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.

WHO'S MORE IMPORTANT?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE PRESSURE TO COMPROMISE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WIN/LOSE CHURCH FIGHTS

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

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

A TIMELINE OF THE FIGHT

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

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

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

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

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

ADDITIONALISM TODAY

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

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

OUR FEAR OF FAILURE

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

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

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

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

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

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