Galatians 2:9-10 “James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.”
(I didn’t have time to finish verse 9 last time, so I’ll wrap up verse 9(b) and then move on to verse 10)
“They agreed” This "they" appears to be all the leaders, including those who would have sympathized with the Judaizers. On the one hand, the agreement that Paul should minister to the Gentiles, and the other apostles to the Jews could be considered a compromise position – not unlike the compromise arrived at during the Council in Acts 15:29. It could viewed as a grudging acceptance of the Gentile believers, and an ongoing system of spiritual “apartheid” – at least for the time being. Well, perhaps that’s too strong a statement. The compromise in Acts 15 seems to recognize there are certain cultural matters the Jews will never accept in the Gentiles, or that in order to preserve unity in the church, the Gentiles had to compromise too. The compromise here in Galatians 2 might be a similar concept – an agreement to keep the ministries separate and distinct for expediency to allow both factions to flourish without “offending” the other.
That might have been the practical result, and (as we see later in the discussion of Paul’s confrontation with Peter) there may have been some residual ethnic bias in the apostles. But I really think this is actually a recognition of divine calling. Paul’s purpose in God’s Kingdom was to minister to the Gentiles. Paul was doing this because God told him to do this – this is confirmation coming from the leaders and authorities over Paul in the Church.
Every Christian and every church congregation needs to have a similar encounter and experience. Once we hear from God about our gifting, our passion, our vision, and we begin to walk in obedience to fulfill it, we will be tested, and we will need to submit what we’re doing to spiritual authorities God has placed over us. Invariably, if we’ve heard from God, the authorities will confirm our calling, or at least guide us in a path that will lead to the confirmation of our calling. This happened at my church (Spirit of God Fellowship in South Holland, Illinois) years ago, when we were considering merging with another local congregation (our “urge to merge” phase). The authorities we were submitted under confirmed our vision and outreach to the poor and disadvantaged (today, one concrete example of how this vision has manifested itself is in Restoration Ministries in Harvey, Illinois), and released us to continue down our path of a more “radical” Christianity, rather than merge with a more traditional church. Like Paul, our vision was confirmed and more firmly established.
Verse 10: The “bottom line” commission the elders in Jerusalem gave to Paul was basically “keep doing what you’re doing, but don’t you dare forget to keep helping the poor.” Here is good advice, and a sobering thought for any church or individual. This is a ministry litmus test. If what we are doing in the Kingdom of God doesn’t have an impact in some way on helping the poor and needy – “remembering the poor” – then perhaps we aren’t hearing from God. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a “hands on” ministry to the poor, but I believe it must be a real impact. Paul’s whole reason for being in Jerusalem in Galatians 2 is famine relief (see Acts 11:27). This is the essence of the Gospel message. Without it, we are simply “navel gazing.”
Friday, August 7, 2009
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Galatians Journal: Chapter 2, verse 9
Galatians 2:9 “James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.”
First, Paul mentions James, Peter and John by name. He says they were “reputed to be pillars.” This sounds like he’s being at least a little disrespectful. But this would be out of character for Paul, as we discussed in the entry regarding Galatians 2:6. He is contrasting and connecting the concept of “reputation” with the view of “those who seemed important” – that is, the Pharisee types who were insisting on following the Jewish law and customs – in Galatians 2:6. What he is saying is that the Judiazers accepted James, Peter and John as “pillars.” He even lists James first, who was the leader of the Jerusalem church, a sort of backhanded way of saying the most “Jewish” of the apostles, the Lord’s own flesh and blood brother (James was technically Jesus’ half brother (he was Jesus younger brother, a son of Mary and Joseph) and thus a living example of the importance of ethnicity to these people) James was in Paul’s corner. The “pillars” of the church gave Paul and Barnabas (he mentions both again, remember, its RELATIONSHIPS that are important), the “right hand of fellowship.” This is an idiomatic phrase common to that time, this was more than a greeting or welcome – this was like getting the key to the city, or taking a picture shaking the President’s hand – its official recognition, like signing a treaty. This was done because the “pillars” recognized “the grace given” to Paul. The tangible, incontrovertible indicia of God’s work in Paul and among the Gentiles was the proof – what God was doing in and through Paul was real. The fruit was enough; the reality tipped the scales. This is still true today. The proof of changed lives, the reality of relationships established in the unity of the Holy Spirit, and the ministry of God in outreach to help the poor and needy (see verse 10 below) is the proof in our society that our unity is real, based on our relationship in Jesus, and NOT on ethnicity, tradition, nationality, denomination, or custom.
(We'll continue verse 9 next time).
First, Paul mentions James, Peter and John by name. He says they were “reputed to be pillars.” This sounds like he’s being at least a little disrespectful. But this would be out of character for Paul, as we discussed in the entry regarding Galatians 2:6. He is contrasting and connecting the concept of “reputation” with the view of “those who seemed important” – that is, the Pharisee types who were insisting on following the Jewish law and customs – in Galatians 2:6. What he is saying is that the Judiazers accepted James, Peter and John as “pillars.” He even lists James first, who was the leader of the Jerusalem church, a sort of backhanded way of saying the most “Jewish” of the apostles, the Lord’s own flesh and blood brother (James was technically Jesus’ half brother (he was Jesus younger brother, a son of Mary and Joseph) and thus a living example of the importance of ethnicity to these people) James was in Paul’s corner. The “pillars” of the church gave Paul and Barnabas (he mentions both again, remember, its RELATIONSHIPS that are important), the “right hand of fellowship.” This is an idiomatic phrase common to that time, this was more than a greeting or welcome – this was like getting the key to the city, or taking a picture shaking the President’s hand – its official recognition, like signing a treaty. This was done because the “pillars” recognized “the grace given” to Paul. The tangible, incontrovertible indicia of God’s work in Paul and among the Gentiles was the proof – what God was doing in and through Paul was real. The fruit was enough; the reality tipped the scales. This is still true today. The proof of changed lives, the reality of relationships established in the unity of the Holy Spirit, and the ministry of God in outreach to help the poor and needy (see verse 10 below) is the proof in our society that our unity is real, based on our relationship in Jesus, and NOT on ethnicity, tradition, nationality, denomination, or custom.
(We'll continue verse 9 next time).
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Galatians Journal: Chapter 2, verse 8
Galatians 2:8: “For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.”
SIDENOTE: Before we start on an analysis and meditation on Galatians 2:8, I did some deeper research into the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, which was discussed at length in the previous entry on Galatians 2:7. Many scholars believe that the visit to Jerusalem Paul speaks of in Galatians 2 is actually an earlier visit Paul made to the city at the center of Judaism and Christianity – the “famine visit” of Acts 11:27. This makes a lot of sense, in that in the Galatians 2 visit, Paul submits the issue to the elders in private – a situation not borne out by the Acts 15 account. This also appears to fit into the chronology of New Testament history more conveniently. If we plot this out on a time line, Paul was born about 5 AD (between 6 BC and AD 10); Paul had his conversion experience around AD 35; his time in the Arabian desert in Galatians 1:17 would be from about AD 35-38; Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem (the two week stay in Galatians 1:18-19, Acts 9:26-29) took place around AD 38; Paul’s ministry in Antioch and Syria was in AD 38-43 (Galatians 1:21; Acts 9:30); the Galatians 2 visit to Jerusalem would fall in AD 43 or 44; then Paul’s first missionary journey (including establishing the Galatian churches) in AD 46-48; the letter to the Galatians would have been composed around AD 48/49; and the Acts 15 Council would have occurred after the writing of Galatians in AD 49 or 50.
This makes sense. I don’t think it changes any of the basic concepts I have meditated on or discussed in previous entries when I considered the Acts 15 Council coincided with the Galatians 2 visit. The Judiazing/ethnic issue was still the “hot topic.” The issue of Paul’s attitude toward authority did not change. Even in a private audience with the elders, he probably had to deal with a faction that argued against him, though probably not James or Peter or any of their peers.
Now back to Galatians 2:8: Here is the evidence why these issues were unimportant, that is, why issues of ethnicity are so unimportant. “for God was at work” This was what the Pharisees in the Church could not deny, here in Galatians 2, and later in history, at the Council in Acts 15 – the same power, the same miracles, the same manifestations, the same concept of faith and repentance, the same Holy Spirit, the same gifts, the same fruit, the same harvest – its was all plainly evident among the Jewish Christians -- and now also the Gentile believers. The final conclusion of Peter at Cornelius’ house, and at the Jerusalem Council were the same. God had chosen the Gentiles, too. God is at work among them. In Acts 15, James also points out that his is a fulfillment of prophecy involving the Messiah. Ethnic unity is a sign of the coming of the Messiah!! (See Acts 15:15-19, where James quoted the prophecy from Amos 9:11-12, where the Lord promises to "rebuild David's fallen tent," and that "the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name.") Can this also be true, today, for the second coming of the Messiah? That supernaturally inspired ethnic unity is a sign of the soon return of Christ?
SIDENOTE: Before we start on an analysis and meditation on Galatians 2:8, I did some deeper research into the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, which was discussed at length in the previous entry on Galatians 2:7. Many scholars believe that the visit to Jerusalem Paul speaks of in Galatians 2 is actually an earlier visit Paul made to the city at the center of Judaism and Christianity – the “famine visit” of Acts 11:27. This makes a lot of sense, in that in the Galatians 2 visit, Paul submits the issue to the elders in private – a situation not borne out by the Acts 15 account. This also appears to fit into the chronology of New Testament history more conveniently. If we plot this out on a time line, Paul was born about 5 AD (between 6 BC and AD 10); Paul had his conversion experience around AD 35; his time in the Arabian desert in Galatians 1:17 would be from about AD 35-38; Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem (the two week stay in Galatians 1:18-19, Acts 9:26-29) took place around AD 38; Paul’s ministry in Antioch and Syria was in AD 38-43 (Galatians 1:21; Acts 9:30); the Galatians 2 visit to Jerusalem would fall in AD 43 or 44; then Paul’s first missionary journey (including establishing the Galatian churches) in AD 46-48; the letter to the Galatians would have been composed around AD 48/49; and the Acts 15 Council would have occurred after the writing of Galatians in AD 49 or 50.
This makes sense. I don’t think it changes any of the basic concepts I have meditated on or discussed in previous entries when I considered the Acts 15 Council coincided with the Galatians 2 visit. The Judiazing/ethnic issue was still the “hot topic.” The issue of Paul’s attitude toward authority did not change. Even in a private audience with the elders, he probably had to deal with a faction that argued against him, though probably not James or Peter or any of their peers.
Now back to Galatians 2:8: Here is the evidence why these issues were unimportant, that is, why issues of ethnicity are so unimportant. “for God was at work” This was what the Pharisees in the Church could not deny, here in Galatians 2, and later in history, at the Council in Acts 15 – the same power, the same miracles, the same manifestations, the same concept of faith and repentance, the same Holy Spirit, the same gifts, the same fruit, the same harvest – its was all plainly evident among the Jewish Christians -- and now also the Gentile believers. The final conclusion of Peter at Cornelius’ house, and at the Jerusalem Council were the same. God had chosen the Gentiles, too. God is at work among them. In Acts 15, James also points out that his is a fulfillment of prophecy involving the Messiah. Ethnic unity is a sign of the coming of the Messiah!! (See Acts 15:15-19, where James quoted the prophecy from Amos 9:11-12, where the Lord promises to "rebuild David's fallen tent," and that "the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name.") Can this also be true, today, for the second coming of the Messiah? That supernaturally inspired ethnic unity is a sign of the soon return of Christ?
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Galatians Journal: Chapter 2, verse 7
Galatians 2:7: “On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.”
First off, here is support for the premise that Paul is not referring to the leaders/authorities of the Church (e.g. Peter, James, and the other Apostles) in his criticism of “those who seemed to be important” which we discussed in the previous verse –
“they saw” They needed to recognize Paul’s ministry in the same light as Peter’s, that Peter was already the apostle to the Jews. In the context of Paul’s reference, Peter would not have needed to make a realization about his own ministry. Paul was referring to others – the Judiazers.
This comparison/contrast between Paul and Peter as having opposite commissions – Jew and Gentile – serves to support the notion that Paul is speaking either about the Judiazers, or, more likely about the collective decision of the entire council. If we look at Acts 15, its hard to place the concept of what is traditionally referred to as the “Council at Jerusalem” in the context of Galatians. What is really going on here?
Acts 15 states that the Judiazers had attempted to teach their heresy at Antioch – Paul’s home base church. Paul and Barnabas came into sharp disagreement with these men. The local church at Antioch appointed Paul, Barnabas, and others as a delegation to meet with the leaders at Jerusalem. It is unclear whether the Acts 15 Council was called specifically for this purpose, or was some other type of gathering (an annual “convention?” a meeting in conjunction with one of the major Jewish festivals?) where Paul and Barnabas happened to raise the issue.
Regardless, God knew what he was doing, and had a plan. Acts 15 reads like Paul and Barnabas were sort of “on tour,” sharing the concept of their ministry to the Gentiles and the victories and “good news” they had experienced in reaching out to the Gentile world. When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were welcomed with open arms by not only the leaders and apostles, but by the entire church there (Acts 15:4). Paul’s ministry was evidently favorably received by most of the believers in Jerusalem.
Meanwhile, Galatians 2:2 shows that Paul went with a personal agenda, revealed by the Holy Spirit. In this, Paul was told by God to submit his ministry to the church elders/apostles – privately. Verse 3 reveals that the apostles affirmed Paul’s work. But then, if the Galatians 2 visit took place at the same time as the Acts 15 visit, Acts 15:5 goes on to show that a second public debate ensued. Acts 15:6 states that the elders met “to consider the question.” Peter then publicly affirmed Paul’s mission. Acts 15:12 – “the whole assembly became silent” as Paul and Barnabas spoke. If there is a connection with Galatians 2:7, this is it – the “they saw” was the entire Council. The Church at large, in Jerusalem, came to accept that there was a ministry to the Gentiles.
But did they like it? And did they, or could they overcome past prejudice and offense and accept the Gentiles as equals and “full brothers?” The footnotes here in v. 7 reveal that the original text uses the word “uncircumcised” when Paul refers to the Gentiles, and “circumcised” when he refers to the Jews. I believe Paul knew that even with the favorable result of the Council, the underlying attitude of the Jews was still one of prejudice – well, at least with some of them. You can almost feel it drip from Paul’s words here – the Judiazers had been silenced at the Council and begrudgingly accepted that Paul had a ministry to the “uncircumcised.” But the implications were, well, “they’re still not as good as we are.” Its very subtle, but its there. This is, of course, one of the major issues facing the church in America, and here in the Chicago area today. We can accept the fact that God is moving among the churches of other races, or different traditions than our own, but deep down, we believe they’re not as good as we are, no quite equals. Thus, the heresy Paul is fighting against in the Galatian churches is alive and well today, in perhaps (at least for us) a more subtle, but no less insidious form.
First off, here is support for the premise that Paul is not referring to the leaders/authorities of the Church (e.g. Peter, James, and the other Apostles) in his criticism of “those who seemed to be important” which we discussed in the previous verse –
“they saw” They needed to recognize Paul’s ministry in the same light as Peter’s, that Peter was already the apostle to the Jews. In the context of Paul’s reference, Peter would not have needed to make a realization about his own ministry. Paul was referring to others – the Judiazers.
This comparison/contrast between Paul and Peter as having opposite commissions – Jew and Gentile – serves to support the notion that Paul is speaking either about the Judiazers, or, more likely about the collective decision of the entire council. If we look at Acts 15, its hard to place the concept of what is traditionally referred to as the “Council at Jerusalem” in the context of Galatians. What is really going on here?
Acts 15 states that the Judiazers had attempted to teach their heresy at Antioch – Paul’s home base church. Paul and Barnabas came into sharp disagreement with these men. The local church at Antioch appointed Paul, Barnabas, and others as a delegation to meet with the leaders at Jerusalem. It is unclear whether the Acts 15 Council was called specifically for this purpose, or was some other type of gathering (an annual “convention?” a meeting in conjunction with one of the major Jewish festivals?) where Paul and Barnabas happened to raise the issue.
Regardless, God knew what he was doing, and had a plan. Acts 15 reads like Paul and Barnabas were sort of “on tour,” sharing the concept of their ministry to the Gentiles and the victories and “good news” they had experienced in reaching out to the Gentile world. When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were welcomed with open arms by not only the leaders and apostles, but by the entire church there (Acts 15:4). Paul’s ministry was evidently favorably received by most of the believers in Jerusalem.
Meanwhile, Galatians 2:2 shows that Paul went with a personal agenda, revealed by the Holy Spirit. In this, Paul was told by God to submit his ministry to the church elders/apostles – privately. Verse 3 reveals that the apostles affirmed Paul’s work. But then, if the Galatians 2 visit took place at the same time as the Acts 15 visit, Acts 15:5 goes on to show that a second public debate ensued. Acts 15:6 states that the elders met “to consider the question.” Peter then publicly affirmed Paul’s mission. Acts 15:12 – “the whole assembly became silent” as Paul and Barnabas spoke. If there is a connection with Galatians 2:7, this is it – the “they saw” was the entire Council. The Church at large, in Jerusalem, came to accept that there was a ministry to the Gentiles.
But did they like it? And did they, or could they overcome past prejudice and offense and accept the Gentiles as equals and “full brothers?” The footnotes here in v. 7 reveal that the original text uses the word “uncircumcised” when Paul refers to the Gentiles, and “circumcised” when he refers to the Jews. I believe Paul knew that even with the favorable result of the Council, the underlying attitude of the Jews was still one of prejudice – well, at least with some of them. You can almost feel it drip from Paul’s words here – the Judiazers had been silenced at the Council and begrudgingly accepted that Paul had a ministry to the “uncircumcised.” But the implications were, well, “they’re still not as good as we are.” Its very subtle, but its there. This is, of course, one of the major issues facing the church in America, and here in the Chicago area today. We can accept the fact that God is moving among the churches of other races, or different traditions than our own, but deep down, we believe they’re not as good as we are, no quite equals. Thus, the heresy Paul is fighting against in the Galatian churches is alive and well today, in perhaps (at least for us) a more subtle, but no less insidious form.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Galatians Journal: Chapter 2, verse 6
Galatians 2:6 “As for those who seemed to be important-- whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance-- those men added nothing to my message.”
“those who seemed to be important” It seems at first blush that Paul is belittling the authority of the church leaders at Jerusalem. While it is quite possible that Paul is using biting criticism or sarcasm as he regularly did in his letters, it is out of character for him to express arrogance or to speak against God’s established authorities. It is even out of character for this chapter of scripture; Paul's whole reason for traveling to Jerusalem in the first place is he had staked his entire vision and mission on the judgment of the leaders of the church at Jerusalem. If he respected them enough to give them the final word regarding whether he had “run [his] race in vain” (see v. 2), why would he be speaking so apparently callously here? Perhaps he is not directing his comments here to Peter and James. In v. 2 he spoke of those who “seemed to be leaders.” Here, it is a similar reference “those who seemed to be important,” Acts 15:5 references a group of former Pharisees who argue for the Jewish rules and traditions as requirements for salvation, to be a "proper Christian." This is followed by “much discussion.” (Acts 15:7). In the end, however, the leaders vindicate Paul, as they “added nothing to [Paul’s] message.” It would therefore appear that Paul is addressing the prominent Pharisee/Judiazers who held a lot of influence in the Jerusalem church community, and at the Acts 15 Counsel. In light of the underlying theme of ethnicity being the issue in the Galatian church, the parenthetical comment inserted in the middle of v. 6 makes more sense – what they WERE (as in whether they were Jews, Greeks, or whatever ethnic group -- in my community we would be arguing over African American versus Caucasian versus Hispanic, or traditional mainline Protestant worship style versus the newer interdenominational "praise band" worship style) -- this all makes no difference, for God doesn’t judge by mere outer appearances. Of course, considering Acts 23:5, where Paul retracts his rebuke of the High Priest when he was before the Sanhedrin, simply because of the High Priest’s position, Paul never would have spoken so blithely of the leaders in authority. This doesn’t stop him from being critical when he feels they’re in the wrong (see later in chap. 2, regarding Peter). But I don’t think this is aimed at the church elders, but at those who were pushing those same elders to adopt this heresy and practice institutional racism.
“those who seemed to be important” It seems at first blush that Paul is belittling the authority of the church leaders at Jerusalem. While it is quite possible that Paul is using biting criticism or sarcasm as he regularly did in his letters, it is out of character for him to express arrogance or to speak against God’s established authorities. It is even out of character for this chapter of scripture; Paul's whole reason for traveling to Jerusalem in the first place is he had staked his entire vision and mission on the judgment of the leaders of the church at Jerusalem. If he respected them enough to give them the final word regarding whether he had “run [his] race in vain” (see v. 2), why would he be speaking so apparently callously here? Perhaps he is not directing his comments here to Peter and James. In v. 2 he spoke of those who “seemed to be leaders.” Here, it is a similar reference “those who seemed to be important,” Acts 15:5 references a group of former Pharisees who argue for the Jewish rules and traditions as requirements for salvation, to be a "proper Christian." This is followed by “much discussion.” (Acts 15:7). In the end, however, the leaders vindicate Paul, as they “added nothing to [Paul’s] message.” It would therefore appear that Paul is addressing the prominent Pharisee/Judiazers who held a lot of influence in the Jerusalem church community, and at the Acts 15 Counsel. In light of the underlying theme of ethnicity being the issue in the Galatian church, the parenthetical comment inserted in the middle of v. 6 makes more sense – what they WERE (as in whether they were Jews, Greeks, or whatever ethnic group -- in my community we would be arguing over African American versus Caucasian versus Hispanic, or traditional mainline Protestant worship style versus the newer interdenominational "praise band" worship style) -- this all makes no difference, for God doesn’t judge by mere outer appearances. Of course, considering Acts 23:5, where Paul retracts his rebuke of the High Priest when he was before the Sanhedrin, simply because of the High Priest’s position, Paul never would have spoken so blithely of the leaders in authority. This doesn’t stop him from being critical when he feels they’re in the wrong (see later in chap. 2, regarding Peter). But I don’t think this is aimed at the church elders, but at those who were pushing those same elders to adopt this heresy and practice institutional racism.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Galatians Journal: Chapter 2, verse 5
Galatians 2:5 –“We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.”
Paul is adamant that the truth was never compromised in this situation. Later on in chapter 2, we will see that even the Apostle Peter, the undisputed leader of the church at Jerusalem, gave in to the social pressures and ethnic prejudice of this heresy. But Paul refused to do this – “not for a moment” -- And the given reason for his commitment to the truth here is (once again) the issue of RELATIONSHIP – Paul’s relationship to the Galatian Christians, and their relationship with God and with each other. I find this extremely refreshing. For all the power of theological principle that emanates from this book – the practical effect of the Gospel message is to strengthen relationships.
Paul is adamant that the truth was never compromised in this situation. Later on in chapter 2, we will see that even the Apostle Peter, the undisputed leader of the church at Jerusalem, gave in to the social pressures and ethnic prejudice of this heresy. But Paul refused to do this – “not for a moment” -- And the given reason for his commitment to the truth here is (once again) the issue of RELATIONSHIP – Paul’s relationship to the Galatian Christians, and their relationship with God and with each other. I find this extremely refreshing. For all the power of theological principle that emanates from this book – the practical effect of the Gospel message is to strengthen relationships.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Galatians Journal: Chapter 2, verse 4
Galatians 2:4 “This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.”
Paul discusses the motivation behind the Judiazing controversy. He begins by defining and identifying the culprits as “some false brothers.” Does Paul mean that these mean were not real Christians? Its hard to read between the lines here. “False brothers” could be “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” evil men with evil motives, with the emphasis on “false.” Yet, he refers to them as “brothers.” Can an authentic, born again Christian be this deceived? And then, be so “evangelistic” in his deception? I think the answer is yes. When I consider the Christian traditions in which I was raised (Roman Catholicism), a mainline traditional church that presented an obvious implication that faith alone wasn’t quite enough – that good works must accompany faith, that participation in a sacramental theology is vital to be right with God, and that Church tradition is just as important as God’s Word – I understand how a deception like this can take hold and flourish. And I’m not just picking on Catholics, either. Even in many evangelical churches, an emphasis on what we must “do” can bring a subtle paradigm shift in the way we think about God. I imagine it is quite possible for a believer who is sincerely seeking after God, recognizes Jesus as the Messiah and son of God, and is serious in his commitment to serving God could be overshadowed by the concept of clinging to ethnic or religious traditions that are either not important or even contradict the truth, or can’t come to grips with the concept that no good thing that they could do could ever be enough to please God – to save, or sanctify them. I have known many Catholics who were obviously born again Christians, who loved God, and had a living relationship with Him, yet were vehemently committed to the sacraments and traditions of the Catholic church (even some that appear to be obviously anti-scriptural to me) and defended them as necessary, even vital for a complete relationship with God – sometimes, to the point of being necessary for salvation. Many of these folks were passionately evangelical about things that were uniquely “Catholic,” trying to draw others in. (The same can also be said for the non-essential doctrines, customs, and traditions of any Christian church. For those of you who don’t have any experience with Catholicism, you can look to your own traditions. Think of the “traditional hymns” vs “modern praise chorus” controversy in some traditional Protestant Denominations today). I imagine the origin of the Judiazing heresy in Paul’s time wasn’t much different. Add to this the strength of the Jewish cultural identity, and its traditional aversion to anything in Gentile culture, and this concept is amplified.
Indeed, Paul uses the phrase “some” with “false brothers.” Perhaps the origin of this heresy was with people who were not true Christians, whose motives were to tear apart the work of God, and then it took root in people like those I have just described.
These false brothers “infiltrated” – you couldn’t tell they were there, or couldn’t tell them apart from the others in the church. Paul says they were there to “spy on” the church. The footnote states that this word is the same one used for a military spy. The real source of this heresy was Satan – in a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” mode. The real tragedy here is this is not like the Corinthian church, where a lot of issues were related to immoral people trying to excuse their immoral behaviors by wrapping it in the cloak of respectability within the context of Christianity. In Galatia, we have Christians who in all other ways are upstanding, good, moral believers, expressing their love and devotion to God in all that they do, yet, they purposefully reject an entire segment of God’s people on the basis of their ethnic background.
Paul ends the verse by saying that these false brothers had the goal of taking the Galatians’ “freedom” and turning them into “slaves.” This is the key concept of the entire book. The “freedom” here –or deliverance from slavery – is multifaceted. It is freedom from the bondage of rules and the impossible goal of pleasing God by what we in and of ourselves can do; it is Freedom from the Law, and its inability to save us; it is freedom from the bondage of sin (see Galatians 5 in particular) and deliverance from that bondage into a life of freedom in the Spirit; and it is freedom from the walls that divide us – nationality, ethnicity, tradition, even perhaps the issue of personal taste – so that we can truly fellowship with one another and have that RELATIONSHIP with God, and with each other.
Paul discusses the motivation behind the Judiazing controversy. He begins by defining and identifying the culprits as “some false brothers.” Does Paul mean that these mean were not real Christians? Its hard to read between the lines here. “False brothers” could be “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” evil men with evil motives, with the emphasis on “false.” Yet, he refers to them as “brothers.” Can an authentic, born again Christian be this deceived? And then, be so “evangelistic” in his deception? I think the answer is yes. When I consider the Christian traditions in which I was raised (Roman Catholicism), a mainline traditional church that presented an obvious implication that faith alone wasn’t quite enough – that good works must accompany faith, that participation in a sacramental theology is vital to be right with God, and that Church tradition is just as important as God’s Word – I understand how a deception like this can take hold and flourish. And I’m not just picking on Catholics, either. Even in many evangelical churches, an emphasis on what we must “do” can bring a subtle paradigm shift in the way we think about God. I imagine it is quite possible for a believer who is sincerely seeking after God, recognizes Jesus as the Messiah and son of God, and is serious in his commitment to serving God could be overshadowed by the concept of clinging to ethnic or religious traditions that are either not important or even contradict the truth, or can’t come to grips with the concept that no good thing that they could do could ever be enough to please God – to save, or sanctify them. I have known many Catholics who were obviously born again Christians, who loved God, and had a living relationship with Him, yet were vehemently committed to the sacraments and traditions of the Catholic church (even some that appear to be obviously anti-scriptural to me) and defended them as necessary, even vital for a complete relationship with God – sometimes, to the point of being necessary for salvation. Many of these folks were passionately evangelical about things that were uniquely “Catholic,” trying to draw others in. (The same can also be said for the non-essential doctrines, customs, and traditions of any Christian church. For those of you who don’t have any experience with Catholicism, you can look to your own traditions. Think of the “traditional hymns” vs “modern praise chorus” controversy in some traditional Protestant Denominations today). I imagine the origin of the Judiazing heresy in Paul’s time wasn’t much different. Add to this the strength of the Jewish cultural identity, and its traditional aversion to anything in Gentile culture, and this concept is amplified.
Indeed, Paul uses the phrase “some” with “false brothers.” Perhaps the origin of this heresy was with people who were not true Christians, whose motives were to tear apart the work of God, and then it took root in people like those I have just described.
These false brothers “infiltrated” – you couldn’t tell they were there, or couldn’t tell them apart from the others in the church. Paul says they were there to “spy on” the church. The footnote states that this word is the same one used for a military spy. The real source of this heresy was Satan – in a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” mode. The real tragedy here is this is not like the Corinthian church, where a lot of issues were related to immoral people trying to excuse their immoral behaviors by wrapping it in the cloak of respectability within the context of Christianity. In Galatia, we have Christians who in all other ways are upstanding, good, moral believers, expressing their love and devotion to God in all that they do, yet, they purposefully reject an entire segment of God’s people on the basis of their ethnic background.
Paul ends the verse by saying that these false brothers had the goal of taking the Galatians’ “freedom” and turning them into “slaves.” This is the key concept of the entire book. The “freedom” here –or deliverance from slavery – is multifaceted. It is freedom from the bondage of rules and the impossible goal of pleasing God by what we in and of ourselves can do; it is Freedom from the Law, and its inability to save us; it is freedom from the bondage of sin (see Galatians 5 in particular) and deliverance from that bondage into a life of freedom in the Spirit; and it is freedom from the walls that divide us – nationality, ethnicity, tradition, even perhaps the issue of personal taste – so that we can truly fellowship with one another and have that RELATIONSHIP with God, and with each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
