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.

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!

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.