Galatians 4.16 (b):

Tags

Apostle, Bible, Christianity, Church, Faith, Galatians, God, Gospel, grace, Jesus, Paul, Peter, religion, salvation, Scripture, study

1. “is not justified by works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ” (2.16). This is stated earlier in 1.4, where Paul writes that Jesus, “Gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age.” Then in 1.17, when Paul sets the stage for the good news, the gospel of Jesus Christ, in comparison to a different gospel (which we now see is justification by works. Next, Paul demonstrates the work of that gospel of Jesus in 1.15-16, noting the active agent in the gospel of grace- that is, the gift of God (see also Ephesians 2.1-9).
2. If a person is not justified through what they do, we must conclude that “faith in Jesus Christ” does not and in fact cannot mean an action we perform to be justified before God the judge. This is confirmed in Ephesians 1.3-14 and 2.1-9: salvation comes to us as a gift of God: God’s grace in the gift of salvation through the means of faith, which itself is a gift, not a result of or work of man, so that no one may boast.
   • How then, can James write that, “Faith without works is dead” (James 2.14-26)? James writes of the proving legally of the presence of saving faith, while Paul writes of the proving legally of the person as righteous or sinful before God. Man does good not to make himself right before God (Gal 2.16), but proving his redeemed state (Rom 1.17, 12.1-2, 13.11-14). This is done by God in saving the lost (Rom 3.26). But those who are saved do not overthrow the law, but rather they “uphold the law” (Rom 3.31).
3. “so we also have believed in Christ Jesus.” The NASB translate ‘kai’ as “even.” This helps accentuate what reads like a relative clause that intensifies the preceding statement. The past statement says that ‘we the Jews know that you cannot be justified by works, but only by faith in Jesus Christ.’ This relatively clause takes the principal of knowledge in its general sense and applies its truth to Paul and the brothers with him. As we might say it inflectively, “even we have believed…”
4. “In order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law,” The verb ‘dikaioō’ (de-li-o’-o) is parsed by BLB.org as a passive subjunctive 1^st person plural. The NASB, in keeping with the earlier clause, translates the verb to mean, “We may be justified,” while the ESV simply says, “to be justified.” I feel that the ESV is wide of the mark on this point by neglecting the person and number of the verb.
5. This is a fairly significant point, since Paul’s argument, which culminates so magnificently at the end of the verse, depends on the universal application of the principles he is discussing. No one is justified under the law. “by works of the law, no one will be justified.” These assertions frame this verse, but how are they proven? By the testimony of Paul and the true Jewish Christians. They know from experience and history that the law cannot be kept. They also know from experience that peace with God (a product of justification) comes through faith in Jesus.
6. What is your experience? Do you live out of the freedom of your salvation? Do you try to make yourself right in the eyes of others or in the eyes of God? How can you distinguish the good you do for self-justification from the good you do as proof of God’s grace in your life?
   • You base your understanding of moral right and wrong, of justice and of holiness according to God’s standards and not according to human standards. Because you are not seeking to justify yourself, there is no cause to diminish His character and nature by supposing it to be like your own. After all, justice, holiness, righteousness, etc. are all defined by the character and nature of God, not the other way around. To the degree that we know Him, we will know what is “good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom 12.2). You can know God’s character from his word, including the law and his treatment of people in the OT.
   • Following the knowledge and its source, question the source of your motivation for doing good works. Do you seek to do good for any reason besides the worship & glory of God? Interrogate your causes to see whether you obey the law for God’s sake or for your own sake, whether that be for a reward, for human recognition or satisfaction, to prove yourself, etc. “Do all to the glory of God.”
   • Finally, do you humbly acknowledge your personal shortcomings, and dependence on Christ to do even one thing that is good? Christ is “the author and perfecter” of our faith. We are “created in Christ Jesus to do good works.” You know that you will fall short. “Who will delivery me from this body of death?” Jesus himself did, does, and will, so that “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

Galatians 4.16 (a): Standard of Holiness

Tags

Apostle, Christianity, Church, Galatians, God, grace, Jesus, Justice, Paul, religion, Sabbath, salvation, Scripture, spirituality, study

2.16: “Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, so that we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not be works of the law, because by works of the law, no one will be justified.”

1. The other shoe drops here, as the saying goes. Why did Paul bring up the difference between himself and his audience — between the Gentile Galatians and Jews like himself and those others from the Circumcision party? Because the Jews had the law for their own lifetimes, and their ancestors as well. But no one could keep the law. Some digging here is needed to bring the full picture to bear:
   • With the law comes a clear distinguishing split – rewards for the one who keeps the law, and punishment for the one who breaks the law (Leviticus 26.1-45). But the human heart, because of its sin, will immediately want to qualify this point. “To what degree are we to keep the whole law?” “What percentage do I need to keep it?” “What percent of my life needs to be spent keeping the law?”
   • Both the OT and the NT show the threshold required for righteousness by works: absolute perfection. Consider Leviticus 11.41-45, and especially at the end, where God says, “be holy as I am holy” (11.45). What is holiness? Holiness is to be set apart, typically as clean for a religious purpose. More significantly to our point, God calls his people to be holy – to be set apart from the world to the same degree as He (God) is set apart. We know already that God so epitomizes the virtue that we cannot rightly understand the virtue as an abstract idea. Rather, we understand it by understanding God himself, because its truest meaning is found in the nature and character and conduct of the Holy, Righteous, Almighty, Everlasting, and Merciful God.
   • One might raise two objections to the verse in Leviticus. First, they might try and limit the applicability of the command since the passage deals with what a Jew may and may not eat. Second, they may argue for the dismissal of the command, since said dietary laws were abolished in the NT in the book of Acts. Regarding the first point, we may easily counter this point by arguing from the first giving of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20.1-17. Consider the fourth commandment. How does this answer the first objection?
     • The fourth commandment, to remember and keep the Sabbath (which is not abolished), is explained by the character of God himself. Look at Exodus 20.11, where God states that, “For in six days the LORD made the heaven and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day, Therefore, the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and made it holy.”
     • The quality of the Sabbath is important, since the day is set apart from every other day in created time. The day it set apart in the same way that God himself is set apart, “as holy.” This is the same way God has called his people to be set apart. Holiness is not, by its nature, abolished in the new covenant, but only in the way that holiness is represented here on Earth. Both the Jews and the Church are set apart from the pagan, unbelieving world. Both are called to obey God’s moral laws. Both have distinct sacramental acts of holiness — the first having circumcision, and the second baptism. Insofar as these things were/are done to please God, they are good and right. But there is a difference between what is right and what is righteous (that is, perfect before God himself).
     • I’m getting distracted from my point: in the first, God calling or making a thing holy is always a reflection of himself. Again to quote Leviticus: “be holy, for I am holy.” We are called to holiness because our God himself is holy.
     • Second, we are called to be holy as God is holy. No I didn’t just repeat myself. Consider Exodus again, wehre God explains that he himself took a Sabbath rest. Why do we do the same? Because God himself does. Again, the Sabbath was not abolished in the NT, because a part of God’s moral law (the Ten Commandments). Only its purpose was clarified by Jesus against those who treated it as a ends to their own self-righteousness.
   • So we see in the OT the commands: be holy in the way and to the standard of God. But has that changed in the NT?
   • In a word, no. Look at 1 Peter 1.16, where Peter explains his exhortation for the believers to live holy, Godly lives by quoting Leviticus 11.45. Also Paul, the man who is writing the book of Galatians, and who so clearly accented grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone; he will write in 1 Thessalonians 4.1-8 first a command to the believers to “walk and to please God,” and later he explains, “for God has not called us to impurity, but in holiness.”
   • So we see, in both OT and NT, the call of the law was understood to be kept to the standard and example of God himself. Paul makes quite clear in Gal 2.16 that the Jews should clearly know how utterly unattainable that command really is. No one is justified by the law, because no one can measure up to the benchmark of holy righteousness, which is God himself.

Galatians 2:15: Translation Matters

Tags

Apostle, Bible, Christianity, Church, Faith, Galatians, God, Gospel, grace, Letters, Paul, religion, Scripture, study

Gal 2.15: “We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners;”

1. Translation matters on this and the next verse. Printed above is the ESV. NASB says, “by nature,” and “not sinners from among…” NIV says, “We who are…sinful Gentiles…” NKJV: “who are Jews by nature…sinners of the Gentiles.” This is significant because the first critical Greek word is ‘physis’ (fü’-ses), meaning nature or origin. The word connotates both your source (where you come from), and your make up (the essence of what you are). When Paul says it, he means that the Jews are Jews by descent. They are ethnic Jew — Jewishness is in their literal DNA. They have physical traits that distinguish them from others. But more than just DNA or physical characteristics, the Jews have a spiritual and cultural legacy that the Gentiles lack. This is because the Gentiles were outside of the Abrahamic covenant. How many ancestors of the Gentiles had witnessed the parting of the Red Sea? Or how many were at the sacking of Jericho?
2. More to Paul’s point, however, is the giving of the law: the ceremonial, civil, and moral instructions from God on the governance of the People of Israel. Having this law, the Jew was instructed on what was right and wrong before God. This purpose is explained by Paul in Romans 7.7 when he writes, “if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin.” So the “Gentile sinners” is not a distinction between sinful Gentiles and righteous Jews, but ignorantly sinful Gentiles (unaware of the full measure of their sin), and conscientiously sinful Jews. Both are sinful. Both are condemned, since, “None is righteous” (Romans 3).
3. Finally, I do like one implication of the ESV saying, “by birth,” since it adds time into the mind of the listener. How much longer and deeper was the Jew’s experience with the law? This is to set up Paul’s following argument in verse 16.

((Sorry for the short post this week! This section of notes was difficult to chop up, since the first major point on verse 16 is a long one (roughly 900 words). I try to make the cuts so that thoughts are generally completed, but that means we have a light week this week.))

Galatians 2.13-14: To Live like a Jew or a Gentile

2.13: “And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.”

1. “And the Rest of the Jews acted Hypocritically…” Sin in the church is never isolated — it will have an impact on the church body. Likewise, bad theology also impacts the body and causes others to stumble. Here in v. 13 we see the effects of V. 12, namely the Jewish believers follow the example of Peter, and widen the rift between Jew and Gentile Christians. This is antithetical to the gospel.
2. There are two words for hypocrisy in this verse. The first is a compound word, synypokrinomai, coming from the preposition syn, which generally denotes union, and hypokrinomai, which itself is a compound word. The second part may be translated to taking another’s evaluation. The first hypocritically, then, roughly translates from Greek to paint a word picture of what the Jews are doing in this passage: they’re joining Peter in his judgement. They’re participating in the same sinful thoughts and conduct.
3. The second word is a noun that more directly translates to hypocrite, though again through hypokrinomai. The noun version regularly translates to hypocrisy in the NT. I’d expect that would have to do with the connotation of stage performers that is found in secular usage, but that’s conjecture.
4. “Even Barnabas was led astray.” This isn’t the only time Barnabas and Paul will clash. Late in the book of Acts, we see Paul and Barnabas part ways over a dispute about a young man named John Mark who falls away and then comes back during one of Paul’s missionary journeys. Paul rejects Mark at first, but will later call him invaluable. Here however, Paul has the right of the situation and Barnabas the wrong.
5. The significance of this verse should intensify our focus both on Paul’s command in 1.8-9, and the example of Peter in 2.12. The fall of one leads to a cascade of error. Even leaders are influenced by those around them.

2.14: “But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

1. “Their conduct was not in step with the gospel”: what does this mean?
   2. Gal 2.13: Peter stopped eating with the Gentiles specifically.
   3. The church’s fellowship broke because one side said, “in order to be a part of the fellowship, you must observe the law and become Jewish in your conduct.
   4. See Gal 2.16: a person is not justified by the law, because a person cannot keep the law. The Jews knew this from experience. What is more, if the law is truly binding, then the Jews were already condemned because they had been eating with the Gentiles before now.
2. “I said to Cephas before them all,” narrative is not normative. Why did Paul call Cephas out publicly?
   1. The other Jews are in the same sin and denial of the gospel as Peter is. To call Peter out publicly is to call them all out at once.
   2. It is a denial of the gospel. It says, “you aren’t truly a part of us until you do X. That is not the gospel. We are saved by grace alone, or we are not saved at all because we cannot save ourselves.
   3. Jude 21-23: Paul is trying to snatch Peter and the Jews out of the path to Hellfire in this rebuke. He is also trying to warn the Galatian believers as well.
3. “If you…live like a Gentile and not like a Jews…” this is about more than dietary laws. Paul is pointing out what every Jew ought to have known about the law, namely, “I can’t keep the law.”
4. By extension, since the Jews knew by experience that righteousness couldn’t come by the law, it was the height of cruelty to impose that law on the Gentiles. They are tying millstones around the necks of the Gentiles, and saying, “pull yourself up!” It’s heinous.

Galatians 2.11-12: Peter’s Sin

Tags

Bible, Christianity, Church, circumcision, Contend for the faith, Faith, Fellowship, Galatians, Gentile, heresy, Jew, Party, Paul, Peter, study, Unity

Gal 2.11: “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.”

1. “when Cephas came to Antioch” Here the narrative jumps forward, possibly to the same moment as Acts 15.1-2. The specific exchange here and in v. 14 are not recorded elsewhere. However, the exact moment of the events is less significant compared to the dispute occurring.
2. “I opposed him to his face” The confrontation is face-to-face; it is very direct.
3. “Cephas” Paul keeps using Peter’s Jewish name. I wonder why that is.
4. “He stood condemned” Paul is not the judge of Peter— God is. Both have grace and calling by God, and it is God who judges his servant, finding him lacking. Paul just delivers the judgement.

2.12: “For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.”

1. Regarding time, we are now just before Acts 15.1-2, when members of the Circumcision party will go to Antioch. This is probably after persons from the C.P. followed Paul on his missionary journey, since Paul is referencing a confrontation in Antioch. This is cross referenced in the ESV study Bible, although could Peter have also visited Antioch prior to Paul’s first missionary journey? I don’t see definitive proof in the text in either direction.
2. “certain men… from James…” is likely a reference to Acts 15.1-2. Notice that Paul doesn’t call them brothers. Likewise, the report in this passage in Acts 15 shows them spreading a different gospel.
   1. Paul’s response will be quite severe against the Circumcision party in just a little bit.
   2. Interesting tidbit on the Greek here: the word used for “certain men” is “tis,” for which the Strongs NT gives this explanation: “used of persons and things concerning which the writer either cannot or will not speak more particularly.” It’s a bit like the Latin adjective “ista—” something distasteful to the speaker.
   3. In other words, Paul either cannot describe these certain men more definitively beyond their point of origin, or he will not (doesn’t want to) for an unspecified reason. Based on Paul’s first hand retelling of the story, it is likely he knew who these men were. Therefore, he could be more exacting, but won’t.
   4. Notice the effect these men will have on the fellowship of believers in vv. 12-13. Before, Peter, a devout Jew, is eating with the Gentiles. This act points towards fellowship and brotherhood. More so than today, to share a meal together points to a peace and communion with someone else. But when these men come, that unity evaporates.
   5. Let’s not miss this: beliefs cause a dispute; they force Peter to choose. Does the ceremonial and civil law really not matter? Are Jews and Gentiles equal and united and 1 under Christ? Is there any significance to being a Jew in the Christian church? Before these men from James arrive, Peter’s answer would have been, “Yes, yes, and no.” But these men, most likely other Jews, come and Peter balks. Peter stops eating with the Gentiles. We shouldn’t miss this because it proves that belief spurs action, and action affects fellowship. Simply saying, “we should be united,” or “let’s just get along” won’t do. If they believe serious errors or heresies, and you keep fellowship with them as a part of the brotherhood, you will likely fall to their errors.
   6. Remember the command in Jude 3: we are told “to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.”
3. Because of fear, Peter drew away from the Gentiles. In other words, he feared losing/not having the good opinion of these men. Contrast that fear of man with Paul’s question in Galatians 1.10. You will only ever do one or the other. You will either fear man and seek the approval of man, or you will fear God and seek his approval. You cannot have it both ways.

Update for 2022

Tags

Bible, Galatians, study, Update

Howdy Y’all,

After a mostly solid first half of 2021, I had to take an unannounced hiatus due to a variety of other personal commitments. I will continue to post my notes on Galatians, such as they are, but will probably not begin that process until sometime in February. This delay will, in theory, give me more time to build a running lead on the release schedule.

In the meantime, consider reviewing one of the earlier posts in this series on Galatians, especially those in chapter 1, as these points have some significance in later chapters.

Cheers!

rpm

Galatians 2.9-10: Remember the Poor

Tags

Bible, Christianity, Church, Faith, Galatians, God, Gospel, Justice, Paul, religion, Scripture

2.9: “And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me,”

1. Regarding James, Cephas (Peter), & John, these seem to be “Those who seemed…”, given the phrase appearance right after their naming. These 3 are indeed significant, accounting for 6 of the 12 non-Pauline NT writings (The others being Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Hebrews, & Jude). Collectively, these 3 will each write eponymous epistles: James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2, & 3 John. John will also be responsible for the fourth gospel.
2. “…gave the right hand of fellowship…” Paul finally arrives at the point of his statement, first requiring a consumption and restatement of the leading relatively clause. But these 3 named apostles “perceived,” and they “gave the right hand of fellowship.”
   • Regarding these verbs, Paul is setting up what we know historically, that this meeting is not the final resolution of the circumcision question. In just a couple verses, Paul will “oppose [Cephas] to his face” (2.11).
   • However, there is again an affirmation on the church unity in the midst of a division of labor.

2.10: “Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.”

1. “Remember the poor.” Here and elsewhere we see the church’s role in acts of mercy affirmed. There is, among some believers, the opinion that the church’s sole responsibility is that of preaching the word. Others would broaden that to preaching and worship services. I do not agree wholly with these groups, given this verse, the church’s office of deacon, and the many examples we have in scripture that, while not directly contradicting the opinion of this group, nevertheless problematize the position severely.
2. Regarding this verse:
   • There are two ways we can interpret the direct object, or “the poor.” Either they are in a general sense, “the poor,” or specific sense — the poor of a certain place.
   • We have already concluded that this passage refers to the same period in church history as Acts 11.27-12.25. There, Paul, Barnabas, and Titus are in Jerusalem to deliver aid to believers in need because of a famine.
   • On the one hand, this is a church-sanctioned relief mission, sending aid to another church by the hand of church agents. In other words, a mercy ministry to care for the physical needs of a group (of believers) outside of the local congregation.
   • Given their mission to the poor in the city of Jerusalem, it seems correct to assume that Peter, James, & John, after affirming Paul’s calling to the gentiles, are still requesting that Paul continue to remember the poor in Jerusalem and to seek their welfare.
3. However, narrative is not normative. A single text describing what someone has done does not place the imperative on the church or Christian. Yet throughout scripture the poor are remembered or mentioned.
   • In Acts 6.1-7, we read that the church actively works to distribute bread to the poor. And they appoint Stephen, who will become the first martyr of the church, to lead in that work of mercy.
   • Likewise, we know from John 12 that the disciples of Jesus had a common purse, and at least a mention by Judas (the betrayer) about giving to the poor (John 12.5-6). While he sins through his own selfish greed and thievery, his argument is meant to be plausible. This indicates that the purse was used to care for the poor the disciples encountered.
   • Finally, in Matthew 25, in reference to the final judgement, we see Jesus liken the feeding and clothing of the poor to feeding and clothing himself. The unspoken imperative, for the believer, is to be generous in mercy and care, and not self interested or stingy.
4. I have intentionally chosen these 3 passage because of my friends and their next question. Knowing, as I do, that none of these passages place a command onto the corporate church, they are free to advance, saying first that these statements,
   • Point to the individual Christian’s responsibilities, or,
   • Still signal a division between teaching and worship, and the work of mercy ministry.

They are wise to raise this question, however one final argument remains in the office of deacon.

5. Starting in 1 Timothy 3.8, Paul writes to Timothy about the qualifications of a deacon, or a diakonos, or “servant.” While not required to be able to teach, they must “hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience” (3.9 – see also Stephen’s fiery and brilliant sermon to the Sanhedrin in Acts 7.1-53).
   • The deacon are to serve for a time on trial, to see if they can fulfill the role as dignified, honest, self-controlled individuals who are not greedy.
   • The specific duties in which these men serve is somewhat ambiguous, however the term servant gives us a clue. While the elder, overseer, and teacher all are alike in their spiritual rule over the church, these deacons seem to be the more formalized successor of the role into which Stephen was placed. In other words, workers of the church who are instrumental in the care of physical needs.
6. For the church and the believer, then, the statement in v. 10 can act as a reminder of God’s call on our life to remember and care for the poor. These are inside the church and outside the church, and we are called both to care for their needs and preach the gospel. If we do one without the other, we are either unrighteous or unholy in our work.
   • Unrighteous, because “faith without works is dead” (James 2.17). To believe and not be changed so that our deeds increasingly strive to mirror the law of God is to believe erroneously. If the spirit is inside you, how can you stay in sin and selfishness? Where’s the life of your faith?
   • Unholy, because “what does it profit a man to gain the world and forfeit his soul” (Mark 8.36)? If all we do is serve the physical needs, we polish wood bound for the fires of hell. We are called to preach the good word, and to do less is to neglect our highest calling by God as his witnesses.

Galatians 2.7-8: Paul, Peter, and the Spirit

Tags

Apostle, Bible, Galatians, Paul, Peter, study, The Holy Spirit

2.7: “But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised…”

1. It is worth pausing to observe the word “entrusted” here. The Greek is interesting. The verb appears with Paul, and then is applied to Peter (or understood to be applied). It is translated passive, though I do not know why Greek well enough to say why. Still, in English, the connotation is that both Peter and Paul are equally subordinate to God, who has assigned to Peter the responsibility of preaching to the Jews, while to Paul the responsibility of preaching to the Gentiles.
2. At the same moment, however briefly, the church was still seemingly comprised of more Jews than Gentiles. Despite the size of ministry, despite Peter’s legacy or years more experience, he is compared to Paul as equals. None of these criteria matter where truth is concerned — only that each shepherd is entrusted by the good shepherd a portion of the flock, and the commands to feed, care for, and watch over them.

2.8: “(For He who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles.)”

1. In context, the grammar in English is a royal mess of subordinate clauses. In v. 7, 8, & the beginning of 9, Paul either begins or spends the whole length of space in a subordinate clause. It’s a mess to follow.
2. This “for” statement further explains the equal standing of Peter & Paul before God as ministers of the gospel, one primarily to the Jews, & the other to the Gentiles.
3. Regarding this division of labor, it is important to observe both Paul’s heart for the Jews, and for his mode of missional evangelism.
   • First, Paul’s heart for the Jews. Consider Romans 9.1-5 & 10.1-4. While he is the apostle of the Gentiles, Paul’s heart still yearns specifically for his lost kinsmen in a way we don’t see for the Gentiles. This isn’t to imply that Paul was negligent in his duty as God’s messenger, but his calling does not eliminate his love for his own people.
   • Consider also Acts 13 & 14, and especially 13.44-47. Paul does go to the Gentiles, but on the sabbath to the Jews also.
4. Therefore, we may conclude that while sent to the Gentiles, Paul nevertheless also still preached to his kinsmen when able and free to do so.
5. Finally, again see the hand of God on both Peter & Paul as apostles and ministers. Neither more important than the other, but both sustained and supported by the Holy Spirit in the work that God called them to. Do we keep this in mind, or perhaps it is better to say, to the degree that we do keep this in mind, we will be good and obedient workers, for,
   • God has called each and every brother to a specific labor for the glory of God (Eph 2.10).
   • God’s call is a sacred call on every life – it is never divorced from belief, or somehow not compelled by God’s commands in scripture (Romans 12.1-2).
   • No person is more holy because of their calling, though some work comes with greater scrutiny (Romans 12.3-6; James 3.1).

Galatians 2.6: Paul Before the Apostles

Tags

Bible, Christianity, Church, Faith, Galatians, Gospel, Paul, study

Gal 2.6: “And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.”

1. “those who seemed influential…” Paul returns to this very unique phrase… why? In its first appearance (2.2), the phrase acts parenthetically in the ESV, and as a subordinate clause of location in the NASB. Here, the phrase is in the forefront, and is a third reference in Paul’s testimony to human authority (see also 1.17).
2. “what they were makes no difference to me…” This statement harmonizes with Paul’s earlier statements regarding the supremacy of God and his word over all else. Even in his humble submission to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, Paul recognizes that he ultimately will answer to God. Paul recognizes that, 
   • God is the origins of the message (1.1)
   • God is the singular source of salvation (1.4)
   • His gospel is exclusively true compared to any other religion or belief (1.8-9) 
   • Service to and approval from God are alone important and worthwhile (1.10)
   • God saves the lost by his power and not by human means (1.15)
   • God alone is due the glory (1.24).
3. To that end, even though Paul is here submitting to human authority in the form of the apostles in Jerusalem, he remains committed to God as his ultimate authority.
4. In all of these moments, God’s work and authority are explicitly or implicitly contrasted against man’s failure & lack of authority. And herein lies the heart of the matter, because while Paul sets his gospel before the authority of these influential brothers for evaluation, he also indicates that should their response have proven erroneous, Paul would have remained faithful to the truth. That is why he says “God shows no partiality.” 
   • If they were to speak error in their judgement, Paul would seemingly look to God as the final judge. He is placing his gospel work before the brothers, and the brothers before the gospel.
5. Finally, regarding the second clause in the verse, that “God shows no partiality,” it is interesting that the apostle includes this phrase. I cannot help but wonder if it served as a bastion for the Martin Luthers, the Charles Spurgens, and the Jonathan Edwards of our history. For how does this phrase fit into the context of Paul’s subject? It fits when we recall that God is the source of truth and insight— that we do not see because of our own ability. To use Jesus’s words in Matthew 16.17, “flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in Heaven.” God does not favor the powerful or learned with more truth because of their power or learning. 
6. We should submit and listen to those in the church with authority over us, but only to the extent that their message comes from God. This is why John commands us to “test every spirit,” in 1 John 4.1. 
   • This is not to say that any error on our teacher’s part must be pointed out quickly and gracelessly. But error, grave error, and heresy are not to be tolerated. Patterns of sin are to be rebuked, even in the leadership. 
7. “added nothing to me…” After 2 meanderings, Paul finally arrives at the point of his meeting with those who is seemed influential, namely that their affirmation of his message is complete in this moment. Again recall, this is prior to the council of Jerusalem, which will address more formally the issue at play regarding Gentiles and Circumcision. Yet to occur is Peter and Barnabas falling into sinful error in Galatians 2.11 & 13.

1.  

Galatians 2.5: Do not Yield

Tags

Bible, Christianity, Church, Church Discipline, Faith, Galatians, God Whispers, Gospel, LGBTQA+, Paul, Sexual Sin, study

2.5: “To them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the gospel might be preserved for you.”

1. “To them we did not yield…” Two things seem apparent in this verse: Biblical responses to false teaching, and the reason for such discernment. On the one side, it is rare to see or hear of discipline or rebuke within the church congregation, the denomination, or separation (of any degree) between the Christian body and those who claim the mark of Christ but who are marked by the devil and their own sin. On the other hand, there are, among those three levels of the church, those who wield the keys to the kingdom like a sword. They break fellowship for any reason — any error or disagreement. As we will see, both behaviors are in error, and not in keeping either with the apostolic tradition or their teaching.
2. Regarding Biblical responses to false teaching, consider both our current passage and Acts 15.1-21. Paul is right in his position, that grace comes through faith alone, and not by any obedience to the ceremonial, moral, or national laws of Israel. We see his dissent play out repeatedly through both texts, but we also see Paul compromise with James at the end of the Jerusalem council. While God does not require anyone to keep the Jewish customs, a letter is still written by the whole council (it doesn’t mention Paul abstaining from the letter) urging the Gentiles to keep certain portions of the law for the sake of their Jewish brothers. 
   • The compromise is only possible because James first agrees to the essentials of the faith (Acts 15.13-19). As noted previously, brotherhood only occurs in a shared system of belief. 
   • James’s request, while not mandated for the Gentiles as their moral obligation or as necessary for salvation, follows the later command to care for the weaker brother (Romans 14.1-4; 19-20). The letter asks the Gentiles to abstain from practices that were either a part of the moral law (abstaining from sexual immorality), or extremely repugnant to the Jewish believers (Acts 15.19-21). 
3. “So that the gospel might be preserved…” We see the necessity to never compromise in word or belief on the gospel, or on that which directly affects the gospel. This measure is sometimes easy to parse out in retrospect; in the moment, it requires a crystal clear understanding of the gospel message, of its range (and the divine mandate to preach to the whole world). To correctly identify grave error and heresy, you need to be deeply rooted in the careful study of the word of God — his law, his poetry; his story from Genesis to Revelation.
4. “for you…” Difficulty or the likelihood for error should not deter us from discernment. Again, Paul commands us to reject false teachers as already damned by God for spreading lies and treason (Gal 1.8-9). But recall again the resolution in Acts 15: James and the believers in the radical Jewish party agree that circumcision isn’t required for salvation (Acts 15.13-19). However, the Gentiles are asked to perform certain ceremonial acts of obedience for the sake of their Jewish brothers. 
5. It is not heresy for a brother to ask you to demonstrate your love through acts governed by a lesser law. Even if God’s word does not forbid it, those acts may still prove desirable, for the sake of fellowship and unity, even to the point of wider teaching. But if these acts are mandated as proof of grace, as circumcision proved to be in the case of the early church, then there can be no compromise, for there exists no unity between the church of God and the cathedral of Satan, and no commonality between the truth and a lie.
6. As this relates to me personally, I see one immediate application that are on the hearts and minds of the denomination. That is the church’s response to both LGBTQA+ movement, and persons who struggle with sexual sin. Let’s be clear: God’s law and word is unambiguous on this matter, except to the degree that it’s reader wishes that it was ambiguous because of their personal unbelief. Sodomy, the term used by the Bible for sexual sins that we classify with the acronym, is sin and an abomination to God. All fall short of the glory of God, and the sin of the city Sodom was so complete that God didn’t wait to pour out his final judgement on the inhabitants. All sin is vile, and the one who sins bears God’s holy wrath apart from God’s gracious salvation and mercy through Christ. But recognize that Sodomy so kindled God’s wrath that he wouldn’t wait any longer. (Interestingly, this is the same fate that almost befalls Nineveh, but it doesn’t). 
   • What this means is that I cannot keep fellowship with those who knowingly question or deny the sinfulness of sodomy. To fall into either of these categories means that I reject either the truth of God’s word, and thereby reject God himself. Or, I reject the righteousness that God is, which again is a rejection of his authority and word. 
   • Because of the clarity of God’s word, we likewise must be clear in our answer. We do not take moral stances in order to condemn or gain power over people, but in order to effectively preach and practice the gospel of grace in the lives of those who hear our gospel and repent.
   • To deny the sinfulness of sin is to deny the need for a savior, and the hope found in the gospel. This is why Romans 1.18 follows Romans 1.16-17, and why Romans 7.25 & 8.1 are preceded by Romans 7.24. 

In reviewing these notes (crafted nearly a year ago), I feel it is necessary to add a short addendum to the these particular comments given recent church trends at a denominational level. There is a popular slogan circulating, that God whispers about certain sins (i.e. homosexuality), and shouts about other sins (greed, not loving your needy, etc.). I’m not the first to point this out (though I did conceive of it independently of those earlier voice), but I find it hard to imagine that God was whispering when he sacked Sodom and Gomorrah.

Someone may raise the argument, that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was nothing related to modern day LGBTQA+. I do not have space to now untangle that error (and it is an error). For a more thorough explanation of this point, please refer to this sermon by Voddie Baucham Jr.