul and Barnabas stood firm that the gospel of liberty must be kept free from legalism. Second, the apostles of the church - Paul calls them the "pillars" of the church (2:9) - sought to keep the peace among the people. Third, we have the "false brothers" (2:4). The word for pseudo brothers (ψευδαδέλθους) means those who pretend to be Christians, counterfeits, but whose doctrine or behavior prove to be non-Christian (cf. 2 Cor. 11:26). Counterfeit teachers become popular in the church producing the pressure to compromise for the sake of unity.

But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. (Gal. 2:4-5)

The false brothers were sneaky. Paul describes them as people who "sneaked in" (παρεισῆλθον). The word means to slip into a group with unworthy motives (BAGD, 624). Their primary tactic was to "spy out" (κατασκοπῆσαι) the church. The infinitive means to lie in wait for someone like a lion waiting to pounce on his unsuspecting victim (BAGD, 418). The expression "secretly brought in" (παρεισάκτους) is a verbal adjective that no longer carries its original passive sense. It is a rare word meaning, in this context, someone who worms his way into a group. The adjective was used to describe Ptolemy IX Alexander I, the son of Cleopatra III. She had chosen her older son to be co-ruler with her and only chose Ptolemy IX after the more popular older son was removed from power. Ptolemy IX was always viewed by the people as someone who wormed his way into power (TDNT, 5:824-826). These false brothers infiltrated the church, gaining power as their influence grew among the Christians.

The objective of the false teachers was to enslave the other Christians - to bring them into bondage (καταδουλώσουσιν). The force of the expression was to enslave someone to an external power (Lightfoot, Galatians, 106). It wasn't so much that they wanted to enslave people to themselves as if seeking power for themselves. Their motive was to enslave people to the law of God. These teachers were zealous for the law. Legalists sound holy in their zeal for God even as they add conditions to the gospel. Religion seems so spiritual even as it adds requirements for salvation beyond faith in the sufficiency of Christ. A "you must do" religion replaces a "trust what He did" faith. Grace is nullified by additional requirements for complete salvation. When we become enslaved by rules, no matter how good or well-intended, the liberty of the gospel is compromised.

These false teachers infiltrated the Jerusalem Church, then made their way to Antioch, where Paul and Barnabas were teaching. They claimed to represent the apostles in their teaching, which led Paul and Barnabas to go to Jerusalem to straighten it out. Paul writes that they "did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour" (2:5). The expression means to "yield" (εἴξαμεν) "in obedience" (ὑποταγῇ) to another authority. To whom did Paul and Barnabas refuse to surrender in obedience? The false teachers? The apostles? It is a difficult question starting with a textual problem. The best reading includes "to whom we did not" (οἷς οὐδὲ) but what is the antecedent of "to whom" (οἷς)?

The best solution is to see Paul referring back to his main thought in verse 2. The apostles are those who "were of reputation" (2:2), of "high reputation" (2:6) and "reputed to be pillars" (2:9). These were the leaders to whom Paul "submitted" his gospel "for fear that he might be running, or had run, in vain" (2:2). Reconstructing the situation leads me to conclude that the apostles had been pulled into the influence of the legalists (Judaizers) and encouraged Paul and Barnabas to yield on this matter of the law to preserve the feelings of the Jewish Christians for whom this had become very important (Lightfoot, Galatians, 105-106; Burton, Galatians, 81). They probably argued that it was important to keep the peace or preserve the unity of the church in these matters. This reconstruction fits with the actions of Peter (Gal. 2:11-14) and some of the suggestions the apostles made later at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:28-29). Paul refused to yield on this point. The gospel must not be compromised. We know that Paul's arguments eventually won over the apostles who eventually joined him in standing for the freedom of the gospel, but it was not without a battle.

The pressure to compromise is insidiously sneaky. It sounds so spiritual to ignore gospel compromise for the sake of unity. Will we yield to those who want to add requirements for people to be Christians? Or will we stand firm in the freedom of the gospel?

Friday, November 15, 2019

WIN/LOSE CHURCH FIGHTS

Not all church conflicts should seek win/win results. Some church fights must be win/lose! You are either on the right side or the wrong side, but there is no middle ground. The issue carves a dividing path like a glacier between truth and error, life, and death. The "Great Circumcision Debate" was one of those issues in the early church. Paul has been addressing this debate in the autobiography of his battle for the gospel (Galatians 1-2). The early church was dividing over the issue of circumcision, but Paul did not seek a win/win solution where both sides could save face. Paul drew a hard line that demanded a choice. It was a win/lose fight for the heart of the gospel.

"But it was because of false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you" (Gal. 2:4-5).

A TIMELINE OF THE FIGHT

Scholars debate the sequence of events in Galatians 1-2 and how they align with Acts 11-15. The critical interpretive decision revolves around whether the infiltration of error mentioned here took place at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) or before the council (between Acts 11-15). I am convinced that this conflict started before the council, but you can read an alternative argument by Herman Ridderbos (The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia in NICNT, 75-92). F.F. Bruce explains the best timeline for the "Great Circumcision Debate" (Galatians, 106-134).

The rumblings of the fight began early in the growth of the church, and the battle plays out over time. People are not consistent, so the skirmishes between the sides go back and forth between compromise and division. Leading figures like Peter and James become enmeshed in the conflict with some embarrassing results (Gal. 2:11-14). Here is a summary of connections between Galatians 1-2 and Acts 11-15 (see Witherington, The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus, 309-319).

Paul preaching in Tarsus (A.D. 37-46, Gal. 1:21-22)
Barnabas brings Paul to Antioch (A.D. 47, Acts 11:25-26)
Barnabas and Paul go to Jerusalem with uncircumcised Titus (A.D. 48, Gal. 2:1-2, Acts 11:27-30)
The First Missionary Journey from Antioch (A.D. 48, Acts 13-14)
Paul and Barnabas return to Antioch (A.D. 49, Acts 14:26-28)
The circumcision infiltration occurs in Antioch (A.D. 49, Gal. 2:4-5).
Peter's Big Compromise in Antioch (A.D. 49, Gal. 2:11-14)
The Jerusalem Council is convened (A.D. 49-50, Acts 15)

In this reconstruction of events, Galatians 2:4-5 are a parenthesis in his autobiography, and he picks up with the story of his famine visit to Jerusalem in verse 6 (Acts 11:27-30). What this sequence shows us is that the battle for the gospel was not one event but many. It took place over several skirmishes and compromises. For example, Peter's compromise took place after he had already validated Paul's message in Jerusalem (Gal. 2:9). Paul argues that the promoters of circumcision spied out and infiltrated the churches posing as respected church leaders from Jerusalem to the church in Antioch and the churches of Galatia that Paul established on his first missionary journey.

Paul will have none of it. He calls these religious leaders in the early church "false brothers" (Gal. 2:4).  He says that they are "accursed" (Gal. 1:9) because they "nullify grace" (Gal. 2:21). If we have to do anything to become Christians, including the Law of God, then Christ died needlessly! Adding requirements to the gospel is a form of "bewitching" (Gal. 3:1) because it confuses and controls people by the dictates of religious leaders. Adding circumcision to the gospel means that the person has been "severed from Christ" and "fallen from grace" (Gal. 5:4). Paul suggests that these circumcisers go and "mutilate themselves" (Gal. 5:12). Harsh words for a serious fight! There can be no middle ground. We are either saved by grace plus nothing, or we are not. We place our faith in Christ alone, or our faith is in vain.

ADDITIONALISM TODAY

Adding requirements to become a Christian nullifies grace and minimizes the cross. Religion has always sought to add elements to the gospel to make people Christian. Requiring baptism to become a Christian or mandating the Eucharist to be saved are adding to the gospel just as much as adding circumcision. We must not compromise through additionalism. Performing good works as penance before God is adding to the gospel. The gospel of Christ is clear. It is about what Christ has done for us on the cross, not what we do for him in the church. We accept by faith what He has done, and He, in His grace, redeems us for His kingdom. If my salvation depends on something I do rather than what He has done, then Christ's work is insufficient for my salvation.

The gospel is a win/lose fight. There can be no compromise!

Thursday, October 31, 2019

OUR FEAR OF FAILURE

We fear failure. No one wants to work without results, to serve to no end. We set goals, but we face many goal blockers in ministry, which can lead to the fear of failure. Paul, too, feared working in vain (κενός - Phil. 2:16; 1 Thess. 3:5; Gal. 2:2) or for nothing (εἰκῇ - Gal. 4:11). But what does failure look like? Do we measure failure by declining attendance as people go to other churches? Failure for Paul was not that someone would attend another gospel-preaching church but that the two churches would not be united by the true gospel. Paul writes that he submitted the gospel he preached to the elders of the church in Jerusalem "for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain" (Gal. 2:2). There can only be one gospel that we preach lest grace is nullified and the church divided.

Paul uses one of his favorite metaphors for Christian service. Ministry is a race. We run the race to complete the mission. The only reason to run a race is to get to the finish line. Twice Paul uses the verb to run. The first time he uses the present tense, "I am running" (τρέχω) and the second time he uses the same verb but in the Aorist tense, "I had run" (ἔδραμον). Paul shares his anxiety that he is running, or has run, the race of ministry "in vain" (εἰς κενὸν). This fear is what drove him to go to Jerusalem to meet the elders of the church. The adjective "vain" (κενὸν) means without reaching its goal or without result (BAGD, 427). Paul feared that he would run the race of ministry without reaching his goal in ministry.

The phrase "for fear" is not in the text. The NASB translation supplies it to make sense of the sentence. The conjunction is literally "lest somehow" (μή πως) "I am running or had run in vain." The conjunction generally expresses purpose following verbs of apprehension or anxiety. In this case, the verb must be supplied from the context (BAGD, 519). The ESV brings out the purpose by translating it "in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain."

The negative particle (μή) as an expression of apprehension indicates that something can still be stopped when used with a subjunctive verb. When used with an indicative verb, the time for stopping has passed (Blass/Debrunner, Grammar, 188). The first verb translated "run" (τρέχω) could be either subjunctive or indicative while the second verb translated "had run" (ἔδραμον) is indicative. It is probably best to take the first verb as a subjunctive (Burton, Galatians, 73-74). Paul was seeking to alleviate his concern while there was still time to avoid failure. He can do nothing about the race he has already run. Paul's anxiety is that he doesn't want to continue to run his race without results. His purpose in communicating the gospel with the Jerusalem church was to avoid failure in ministry.

What, then, would be the failure he seeks to avoid? I don't think that Paul feared that his message was wrong. Such a view would run counter to Paul's whole argument in Galatians. Paul knew that his message - the gospel - was true. He did not need the elders to validate his message for him. Paul's concern was that they would undermine the unifying nature of the gospel. The fear that drove him to consult the apostles was that the unity of the gospel would be nullified by their insistence that Gentiles follow the Mosaic Law. Such a view of the gospel would end up separating or dividing Jews from Gentiles in the church(Longenecker, Galatians, 49). The gospel of grace would be nullified by works. Paul's whole ministry centered around the bringing together of Jews and Gentiles into one body because of the gospel (Eph. 2:11-22).

As pastors, we should fear failure, but not the failure that comes from counting nickels and noses. The failure we should fear is the failure to work together for the gospel. The failure we should fear is the failure to preach the gospel in a way that neither adds to or subtracts from the essential elements of the good news. We are one in the gospel because we believe one gospel.

Friday, October 18, 2019

BATTLING FOR THE GOSPEL

We downplay theological disputes today. "Just give them Jesus" or "doctrine divides" are slogans of the modern church. Perhaps these are helpful cautions when it comes to peripheral matters of the faith over which we have too often divided but not the gospel. There can be no compromise over the gospel. Battling with others about the gospel gets messy, even ugly sometimes, as we see in Galatians 2, but we must be willing to divide if the gospel is being corrupted. A "Jesus Lite" gospel is no gospel at all.

Paul writes, "I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles" (Gal. 2:2). The verb "submitted" (ἀνεθέμην) in the middle voice means to declare or communicate something to someone for consideration (BAGD, 62). The only other place in the NT where the word is used is when Festus laid out the contents of Paul's legal case before Agrippa (Acts 25:14). Paul used a sister verb earlier when he testified that he "did not immediately consult" (προσανεθέμην) with anyone (Gal. 1:16). This word can mean to "submit" a question to someone for an answer (BAGD, 711). In the case Paul made before the council in Jerusalem, however, Paul is not submitting the gospel for approval, which would fly in the face of his earlier disavowal. I don't think Paul would have modified his gospel if they had not given their consent (Bruce, Galatians, 109). He was declaring the gospel to clarify the gospel. All must agree that nothing - in this case, circumcision/law - could be added to the gospel without nullifying grace (Gal. 5:4).

Paul is in the midst of the autobiography of his battle for the gospel in Galatians 2. He begins with the connective "then" (ἔπειτα) which is the third time he has used this connective in his story (Gal. 1:18, 21; 2:1). A timestamp follows. "After fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas" (Gal. 2:1). Two related questions arise. 1) Do we calculate the 14 years from his conversion or from his previous visit to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:17-18)? 2) Does this visit coincide with the famine relief visit in Acts 11 or the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15? Some argue that this visit is the same as the Jerusalem Council, and the time should be calculated from his first visit (Lightfoot, Galatians, 102). Others take it that the time should be calculated from his conversion, and the visit coincides with the famine relief visit in Acts 11 (Witherington, The Paul Quest, 309-317).

The timeline is important for Paul's argument here. His point is that this is the second visit to Jerusalem (Gal. 2 = Acts 11), proving that he received his gospel independently from the apostles. His commission to preach came directly from Christ and not the apostles. He leaves out no information about his relationship with the apostles lest his credibility be questioned (Bruce, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, 150-151). The timestamp (14 years) fits best with the starting point of his conversion due to the dating of Claudius (Acts 11:28). The point: Paul's gospel came directly from Jesus Christ and not from human origin.

A.D. 34-37 - Paul's conversion in and mission to Arabia
A.D. 37 - Paul's first visit to Jerusalem
A.D. 37-46 - Paul preaches back home in Tarsus and the surrounding area
A.D. 41-42 - Paul's thorn in the flesh and heavenly vision (2 Cor. 12:1-10)
A.D. 47 - Barnabas brings Paul to Antioch
A.D. 48 - Paul's second visit to Jerusalem (Gal. 2 = Acts 11).
(Witherington, The Paul Quest, 309-318)

Paul decided to join Barnabas in the famine relief visit because of a revelation from the Lord (Gal. 2:1-2). This revelation could be a reference to the prophecy of Agabus (Acts 11:27-28) however it is more likely a special revelation to Paul that he should go to Jerusalem since that fits with the tenor of Paul's revelatory experiences (Bruce, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, 151-152). He gives the revelation as a reason for him to join Barnabas. "I went up according to a revelation" (κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν), Paul says. Apparently, Paul was not originally planning on going to Jerusalem, but the Lord directed him to go. Thus, Paul's purpose was more than famine relief. It was gospel-centered.

Titus was at the heart of the gospel-centric nature of Paul's visit. He writes that he was "taking Titus along" with him. The participle "taking along" (συμπαραλαβὼν) implies that Paul initiated the plan to bring Titus along with them. Titus was a test case for the gospel as an uncircumcised Greek Christian (Bruce, Galatians, 107-108). The gospel controversy centered around whether Gentiles must be circumcised to become Christians. Paul picked a fight with other Christians to clarify the heart of the gospel. Will we add anything to the gospel that someone must do to be saved? Are there religious rituals, observances, or practices that must be performed in addition to believing the gospel before one becomes a Christian? The answer at the heart of this gospel controversy must always be "NO!"

Heresy by addition corrupts the gospel as surely as heresy by subtraction. We can deny the gospel by adding religious rituals like baptism as surely as we can by rejecting the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Grace that requires us to do something to get salvation, is no longer grace. Christ plus anything equals nothing! Salvation must be by Christ alone, grace alone, and faith alone!

Friday, October 4, 2019

THE TESTIMONY THAT HONORS GOD

Testimonies are powerfully persuasive expressions of faith when centered on God, not self. Sadly, many testimonies in the church today, especially celebrity testimonies, subtly focus on the person more than on God. Paul's testimony is powerful because it is God-centered, not man-centered.

"They kept hearing, 'the one who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.' And they were glorifying God because of me" (Gal. 1:23-24).

The Judean churches did not know Paul personally, but they knew his reputation. Paul writes, "they kept hearing" (ἀκούοντες ἦσαν) about him. The antecedent would be "the churches of Judea" (vs.22). The word for "churches" is feminine plural (ἐκκλησίαις) while the participle "hearing" (ἀκούοντες) is masculine plural. The masculine plural can refer to a feminine plural collective noun to emphasize the personal members of that collective. The members of the churches kept hearing about his testimony (Blass/Debrunner, Grammar, 74; Longenecker, Galatians, 41). The periphrastic construction (participle with an imperfect tense verb) indicates durative action. They kept hearing about him. This was not a singular statement but an ongoing testimony of praise (Moule, Idiom Book of NT Greek, 17).

What follows is a direct quote. The particle "that" (ὅτι) is recitative, meaning that it should not be translated (Burton, Galatians, 64). The particle is like our quotation mark. Since Galatians is one of the earliest books of the New Testament to be written, this quote would be one of the earliest statements we have from the first century church! Notice that Paul is not even named in the testimony. The subject is anonymous, although obviously Paul. The testimony is about "the one who once persecuted." Paul knows that the testimony is not about him. It is about what God did to and through Him. A testimony that honors God is not about us but about how God changes us. The present participle "persecuted" (διώκων) refers to a time antecedent to the present time and action that was continuous (Robertson, Grammar, 892; Turner, Grammar, 80-81). Paul once had been persecuting the Christians repeatedly, and that former constant persecution makes the testimony all the more powerful.

The one who formerly persecuted the church now preaches the faith (εὐαγγελίζεται τὴν πίστιν). "The faith" (τὴν πίστιν) refers to the content of the gospel. Paul uses "the faith" in a similar way elsewhere in Galatians (3:23,25; 6:10). He makes the connection between gospel and faith more explicit in Philippians 1:27 when he writes, "the faith of the gospel" (τῇ πίστει εὐαγγελίου). The testimony brings out the force of this connection by emphasizing that "the faith" is the same faith he once "tried to destroy" (cf. Gal. 1:13). The phrase translated "tried to destroy" is another periphrastic (ἥν ἐπόρθει) indicating continuous action. The tense is conative, indicating that Paul had been attempting to exterminate the faith (Burton, Galatians, 64). The testimony of the Judean churches was that Paul was preaching the very same gospel that they believed and which he once opposed.

The result is that "they were glorifying God" (ἐδόξαζον τὸν θεόν) "in me" (ἐν ἐμοὶ). The verb "glorifying" is an imperfect tense indicating durative action. They did not merely honor God once but continuously because of how God turned the persecutor into the preacher. The prepositional phrase "in me" should be understood as the basis or ground of action and can be translated "because of me" (Longenecker, Galatians, 42). The word order emphasized "because of me" by placing it between the verb and the object. "They were glorifying, because of me, God!"

Here should be the goal of every testimony. My desire should be for others to honor God because of me. I should be delighted to be diminished if God be elevated. A testimony that honors God is continuous, not momentary or fleeting. It avoids focusing on me but is gospel-centered. Such a testimony is all about what God does in me, not what I do for God. Only if others celebrate God when they remember me, will my testimony have eternal value.

Friday, September 20, 2019

SERVING IN OBSCURITY

Far from the centers of Christian influence, they faithfully preach the gospel in little towns and out of the way villages. Hardworking pastors devoted to Christ serve with minimal outward success. I meet them in the small towns of New England, the inner city neighborhoods of Ukraine, and the barrios of Panama. These faithful servants of the Lord support their families by holding down jobs so they can preach the Word of God, sacrificing family, time, and money to serve in obscurity. Paul, too, understood the struggle of serving Christ in obscurity. He wrote:

"Then, I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ" (Gal. 1:21-22).

Judea was the center of Christianity and Jerusalem the mother church during these formative years for the Christian faith (A.D. 37-48). Paul wrote that he was "unknown by face to the churches of Judea" (Gal. 1:22). "Unknown" (ἀγνοούμενος) is a present participle implying that the churches of Judea were continuously ignorant about Paul throughout this era (R&R, Linguistic Key, 503). "By face" (προσώπῳ) implies that they may have heard about his notoriety as a persecutor turned preacher, but they did not know him personally. The Christian faith was spreading rapidly while Paul lived on the periphery in Syria and Cilicia.

Paul goes back home to Tarsus in Cilicia (Acts 9:30). He testifies later that God revealed to him while praying in the temple that he should leave Jerusalem immediately (Acts 22:17-21). God didn't tell Paul where to go, but the leaders of the Jerusalem church did! Paul was stirring up trouble for them, and the Jews were threatening to kill Paul. For his own safety and their peace, the Christians in Jerusalem took him to Caesarea and put him on a boat for Tarsus. Only then did the church throughout Judea enjoy peace (Act 9:26-31). Paul was a troublemaker everywhere he went from the perspective of the churches in Judea. They were better off with Paul in Tarsus far away from the places of influence (Witherington, The Paul Quest, 309-316). At least he couldn't get into too much trouble there!

We know very little about the decade Paul spent in Syria and Cilicia. It was at least ten years and perhaps as much as fourteen years that Paul served the Lord in relative obscurity (Gal. 2:1). We assume that Paul continued to preach the gospel and fulfill his calling to reach Gentiles for Christ. It is quite likely that it was during this time that Paul experienced some of the beatings, stonings, hunger, thirst, sleepless nights, and dangers that he explains later (2 Cor. 11:23-27). We know that he also had his visionary experience and thorn in the flesh during this period of time (2 Cor. 12:1-10). Unknown and unwanted, suffering persecution and struggling with his thorn in the flesh, Paul faithfully served the Lord far from the centers of influence in the first century church. These were hard times, discouraging and disheartening, during which Paul learned the lesson that God's power is made perfect in weakness. God's grace is sufficient for his life (2 Cor. 12:9).

Then came Barnabas, again! Barnabas goes to Tarsus to find Paul and bring him to Antioch in Syria sometime near the end of this period (Acts 11:25-26). Paul stated that he went to Syria and Cilicia (Gal. 1:21) but in reverse chronological order probably because Syria was the more influential province in the Roman government (Hendriksen, Galatians, 63). He leaves the backwaters of Cilicia to go to Syria at the request of Barnabas. The church in Antioch was rapidly becoming a center of Christian influence and missionary activity, and Paul was needed in the ministry. Paul went from unknown and unwanted to known and wanted in one of the most influential churches in early Christianity.

Jesus is the head of His church, and He dispatches each of us where He chooses. We serve at His disposal. Christ may send us to the backwaters of our culture or He may call us to a large church in the city. The choice is His. Our call is to be faithful to where Jesus sends us and to the mission which He gives us.

Lord, help me to faithfully serve you even if in obscurity for you are Lord, and I am your servant.

Thursday, August 22, 2019

FALSELY ACCUSED?

Have you ever been falsely accused? Someone has impugned your integrity or questioned your veracity? Perhaps others have circulated stories about you that painted a negative picture. Guilt by association or statements taken out of context were used to undermine your credibility. The stories went viral through social media. Your ministry is threatened because people wonder if you can be trusted to tell the truth. How should you respond? Should you defend yourself? Paul did, repeatedly!

"Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying" (Gal. 1:20).

THE BACK STORY

Church leaders from the mother church in Jerusalem had arrived among the churches in Galatia attacking Paul's integrity. These church leaders claimed to represent the apostles in Jerusalem, and they falsely accused Paul of five failures in his ministry. 1) He did not possess the authority to preach independently, as he claimed. He was under the authority of the apostles in the Jerusalem church. 2) The apostles in Jerusalem were the only ones who had the authority to define the true gospel of Jesus Christ. 3) Paul had gone to Jerusalem to learn the gospel from the mother church, and the apostles authorized him to preach the gospel they taught to him. He learned his gospel second-hand from them. Later in Antioch, Peter and the apostles had rebuked Paul for preaching error. 4) Paul had agreed to follow what they said but then adapted his message to preach his own watered-down version of the gospel designed to be acceptable to the Gentiles by minimizing the importance of God's law. 5) Paul was deceiving the Galatians about the gospel and misleading them about himself and his authority. The Galatians should not trust him or his message (Longenecker, Galatians, xcvi-c).

A SOLEMN OATH

How it must have galled Paul to defend himself against these false accusations. He refutes the false allegations in his letter to the Galatians (Gal. 1:16ff). Contrary to what these leaders claimed, Paul's first visit to Jerusalem was a social call. He retells the story of meeting Peter and James (Gal. 1:18-19) and later explains what really happened with Peter in Antioch (Gal. 2:11ff). Paul corrects the twisted, upside-down version of the story being told by his false accusers to defend his trustworthiness in ministry. He vehemently takes an oath before God that he is telling the truth (Gal. 1:20).

Paul says, "See before God that I am not lying." The opening particle "see," "behold," or "listen" (ἰδοὺ) emphasizes what follows. "Before God" (ἐνώπιον τοῖ θεοῦ) introduces a common oath formula and "I am not lying" (οὐ ψεύδομαι) implies that there is another wrong account of events. The story Paul is telling is the truth. All other stories are false. No matter how believable their story or unbelievable his story, Paul takes a solemn oath that what he is telling them is the "honest to God" truth. The formula Paul uses to deny that he is lying is a typical formula used in Roman legal proceedings (Rienecker and Rogers, Linguistic Key, 503). Generally, the Roman courts discouraged the offering of oaths unless it was absolutely necessary. Paul apparently felt it was absolutely necessary to use a courtroom oath to defend his version of the story (Bruce, Galatians, 102) although Paul did not believe Christians should go to court to settle their differences (1 Cor. 6:1-8)!

ANOTHER OATH IN SELF DEFENSE

Interestingly, Paul uses the same oath in a later context when defending his integrity before similar attacks (2 Cor. 11:31). God knows that I am not lying (οὐ ψεύδομαι), Paul argued when explaining in more detail the events surrounding King Aretas and his escape from Damascus. Apparently, the false stories about Paul continued as other church leaders attacked his integrity, and he once again took another oath about his trustworthiness. Paul stressed that he would only boast in his weakness when he tells about his escape in a basket through a window in the wall. By boasting only in his weakness and making God the hero, Paul's veracity is demonstrated in contrast to the self-adulation of his false accusers.

Paul's defense was in stark contrast to one of the highest awards that the Roman army could confer on a soldier. The "wall crown" honored the soldier who scaled the wall of an enemy city first. The honor was still being awarded in Paul's day (Witherington, Conflict & Community in Corinth, 458). The worldly hero scales the wall first, Paul claims. The servant of Christ is the first down the wall in defeat. Why? God's power is perfected in weakness. His false accusers may claim high honors and attack his weakness. Paul's account is true because he claims no honor for himself but gives God the glory for using him in his weakness and defeat. Paul's oath rings true because it is not self-glorifying. When we defend ourselves, we must avoid self-adulation in our defense.

The sting of unjust criticism is hard to take as pastors, especially when stories are circulated about us that are not true. Often we find it hard to defend ourselves because we can't divulge confidential information. However, we can and must defend our integrity when the ministry is compromised by false accusations. Sometimes we even have to assert that we are not lying just like Paul even though the assertion itself is painfully frustrating. When the gospel is compromised because our credibility is undermined, we defend the Lord when we defend ourselves.








Friday, August 9, 2019

AVOIDING ISOLATIONISM

Paul established his apostolic independence by stressing that he received the gospel through a revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:11-12) and not through the instruction of the other apostles. He spent the first three years of his ministry preaching in Arabia independent of any apostolic credentialing, approval or support. Paul needed no one to validate his missional calling to preach Christ to the Gentiles (Gal. 1:16-17).

However, Paul also understood that independence can be taken to extremes. Isolationism is not the Christian way! We live and serve in the body of Christ, so we must avoid an isolationist mentality in ministry. Missions is also a corporate calling so, after three years, Paul made his way to Jerusalem to meet Peter and James, the leaders of the mother church (Gal. 1:18-19).

Paul time stamps his narrative with the adverb "then" or "next" (ἔπειτα) as he retells his testimony (Gal. 1:18). The same timestamp frames his testimony in 1:21 and 2:1 as Paul lays out the sequence of his conversion and early ministry (Bruce, Galatians, 97). He portrays the visit to Peter in Jerusalem as primarily a personal visit when he says that he stayed with Peter for 15 days. The prepositional phrase "with him" (πρὸς αὐτὸν) implies the relational connection. The singular pronoun, as opposed to a plural pronoun or place name, indicates the personal nature of the visit (Burton, Galatians, 59).

THE BACK STORY

The church in Jerusalem hardly welcomed Paul. They were highly suspicious of him, so Barnabas vouched for him to the apostles (Acts 9:27). The impression we get from Galatians is that Paul spent his time visiting, but Luke gives us more insight (Acts 9:28-31). Paul was doing much more than having quiet tea times with the apostles. He was preaching Christ and arguing with Hellenists throughout the city so much so that some were attempting to put him to death! If the Christians thought that life would be peaceful since the persecutor was now a Christian, they were in for a rude awakening. Controversy followed him wherever he went! Relationships can be messy. Isolationism can seem appealing, and the church found peace after Paul was gone! (Acts 9:31, Bruce, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, 83-94)

Luke tells us that Paul met the apostles, but Paul tells us that he met only Peter and James among the apostles. The two statements are not contradictory since two is plural, but the combination helps us interpret the connective "except" (εἰ μὴ). Some, uncomfortable with viewing James, the Lord's brother, as an apostle, argue that the exception refers to others and not the apostles. In this view, Paul did not see anybody else other than the apostles except James. This seems unlikely. We know from Acts that Paul met many other people in Jerusalem, even stirring up trouble! The stronger contextual argument is that Paul included James among the apostles (Burton, Galatians, 60) using the word "apostle" in a broader sense than the apostolate (the 12). So, Paul did not see any other apostles except James.

INTERVIEWS OR NOT?

The verb translated "become acquainted" (ἱστορῆσαι) often carries the force of an interview in classical Greek. Certainly, Paul interviewed Peter in at least an informal sense, but the word can also mean to get acquainted with someone (Bruce, Galatians, 98). Paul did not need to take a crash course in Christian theology from Peter, but Peter would provide many historical details about Jesus that Paul would find fascinating. One detail that we only learn from Paul, but had to come from Peter, is that Christ appeared to Peter by himself after the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:5). The story of Peter's betrayal and Christ's personal revelation to Peter must have resonated with Paul in his own experience. Both men experienced incredible grace from the Lord after committing horrible sins against the Lord.

The same can be said of James, the Lord's brother. The story of his transformation from a good Jew who refused to follow Jesus (John 7:5) to a leader in the church of Christ (Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5) is also a compelling story of grace which Paul understood. How could this happen? Paul alone tells us that Jesus appeared to James before he appeared to all the apostles (1 Cor. 15:7), adding that Jesus appeared to Paul "last of all, as one untimely born" (Cor. 15:8). Only James could have given Paul this nugget of information. Christ's personal revelation to James and Paul explains the transforming power of grace in their lives.

Our relationships in the Body of Christ are vital to the health of the church. People often cite James and Paul as if they are in opposition to each other. Peter and Paul have their differences (Gal. 2:11ff). Yet, it is Peter and James who influence the church at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) to support Paul's ministry to the Gentiles. The personal bonds forged at their initial meeting in Jerusalem foster unity at a critical moment in the history of the early church.

Christian relationships may be messy, but isolationism must be avoided.

Thursday, July 18, 2019

OUR MISSIONAL PURPOSE

God saves us to send us. Every Christian serves Christ's mission from the moment of conversion to the last breath of life. We must not live aimlessly but purposefully. Paul illustrates the urgency of this mission in Galatians when he tells us that God revealed Christ to him "so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles" (Gal. 1:16). The purpose of saving was sending! Paul did not go up to Jerusalem to be credentialed by the apostles but went straight to Arabia before returning to Damascus (Gal. 1:17). Arabia was Christ's first missionary assignment for Paul. He served on mission immediately upon conversion! The same is true for us.

The backstory for Paul's testimony in Galatians 1 is found in Acts 9:19-25. Luke says nothing about Paul's trip to Arabia, but it must have occurred in the middle of verses 19-20. The remainder of Luke's account is the story of Paul's return trip to Damascus nearly 3 years after his conversion. Traditionally, Christians have believed that Paul went into Southern Arabia near Mt. Horeb (Sinai) following in the footsteps of Elijah. The region is isolated, desolate and bleak - the perfect place to commune with God, meditate in silence and learn theology in the school of Christ before going out to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.

WHERE AND WHAT?

Where is Arabia and what was Paul doing in Arabia for 3 years? Paul would have understood Arabia to be the Nabatean Kingdom ruled by King Aretas IV (F.F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, 81-82). The Nabatean Kingdom was easily accessible from Damascus and extended southward to Petra and the Red Sea. The territory covered the region east of Galilee and ran along the eastern shore of the Jordan River. Josephus refers to this region as Arabia belonging to Petra (Witherington, The Paul Quest, 308).

Paul did not go to Arabia for private meditation and reflection. He went to preach the gospel to the Arabians. Paul immediately began doing what God had called him to do. I believe that Paul's visit to Arabia was missional for two reasons (See Bruce, 81-82; Witherington, 307-309).

First, Paul slips in a little nugget of information about why he was forced to escape from Damascus in a basket lowered from a window in the wall (2 Cor. 11:32). The ethnarch of Damascus was under the control of King Aretas who apparently sought the arrest of Paul after he had returned to Damascus from Arabia. Why would Aretas, the Nabatean King, be upset with Paul enough to arrest him if he had been in solitude for 3 years? No! Paul was stirring up trouble in Arabia by his preaching, and Aretas didn't like it.

Second, the whole point of Paul's argument in Galatians 1:16-18 is that he was discharging his call to preach the gospel to the Gentiles before he ever went up to Jerusalem to meet the apostles. His claim of apostolic independence would lose its force if he were in solitude for 3 years before being credentialed by the apostles in Jerusalem.

WHY?

God called Paul to preach Christ to the Gentiles (Gal. 1;16). Paul understood his calling immediately upon conversion and looked for a way to fulfill his mission. Interestingly, there was a long history of ethnic animosity between the Nabateans and the Jews. The Aretas family had engaged in numerous political fights with Jewish rulers over who owned sections of land in the region (Witherington, 309). Arabs and Jews were fighting over land even in Paul's day! 

Paul, the Jewish nationalist zealot, chose to carry out his first mission to Arabs with whom he and other Jews harbored ethnic hatred. He went to a people who hated him. Aretas, ruling from Petra, would have resented a Jew coming into his kingdom trying to convert his people. No wonder, he wanted Paul arrested! Christ had transformed Paul so radically that he put aside all his ethnic differences with the Arabs and sought to win them for Christ. He understood his new mission as a citizen of Christ's kingdom was to win people for that kingdom, so he resolutely focused his eyes on his purpose.

What about us? Paul didn't need to wait for special instructions or 3 years of prayer and meditation before evangelizing, and neither do we. If we have been changed by His grace, we can preach His gospel. Changed lives are the greatest testimony to the power of God's grace. God saves us to send us. Our mission is to make disciples of all nations. We must not go just to people who are like us or who like us. We must go to those who hate us and with whom we may share cultural and ethnic differences. Sadly, we often get distracted by our national and cultural loyalties and lose sight of our mission. Our missional purpose in life is to preach Christ as a people changed by grace to a hostile world in need of grace.

Friday, July 5, 2019

GRACE'S GRIP

All we are, have, do, or gain is the result of God's grace, not our merit! Our salvation and our service are first for God's pleasure, not for our benefit. Paul makes this truth clear in his testimony about God's call (Gal. 1:15-16). Paul writes, "But when God, the one who marked me off from my mother's womb and called me by His grace, delighted to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the nations, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood."

God's delight (εὐδόκησεν) drove God's revelation (ἀποκαλύψαι) of His Son to Paul. God's pleasure drives our salvation. In between God's delight (v.15) and God's revelation (v.16), we see God's choice and God's call. Paul describes the God who delighted to reveal Himself as the God who marked him (ἀφορίσας) and called him (καλέσας). The two verbs are grammatically connected by a conjunction (καὶ) and governed by one article (ὁ). Both participles describe the actions of God. No one deserves God's choice or God's call. It is all about Him, not about us.

THE MARK OF GOD

Paul uses a verb meaning to set apart or mark off (ἀφορίσας) to describe God's appointment of him from birth. The verb always carries the force of separation. For example, God sends His angels to separate (ἀφοριοῦσιν) the wicked from the righteous at the end of the age (Mt. 13:49). Paul uses this word later in Galatians to accuse Peter of separating himself from the Gentiles at meals after the Judaizers arrived in Antioch (Gal. 2:12). So God separated Paul for the ministry of the gospel as he says in Romans 1:1 (ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ), and God did so from his "mother's womb" (ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός). God's choice predates man's choice. God chooses us before we choose Him.

The verb to separate or mark off (ἀφορίζω) comes from the verb to appoint or determine (ὁρίζω). To appoint or determine (ὁρίζω) is used eight times in the New Testament, while to separate (ἀφορίζω) is used ten times. There is a close connection between the two concepts in the New Testament (NIDNTT, 1:472-474. To separate and to appoint are sometimes difficult to distinguish from one another, particularly as it relates to God's call. Luke records that the Holy Spirit commanded the church in Antioch, "Separate" (ἀφορίσατε) "for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called (προσκέκλημαι) them." Long before Paul met Jesus on the Damascus road, God appointed him to preach Christ among the Gentiles (Gal. 1:16). Paul was marked off for ministry from birth.

THE CALL OF GOD

God not only marked off Paul, but He also called (καλέσας) him to preach Christ. This concept of calling is rooted in the Old Testament usage of the term where it is often used to describe someone higher in rank calling someone lower in rank. In this case, the call is never just an invitation but rather a command, particularly when used of God's call to humans. Two Old Testament passages are instructive as background for God's call of Paul. First, God's call of Samuel (1 Sam. 3:4-10) uses the verb "call" (καλέω) eleven times in the Septuagint. Humans must hear and recognize the call of God before they can obey it. Often, like Samuel and even Paul, humans do not hear the call of God or even seek to avoid it. Second, God's call of the servant in the Servant Songs of Isaiah is important (Isaiah 41:8; 42:6; 43:1, 10; 45:3). God's call to service (καλέω) is often linked to the frequent use of God's choice of the servant (ἐκλέγομαι) so that the calling and the choosing are inseparable just as in Galatians 1:15 (NIDNTT, 1:272-273).

God's call is rooted in God's grace. Paul writes that God called him "through His grace" (διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ). The means by which God calls is always grace. Paul didn't deserve to be chosen or called, and neither do we. There is nothing intrinsic in us that induces the call of God. The calling and choosing are always grounded in grace. The expression points us back to Galatians 1:6, where Paul wrote that the Galatians were "called by the grace of Christ." God's grace and Christ's grace are the same because God and Christ are united in the gracious call (Longenecker, Galatians, 30). Paul ties the call of God to the choice of God in the opening words of Romans (1:1) but in reverse order from Galatians 1:15. God called Paul as an apostle, and God separated Paul for the work of the gospel. We should not try to deduce an order of events from the order of these words.

God in His grace marks us off from the world and calls us to preach Christ. We deserve nothing but gain everything. We are nobody's, but He makes us somebody's by His grace. No matter what we face in ministry for Him - opposition, discouragement, sacrifice, hurt, betrayal, rejection - we know that His call is grounded in His grace. We are held in the grip of His grace forever!

Friday, June 21, 2019

A RABID DEVOTION

There is a zeal for God and country that ravages all compromisers - a devotion that becomes destructive, a patriotism that breeds fanaticism. Paul possessed a rabid loyalty to Judaism that drove him to zealously protect the traditions handed down from his forefathers (Gal. 1:13-14). His misplaced zeal justified his persecution of Christians as enemies of the Most Holy God and corruptors of his national traditions. There are few emotions more unholy than a holy zeal gone rabid.

Paul describes himself as a zealot (Gal. 1:14). He uses the noun "zealot" (ζηλωτὴς) not the noun "zeal" (ζῆλος). A zealot was a zealous person, of course, but the noun also described one of the four political parties in first century Judaism. The Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, and Zealots were known as the four philosophies or philosophical sects. A subset of the Pharisees, the zealots began under the leadership of Judas and Zaddok in revolt against the Roman census of Quirinius. They were passionate about freedom from Rome and that God alone was their master, so they believed that the census violated the Law of Moses. They possessed an indomitable will to suffer and fight for God and freedom believing that God would intervene miraculously to free His people if His people purified themselves for God. (TDNT, 2:884-888).

The zealots looked back to Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron as their hero. Phinehas drove a spear through the Israelite man and the Midianite woman in his tent to appease the wrath of God and stop the plague that had killed 24,000 Israelites (Num.25:1-15). It was the zealots who incited the rebellion against Rome that led to the destruction of Jerusalem. Some of the zealots were known as the Sicarii because they carried small swords to assassinate any who collaborated with Rome. They believed that the end would come and the Messiah would return after the nation suffered horrible woes intended to purify the people. For this reason, the most rabid zealots purified the temple during the siege of Jerusalem but also burned the supplies, including food, in the city to hasten the woes preceding the coming of Messiah. The Sicarii of Masada were the last to hold out against Rome, committing mass suicide rather than surrender to the enemy. (Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 2:598-606).

There is no evidence that Paul belonged to the zealots as a political party, but his zeal put many zealots to shame. He describes himself as being an "extreme" zealot for his ancestral traditions (Gal. 1:14). The adjective "ancestral" (πατρικῶν) means paternal (M&M, Vocabulary of the Greek NT, 499). Paul's zeal was for his national heritage. The word "extremely" (περισσοτέρως) means to be zealous to a much higher degree than others (BDAG, 651).  Paul claims that he was progressing in Judaism beyond his contemporaries. The verb "progressing" (προέκοπτον) is in the imperfect tense, indicating ongoing progress. It means to cut forward or blaze a path, and the preposition "beyond" (ὑπὲρ) means to excel or surpass (R&R, Linguistic Key, 501). Paul forged ahead of the most zealous zealots in his passion for God and country. His passion led him to persecute (ἐδίωκον) Christians. The verb is also in the imperfect tense indicating ongoing persecution and means to hunt them down. Paul tried to destroy (ἐπόρθουν) the church of God. The verb was used to describe soldiers who ravaged a city (R&R, 501). Paul rabidly defended his heritage until the gospel radically realigned his values.

Beware of a zeal for God that is not according to knowledge (Rom. 10:2). God saved Paul from the zealot's zeal and transformed his devotion from nationalism to evangelism, from the kingdom of man to the kingdom of God. The Christians he once persecuted, he now embraced. The Gentiles he once scorned, he now loved. The pagans he once avoided, he now evangelized. The gospel of grace changes everything about life!

Wednesday, June 5, 2019

A BRITTLE FAITH BUT A SURE GOSPEL

"For I know in what hours of darkness I sometimes wrestle. I know how often I suddenly lose the beams of the gospel, and grace, as being shadowed from me with thick and dark clouds. ... Therefore, in respect of us the article of justification by faith in Christ alone, is very brittle, because we are brittle" (Martin Luther, Galatians, 31).

Luther pointed to what Paul wrote in Galatians 1:11-12 as vital to the Christian faith. The doctrine of justification by faith is brittle if it depends on us, but the gospel is sure because it depends on Him! Paul wrote: "the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."

These two verses give us clues to the structural frame for the letter to the Galatians. Paul responds to two significant criticisms from his enemies, namely that his gospel was "according to man" (κατὰ ἄνθρωπον) and received "from man" (παρὰ ἀνθρώπου) both of which Paul refutes in this letter. The gospel does not reflect human norms, and the gospel does not come from human origins. Paul's answers to his critics in the rest of the letter form a chiasm since he responds in reverse order. He shows that his gospel is not from man (παρὰ ἀνθρώπου) in Galatians 1:13-2:21. Then he argues that his gospel is not according to man (κατὰ ἄνθρωπον) in Galatians 3:1-6:10 (Blass/Debrunner, Grammar, 252).

First, Paul argues that the gospel did not come from human origins. The preposition παρὰ with the genitive case in classical Greek points to a person and indicates that something proceeded literally from the side of the person. The source originates and directs the information (BDAG, 609). When used with verbs implying transmission, the preposition marks the object as the source. Sometimes the object is the intermediate source of the transmission, but often the preposition is used to indicate the ultimate source. Here in this context, Paul is clearly saying that man is not the ultimate source of the gospel because he received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ (Burton, Galatians, 39-40).

Paul neither received (παρέλαβον) the gospel from men, nor was he taught (ἐδιδάχθην) the gospel by men. There is probably not a significant distinction between the two verbs in this context. The second is used to reinforce and clarify the point of the first verb (Bruce, Galatians, 89). Humans did not transmit the gospel to Paul. How did Paul receive the gospel? He received it "through (δι') a revelation." The preposition διὰ identifies the agent, so the gospel was transmitted by the agency of revelation (Robertson, Grammar, 582). The word "revelation" (ἀποκαλύψεως) means an uncovering or laying bare of something previously hidden (Burton, Galatians, 433). The gospel came to Paul through the agency of revelation.

Is Jesus Christ the object of the revelation or the subject who revealed the gospel? If Jesus Christ (᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ) is a subjective genitive, then He is the one who revealed the gospel to Paul. If Jesus Christ is an objective genitive, then He is the one whom God revealed to Paul. In favor of the former, Jesus Christ as the source of the gospel expresses Paul's point well (Burton, Galatians, 41-42). However, the latter makes sense when looking at where Paul goes in the next verses. God revealed Jesus to Paul in the incredible Damascus encounter. Paul stresses this latter point when he writes, "God was pleased to reveal (ἀποκαλῦψαι) His Son to me" (Gal. 1:15-16). I take it that Christ is the object of God's revelation which makes Him the essence of the gospel. "To preach the gospel (v.11) was to preach Christ (v.16)" (Bruce Galatians, 89). Therefore, Paul lays out his autobiography in Galatians 1:13-2:14 to explain the divine origin of the gospel that he preached and the centrality of Christ to the gospel.

Second, Paul argues that the gospel does not reflect human norms or standards (BDAG, 407). The preposition κατὰ means according to or after the manner of mankind. The noun ἄνθρωπον lacks the definite article so it should be understood qualitatively. Paul was not talking about an individual man but about mankind. The expression, "according to man" (κατὰ ἄνθρωπον), was used by classical Greek writers to mean from a human point of view or according to human thinking (Burton, Galatians, 37). The gospel does not conform to the norms of human thought. It is counter-cultural. The gospel of Christ invades the human world system with a radical upending of human norms and standards.

Paul develops his explanation of the power of the transforming gospel in Galatians 3:1-6:10. The gospel makes humans think differently about the law and righteousness (3:1-29), who are the true children of God and how we become his sons (4:1-31), living by the energy of the Spirit versus living by the passions of the flesh (5:1-26), forgiving and caring for one another versus self-love (6:1-10). The gospel radically transforms all human norms and standards because the gospel does not come from human thinking. The gospel is big because it motivates a new way of living. Our lives as Christians are founded on the sure gospel of Jesus Christ.

Here, then, is the crux of the matter: because the gospel is the revelation about Jesus Christ and what He has done for me, my justification does not depend upon my brittle faith!

Friday, May 24, 2019

RELIGIOUS PACIFIERS

Many today offer religious pacifiers instead of the true gospel. Some sell a watered-down gospel of cheap grace and easy believism to attract crowds. Others peddle moralism or ritualism to give people a false sense of security because they can keep selective rules or practice special rituals. Religious pacifiers appease people by offering them something they can do to be right with God. But when we preach to please people, we distort the gospel and displease Christ. Paul has just cursed such preachers with "anathema" in the first chapter of Galatians. Then he writes:

"For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ." (Gal. 1:10)

There is considerable debate over the precise meaning of the text, although the general thrust of Paul's thought is clear. The debate centers around the exact meaning of the word translated "seeking the favor of men" (πείθω). The stem of this verb is related to the stem of the word for "believe" and means to trust. To believe is to be persuaded. The verb's primary meaning is to convince or persuade someone (NIDNTT, 1:588). We could translate the first clause, "am I now seeking to persuade men or God." But what exactly does Paul mean by that question? Is the answer "yes" or "no." Is he persuading men, or is he persuading God? Persuading men is understandable, but how does one persuade God?

The exegetical issue is whether the first question is parallel or opposite to the second question. Is "am I persuading men" parallel to "am I striving to please men?" Or are the questions to be understood opposite each other, so the persuading and pleasing are in contrast? In this case, to persuade men is the opposite of to please men. Scholars are divided over the matter.

The most common view is that the two questions are parallel. According to the parallel view, "pleasing men" repeats the meaning of "persuading men." The verb "persuading" (πείθω) should be treated as a synonym for "pleasing" (ἤρεσκον) and translated "seek the favor or approval of men" (Longenecker, Galatians, 18). The verb to persuade (πείθω) is used in classical Greek to mean conciliate, win over or make friends and should be understood in that way in this verse (Meyer, Galatians, 20-21). Paul would be asking, "Am I trying to win over, satisfy or conciliate men or God?" The expected answer would be "no, I am not trying to win over men, but I am trying to win over God. I seek God's favor or approval, not man's."

While it is true that πείθω can mean to pacify or conciliate others in secular Greek, it would be a rare usage in New Testament Greek. There are only two possible texts that might have this meaning (Mt. 28:14; 1 John 3:19), and both could easily be translated with the more usual sense of to convince (BDAG, 639). The word usually means to convince or persuade, and I think it best to keep that force in this verse. However, if that is the case, is Paul expecting a "no" or "yes" to his question about persuading men? If he is expecting a "no" answer to persuading men, then he must be expecting a "yes" answer to persuading God. What would it mean to persuade God?

The solution is to see the questions as opposites.

"Am I trying to persuade men? Yes.
Am I trying to persuade God? No!
Am I trying to please men? No!
Why? Because I am a bond-servant of Christ, so I live my life to please Him."

Paul is trying to persuade men, but he would not be trying to persuade God. Persuading God makes little sense. We cannot manipulate God to agree with us. Trying to induce God to endorse man's view would itself be anathema to the Hebrew prophets. Paul would not suggest such a thought. Instead, he draws a contrast. He pronounces "anathema" on the false gospel preachers because he is not trying to pacify people. Paul is trying to persuade the false preachers to give up their false doctrine, which means that he is not pleasing them at all. However, he is pleasing God by trying to persuade men to reject the false gospel (Bruce, Galatians, 85).

So a servant of Christ pleases God and persuades others. A preacher is not a man-pleaser but a God pleaser. A bondservant of Christ refuses to pacify people to attract them to the faith. We are not in the business of peddling religious pacifiers to satisfy people's feelings even if we can draw a crowd of followers with our pacifiers. We are persuaders who proclaim a life-transforming gospel even if it means preaching against the false gospel and ripping the pacifiers out of the mouths of those placated by false teaching.

Friday, May 10, 2019

ANATHEMA!

The gospel divides! 

It is good news to those who accept God's grace, but it brings anathema on those who distort the truth. Paul wrote, "But even if we or an angel out of heaven preach a gospel to you other than the one we have preached to you, let him be anathema" (Gal. 1:8). Paul repeats the statement in the next verse with the slight change of a gospel "other than what you have received." There is only one gospel for all Christians.

The verse begins with a strong adversative "but" (ἀλλὰ) followed by the concessive "even if" (καὶ ἐὰν) to demonstrate the result of preaching a distorted gospel. Usually, the concessive would be written, "if even" (ἐὰν καὶ) with the subjunctive to indicate future possibility. However, when written "even if" (καὶ ἐὰν) as here the concessive introduces an extreme case which is viewed as highly probable (Burton, Moods and Tenses, 115). Paul knows that some are preaching a different gospel, so he uses the extreme form to make his point. This is not merely hypothetical but highly probable.

Paul rips into preachers who distort the gospel whether by adding to or subtracting from the truth. He reserves his most potent attack not for the Roman or Jewish enemies of Christianity but for the professed preachers of Christianity who preach an "other than" gospel! Any gospel "other than" (παρ´ ὃ) the apostolic gospel distorts God's grace for man's message. Paul used the same preposition when he wrote that unbelievers "exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than (παρὰ) the Creator" (Rom. 1:25). No man can lay any other foundation for Christianity rather than (παρὰ)  the one that has been laid (1 Cor. 3:11). The preposition can also be translated "more than" (Moule, Idiom Book of NT Greek, 51). Jesus told the tax collectors to collect no more than (παρὰ) what they should collect (Luke 3:13). The Corinthians gave "according to their ability and more than (παρὰ) their ability" (2 Cor. 8:3). We are just as wrong whether we preach a gospel more than or other than the one we received from the apostles.

"Let him be accursed" (ἀνάθεμα ἔστω). The word (ἀνάθεμα) comes from two Greek words "up" (ἀνα) and "set" (τίθημι) so anathema meant something that was set up. It translated the Hebrew word for what is banned in the Old Testament, dedicated to God as an offering or a punishment. The ban could be applied positively to what was given over to God in worship without any possibility of getting it back again. It could also be applied to what was given over to God's judicial wrath to be destroyed. Either way, whatever was under the ban belonged to God to do as He pleased.

The ban was not the same as excommunication (Ezra 10:8). In excommunication, the person was exiled from the community of faith but not given over to God for destruction. The ban handed what was banned over to God for destruction.  The Talmud taught two kinds of bans. The first ban could be pronounced by anyone and simply banned the person from attending the synagogue. The second ban could only be decreed by a court since it was a far more severe punishment. A parallel can be found in the church. Anathema is not merely an act of church discipline separating the person from the community of faith, but it was a delivery of the person into the hand of God to be punished by God. Paul used the term in this way when he wrote "I could wish that I myself were accursed (ἀνάθεμα) from Christ" for the sake of his Jewish kinsmen. He would suffer the damnation of God if it meant that his countrymen would come to Christ! (See NIDNTT, 1:413-515: TDNT, 1:354-355). To be under the ban is to be cursed by God, to be handed over to the judicial wrath of a holy God.

To be cursed by God is far worse than physical death. I will never forget my ordination service in 1980. My dad, now with the Lord in heaven, preached a message to me on that day in the presence of all. He spoke with tears streaming down his cheeks when he said, "David, I would rather preach your funeral sermon than hear that you turned away from Christ!" His greatest fear was not that I should die before he did but that I should be declared anathema!

Oh God, keep me faithful to preach your true gospel of grace until I breathe my last breath!








Thursday, April 25, 2019

HERESY: ALTERNATIVE & ADDITIONAL

Heresy = belief opposed to orthodoxy
Heresiarch = founder of a heresy
Heretic = a follower of heresy

We don't like to talk about heresy today. It sounds so archaic, judgmental and intolerant. Yet Paul did in Galatians 1:6-7. He was shocked that the Christians in Galatia were "so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ into a different gospel which is not another except certain ones are disturbing you and wanting to distort the gospel of Christ."

The root of heresy is deserting a person for a message. The Galatians turned away from "the one who called you" (τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς) "to another gospel" (εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον). The preposition "to" (εἰς) suggests mental movement in a new direction with the intention to accept a new doctrine. For example, the preposition is used to describe the movement of unbelievers coming to Christ in Acts 26:18. (Burton, Galatians, 22). Here in Galatians 1:6 we see the opposite mental movement. Heresy is turning away from Christ to another gospel.

Paul uses two different pronominal adjectives when he writes "to another (ἕτερος) gospel which is not another" (ἄλλος). These two adjectives are frequently used interchangeably without any distinction of meaning (Blass/Debrunner, Grammar, p.161). It is possible that Paul intended the change of adjectives in Galatians 1:6-7 merely for stylistic variation. However, Robertson insists that Paul intended a real difference between the two in this context (Robertson, Grammar, 747). Paul admits that they are preaching "another" (ἕτερον) gospel different from his but he rejects the idea that they are preaching "another" (ἄλλο) gospel like his. A common distinction that writers make (Moulton, Grammar, 1:246) is between "another of a different kind" (ἕτερον) and "another of the same kind" (ἄλλο).

I think Paul intends a distinction between the two adjectives in these verses so let's mine the matter a little deeper. The adjective ἕτερος indicates one of two while ἄλλος implies one beside another. The first adjective (ἕτερος) distinguishes while the second adjective (ἄλλος) adds (Lightfoot, Galatians, 76). The first implies a substitute and the second involves an addition. Heresy can take two forms. Sometimes heresy is an alternative to orthodoxy. Sometimes heresy is an addition to orthodoxy. An alternative is easier to identify because it is unlike truth. It replaces truth. An addition is more subtle because it implies that the truth is not replaced by the new doctrine. The new teaching merely adds to the truth. However, both are heresy as Paul makes clear.

An alternative gospel rejects the apostolic gospel. The apostolic preaching of the cross is wrong. Down through church history, many have preached alternative gospels. The "moral influence theory," the "example theory," and the "governmental theory," of the atonement are alternative gospels. The substitutionary death of Christ is in error according to alternative gospels. Jesus didn't die on the cross to satisfy God's wrath for our sins. He was a good man who died a tragic death as an example. He showed us how to live and die. An alternative gospel is heresy, a turning away from Christ to preach a different message than Christ's message.

An additional gospel argues that the original gospel is true but old fashioned. We don't deny the apostolic gospel, but we need to update it for today. We need to add elements to make the archaic message relevant to people. Preachers of an additional gospel want to freshen it up for a modern world without denying what the apostles taught. They want to add to without subtracting from the preaching of the cross. For example, the blood of Christ is offensive to the modern mind so let's not talk or sing about a bloody cross. It's true, but we won't mention it. An additional gospel argues that preaching grace alone is insufficient for salvation so we will add works or rituals that people must do to earn God's favor.

Paul quickly disabuses us of any notion that an additional gospel is not heresy. He says that an additional gospel is not an addition at all. Paul uses an exception clause to make this clear. He writes that it is not an additional gospel except (εἰ μή) in the sense that false teachers are agitating you and distorting the gospel of Christ (Burton, Galatians, 24). An additional gospel "adds" elements that distort the true gospel making it no gospel at all.

The good news becomes bad news as much by distortion as by replacement. Whether by addition or subtraction, heresy is still heresy!

Thursday, April 11, 2019

FOGGY DOCTRINE

Many churches intentionally tolerate fuzzy theology to attract a wider audience. They say, "We don't care about doctrine here. We just love Jesus." A murky picture of Christ emerges through the haze. Paul argues in Galatians that fuzzy theology actually denies the Christ we claim to love. Foggy doctrine leads us to betray God.

"I am astonished that you are so quickly betraying the one who called you by the grace of Christ for another gospel" (Galatians 1:6).

In what may be his earliest letter, Paul begins with rebuke, not thanksgiving as in all his other letters. Conventional practice in Greek letter-writing used a thanksgiving formula in the introduction, but Paul refuses to follow the practice. The news of their defection from the gospel compels Paul to cut to the heart of the matter with intense urgency (F.F. Bruce, Galatians, 80).

"I am amazed" (θαυμάζω) is a common rebuke formula used in first century Greek letters to imply not merely surprise but displeasure (Longenecker, Galatians, 14). Astonishment is certainly part of Paul's reaction (NIDNTT, 2:622-625). The word describes the feelings of people at the healing of the demoniac (Mk. 4:20); the cursing of the fig tree (Mt. 26:20); and the calming of the storm (Mt. 8:27). There is even a strong reaction of fear combined with shock in the story of the storm (cf. Mk. 4:41; Lk. 8:25). But Paul is more than surprised. He is upset as the rebuke formula implies (Burton, Galatians, 18). Lightfoot calls it "an indignant expression of surprise" (Galatians, 75). Foggy doctrine should produce indignation in all who truly love Jesus.

The timing of their defection is a partial source for Paul's indignation. They are "so quickly" (οὕτως ταχέως) deserting Christ. The phrase could indicate that Paul was surprised by how quickly the apostasy developed once it started. However, it is more likely that Paul is thinking about how soon the apostasy developed after he taught them the truth rather than how rapidly the process took place once it started (Burton, Galatians, 19). The interval of time was short. How short we do not know. The sad reality of church history is that theological defection comes soon after theological instruction. If we are not constantly vigilant, the fog of false doctrine quickly obscures the beauty of God's grace.

The verb translated "deserting" (μετατίθεσθε) meant to bring to another place in secular Greek. It is used for the transfer of the patriarchs' bodies from Egypt to Shechem (Acts 7:16) and the rapture of Enoch (Heb. 11:5). Here the word is in the middle voice which means to fall away or apostasize (TDNT, 8:161). In the middle voice, the verb is used of (1) military desertion or revolt and (2) a philosophical, religious or political change (Lightfoot, Galatians, 75). In an infamous case, the word is used of Dionysius who deserted the Stoics for the Epicureans and is called "the turncoat" (ὁ μεταθέμενος, Vocabulary of the Greek N.T., 405).

Theological apostasy is a personal betrayal. Paul views their doctrinal fogginess as a betrayal of "the one who called" them, namely God Himself. They are turncoats who betray Christ. Be warned! How quickly preachers can become betrayers and destroy the work of faithful pastors who have gone before. Martin Luther wrote:

"That work which is built up of long labour, may be overthrown in a night. ... So great is the weakness and wretchedness of the present life; and we so walk in the midst of Satan's snares, that one fantastical head may destroy, and utterly overthrow, in a short space, all that which many true ministers, have builded up in years before. This we learn at this day by experience, to great grief, and yet we cannot remedy this enormity" (Galatians, 19).

Wednesday, March 20, 2019

THE BIG GOSPEL

The gospel is more than the good news about justification by faith in Christ's death. Paul writes, in his opening words to the Galatians, that Christ "gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age" (Gal. 1:4).

The Galatians accepted the first part but corrupted the second part which is why they were in danger of turning back to the elemental principles of this world (Gal. 4:3,9). The gospel of God is the good news of the kingdom of God (Mark 1:14-15). The big gospel is that Christ invaded this world to rescue us from this world!

Christ's gift not only bought us forgiveness of our sins. His gift had a higher purpose. The higher purpose is the greatest good news. Christ gave Himself "so that" (ὅπως) "He might rescue" (ἐξέληται) us. The conjunction combined with the subjunctive form of the verb is a purpose clause. The purpose proclaims the good news. Without the purpose, the good news is not so good! Forgiveness of sins without deliverance from evil is a limited and ultimately unsatisfying gospel.

The verb translated "rescue" (ἐξέληται) was used in the active voice for tearing an eye from its socket. Here the verb is in the middle voice and means to set free, deliver or rescue (BDAG, 271-272). The militaristic, even violent, overtones remain part of the imagery. This verse is the only time that Paul uses the term, preferring words like save, set free or redeem to depict our salvation. However, the verb is common in the Old Testament LXX, and we find the word frequently in Acts where it is used of the rescue of Joseph from his afflictions (7:10); the deliverance of Israel from Egypt (7:34); and God's rescue of Peter from Herod's prison (12:11) among other places (Bruce, Galatians, 75). Paul may have been unconsciously quoting from early church confessional statements here since the expressions "gave Himself for our sins" and "this present age" are used in the early church confessionals (Longenecker, Galatians, 7-8).

The gospel is not just soteriological but eschatological. God rescues us out of this present evil age. The preposition "out of" or "from" (ἐκ) is reinforced by the compound verb "rescue" (ἐξ-έληται). Christ came to rescue us out of one age for another age. The word "age" (αἰῶνος) introduces an eschatological component to the gospel. Paul and the other New Testament writers believed a two-age doctrine of history, this present age and the age to come. The two-age doctrine was common in Jewish thinking by this time as well. (Burton, Galatians, 426-432). The dawning of the Messianic age was the great expectation of Jews and Christians alike. Jesus, the Messiah, came preaching this good news (Mark 1:14-15). Paul was still preaching the kingdom of God at the end of Acts (28:31), and we continue to preach this good news today.

Christ came to rescue us from "the age" (τοῦ αἰῶνος) which Paul describes as "present" and "evil" (τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ). The single article (τοῦ) governs both descriptors (Blass/Debrunner, Grammar, 141) to give the full weight of significance to the age from which we are rescued. The participle translated "present" (ἐνεστῶτος) is in the perfect tense referring to a state which has begun and continues to exist (Burton, Galatians, 432). The expression "this present age" (τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος) finds a parallel in Romans 12:2 where Paul exhorts us not to be conformed to "this age" (τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ).

The adjective "evil" (πονηροῦ) is in the position of emphasis in this clause making the primary characteristic of this age not merely a time period but a way of life. Sometimes Paul uses age (αἰών) and world (κόσμος) synonymously to emphasize the world system in which we currently live. We are not removed from the world. We are rescued from its power (Longenecker, Galatians, 8-9). Our present age is an age of evil in contrast with the Messianic age to come. We should expect wickedness to dominate the world from which Christ rescues us. We must not fall in love with this world system. The gospel proclaims that we are rescued from the power of this present evil age not the presence of evil in this age.

This verse may well be the earliest written statement about the significance of the death of Christ for our lives (Bruce, Galatians, 77). If so, the death of Christ is framed from the beginning in cosmic terms. The early Christians viewed themselves as "living on the frontier of two aeons, the Gospel transferring them as it were across the border" (Lightfoot, Galatians, 74). The sense of time is lost in the force of moral reality. Time stands still. We live now on the border between two worlds, plucked out of one world into another. The Gospel is the great news that we belong to one side of that border even as we face the other side in battle. We eagerly await the day when this present evil age ends, and we live forever in the age to come.

Brothers and sisters in Christ, let's proclaim the BIG gospel!


Friday, March 8, 2019

UNPACKING THE UNDESERVED GIFT


Bonus time! Our employer hands out the end of the year bonus. We appreciate it and look forward to it, maybe even bank on it each year. It's a gift, but it feels like we deserve it. After all, good employees deserve a share of the profits, we think. The gift becomes a wage we earn not an undeserved gift. We, Christians, may develop a similar attitude with Christ's gift to us. We would never say it like that, but we come to treat His gift like the company bonus.

Paul begins his letter to the Galatians by stressing the gift they - sadly - have come to see as earned. He writes that God's grace and peace have come to us through Jesus Christ "who gave Himself for our sins" (Gal. 1:4). Christ's undeserved gift to us is the foundation for our entire Christian lives. We pervert the gospel whenever we treat Christ's gift as anything but totally undeserved! The Galatians have "fallen from grace" (5:4) because they "nullify the grace of God" (2:21) by treating His gift (2:20) like a bonus they earn.

Jesus Christ is the one who gave (τοῦ δόντος) Himself (ἑαυτὸν). First century writers traditionally used this description for Jewish martyrs and Greek soldiers who sacrificed their lives for others (TDNT, 2:166). Paul may well have drawn the expression from an early confession of faith used by Christians (F.F. Bruce, Galatians, 75) since we see it used elsewhere in the New Testament (Mark 10:45; Gal. 2:20; 1 Tim. 2:6; Titus 2:14). His death is His gift, voluntary and undeserved.

Christ gave Himself (ἑαυτὸν) in Galatians 1:4 and 2:20. Mark 10:45 says that Christ came to give (δοῦναι) His soul or life (τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ). The gift in Mark is clearly pictured as substitutionary. Mark goes on to say that Christ's life is a ransom (λύτρον) in place of (ἀντὶ) many (πολλῶν). The preposition ἀντὶ combined with πολλῶν teaches vicarious atonement. Jesus gave his life in place of our lives. In Galatians 2:20, Paul uses the more general preposition "for" (ὑπὲρ) but retains the personal force of the truth by saying that Christ "loved me and gave Himself for me!"

Paul adds a different predicate to explain the gift in Galatians 1:4. Christ gave Himself "for our sins" (ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, cf. 1 Cor. 15:3). There is a textual debate here. Some manuscripts use a different "for" (περί) in this verse. The preposition περί is generally used of things while the preposition ὑπὲρ is generally used of people (Lightfoot, Galatians, 73). However, the stronger textual evidence is for ὑπὲρ despite the fact that it is used of sins in this verse. Paul was thinking of people as he thought of sins. He uses ὑπὲρ in Galatians 2:20 and 3:13 to make the gift intensely personal (Bruce, 75). Christ redeemed us (ἡμᾶς) from the curse of the law "having become a curse for us" (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν).

Christ's gift for our sins is His gift for us. The emphasis is on "our" (ἡμῶν) in the expression "for our sins." Martin Luther pointed out how religious hypocrites minimize the "our" in "our sins." Hypocrites feel no horror over their sin so pay lip service to "our sins." When the soul "feeleth no sin, then it would believe that Christ was given for our sins" (Luther, Galatians, 12).  If our sins are minor, we minimize his gift. It is easy to sing about His gift for our sins when we don't really think our sins are that bad. In this way, worship services can promote hypocrisy. We turn His gift of grace into our bonus for good works.

The gift is personal. Without the "our" we will not grasp the grace! Mark the "our" to stress the undeserved gift. When Paul wrote that word "our", he surely thought back to the Damascus road with tears of gratitude. He came to understand the undeserved gift for his murderous soul on the Damascus road. It was no light matter for him to write the pronoun "our, and we must grasp the gift by claiming that pronoun too.

We can't unpack the gift without the "our" in "our sins."