RELIGIOUS PACIFIERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

The solution is to see the questions as opposites.

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

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

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

ANATHEMA!

The gospel divides! 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HERESY: ALTERNATIVE & ADDITIONAL

Heresy = belief opposed to orthodoxy

Heresiarch = founder of a heresy

Heretic = a follower of heresy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOGGY DOCTRINE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE BIG GOSPEL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNPACKING THE UNDESERVED GIFT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT KIND OF MINISTRY DO I HAVE?

Paul draws a strong contrast between two kinds of ministry in 2 Corinthians 3:7-9, new covenant versus old covenant ministry. The word translated “ministry” (διακονία) is used four times in these three verses.  Drawn from the context of menial service like food preparation, it came to refer to the service of apostles and bishops in Acts 1:17 and 20:24 (BAGD, p.184). The word “glory” (δόξα) is used five times. The verb along with the noun is used four more times in the next two verses (10-11). 

Paul is showing us that the ministry God calls us to is a glorious ministry. We must never lose sight of the glory of the ministry in the drudgery of the service. While both kinds of ministry possess glory, one is more glorious. Literally it “abounds” (περισσεύει) in glory “much more” (πολλῷ μᾶλλον). The glory of new covenant ministry exceeds the glory of old covenant ministry.

Paul describes the old covenant ministry as the “ministry of death” (τοῦ θανάτου) in verse 7 and the “ministry of condemnation” (τῆς κατακρίσεως) in verse 9. The new covenant ministry is described as the “ministry of the Spirit” (τοῦ πνεύματος) in verse 8 and the “ministry of righteousness” (δικαιοσύνης) in verse 9. All four genitives should be taken in the same way with the same force. The constructions form two sets of contrasting patterns.

ἡ διακονία τοῦ θανάτου (death)

ἡ διακονία τοῦ πνεύματος (Spirit)

τῇ διακονίᾳ τῆς κατακρίσεως (condemnation)

ἡ διακονία τῆς δικαιοσύνης (righteousness)

How should we understand the genitives in these constructions? Are they simply genitives of quality or description (BD, p.91)? If so, they describe a quality of the ministry which makes sense in the last set of two constructions but not the first set of two. The “Spirit” cannot be merely a quality of ministry because it is clear in context that this is not the human spirit but the Spirit of God (3:6, 17-18).

The genitives could be objective genitives (BD, p.90) which is the way that some commentators understand Paul. In this case, one ministry leads to death and condemnation while the other ministry leads to the Spirit and righteousness. The object of the action of ministry is condemnation or righteousness (MART, p.61). The problem arises once again with the Spirit. In what sense does the ministry lead to or produce the Spirit. It is the Spirit who gives life, and it is the letter that kills (3:6).

The best way to understand the genitives is that they are subjective genitives perhaps better called “genitives of origin” (BD, p.89). Meyer uses the word “medium” to bring out the force of the genitives (MEY, p.468). One ministry is the medium of death and condemnation. It is the way that death and condemnation work in our lives. The other ministry is the medium of the Spirit and righteousness.  The Spirit of God is the origin of life and righteousness through the ministry of the Gospel of Christ. Gospel preaching is the way the Spirit and righteousness work through us. Our ministries are the expression of His grace and His righteousness.

Righteousness and condemnation are the legal acts of God carried out through the ministry of the Gospel. This is forensic or judicial righteousness and condemnation (MEY, p.468 fn1). Paul has just written that we are the smell of death to those who are perishing, or we are the smell of life to those who are being saved (2:15-16). God condemns sin through the ministry of the Law. There is a glory in this ministry, Paul tells us. However, God imputes righteousness through the ministry of the Gospel. There is far greater glory in this ministry, Paul stresses. When we focus on preaching the law, we are ministers of death and condemnation. When we focus on preaching grace, we are ministers of the Spirit and righteousness.

What kind of ministry do I have?

A.T. Robinson wrote:

It is sad to see a minister of Christ who is still at Sinai, who is still under the Old Covenant, who is still proclaiming a message of death, who has not caught the vision of love and grace and hope in the New Covenant. Paul’s appeal is for men who will carry the message of the Cross, not of Sinai. Paul sees in Jesus the emancipation of the human spirit from the bondage of the law. The chill of mere formalism had frozen the life out of Judaism as it has destroyed the real power of many expressions of Christianity (ATRG, p.76).