THE GOSPEL BILLBOARD

 

A billboard grabs attention. It distills volumes of information into a simple message, a placard of truth. What is Christianity's billboard? Paul explains in Galatians 3:1. Jesus Christ is THE CRUCIFIED ONE! 

"You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?"

Bewitched by the lure of success, the pride of works, and the promises of false teachers, the Galatians had lost sight of the essence of Christianity. We worship a Savior who was crucified as a common criminal. The Romans claimed that Carthage invented crucifixion, which they perfected to torture the worst slaves and criminals. Crucifixion was the worst shame that authorities could inflict on another human. The cross is the crux of our faith. A symbol of disgrace became the billboard of Christianity. Preaching placards the crucified one for all to see.

The verb translated "publicly portrayed" (προεγράφη) can have two meanings. It can mean "to write beforehand or in advance," or it can mean "to write up in public, to placard" (Lightfoot, Galatians, 134). The first century papyri show examples of the word meaning to "write above" or to "placard up" for public viewing. For example, a father directed that a public proclamation be set up to announce that he was no longer responsible for his son's debts. Government officials often used the word to refer to public notices and official declarations that were displayed where all could see them (M&M, Vocabulary, 538). Paul preached "Christ crucified" as if he placarded the message on a giant billboard for all to see.

Paul announced the crucified Christ before their eyes (οἷς κατ´ ὀφθαλμοὺς). Literally, it reads, "for whom, in the presence of eyes" (BAGD, 406). This is where we get the translation "publicly portrayed." Some argue that Paul painted a word picture of Christ on the cross. His preaching was so graphic that they could see Christ on the cross. However, there is no lexical support for taking the verb to mean "paint or depict," and the following phrase in the perfect tense would negate this view (Burton, Galatians, 144). The verb was not used for painting a picture but for public announcements of official business. It wasn't that Paul graphically painted a picture for them, but that he placarded the truth because he wanted to keep their eyes from wandering to the charms of this world (Lightfoot, Galatians, 134). He wanted them to keep their eyes upon Jesus - the crucified one - and not get distracted by the issues and concerns of this world.

Paul went on to say that he billboarded Christ "as crucified" (ἐσταυρωμένος). The participle is in a perfect tense, indicating past action with ongoing results. Paul proclaimed Christ as having been crucified for them. He stressed the foundational fact of Christ's crucifixion. It was a past act. It was a finished task. Christianity is based on what Christ did for us in the past, not what we do for him in the present. If Paul wanted to picture Christ hanging on the cross, he would have used the present participle, but he used a perfect participle. Our faith depends on an accomplished fact - the crucified Christ - and that makes it a matter of official pronouncement (Burton, Galatians, 145). We proclaim to the world a finished fact, not a possible present or a wishful future.

The gospel billboard announces that the work is done!

Lord, keep my eyes on the billboard of Christ crucified and not the alluring advertisements of this world.

BEWITCHING BELIEVERS!

 

Why are we, Christians, so gullible? 

How do we avoid being manipulated by the hucksters of this world? 

Lured by the deceptive success of the false teachers, the Galatian believers were bewitched by heresy. Paul warned them harshly, "O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you?" (Gal. 3:1)

The word translated "bewitched" (ἐβάσκανεν) conjures up the popular superstition about the power of the evil eye in first century folklore. Many writers closed their letters by wishing the reader protection from the evil eye (M&M, Vocabulary, 106). One superstition suggested that a person could ward off the influence of the evil eye by spitting three times (BAGD, 137). Spells and incantations could fascinate a person so powerfully that they were brought under the control of the bewitcher in Paul's metaphor (Lightfoot, Galatians, 133). 

While it is possible that Paul could be inferring a literal demonic influence in this delusion, he is using the term as a figure of speech, a trope, to warn the believers that false teaching is a serious threat to their spiritual health. Paul is shocked that the believers were so easily deluded and deceived by this mixture of law and grace. The false teachers exerted their influence without any use of magical arts. No extraordinary means were needed because of the gullibility of the believers. Paul uses the term as a rhetorical device to show them how easily the influencers could pervert the gospel and confuse their thinking through the clever use of words and symbols (Burton, Galatians, 143-144).

Bewitching (βασκαίνω) was used metaphorically for the ability to harm others through words. The power of praise and insult, flattery and shame, could harm people as much as black magic. Even hostile looks or the sound of the voice can control others in a bewitching manner. Certainly, there was an understanding that the world was filled with non-human powers seeking to control us, which gave rise to formulaic incantations like "heaven preserve us." The magical power of a look or a word can influence others because there are demonic forces at work in this world. However, the word for "bewitching" (βασκαίνω) is never used for the magical powers of the supernatural world. It is used rhetorically for the power of words to influence others (TDNT, 1:594-595).

What are the bewitching methods that influencers use to confuse and control us as Christians?

FALSE REASONING

Lying and deception stand behind all magic. Bewitching people depends on deceiving them. Foolish people succumb to the power of falsehood, and so are led astray. Paul bitingly calls them "foolish" twice in these verses (Gal. 3:1,3). The word "foolish" (ἀνόητοι) can mean unintelligent (BAGD, 70) but more often refers to someone unreasonable (M&M, Vocabulary, 45) or unperceptive. Foolish people lack discernment (Longenecker, Galatians, 99). They are not so much stupid as they are confused. Foolish people lack the ability or the will to think clearly and deeply about matters, so they are easily manipulated by influence peddlers.

Foolishness is a characteristic we all share before we become believers (Titus 3:3). Once we become Christians, we are supposed to leave foolishness behind. Sadly, this is not always the reality. Many believers surrender to false reasoning far too easily and often. It is the bewitching of believers! Believers seem highly susceptible to the power of conspiracy theories with their emphasis on secret knowledge and inside information. Political manipulation and marketing schemes lure too many Christians under the power of the "evil eye!"  We seem especially susceptible to the power of abusive spiritual authority, proven by the long list of authoritarian pastors in recent years. All of these are aspects of the bewitching of believers through false reasoning.

SPIRITUAL DISTRACTION

When Paul calls the Galatians "foolish" (ἀνόητοι), he might be thinking of them as childlike in their simplemindedness (TDNT, 1:595). They struggle to resist the bewitching of the false teachers because they are easily distracted, like little children attracted to the latest flashing lights and sparkling toys. Foolish Christians are so busy chasing the idols of our world that they lose sight of the truth of the gospel. Too often, we become caught up in political battles, social quarrels, and methodological arguments that have no eternal value. We focus on buildings, programs, and culture wars while losing the gospel's centrality to our mission. The result is that we lose sight of Christ in the pursuit of the bangles and baubles that dangle before our eyes.

We are too easily bewitched through false reasoning and spiritual distraction. Christ must be the focal point of our lives, and the cross of Christ must be central to our message. Having begun our spiritual lives by the power of the Spirit, we must not turn to the methods of the flesh to live our Christian lives (Gal. 3:3). 

Beware the bewitching of believers!

DEBTORS TO GRACE?

 

"Oh to grace how great a debtor

Daily I'm constrained to be."

Can grace incur a debt?

Paul says, "NO!"

"I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly" (Gal. 2:21)

The verb translated "nullify" (ἀθετῶ) is in the present tense, indicating an ongoing activity. In classical Greek, it meant to set aside a treaty or to break faith with someone. The LXX uses it to translate a variety of Hebrew words in the Old Testament. It refers to profaning something that God considers holy, such as the sacrifice (1 Sam. 2:17) or the law of God (Ezek. 22:26). According to Ezekiel, the priests profaned God's law by making no distinction between the clean and the unclean. They despised God by profaning the holy things of God (NIDNTT, 1:74). In the Greek papyri, the verb was used for the cancellation of loans through repayment (M&M, Vocabulary, 12).

Paul uses the same verb later in Galatians, referring to a covenant once ratified, which "no one sets aside (ἀθετεῖ) or adds conditions to it" (Gal. 3:15). Jesus says, "He who rejects (ἀθετῶν) me ... has one who judges him" (Jn.12:48). Seeking to achieve righteousness by obeying rules and regulations, Paul says, annuls or renders inoperative the grace of God. Holiness by law-keeping is a rejection of Christ's death for us. If we seek to be righteous by the law after accepting God's grace, then "Christ died needlessly" (δωρεὰν). The adverb means without reason or to no purpose (BAGD, 210). The death of Christ becomes superfluous - unnecessary - if we can achieve righteousness by obeying the law.

The conduct of Peter is the context of Paul's statement. God saved Peter by grace alone, but Peter slipped into law-keeping for his sanctification. He implied that the Gentiles had to do the same by following the Jewish dietary regulations to maintain right standing with God. Paul argues that Peter nullified or rendered inoperative God's grace through his actions (Meyer, Galatians, 94). Peter rejected the sufficiency of Christ's death by adding conditions to the Christian life. Legalism is a practical rejection of grace and an annulling of the cross as foundational for Christian living. 

Suppose that I give my daughter $10,000 in her time of great need. I insist that it is a gift given out of my deep love for her, and she has no obligation to repay me. She says that she is indebted to me and will work to pay me back. Eventually, she cancels the debt by paying me back what I gave to her as a gift. What has she done? She has set aside, rejected, and nullified my gift. When we treat a gift - grace - as a debt, we render the gift invalid. It is no longer grace.

This is what we do when we try to pay God back for His grace freely given to us on the cross. Too many Christians treat the Christian life as a debt to be paid to God for the grace He gave to us. We come to God by faith in His grace but soon turn the Christian life into matters of performance, duty, and obligation. We nullify His grace when the motive for our service is to pay back our debt to Him for His gift. The Christian life is by grace just as much as conversion. Sanctification is just as much a product of grace as justification.

There are two ways to nullify God's grace in our Christian lives (Bruce, Galatians, 146). 1) Grace frees us to sin more (Rom. 6:1). Since we are saved by grace alone, we think we can sin without consequence. The more we sin, the greater His grace. Wrong! May it never be (μὴ γένοιτο, Rom. 6:2). We nullify His grace through our presumptuous sins. 2) Grace motivates us to pay God back. Debt creates guilt. Our Christian lives develop a performance mentality. We think that if we do not measure up to the rules of sanctification, we will not earn God's favor. This too is μὴ γένοιτο! We nullify His grace through the debtor's motive.

We are not debtors to grace because grace cannot incur a debt! 

Praise be to God for His indescribable gift!

HOW DO WE NAVIGATE THE CHRISTIAN LIFE?

 

Three times in Galatians 2:20, Paul uses the pronoun "in" (ἐν). Christ lives "in me" (ἐν ἐμοὶ). I live "in flesh" (ἐν σαρκί), and I live "in faith" (ἐν πίστει). The triple use of the pronoun "in" (ἐν) explains how we navigate the Christian life. There are three points on our navigation chart: Christ, flesh, and faith. The intersection of those three points determines how we live the Christian life.

I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. 

My life on earth is life in tension. 

Christ lives in me, but I live in the flesh. Christ "in me" (ἐν ἐμοὶ) is a figurative expression for "the state of being filled with or gripped by something" or someone (BAGD, 259). Paul writes, "For in Him (ἐν αὐτῷ) all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form" (Col. 2:9). The fullness of all that God is fills, grips, and controls Christ. Christ lives in me in the sense that He fills, grips, and controls me. It is not His fullness that lives in me for I am not Christ (or God), but His person fills and grips my life for His purpose.

Yet I live in flesh (ἐν σαρκί). The word flesh here is not used in its ethical/theological sense, as in Romans 8:7-8. Here the word is physiological, referring to the mortal bodies our souls inhabit in our lives on earth. Flesh lacks the article indicating that we should understand it in qualitative terms. The pronoun "in" (ἐν) is locative, indicating the place in which we live, the sphere of physical life on earth. (BAGD, 258; Burton, Galatians, 138). 

The tension is intentional and obvious. Paul rejects any notion that the divine life and our physical lives are "mutually exclusive," as some were teaching (Longenecker, Galatians, 93). Christ lives in me as I eat, drink, work, and play. He transforms our lives in the most elemental ways. Because Christ grips and controls me, He is there when I watch sports or movies. He enters the home with me. He interacts with co-workers through me. Christ is involved as I debate politics or argue about theology. Because Christ lives in me, even the most basic facets of life are filled with His transforming presence.

My life on earth is life in faith.

The expression "I live by faith (ἐν πίστει) in the Son of God" is placed in the clause so that the two prepositional phrases starting with "in" are next to each other for emphasis. Literally, it reads, "the life I now live in flesh, in faith, I live in the Son of God." The prepositional phrase can be either instrumental or locative, and there is a subtle but significant difference between the two. The New American Standard Bible translates it as instrumental "by faith." Faith is the means or instrument by which we live the Christian life (BAGD, 260). By faith becomes somewhat mechanistic. We are trusting Christ for the results in our lives. We achieve what we achieve by faith in the Son of God.

However, the two phrases "in flesh" and "in faith" are best taken as parallel constructions. Both "flesh" and "faith" are anarthrous, stressing the qualitative aspects of each. Both prepositions are best taken as locative, indicating the sphere in which we live. Just as it is not "by flesh" (the means), but "in flesh" (the sphere), so it is not "by faith" (the means), but "in faith" (the sphere) that we must live the Christian life (Meyer, Galatians, 93). Faith is the "atmosphere" in which we live and breathe (Lightfoot, Galatians, 119). The Son of God is the object of our faith. We think and act in the atmosphere of faith in the Son of God, who dominates our lives. We are not just trusting Christ for results. We are trusting Christ for life.

The Christian life involves total immersion in Christ, like a fish in the water. Our lives become autonomic, like breathing air as we live in an atmosphere of faith. In Physics, we achieve equilibrium when the elements exist in perfect balance. So too, in the Christian life, there is equilibrium in Christ. Like a marble at the bottom of a bowl, no matter how the bowl of life is turned, we are stable in the atmosphere of faith. In biology, there is homeostasis, the organism maintains a stable inner state despite outside changes. Like our bodily temperature regulates to remain stable, so faith in the Son of God regulates all of life so that we remain stable. Our awareness of Christ becomes so enveloping that we sense His presence in all we do and say.

Living in the atmosphere of faith in Christ is how we navigate our Christian lives.

DETHRONED EGO

 

Painted on the rocks high above the main street in Skagway, Alaska, are some often photographed images. Legend has it that the clock, set to 7:20, memorialized the time of Abraham Lincoln's death. However, 7:20 is the normal clockmaker setting used to display the symmetry of a clock and likely advertised a local store. The other two engravings - Kirmse's Curios and Moe's Frontier Bar - were historic businesses in Skagway dating back to the gold rush days. People flocked to these streets from all over the country drawn by advertisers who promised they would get rich quick with all the gold in the mountains. In reality, the merchants in the tiny boomtown were the ones who made the most money. Ego drove gold fever. Self-promotion is inherent to human nature.

To know God, self must be dethroned and Christ enthroned in our lives. Paul wrote, "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God" (Gal. 2:20).

The KJV translates it "nevertheless I live" but the first δὲ is continuative not adversative so should be translated "and." The second δὲ should be understood as adversative and translated "but." "I no longer live" continues the thought of being crucified with Christ followed by the contrast - "Christ lives in me." The literal word order in the Greek text is dramatic - "live no longer I, but lives in me Christ" (Burton, Galatians, 137). The "I" (ἐγώ) is emphatic and directly contrasts with the emphatic "Christ." Ego and Christ cannot coexist in the Christian life!

LIFE B.C.

The "I" (ἐγώ) summarizes life before Christ. Paul says in verse 19 that "I died ... that I might live." The I who died (v.19) is the I who no longer lives (v.20). The I who lives has been merged into Christ. The natural man died. The person who was driven by the human ego no longer lives. Living for self is the person I was before Christ. Self-identity and self-promotion focus on the almighty I. Ego drives life apart from Christ. Once I become a Christian I no longer have a separate identity from Christ. My life is merged into His life (Lightfoot, Galatians, 119).

LIFE A.C.

We expect Paul to write, "I no longer live but I live in Christ." However, he is so caught up in the transformation of what it means to be a Christian that he writes, "Christ lives in me." The old me died. The new me is Christ. It is not that I now live in Christ but that Christ lives in me (Bruce, Galatians, 144). The present tense of the verb (ζῇ) indicates that Christ lives in me in an ongoing, continuous way. He is always in me. Paul is talking about our present life on earth not our future life in heaven. Our merger with Christ is now not later. There is no place that I can go and no activity that I can do that Christ is not in me as I do it. The Christian life is nothing less than the life of Christ operating in the Christian. Christ is resident within us. He is the controlling, operating power in our lives today.

We don't wait for this transformation to happen in heaven. Paul makes this clear when he writes, "and the life which I now live in the flesh." The life is "now" (νῦν) not later. It is in the flesh (σαρκί) not in the spirit. Flesh (σαρκί), in this context, refers to the physical, mortal body not the ethical, immoral nature of the human heart. The pronoun "in" (ἐν) expresses the sphere in which life operates. Paul is talking about living in the sphere of the physical body (Burton, Galatians, 138). 

The relative pronoun (ὃ) can be understood as a cognate accusative or an adverbial relative pronoun. The NASB translates it as a cognate accusative sometimes called a content accusative meaning that the content of the relative pronoun must be brought out by the translator. So the NASB supplies "and the life which I now live" (Turner, Grammar, 3:245-246). It could also be an adverbial relative and translated "whereas I now live" (Moule, Idiom Book, 131). The adverbial relative explains how Christ lives in me. I think it probably best to understand it as a cognate accusative stating that the life I am now living in my physical body must be lived dependently not independently, on Christ not for self. 

EGO OR CHRIST?

God dethrones ego to enthrone Christ. This is the central transformation of the Christian life. All immorality is narcissistic. Ego drives every sin we commit. Moral behavior can be altruistic but, sadly, narcissism taints even our finest altruism. God dethrones our egos to transform our lives. Every moral failure - racism, abortion, sex outside of marriage - is self-centered at its core. We will never change the social order by law. Christ must dethrone self one "self" at a time to change society. 

Following Christ means allowing Christ to dethrone my ego. The Christian life is not about me. It is all about Him. My self-identity is wrapped up in Him. My self-interest is merged into His will. I no longer live because Christ lives in me.

THE MORALIST'S DEATH

 

Benjamin Franklin, the classic moralist, set out in life to achieve "moral perfection" through his little book of 13 virtues. For each virtue, he lined out seven columns, one for each day of the week. He would self-evaluate these virtues daily as he sought to be a better man, but at the age of 79, he had to admit that he had failed (Christensen, The Spiritual Life of Normal Christian, 132-133). The moralist thinks that you must live for law to live for God. Paul wrote that we must die to law to live for God (Luther, Galatians, 83). "For through law I died to law so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ." (Gal. 2:19).

The first word of the sentence is an emphatic "I" (ἐγὼ). The "I" of verse 18 is not emphatic because Paul was reflecting an accusation made by others against him, but the "I" in verse 19 is emphatic because Paul is now stressing his personal experience. Paul states, "I died to law" (νόμῳ ἀπέθανον). The Aorist active indicative is a declarative statement of a fact about his past. His death to the law is in contrast with his statement that "I might live for God" (θεῷ ζήσω). The first verb is declarative, stressing what is, and the second is subjunctive, stressing what might be. His death to the law is done, making possible his living for God. 

Death, in Paul's thinking, ends a relationship, but life opens up a new relationship (Longenecker, Galatians, 91). The contrasting datives "law" (νόμῳ) and "God" (θεῷ) are datives of relationship although the second dative (θεῷ) may be understood as a dative of advantage. We ceased our prior relationship to the law, but we now live for the advantage or benefit of God (Burton, Galatians, 134). When Christ justifies by grace through faith, our past is dead. A new life for God opens before us. The possibilities are endless.

The noun "law" (νόμος) lacks the article as it did in verse 16. An anarthrous noun usually carries a qualitative force stressing law in general as opposed to a specific code like the Mosaic Law. Burton argues that law in verse 16 should be taken qualitatively, meaning that Paul is talking about the law principle inherent in all cultures as opposed to the Law of Moses. However, in verse 18, Burton argues that Paul is referring specifically to the Mosaic Law even though the noun lacks the article (Burton, Galatians, cf. 120, 133). I think it best to remain consistent and understand "law" in a qualitative sense (Lightfoot, Galatians, 118). A law principle - moralism - undergirds all cultures, not just Judaism. Moralism is man's attempt to live for God and is always doomed to fail (Gal. 2:16). We must die to moralism to live for God.

There are two elements of our death to moralism. We die to law-keeping as a way to God 1) through the law and 2) through the cross. We die to law "through law" (διὰ νόμου), but our release from law comes only when we can say with Paul, "I have been crucified with Christ" (Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι). Most translations take the second phrase as part of verse 20, but most critical Greek texts place the phrase as part of verse 19. It is probably better to take it with verse 19, explaining how we can be released from law-keeping to live for God (Longenecker, Galatians, 92).

We pass through three stages in the process of conversion to a new life for God (Lightfoot, Galatians, 118).

1) Before the law: I am a sinner but ignorant of my sin. Paul will expand his explanation of these stages in Romans 5-7. Sin entered the world through Adam and spread to all humanity. We are all sinners who are subject to death even though ignorant of the sin without the law (Rom. 5:12-14; 7:7). Sin, in one sense, might be considered dead until the law reveals it so the law could be said to stimulate or even create sin (Rom. 7:8-9).

2) Under the law: I am a sinner who becomes conscious of my sin. The law reveals my sin and condemns me to death, but the law cannot provide any solution for my sin. So the law defines, stimulates, and condemns my sin, making the law an instrument leading to my death. Sin uses the law to kill me (Rom. 7:7-12). However, the law is still holy and good (Rom. 7:12) because the law leads us to Christ (Gal. 3:24-25). Offering no remedy, the law shuts us up until we come to Christ's grace for release. In this way, we die to the law through the law.

3) Freed from the law - I am a sinner who has been justified by grace (Rom. 5:20-21). Paul uses his famous marriage analogy to make his point (Rom. 7:1-6). A wife is bound to her husband by law. Only the death of her husband releases her from her bondage under the law. Therefore, we were made to die to the law (ἐθανατώθητε τῷ νόμῳ) "through the body of Christ" (διὰ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ) which is another way to say that we have been crucified with Christ (Rom. 7:4). The death of Christ releases us from the jurisdiction of the law, so don't remarry the dead man by placing yourselves under the law.

My conviction of sin comes through the law. My release from guilt comes by the cross of Christ. Thank you, Jesus, for liberating me from the bondage of moralism.

THE PARADOX OF MORALISM

"O Lord Jesus, I come unto Thee, and I pray Thee that these burdens and this straitness of my rule and religion may be a full recompense for all my sins."

Here is the prayer of the moralist. Martin Luther prayed these words regularly when he was a non-Christian (Luther, Galatians, 82). He was obsessed with being good before he understood the good news about his badness. Once he grasped the gospel, he renounced his goodness to rejoice in Christ's goodness. The gospel transformed his life and rescued him from moralism.

WHAT IS MORALISM?

Moralism teaches that our good works earn God's favor. What we do that is good pays for what we have done that is bad. Moralism expresses religion's path to God. Good people will one day stand before God, and the good they do will outweigh the bad they have done, claims the moralist.

Sadly, many preach moralism after starting well with grace. The more we push morality, the less we preach grace because moralism nullifies grace. Paul dealt with moralism as he witnessed Peter turn back to follow Jewish religious rules about eating and drinking. Paul writes, "For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor" (Gal. 2:18).

The clause "what I once destroyed" (ἃ κατέλυσα) comes first in the sentence for emphasis. The verb means to dismantle a building or repeal a law (BAGD, 414). The condition (εἰ) is a simple condition, not a contrary to fact condition, so Paul is referring to what actually happened, which he explained in verse 16. Paul had trusted in the law to make himself good enough for God. When Paul turned to Christ, he repealed the law as a way to be right with God. He dismantled law righteousness to accept Christ's righteousness.

By insisting that Christians obey the law, Paul would now be rebuilding (οἰκοδομῶ) the law that he once dismantled. If that is the case, then he proves himself to be a transgressor of the law. The present tense verb (συνιστάνω) used with the reflexive pronoun "myself" (ἐμαυτὸν) means to show or represent one's self as a transgressor (R&R, Linguistic Key, 506). Paul uses the word "transgressor" (παραβάτην) because the term connotes a violator of the true intent of the whole law more than any single statute in the law (Burton, Galatians, 131). If he builds up what he once dismantled, then, either way, he is a transgressor. He either transgressed the law by dismantling it, or he transgresses God's salvific solution by rebuilding it. The one activity negates the other activity (Bruce, Galatians, 142). Law and grace cannot both be right.

PARADOXICAL MORALITY

The paradox of moralism is the better we try to be, the worse we prove to be. The gospel of grace tells me that I become a Christian by renouncing my faith in my goodness to place my faith in Christ's goodness alone. I must accept that I am a sinner to believe in Christ as my Savior. If I return to stressing my moral goodness, I nullify Christ's grace and prove to be a worse sinner than before. There must be no mixing of my goodness with Christ's goodness to earn God's approval. To follow Christ, we must renounce moralism.

The paradox of moralism is the more we preach morality, the less we preach Christ, leading to greater immorality. Moralism creeps into our "culture wars" preaching. In our striving to see righteousness permeate our society, we slide into moralistic preaching implicitly communicating that we can create a moral world without Christ. Slipping into moralism minimizes Christ. The solution to the world's immorality is the goodness of Christ, not the morality of humanity. Unless people give up on their goodness to accept Christ's goodness, there will never be social goodness.

Our culture will never be transformed by preaching moralism. Good works flow from changed hearts. Society is changed by regeneration, not legislation. The gospel is the most transformative power the world has ever seen. Let's preach the gospel, not moralism!

NEW BOOK ANNOUNCEMENT

I am excited to announce that my latest book is now available from the publisher.

BOOK SYNOPSIS

How can we preach persuasively without huckstering, manipulating, or coercing people? Sadly, we are seeing the fall of many pastors not for reasons of sexual immorality, but the pursuit of pride and power. The skillful use of marketing methods creates celebrity pastors who become significant influencers in the evangelical church. The lure of success is seductive, turning pastors into hucksters and Christians into consumers. We need to heed the warnings of the New Testament about the pride of rhetoric and the pursuit of power. David Christensen carefully analyzes the biblical warnings of Paul about the temptations of rhetorical sophistry in the first-century church and applies them to pastoral ministry today. God calls preachers to be ethical and effective persuaders. David develops an ethical grid for pastoral persuasion using principles drawn from the Bible and social science along with practical illustrations from his years of ministry. He calls preachers to be ethical and effective persuaders by emphasizing the centrality of the word of God while depending on the power of the Spirit of God.

BOOK REVIEWS

"There’s no shortage of books on how to preach effective sermons, but rarely can you find a work that digs deep into the inner workings of how persuasion can be done with biblical authority and integrity. Drawing from a well dug deep through years of experience as a pastor and educator, David Christensen unpacks both the historic and popular techniques used by preachers and examines whether they measure up to the biblical standard for conveying doctrine, reproof, correction and training in righteousness." (Rick Francis, New England Consultant for the Cecil B. Day Foundation)

"The Persuasive Preacher calls pastors to present God’s Word with biblical authority and boldness. Christensen, a seasoned pastor and professor, understands and effectively communicates why and how preachers should use biblical persuasion techniques. He also acknowledges the responsibility of listeners to respond, without any unethical manipulation from the preachers. Numerous illustrations reinforce his pertinent arguments. I consider this book a welcome companion to my own volume, Persuasive Preaching." (R. Larry Overstreet, retired professor at Corban University School of Ministry)

"For decades David Christensen has not only studied and taught the proper use of persuasion in preaching and ministry, he has also practiced it. His book provides the historical and biblical background for understanding the issues involved.  It is filled with practical examples, both positive and negative, which equip the reader to both preach and pastor with greater integrity and effectiveness." (David Lambertson, faculty member at New England Bible College and Grace Evangelical Seminary)

HOW TO BUY THE BOOK

You can purchase the book through Amazon, where it is available in both print and Kindle formats. You can also buy the book directly from the publisher by clicking the link below.

https://wipfandstock.com/the-persuasive-preacher.html

FREEDOM FROM PERFORMANCE RIGHTEOUSNESS

Legalism advocates performance righteousness. We are righteous because we do the right things. Paul is dealing with the Christian legalism that Peter displayed by withdrawing from Gentile Christians to follow the dietary restrictions of the Jewish Christians. Nobody can be justified by observing the law, Paul argues. We are justified by faith in Christ alone. Living right cannot save us. But the legalist objects, and Paul raises their objection. Whether the words reflect the views of Peter or the other Jewish Christians, Paul emphatically responds to the argument of the legalist.

"But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be!" (Gal. 2:17)

Here we find the legalist's argument. Disobedience of the law is sin. If we abandon the law to be justified by Christ, then we become sinners. The result is that Christ becomes a servant of sin by creating more sinners through justification. The legalist argues this is absurd, thus discrediting Paul's argument for justification by faith alone (See Burton, Galatians, 124-130).

Let's dissect the legalist's argument in this verse. Paul establishes two premises to their argument, followed by a question. Then he emphatically answers their questionable conclusion.

FIRST PREMISE: Justification by faith nullifies justification by law.

The legalist's first premise is correct. The condition (if - εἰ) is a simple condition, which means that Paul assumed the truth of the condition (Dana & Mantey, Grammar, 289). The participle "while seeking" (ζητοῦντες) is best understood as temporal. While depending on justification "in Christ" (ἐν Χριστῷ - v.17), we must deny any justification "by works of law" (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου - v.16). Paul will make this truth explicit when he writes, "I died to law (νόμῳ ἀπέθανον - v.19). Righteousness in Christ nullifies righteousness by works. The two are mutually exclusive. On this point, the legalist is right.

SECOND PREMISE: Christians are found to be violators of God's law.

To abandon the law is to become a sinner, the legalist argues. We "have been found" (εὐρέθημεν) usually introduces an element of surprise. It is a surprising twist to realize that trusting in Christ's righteousness means accepting that we are sinners. Abandoning the law makes the Jews sinners (ἁμαρτωλοί) just like the Gentiles are sinners (ἁμαρτωλοί). Paul returns to his statement in verse 15. The Jews trusted in their righteousness earned by observing the law and considered the Gentiles to be sinners because they did not follow the law. Justification by faith in Christ forces us to abandon our faith in the law. To abandon the law makes us violators of the law (Lightfoot, Galatians, 116-117). Correct again! We are all sinners.

LOGICAL QUESTION: Does this make Christ a servant of sin?

Paul accepts both premises as correct, which leads the legalist to argue that Christ, then, is a servant of sin (ἁμαρτίας διάκανος). He makes people become sinners to be justified by Him, which, the legalist argues, is absurd. Legalism argues that we must trust Christ and keep the law. It is justification by faith plus performing religious requirements that save us. The legalist does not deny justification by faith but adds justification by works. Paul points out that the addition is subtraction. Once you add faith in performance righteousness, you deny faith in Christ's righteousness.

Is the clause a declarative statement or a question? The introductory particle can be accented in two ways (ἆρα or ἄρα). The former is an interrogative, and the latter is an inferential particle translated, "so then." The verse reads either "is Christ a servant of sin" or "so then Christ is a servant of sin." In this verse, we have an interrogative particle because of what follows in the text.  Whenever Paul uses the expression "may it never be" (μὴ γένοιτο), he uses it to answer a question (Blass & Debrunner, Grammar, 220, 194; Burton, Galatians, 126)). We should understand the text as a question that Paul emphatically answers in the negative.

CONCLUSION: No! Absolutely not!

If morally righteous people must become sinners to be saved, then does this not make Christ an agent of sin? No! Absolutely not! Paul rejects this conclusion as abhorrent. Justification by faith in Christ's righteousness does not make anyone a sinner. Everyone is already a sinner. Morally righteous people, including law-abiding Jews, are sinners already. The law, moral code, merely reveals the sin (Bruce, Galatians, 141). Accepting Christ's righteousness by faith means rejecting our righteousness for salvation. The gospel does not increase the number of sinners in the world, making Christ an agent of sin. The gospel provides a solution for all the sinners in the world to be saved by Christ's righteousness.

• Thank you, Jesus, that I am a sinner, and you are a Savior.
• Thank you, Jesus, that I cannot justify myself by my performance of any code of conduct.
• Thank you, Jesus, that I died with you to my self-righteousness so that I can live with you by your true righteousness.
• Thank you, Jesus, that I cannot add one smidgeon of my righteousness to your righteousness.

SOLA FIDE

The church, in Martin Luther's day, taught that works of faith were a means of grace. If a person performed a good work by his own inclination - giving alms, for example - this person earned the  "grace of congruence." He was acting in congruence with God's grace, and so was worthy to receive God's grace even though a sinner. Once he received God's grace, he could do works by faith in God's grace and so be worthy of eternal life.

Luther wrote: "Wherefore, with Paul, we utterly deny the merit of congruence and worthiness, and affirm that these speculations are nothing else but mere deceits of Satan. For God never gave to any man grace and everlasting life for the merit of congruence or worthiness" (Luther, Galatians, 67).

Paul wrote: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of law but only through faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 2:16).

Sola Fide!

The little connective translated, "but only" (ἐὰν μὴ) is critical to the argument of Paul. It can be interpreted in two ways, as an exception or an adversative (Burton, Galatians, 121). If it is understood as an exceptive, then the work of faith is an exception to the works of law. Man cannot be justified by the works of law except through the "work of" faith in Christ Jesus. Human faith is an exception to other human works by which humans earn the "grace of congruence" from God.

May it never be! The connective is an adversative, introducing something that is the opposite of work. We should translate it, "but only" not "except by" (Moulton, Grammar, 1:241). Faith is not a different kind of work. We are not justified by the works of faith. Faith is not a work at all, and no work done by faith can earn God's grace. Otherwise, we turn God into a debtor who owes us eternal life (Luther, Galatians, 66).

"But only" means sola fide!

"Through faith in Jesus Christ," we are justified, Paul continues. "Jesus Christ" is in the genitive case modifying "faith." Some have interpreted "Jesus Christ" as a subjective genitive meaning that we are justified by Christ's faithfulness. However, it is best to understand "Jesus Christ" as an objective genitive meaning that Christ is the object of our faith. Our faith is placed in Christ (Bruce, Galatians, 138-139; Murray, Romans, 363-374). Paul bolsters this interpretation by adding, "we, ourselves, have believed in Christ Jesus" (εἰς Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν), making Christ clearly the object of our faith.

John Calvin defined faith as "a knowledge of the divine benevolence (grace) toward us and a sure persuasion of its truth" (Calvin, Institutes, 3.2.12). Being persuaded by God's grace, we rest on Christ for salvation, knowing that we do not deserve nor can we earn any favor from God by any merit of our own.

OUR BEST BEFORE GOD

How can humans be accepted by God? Can our best efforts gain God's favor? Every church faces the temptation to slide into practical Pelagianism - measuring righteousness by the best we can do apart from God's enabling grace. Subtly, a performance mentality seeps into our church life even as we preach Christ's gospel. Do we earn God's approval by what we do, or does God grant His acceptance because of what He has done?

Paul finally arrives at the central question of his letter to the Galatians: "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified" (Gal. 2:16).

Three vital theological terms leap out of the text: "justified" (δικαιόω), "law" (νόμος) and "faith" (πίστις). All three terms are significant in the vocabulary of Paul and central to his argument in both Galatians and his longer epistle, Romans. Few words have been analyzed by theologians more frequently than justification producing an indisputably clear meaning. The term does not refer to moral causation. It is judicial and forensic in essence. God does not make us righteous in justification. He declares us to be right. Justification carries a sense of God's acceptance and approval. Since God's acceptance of us is not based on our merits but on His work, our righteousness can rightly be said to be God's righteousness (Burton, Galatians, 460-474).

The term "justified" occurs three times, and each time it is passive. We do not justify ourselves but are justified by another. God declares us right as we stand before Him. The first verb is in the present tense (δικαιοῦται), indicating an ongoing truth. The negative with the present tense tells us that justification can never be achieved by the observance of the law (R&R, Linguistic Key, 506). The second verb is an Aorist subjunctive (δικαιωθῶμεν) teaching that justification is a general truism. The third use of the term is in the future tense (δικαιωθησέται). Nobody will ever be justified by the works of the law. Paul has covered all the time zones to make his point.

Three times in this one verse, Paul tells us we are not justified "by the works of the Law" (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου). The preposition "by" (ἐξ) emphasizes the source of our justification. Paul did not have a convenient term like "legalism" to describe the issues he faced, so he used this expression to make his point. Legalism is any attempt to justify oneself by obedience to the law (Bruce, Galatians, 137). "Law" is in the genitive case. I don't think it is a subjective genitive as if the law can produce the works. It is an objective genitive meaning that the object of our works is the law. We choose to do what we think will fulfill the law to justify ourselves (Meyer, Galatians, 85).

The expression works of the law (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου) is parallel to the expression "faith in Jesus Christ" (δὶα πίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ). The object of works is the law. The object of faith is Christ (Meyer, Galatians, 85). Here too, the genitive "Jesus Christ" (᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ) is an objective genitive, not a subjective genitive (Bruce, Galatians, 138-139). Christ does not produce faith (subjective genitive). He is the object of our faith (objective genitive). We place our faith in Christ Jesus because He is the one who justifies us.

Unfortunately, the NASB mistranslates the phrase as "the works of the Law," capitalizing law to identify it as the Mosaic law. Both "law" and "works" are anarthrous and should be translated "works of law." Paul is not talking just about "the Law," a specific code of conduct revealed through Moses. He is talking about divine law in general, all that is in accord with the character and will of God. Without the article, Paul stresses the qualitative nature of God's law. Paul expands his thought in Romans where he uses the same clause "works of law" to describe the Gentiles who are accountable to God's law without possessing the Mosaic Law (Rom. 2:11-16; cf. 3:20, 28). All attempts to curry God's favor by law-keeping, whether written or unwritten, do not work (Burton, Galatians, 120, 443-460).

Religion's temptation is to drift toward works righteousness. In our pride, we determine to control our destiny by what we do instead of accepting what He has done. We develop selective righteousness in our churches as a means of quantifying holiness - an unwritten code of conduct. A performance mentality grips our faith as we parade our works of law before God and others.

Lord, root out in me any subtle seepage of pride that trusts my works over your work, my achievements over your sacrifice.

WALKING THE GOSPEL PATH

We talk a good gospel, but do we walk a good gospel? Do we stay on or stray from the gospel path? Paul publicly rebuked Peter and Barnabas because he saw that "they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel" (Gal. 2:14).

Galatians 2:14 is the only place in the New Testament where we find this verb "were not straightforward" (ὀρθοποδοῦσιν). The word comes from two Greek roots, "standing straight up" (ὁρθός) and "foot" (πούς). It means to "stand erect on the feet." In other words, Paul says that we are not to waver or stumble as we walk (TDNT, 5:449-451).

The verb is followed by the preposition "about" (πρὸς) which, when used with the accusative case as here, commonly indicates motion toward some destination. However, it can mean "with" or "according to" something. For this reason, two possible interpretations have developed about the statement. Paul might be saying 1) their actions do not square with the truth of the gospel, or 2) they are not advancing toward the truth of the gospel (Moule, Idiom Book, 52-53). Are they not standing upright as measured by the truth of the gospel, or are they not walking toward the right goal?

I think it best to interpret Paul as saying that they are not walking straight on the path to the truth of the gospel. They have taken the wrong road. They have strayed from the path (Bruce, Galatians, 132). The expression "truth of the gospel" refers back to the same phrase in Galatians 2:5. To walk straight toward the truth of the gospel is our goal. The danger is that we get off track. We get distracted by life. The twists and turns, the rocks and bumps of life cause us to stumble. We take detours that compromise the truth of the gospel by our personal preferences and legalistic convictions. We lose our way, causing others to go astray.

Why did Paul confront Peter "in the presence of all" (Gal. 2:14)? Why not confront Peter privately following Jesus' instructions (Mt. 18:15)? The confrontation was public because the sin was public. Public sin by church leaders requires public correction to deter others from sliding into the same sin (1 Tim. 5:20). The rule of thumb for discerning our response to sin on the public/private continuum is simple. The degree to which sin is public is the degree to which sin must be corrected publicly.

Scripture does not record Peter's response. He may have rationalized his behavior by arguing that he was acting out of concern for the weaker Christians from Jerusalem. Peter may have argued something similar to Paul's own dictum to be "all things to all people," including being under the law to those under the law (1 Cor. 9:19-23). He was merely being politically correct for the sake of the church in Jerusalem. However, there are clear limitations to such actions. Our position cannot justify the damage done to the gospel message. (Bruce, Galatians, 132-134). What went on in the background, we can only speculate. Nevertheless, neither church politics nor weaker brother arguments should be allowed to distract from the truth of the gospel.

Walking the gospel path is difficult at times. Martin Luther wrote, "many have the gospel, but not the truth of the gospel." We can preach the gospel with our words, but stray from the gospel with our works. Actions that reinforce the law nullify the gospel. The gospel path has many rocks and twists, temptations and distractions, that can cause us to stumble on the way or lead us off the path of truth. Luther acknowledged how hard it is to stay on the gospel path. "In the time of temptation, I confess that I myself do not know how to do it as I ought" (Luther, Galatians, 61).

GOSPEL HYPOCRITES

Hypocrite: A person who pretends to be something he/she is not, two-faced.

There are all kinds of hypocrites. There are political and social hypocrites. There are philosophical and religious hypocrites. But the worst hypocrites are the gospel hypocrites. Peter was a gospel hypocrite for distancing himself socially from the Gentiles. Paul wrote:

"The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas ..." (Gal. 2:13-14).

We get our English word "hypocrite" from the Greek word used here. Paul uses two related words, a verb and a noun, to stress the hypocrisy of Peter. The verb "joined him in hypocrisy" (συνυπεκρίθησαν) meant to join with others in pretending (BDAG, 793). The noun "hypocrisy" (ὑποκρίσει) meant to put on an outward show, a pretense (BDAG, 845). The root meant to "answer from under" (Burton, Galatians, 108) and referred to actors who spoke from behind a mask. The actor's job was to explain the drama by playing a role so that everything he did was in keeping with his character in the production (TDNT, 8:559-560).

In classical Greek, the words did not necessarily imply a negative meaning. The hypocrisy could be positive. Other descriptive words were necessary to determine whether the hypocrisy was negative or positive. However, within Judaism, the term is negative. It is sin. The Septuagint used the word in connection with apostasy. A hypocrite was someone who only pretended to follow God's law until it became inconvenient and then turned away from God's truth. The venerated Maccabean leader, Eleazar, said he would choose death rather than hypocrisy, which he viewed as apostasy (2 Maccabees 5:25). The Septuagint often used the word "hypocrite" (ὑποκρίτης) to translate a Hebrew word that meant a wicked or ungodly person. Paul's use of the term reflects this Jewish background. Hypocrisy has to do with denying the truth of the Gospel (TDNT, 8:562-569).

Peter wasn't merely being socially two-faced. He was denying the gospel - apostasizing! Apparently, both Jewish and Gentile Christians were in the habit of eating meals together in the church at Antioch. These social gatherings were reflections of the transforming power of the gospel, making the church one new man in Christ (Eph. 2:11-16). Peter gladly ate with them until the Jews from the church in Jerusalem arrived. He withdrew from the Gentiles to eat only with the Jews, and, in so doing, led the other Jewish Christians to join him. Paul viewed this correctly, not merely as a social failure, but as a corruption of the gospel itself. Peter was a hypocrite. He was pretending to be what he was not in Christ.

What were Peter's true convictions, and who was he hiding them from? There were two possibilities. 1) Peter's true convictions were that the gospel freed him to eat with the Gentile Christians as one in Christ. He was hiding those convictions from the Jewish leaders who came from Jerusalem. 2) Peter's true convictions were that he should only eat with Jews, and he had been hiding those convictions from the church in Antioch all this time. Either way, Peter is a hypocrite. Here is the problem with our hypocrisy and the gospel. Our hypocrisy renders our witness untrustworthy. How we live taints our gospel witness. No one knows where we stand, so why should they believe what we say?

The sad reality is that Peter led Paul's trusted missionary partner and friend, Barnabas, astray (συναπήχθη). The word means to be carried off (BDAG, 784). Peter's hypocrisy carried Barnabas into hypocrisy. The word "hypocrisy" is in the dative case and could be either a dative of accompaniment or dative of agency. In other words, Barnabas was either swept along with Peter's hypocrisy, or he was influenced by Peter's hypocrisy (Burton, Galatians, 109). Either way, he, too, denied the truth of the gospel.

How Barnabas' hypocrisy must have stung Paul. Barnabas had been the first to welcome Paul into the church. Barnabas and Paul had planted churches in southern Galatia on their first missionary journey enduring hardship and struggle together for the gospel. They would not be partners on Paul's second missionary journey. Luke states that the break up of their partnership occurred over John Mark (Acts 15:36-41). However, this episode in Antioch may well have factored into the fracture. F.F. Bruce suggests that the dispute over John Mark would not have been enough to break up the team, but for this more serious matter (Bruce, Galatians, 132). The hypocrisy of Barnabas eroded Paul's trust in his partner. Their close relationship came to an end not long after this event in Antioch.

The gospel proclaims that there are no racial, social, cultural, ethnic, and gender barriers (Gal. 3:28-29). It is the great equalizer. All people stand equally at the foot of the cross as one in Christ. Gospel hypocrites pay lip service to this transforming truth, but their partisan lifestyles belie the good news they preach.

Lord, keep me from becoming a gospel hypocrite. Show me those attitudes and actions that, however unwittingly and subconsciously they might be, deny the gospel I preach. Convict me to repent of any self-deluded rationalizations I might use to justify my behavior. Energize me to live what I preach.

OUR SOCIAL LIVES AND OUR GOSPEL WITNESS

Birds of a feather flock together. We naturally gather with people like us and identify ourselves with those who think like us. Like likes like. We eat, drink, laugh, and share with others from similar subcultures. Our Facebook posts elicit "likes" from those who are most like us socially, culturally, and politically.

What is wrong with that? Why should it matter with whom I socialize? It matters because our socio/economic and political identifications may negatively impact our gospel witness. The gospel transcends our social boundaries by calling us to reach those unlike us. We can compromise our mission by our social lives and nullify our gospel witness by our partisan politics.

Paul confronted Peter about how his social activities compromised the gospel. "Prior to the coming of certain men from James, he (Peter) used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision" (Gal. 2:12). This led others to join in his hypocrisy, so Paul accused them of not being "straightforward about the truth of the gospel" (Gal. 2:14).

Let's peel back the layers to grasp the damage we can do to our gospel witness by our social lives.

PAST HABITS

Paul begins with an infinitive clause "prior to the coming of certain men from James." The preposition (πρὸ) with the infinitive (ἐλθεῖν) means "before" (MHT, Grammar, 3:144). Paul adds "from James" (ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου) which is a rare usage of the preposition and means "after coming from James" (MHT, Grammar, 3:259). James is the source of the delegation. But we must be careful not to read too much into the coming from James as if James authorized their theological views (Robertson, Grammar, 579). More likely, they perceived themselves and were perceived by others as having his authority. These Judaizers presented themselves as if they were an official delegation sent by James to examine matters in Antioch.

Peter "used to eat with the Gentiles" before this pseudo-delegation came from James. The phrase "used to eat" (συνήσθιεν) translates an imperfect tense. The imperfect tense here indicates repeated and ongoing action (Burton, Moods and Tenses, 12). Peter's habitual activity before the arrival of these self-proclaimed ambassadors of legalism was to eat his meals with the Gentiles. This is not surprising since God had shown Peter in a vision that he should welcome Gentiles as equals in the church (Acts 10:28)! Peter knew by direct revelation that God had opened the gates of His kingdom to Gentiles and expected Peter to share the common bond of the gospel with Gentiles as equals.

WHAT CHANGED?

When (ὅτε) these men from the mother church in Jerusalem arrived, Peter changed. He withdrew from socializing with the Gentiles. This imperfect tense is best understood as inceptive, he began to withdraw (R&R, Linguistic Key, 505). The tense indicates action in progress but not yet completed (Blass/Debrunner, Grammar, 169). Peter probably thought, "Why can't I socialize with whomever I want? These are my friends from my home church. I identify with them. We think alike. What is wrong with that?" Nothing in itself, of course, but everything is wrong with that thinking when our identification with a partisan group corrupts or obscures the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:14).

Paul understood immediately that this social change by Peter had enormous ramifications for the gospel. The way Peter was acting undermined the gospel even if it seemed to be merely a social activity. Paul described Peter as "holding himself aloof" from the Gentiles. Once again, the verb is an inceptive imperfect. Peter was beginning to hold himself aloof. The verb (ἀφώριζεν) means to separate himself or to set himself apart. Ironically, Paul chose the same word that he used to describe God's call to preach the gospel to the Gentiles! Paul wrote, God "had set me apart" (ἀφορίσας) "so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles" (Gal. 1:15-16). Peter separated himself from the people that God had separated Paul to reach! Thus, he was undermining the gospel. Paul called it hypocrisy because it threatened the health of the church (Gal. 2:13).

PEER PRESSURE

Peter identified himself with the Jewish Christians from James because he "feared the party of the circumcision." The participle translated "fearing" (φοβούμενος) is best understood as a causal participle ( Burton, Moods and Tenses, 170). Peter changed because he feared "the ones out of the circumcision" (τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς). The expression indicates an identifiable group of people - a party of people. They could be a political party within the church like the Judaizers or the self-proclaimed messengers from James. However, it seems unlikely that Peter feared this group of people or that he feared James. We should probably see this as a description of an actual political party within Judaism. The Jewish militants were very active in Judea at this time. These zealots, known as "freedom fighters," had formed a powerful, nationalistic political party that threatened anyone who socialized with Gentiles. Peter likely feared the power of this political party back in Jerusalem, and that is why he compromised the gospel (Bruce, Galatians, 130-131).

The gospel levels social hierarchies, breaks down cultural barriers, eliminates racial distinctions, crosses political divisions, and flattens ethnic pride. Eating together - a simple act of respect - reinforces the gospel message. Social distancing compromises our gospel witness.

A PC GOSPEL?

Many warn about the dangers of being "PC" - politically correct. There is undoubtedly a PC of the left that intimidates our gospel witness, but there is also a PC of the right that dresses the gospel in cultural clothing. Whenever a culture absorbs and re-formats the gospel in cultural dress, it loses the universally transformative power God intended. Paul rejected the PC gospel in Antioch when he stood up to Peter.

"When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned, ... when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all..." (Gal. 2:11-14).

The verb translated "opposed" (ἀντέστην) means to stand against someone. The word usually implies resistance to an attack initiated by another person. In this case, Peter launched the attack on the Pauline principle that the gospel of grace makes us one in Christ. Peter may not have intended to attack the freedom of the gospel, but his behavior undermined the truth by wrapping it with social expectations (Burton, Galatians, 103).

Peter "stood condemned" (κατεγνωσμένος) by his past actions (perfect tense). Peter's own behavior rendered him not just offensive but self-condemned. His actions, not Paul or the church, delivered the guilty verdict (Lightfoot, Galatians, 111). When Peter visited the church in Antioch, he ate his meals freely with the Gentile Christians as social equals in Christ. Then a delegation from the right-wing of the church in Jerusalem showed up, and Peter pulled back socially from the Gentile believers to eat only with the Jewish Christians. Peter stood self-condemned by his hypocrisy.

THE BACK STORY

Peter had initially been the leader of the mother church in Jerusalem, but James had supplanted him to become the most influential. During these early years of the church, Jewish nationalism was on the rise. The Jewish freedom fighters developed what Josephus called the "fourth philosophy" as their zeal grew to advocate armed revolt against Gentile authority culminating twenty-five years later in the Roman invasion. Masada was their final fight. About the time that Peter and Paul were having this debate, Rome crucified two of the Jewish zealots. The Jewish nationalists became militant in their opposition to Jews who socialized with Gentiles. Such people were traitors to their homeland.

Jewish Christians brought some of these attitudes with them into the church in Jerusalem and likely felt that the actions of the Christians in Antioch endangered Christians in Jerusalem. The Judaizers were Jews who claimed to be Christians but who followed the regulations of Judaism and were zealous for their country. They formed a strong conservative wing in the Jerusalem church that sought to conserve the Jewish heritage within Christianity. When Paul writes that Peter was "fearing the party of the circumcision" (v.12), he likely meant the militant Jewish nationalists who threatened Christians and may even have infiltrated the church (Bruce, Galatians, 128-131).

Peer pressure infiltrates our attitudes seductively until it erupts in ugly and unexpected scenes.

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL

The first Jerusalem Council had already occurred (Gal. 2:1-10), and the second Jerusalem Council was yet in the future (Acts 15:1-29). The apostles agreed that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised at the first council, but a new issue arose involving the eating habits of Gentile Christians. Gentile Christians did not practice the Jewish dietary expectations, so to eat with them defiled Jewish Christians in their minds. The second Jerusalem Council addressed this issue (Acts 15:20, 29). In the meantime, the disagreement reared its ugly head in Antioch.

Jewish Christians were eating freely with Gentile Christians in Antioch, and Peter had joined them. The reports to the conservative party in the Jerusalem Church led James to send a delegation to Antioch to find out. Many Jewish Christians did not believe this was part of the agreement they had made at the first council. They had agreed that circumcision was not necessary, but socializing equally with Gentiles was another matter. To the right-wing in Jerusalem, eating together violated the agreement of the council (Burton, Galatians, 104-107). They believed that Jewish and Gentile Christians should be separate but equal in Christ, which is why they had separated the mission of the church. Peter would go to the Jews, and Paul would go to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:7-9).

ONE IN CHRIST

Paul understood that separate but equal meant not fully one in Christ. We practice a PC gospel if we cannot welcome Christians of all languages, colors, cultures, and backgrounds to the common table of Christ. If we cannot eat together, we are not one in Christ. There cannot be superior and inferior Christians based on nationalism or culture. We must oppose, like Paul, any behavior implying that the gospel allows any separate but equal attitude toward social, cultural, or ethnic differences within the church. The gospel is for all equally, and we are all equally one in Christ. We must fight to demonstrate that truth in the attitudes and actions of our daily lives.

Why do so many churches look socially, culturally, and ethnically similar?

Why don't we see more churches that exhibit social, cultural, and ethnic diversity?

REMEMBER THE POOR

The coronavirus is raging. The stock market is plunging. Panic is spreading. People are hoarding as toilet paper flies off the shelves! The rush to hoard because we can hurts those who can't afford to hoard. In times of crisis, we should remember the poor. Those who have little to start, lose what little they have when supplies are limited.

The first century church obeyed God's call to care for the poor because they trusted God's provision for their daily needs. The elders of the Jerusalem church extended the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas with no conditions except they "only" asked "that the poor they might remember" (Gal. 2:10). The verb "ask" must be supplied to make sense of the verse. They "only" (μόνον) made this one request. The adjective "only" is placed first in the clause for emphasis. The object of the verb to remember is "the poor" (τῶν πτωχῶν). It is in the genitive case because the verb to remember (μνημονεύω) can take a genitive as its object (BDAG, 525). The object (πτωχῶν) is placed before the verb for emphasis. God's heart emphasizes the priority of the poor.

The word "poor" meant someone dependent on the help of others - a beggar. We tend to have a negative connotation of beggars today. However, such poverty was not to be viewed as the result of laziness or ineptitude in Israel. The poor man was poor because of the injustice of the rich in Israelite theology. God had laid out a program to help the poor under the Mosaic law (Ex. 20:22-23:19) because God was the protector of the poor when they cried out to Him in their need (Ex. 22:27). God's law established rules to protect the poor (Deut. 15:1-18; 24:14-22). The prophets regularly attacked the rich for social injustice because they oppressed and abused the poor, which was a violation of God's law (Amos 2:7; 4:1; 5:11; 8:4; Isaiah 3:13-15; 5:8-9; 10:2; Micah 2:2; 3:2). God considered social injustice by the wealthy and powerful to be acts of immorality that deserved His judgment.

The poor often cried out to God for help, and He heard their cries and helped them in their affliction (Ps. 10:16-18; 72:2,4,12-15; 140:12-13). They were dependent on God, who cared for their needs. Care for the poor was a significant aspect of worship in the synagogue communities of the first century. Synagogue communities even founded hospices for the terminally ill. Rooted in their theology as opposed to social programming, the first century Jews remembered the poor. Part of the temple tax paid for the needs of the poor. Almsgiving was an obligation of synagogue members to care for the poor in their community. (NIDNTT, 2:821-823). The Jewish Christians of the early church were steeped in this practical theology of worship and carried it over into the church assemblies.

The verb translated "remember" (μνημονεύωμεν) has a variety of meanings, but when used with the poor means more than a mental thought. It means to remember in a way that helps the person being remembered - the poor (NIDNTT, 3:240-241). Once again, there is a rich legacy of biblical theology embedded in this call to remember the poor. God remembers people when He extends His help to them in mercy and grace (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22). Because God remembers people, the poor cry out to God in prayer to remember them by meeting their needs (Ex. 32:13; 1 Sam. 1:11,19), and the needy ask for those in power to remember them by meeting their needs (1 Sam. 25:31). A good theology of prayer starts with we who are dependent and needy calling on God to remember us in our need (Judges 16:28; 2 Kings 20:3; Job 10:9; Ps. 88:50).

Remember the poor means to act in tangible ways that help the poor. It is grounded in a theology of prayer and viewed as an act of worship. Rooted in the very nature of God, care for the poor, the alien, the orphan, the widow, the oppressed demonstrates the heart of true religion (James 1:27). No wonder Paul said he was eager to remember the poor (Gal. 2:10). The verb translated "eager" (ἐσπούδασα) means to hurry, to rush, or to make every effort to remember the poor (BDAG, 763).

We face a crisis of growing need in our world today because of the pandemic. The church can view this time as an opportunity to remember the poor. We should rush to help those in need not to hoard what we can gather.

DIVIDE TO MULTIPLY

Living organisms grow by division. Cells multiply by dividing. In the human body, for example, almost two trillion cells divide every day. Parent cells divide into daughter cells in the continuous cycle of life. The body of Christ is a living organism, which means the church multiplies by division. We have one mission - to reach the world for Christ - but we must divide to accomplish that mission. Paul wrote that "recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James, Cephas, and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised" (Gal. 2:9).

All ministry is a grace gift from God. "Grace" (χάριν), in this context, must be all-inclusive of Paul's Christian life from conversion to ministry (Meyer, Galatians, 71). God had called him "through His grace" to preach Christ "among the Gentiles" (Gal. 1:15-16). Grace was given (δοθεῖσάν) to Paul, and he recognized that his ministry was a gift of God's grace that he did not deserve. Even the other apostles recognized God's grace gift to Paul. The subjects of the plural participle "recognizing" (γνόντες) are James, Cephas, and John, the "pillars" (στῦλοι) of the church. The verb "to recognize" means to know in the sense of perceive, notice, or realize (BDAG, 161). The word "pillars" is a figure of speech likely drawn from the temple sanctuary (Rev. 3:12). The church is the temple of God, and the pillars were the apostolic leaders of the church who held up the sanctuary like the pillars of the temple (Bruce, Galatians, 122).

Because these foundational leaders in the church perceived the grace given to Paul, they "gave" (ἔδωκαν) him the "right hand of fellowship." The giving of grace by God leads to the giving of the hand by Christians. The practice of extending the hand as a pledge of an agreement is found among both the Greeks and the Hebrews. The phrase in Hebrew was "to give the hand" as a pledge to another, sometimes indicating submission (2 Kings 10:15; Ezra 10:19; Ezek. 17:18; 1 Chron. 29:14; 2 Chron. 30:8). In the Greek papyri, it meant to enter into a pledge or a compact with another person, usually in the sense of a mutual compact (Burton, Galatians, 95-96). The pledge was a solemn, binding commitment between people. The three and the two pledged their shared commitment to each other with the right hand of fellowship (κοινωνίας) - a partnership forged in union with Christ.

The partnership pledged a division of the mission. Paul and Barnabas would preach the gospel to the Gentiles, and James, Cephas, and John would preach to the circumcision. The verb must be supplied. It could be "go" (πορευθῶμεν) or it could be "preach the gospel" (εὐαγγελισώμεθα). However, it is probably better to translate it as "preach the gospel" because that is the focus in verse 7 leading to the fuller explanation of verse 9 (Meyer, Galatians, 73).

What is the division? Is this a territorial/geographical division, or is it a racial/cultural division? Burton understands it as territorial. Paul and Barnabas would preach in Gentile lands, but the other apostles would preach in Jewish lands (Burton, Galatians, 98). Bruce suggests that we should understand the division ethnographically because there is considerable overlap in the spheres. The diaspora meant that there were Jewish colonies all over the Roman world and the churches Paul planted included both Jews and Gentiles. Paul certainly could preach in Jewish synagogues, and Peter could preach in Gentile assemblies, but, in general, the focus was an ethnographic division. The division was racial/cultural as Paul and Barnabas prioritized, although not exclusively, the Gentile culture and James, Peter and John prioritized the Jewish communities (Bruce, Galatians, 125).

The Great Commission is global (Acts 1:8; Mt. 28:17-20). The church must preach to all nations. However, the strategy to reach the nations requires a division of the mission. The Apostles were not abdicating their commission from Christ when they agreed to divide the spheres of ministry. The only way to grow the church is to divide the mission. Even on a local church level, we multiply by dividing. Mother churches give birth to daughter churches. Existing ministries spawn new ministries, and all local churches should maintain a global mission by giving the right hand of partnership to ministries preaching to other segments of our world. A church must divide to multiply.

ENERGIZED FOR MISSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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