Galatians 3:4 “Have you suffered so much for nothing-- if it really was for nothing?”
“Have you suffered so much for nothing?” As in 3:2, Paul is appealing ot the Galatians’ personal experience in Christ before he delves into his theological arguments and defenses; as in verse 2, the ultimate underlying rhetorical question here is “Are all your experiences in the Kingdom of God a lie?” In verses 2 and 3, he appealed to the evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives. Here, the appeal is to suffering -- the suffering the Galatians had experienced for their faith, both individually and collectively.
There is no indication here, or anywhere else in the book, what this suffering consisted of. The narrative regarding Paul’s initial contact with the Galatians shows that originally, the people were deeply steeped in Greek native mythology (Paul and Barnabas had even been revered as human incarnations of Hermes and Zeus after performing miracles in the midst of the Galatian people – Acts 14:8-18). Later on, Jews who had tried to thwart Paul’s missionary work at earlier stops on the First Missionary Journey arrived and “won the crowd over.” (Acts 14:19a). This resulted in Paul being stoned and left for dead! (Acts 14:19b)! Thus, from the outset, the Galatian churches must have been plagued with pressures from the outside, particularly involving pious Jews who saw this "new religion "as a threat. Whether the pressure came from the worshippers of Zeus, devout Jews, or the Roman authorities, there were powerful anti-Christian forces at play in Galatia.
I think therefore we can presume this “suffering” involved persecution of some type. It must have been severe, or Paul would not have noted it like this.
“If it really was for nothing.” Obviously, the persecution must have brought forth a great deal of fruit – the “furnace” forged a mighty work. Otherwise, this argument wouldn’t mean much. If the Galatians had gone through so much, and those difficulties had lead to so much good, to so much growth in God's Kingdom, how could they just “chuck it all” and give in to the source of that persecution (the Jews in the area, I presume, from the Acts 14 account)? Verses 2-5 combine together to show that a changed life really is one of the best arguments for salvation by faith!!
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Galatians Journal: Chapter 3, verse 3
Galatians 3:3 “Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?”
“Are you so foolish?” On the one hand, this seems like a slightly softer admonition than Galatians 3:1. Rather than accusing the Galatians of actually being fools, after laying out his initial argument regarding their own experiences, he offers them the sense that “Come on, this can’t be true, can it?” On the other hand, in the context of Paul as the master of the rhetorical question, its as if he’s saying, “You can’t be THAT stupid, can you?”
“After beginning with the Spirit” Paul never denies that the Galatians had an authentic relationship with Christ, or had not laid a proper foundation. I don’t think this was part of the Judaizing heresy either. Its all part of the subtle lie, both in terms of the issue of salvation-by-works and of the need for “ethnic purity.” You can be a Christian, but you’re not a true Christian, a “total” Christian, unless you achieve this objective moral perfection, or adapt to the proper ethnic culture. Both are lies, but very similar lies. They both involve a focus on people, rather than God, and an obsession with ourselves, rather than focusing on the RELATIONSHIP with God. But the subtle effectiveness is in the half-truth. The Judiazers accepted that the Galatians were indeed Christians, and on the right track. They just needed “more.”
“trying to attain your goal” This is more of the same sort of thing. The word for “goal” can also be translated as “perfection” – indeed, many other translations render it as “perfection.” Many cults, especially religions that are “Christianity Clones,” i.e. cults based on Christian concepts – have this as their central message. By obeying the rules, or gaining some sort of “secret knowledge,” one can reach perfection. The heretics here insisted that we are not complete Christians unless we followed the Jewish law. Traditional Jewish theology recognized that salvation was through grace (noting the great difficulty for anyone to achieve complete compliance with the law), -- but to reject the law? Discard it? Promote the concept that one need not follow it? To do so meant one was certainly lost. The ethnic implications are even more insidious. Under a works-based theology one rejects Christ on the cross. At the same time, to insist on embracing one form of ethnicity over another is to reject the work of Christ as Creator, for it is a rejection of who God made us to be. In either circumstance, there is a spirit of anti-Christ. For all you “Left Behind” fans, I’d be willing to bet that two of the things the Anti-Christ of the book of Revelation (the real one, not the fictional one in the novels) will do is establish a religion based on both obedience to a set of rules, AND conforming to a cultural norm.
“human effort” literally, in the Greek, it is the “flesh.” This is a common term in the New Testament that refers to our human nature in its unregenerate state. It would have been a “dirty word” to both the Jews and the Greeks in the Galatian cultural mix, for it implied weakness – moral weakness. It cannot be emphasized enough – trying to achieve oneness with God or entry into God’s kingdom via works or human effort (e.g. circumcision) or identifying with a particular cultural group is part of life in the “flesh.” This is, pure and simple, an indication of unregenerate weakness!
“Are you so foolish?” On the one hand, this seems like a slightly softer admonition than Galatians 3:1. Rather than accusing the Galatians of actually being fools, after laying out his initial argument regarding their own experiences, he offers them the sense that “Come on, this can’t be true, can it?” On the other hand, in the context of Paul as the master of the rhetorical question, its as if he’s saying, “You can’t be THAT stupid, can you?”
“After beginning with the Spirit” Paul never denies that the Galatians had an authentic relationship with Christ, or had not laid a proper foundation. I don’t think this was part of the Judaizing heresy either. Its all part of the subtle lie, both in terms of the issue of salvation-by-works and of the need for “ethnic purity.” You can be a Christian, but you’re not a true Christian, a “total” Christian, unless you achieve this objective moral perfection, or adapt to the proper ethnic culture. Both are lies, but very similar lies. They both involve a focus on people, rather than God, and an obsession with ourselves, rather than focusing on the RELATIONSHIP with God. But the subtle effectiveness is in the half-truth. The Judiazers accepted that the Galatians were indeed Christians, and on the right track. They just needed “more.”
“trying to attain your goal” This is more of the same sort of thing. The word for “goal” can also be translated as “perfection” – indeed, many other translations render it as “perfection.” Many cults, especially religions that are “Christianity Clones,” i.e. cults based on Christian concepts – have this as their central message. By obeying the rules, or gaining some sort of “secret knowledge,” one can reach perfection. The heretics here insisted that we are not complete Christians unless we followed the Jewish law. Traditional Jewish theology recognized that salvation was through grace (noting the great difficulty for anyone to achieve complete compliance with the law), -- but to reject the law? Discard it? Promote the concept that one need not follow it? To do so meant one was certainly lost. The ethnic implications are even more insidious. Under a works-based theology one rejects Christ on the cross. At the same time, to insist on embracing one form of ethnicity over another is to reject the work of Christ as Creator, for it is a rejection of who God made us to be. In either circumstance, there is a spirit of anti-Christ. For all you “Left Behind” fans, I’d be willing to bet that two of the things the Anti-Christ of the book of Revelation (the real one, not the fictional one in the novels) will do is establish a religion based on both obedience to a set of rules, AND conforming to a cultural norm.
“human effort” literally, in the Greek, it is the “flesh.” This is a common term in the New Testament that refers to our human nature in its unregenerate state. It would have been a “dirty word” to both the Jews and the Greeks in the Galatian cultural mix, for it implied weakness – moral weakness. It cannot be emphasized enough – trying to achieve oneness with God or entry into God’s kingdom via works or human effort (e.g. circumcision) or identifying with a particular cultural group is part of life in the “flesh.” This is, pure and simple, an indication of unregenerate weakness!
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Galatians Journal: Chapter 3, verse 2
Galatians 3:2 “I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?”
“. . . learn just one thing” I think Paul’s use of this first phrase is more than just a debating technique. In the rest of Chapter 3 and on into the following chapters, Paul will argue his point from a theological perspective, using examples from Old Testament scripture, specifically the law of Moses, and in particular the life of Abraham. But first, he appeals to matters of personal experience. The Galatians were certainly more than just marginal Christians. They had “received the Spirit.” They had been baptized in the Holy Spirit! I presume this meant all that went along with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit – both the charismatic manifestations and the inner transformation/life change discussed in more detail in Galatians 5. Paul is therefore presenting the totality of his argument, at least at the front end, as an appeal to personal experience in the Holy Spirit.
"I would like to learn just one thing from you" -- he's saying, rhetorically, “tell me one thing – “ as if to say, “is what you experienced a lie? Were those manifestations of the Holy Spirit's power NOT real?” Now, many evangelical apologists will argue against manifestational gifts (in Greek, "charismata"), using theology. They will argue that we can’t use experience, or what we feel to justify miraculous manifestations. But Paul’s statement here in verse 2 is not an argument to justify the concept of “trust your emotions,” or at least to do so at the expense of God’s Word. Paul’s admonitions regarding the proper use of the charismatic gifts is laid out in detail in his first letter to the Corinthians. No, I believe what Paul is saying here is simply that the free gift of the Holy Spirit, the power of the Spirit that transformed the Galatians, and the authentic experiences the Galatians had already had in Christ were enough proof in and of themselves that work-based theology is a lie. (For if our own experience shows us that God is a God who bestows his forgiveness, gifts, and life changing power in our lives when we don’t deserve it, and those experiences are authentic and objectively quantifiable, then how can we then be expected to perform up to some standard in order to “earn” them?). Paul expounds on this further in the next few verses. But the living example of the Holy Spirit at work in our own lives, when we are sinners, should be enough proof on its own to close the book on this argument.
“. . . learn just one thing” I think Paul’s use of this first phrase is more than just a debating technique. In the rest of Chapter 3 and on into the following chapters, Paul will argue his point from a theological perspective, using examples from Old Testament scripture, specifically the law of Moses, and in particular the life of Abraham. But first, he appeals to matters of personal experience. The Galatians were certainly more than just marginal Christians. They had “received the Spirit.” They had been baptized in the Holy Spirit! I presume this meant all that went along with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit – both the charismatic manifestations and the inner transformation/life change discussed in more detail in Galatians 5. Paul is therefore presenting the totality of his argument, at least at the front end, as an appeal to personal experience in the Holy Spirit.
"I would like to learn just one thing from you" -- he's saying, rhetorically, “tell me one thing – “ as if to say, “is what you experienced a lie? Were those manifestations of the Holy Spirit's power NOT real?” Now, many evangelical apologists will argue against manifestational gifts (in Greek, "charismata"), using theology. They will argue that we can’t use experience, or what we feel to justify miraculous manifestations. But Paul’s statement here in verse 2 is not an argument to justify the concept of “trust your emotions,” or at least to do so at the expense of God’s Word. Paul’s admonitions regarding the proper use of the charismatic gifts is laid out in detail in his first letter to the Corinthians. No, I believe what Paul is saying here is simply that the free gift of the Holy Spirit, the power of the Spirit that transformed the Galatians, and the authentic experiences the Galatians had already had in Christ were enough proof in and of themselves that work-based theology is a lie. (For if our own experience shows us that God is a God who bestows his forgiveness, gifts, and life changing power in our lives when we don’t deserve it, and those experiences are authentic and objectively quantifiable, then how can we then be expected to perform up to some standard in order to “earn” them?). Paul expounds on this further in the next few verses. But the living example of the Holy Spirit at work in our own lives, when we are sinners, should be enough proof on its own to close the book on this argument.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Galatians Journal: Chapter 3, verse 1
Galatians 3:1 “You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.”
Paul abruptly shifts gears here. Besides Galatians 1:6-12 (where Paul also at least partly admonishes the Galatians believers for giving in to the Judiazing heresy) most of the material in the first two Chapters of Galatians is directed at refuting the heresy, either through direct argument, or the example of Christ’s transformational power in Paul’s own life. He also places most of the blame for the problem on the Judiazing heretics themselves (Galatians 1:8-9). Chapter 3 continues the argument against the heresy, but the focus has changed. Paul opens Chapter 3 by declaring the Galatians are “foolish, ” and Paul will use his power of persuasion to not so much refute the Judiazers as to convince the Galatians themselves of the depth of their own deception. And isn’t that the best way for the Holy Spirit to win us over? Sometimes, we are convinced when we are show “the fact” about sin – the objective truth. For example, someone who grew up a Mormon can be shown the facts about the life of Joseph Smith, and the truth of how the Book of Mormon was produced, and discover the whole LDS religious system is a fraud. But merely debunking a lie we once believed to be true usually only produces skepticism. We need more than proof that lies are not true; we need convincing in and of ourselves that we need God, and what the truth really is. Otherwise, we’re still “fools.”
The general spiritual condition of the Galatians must have been pretty poor – they obviously had really bought into the lie of the Judiazing heresy. Paul’s use of the word “foolish” here does not mean mental deficiency, but rather implies a lack of perception – a childishness, an irresponsibility. Conditions are so bad, he asks “who has bewitched you?” Obviously, we know who, Paul is referring to the outsiders, the Judiazers. Or is he? Could he mean something deeper? The term here for “bewitched” is literal – it refers to the casting of spells or the concept of the “evil eye.” Paul also references the charismatic gifts in the next few verses. He seems to be suggesting that demonic forces are at the root of this issue. When we consider the broad overview of all these issues, the spiritual warfare implications are pretty obvious. Satan wants us to believe in a works-based theology. He also wants us to believe that ethnicity defines who we are in God. Both are lies from the pit of hell.
“Before your very eyes, Jesus was portrayed as crucified.” Did the Galatians see the crucifixion? Were any of them eyewitnesses to Jesus’ death? While possible (Galatians was written approximately 20 years after the death of Christ), its unlikely. Yet, the Greek word translated as “portrayed” literally mans “to publicly display or placard.” Its like hanging a picture in an art gallery. How was this done “before their very eyes?” Who or what “portrayed Christ as crucified” to the Galatians? All we need to do is go back a few verses to Galatians 2:20. It was Paul! This is "portrayal" in the same sense as an actor portraying a character on stage in such a way as to be totally believable -- we are seeing the "real thing" presented before us. When he explained the concept of being “crucified with Christ” and the miraculous, powerful transformation this brings in our lives, he is writing in the first person. Again, the emphasis is on RELATIONSHIP – the relationship of Jesus with us, of Paul with the Galatians, of the Galatians with each other. It also implies that the faith transformation via Christ’s death and resurrection is achieved on a personal level – in intimacy, not through following a formula or being a particular ethnic background. As an aside, the use of the word “portrayed” also helps direct the argument back on the Judiazers. It recalls the bronze serpent Moses set up for display in Numbers 21:9. The same word that is translated as "portrayed" here would be used to describe that historical event that was such a big part of Jewish tradition, and Paul's Jewish listeners would have understood that connection. Jesus made this same connection in John 3 when he referred to himself being “lifted up.” This would have helped drive home the “faith connection” with those who would argue the need to follow the law.
Paul abruptly shifts gears here. Besides Galatians 1:6-12 (where Paul also at least partly admonishes the Galatians believers for giving in to the Judiazing heresy) most of the material in the first two Chapters of Galatians is directed at refuting the heresy, either through direct argument, or the example of Christ’s transformational power in Paul’s own life. He also places most of the blame for the problem on the Judiazing heretics themselves (Galatians 1:8-9). Chapter 3 continues the argument against the heresy, but the focus has changed. Paul opens Chapter 3 by declaring the Galatians are “foolish, ” and Paul will use his power of persuasion to not so much refute the Judiazers as to convince the Galatians themselves of the depth of their own deception. And isn’t that the best way for the Holy Spirit to win us over? Sometimes, we are convinced when we are show “the fact” about sin – the objective truth. For example, someone who grew up a Mormon can be shown the facts about the life of Joseph Smith, and the truth of how the Book of Mormon was produced, and discover the whole LDS religious system is a fraud. But merely debunking a lie we once believed to be true usually only produces skepticism. We need more than proof that lies are not true; we need convincing in and of ourselves that we need God, and what the truth really is. Otherwise, we’re still “fools.”
The general spiritual condition of the Galatians must have been pretty poor – they obviously had really bought into the lie of the Judiazing heresy. Paul’s use of the word “foolish” here does not mean mental deficiency, but rather implies a lack of perception – a childishness, an irresponsibility. Conditions are so bad, he asks “who has bewitched you?” Obviously, we know who, Paul is referring to the outsiders, the Judiazers. Or is he? Could he mean something deeper? The term here for “bewitched” is literal – it refers to the casting of spells or the concept of the “evil eye.” Paul also references the charismatic gifts in the next few verses. He seems to be suggesting that demonic forces are at the root of this issue. When we consider the broad overview of all these issues, the spiritual warfare implications are pretty obvious. Satan wants us to believe in a works-based theology. He also wants us to believe that ethnicity defines who we are in God. Both are lies from the pit of hell.
“Before your very eyes, Jesus was portrayed as crucified.” Did the Galatians see the crucifixion? Were any of them eyewitnesses to Jesus’ death? While possible (Galatians was written approximately 20 years after the death of Christ), its unlikely. Yet, the Greek word translated as “portrayed” literally mans “to publicly display or placard.” Its like hanging a picture in an art gallery. How was this done “before their very eyes?” Who or what “portrayed Christ as crucified” to the Galatians? All we need to do is go back a few verses to Galatians 2:20. It was Paul! This is "portrayal" in the same sense as an actor portraying a character on stage in such a way as to be totally believable -- we are seeing the "real thing" presented before us. When he explained the concept of being “crucified with Christ” and the miraculous, powerful transformation this brings in our lives, he is writing in the first person. Again, the emphasis is on RELATIONSHIP – the relationship of Jesus with us, of Paul with the Galatians, of the Galatians with each other. It also implies that the faith transformation via Christ’s death and resurrection is achieved on a personal level – in intimacy, not through following a formula or being a particular ethnic background. As an aside, the use of the word “portrayed” also helps direct the argument back on the Judiazers. It recalls the bronze serpent Moses set up for display in Numbers 21:9. The same word that is translated as "portrayed" here would be used to describe that historical event that was such a big part of Jewish tradition, and Paul's Jewish listeners would have understood that connection. Jesus made this same connection in John 3 when he referred to himself being “lifted up.” This would have helped drive home the “faith connection” with those who would argue the need to follow the law.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Galatians Journal: Chapter 2, verse 21
Galatians 2:21 “ I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"
This final verse of Galatians chapter 2 ties up this “argument” section by giving the answer to the proposition Paul made in chapter 2, verse 15 and the question posed in verse 17. Paul’s target audience here is Gentile converts, but he has also got to be speaking to the Judiazers as well – who, by the way, were also believing Christians, as in they had accepted Jesus as their Messiah. This last fact/truth is important for the final answer here to the argument. Paul had started with his criticism of Peter (verses 11-14), for Peter’s hypocrisy -- Peter was by his actions advocating the Judiazer’s position that one needed to follow the law to be acceptable to God, while he himself did not follow the law (see Acts 10:9-44). Paul then points out that despite all this, the law is impossible to fulfill (verses 15-16). He then refutes the concept that an emphasis on faith, rather than the law, leads to immorality (v. 17) by presenting the truth that a living relationship with Jesus transforms us through the power of his death and resurrection. (verses 19-20). Verse 21 brings the argument back to the Jewish Christians. The Jews of Paul’s time generally had a traditional belief in the grace of God. They believed that only if a Jewish person was manifestly disobedient to the law was this favor lost. They were “children of Abraham” – and were saved by the fact of their “ethnic connection,” unless they violated the law in a major way. To be kind, one could argue that the Jewish Christians were simply upholding this tradition when they insisted that Gentiles conform to their own pattern and follow the law. But here, Paul pulls the rug out from under them. The Judiazers believe in grace, but Paul points out that he, or any other Jew, will “will set aside the grace of God” if they rely on the law, or impliedly, rely on ethnic or cultural heritage. Then he plays his logical trump card – if Jesus, as Messiah, knew that righteousness could be obtained on our own strength at any level, they why did he have to die? The whole purpose of Jesus coming into the world (expounded on in verse 20) becomes a nullity. The conclusion guts the very essence of the Judiazer’s position – for if you accept their argument, we should all just become Jewish, and Christianity, and Christ’s sacrifice, is useless.
But this final statement of Chapter 2 does more than simply refute the arguments about the law, but one about ethnicity as well. As I said, the Jews believed that by birth, by heritage, they had a ticket to heaven, that could only be “lost” by gross disobedience. Gentiles traditionally could only get their own ticket by converting to Judaism, and following the law in all its detail. Paul’s final statement/argument shows that Christ leveled the playing field, and Jew and Gentile have equal access to God’s grace exclusively through Christ. If righteousness comes via Christ alone, then ethnicity or culture has no bearing on who we are in God. That issue had been nailed to the cross!
This final verse of Galatians chapter 2 ties up this “argument” section by giving the answer to the proposition Paul made in chapter 2, verse 15 and the question posed in verse 17. Paul’s target audience here is Gentile converts, but he has also got to be speaking to the Judiazers as well – who, by the way, were also believing Christians, as in they had accepted Jesus as their Messiah. This last fact/truth is important for the final answer here to the argument. Paul had started with his criticism of Peter (verses 11-14), for Peter’s hypocrisy -- Peter was by his actions advocating the Judiazer’s position that one needed to follow the law to be acceptable to God, while he himself did not follow the law (see Acts 10:9-44). Paul then points out that despite all this, the law is impossible to fulfill (verses 15-16). He then refutes the concept that an emphasis on faith, rather than the law, leads to immorality (v. 17) by presenting the truth that a living relationship with Jesus transforms us through the power of his death and resurrection. (verses 19-20). Verse 21 brings the argument back to the Jewish Christians. The Jews of Paul’s time generally had a traditional belief in the grace of God. They believed that only if a Jewish person was manifestly disobedient to the law was this favor lost. They were “children of Abraham” – and were saved by the fact of their “ethnic connection,” unless they violated the law in a major way. To be kind, one could argue that the Jewish Christians were simply upholding this tradition when they insisted that Gentiles conform to their own pattern and follow the law. But here, Paul pulls the rug out from under them. The Judiazers believe in grace, but Paul points out that he, or any other Jew, will “will set aside the grace of God” if they rely on the law, or impliedly, rely on ethnic or cultural heritage. Then he plays his logical trump card – if Jesus, as Messiah, knew that righteousness could be obtained on our own strength at any level, they why did he have to die? The whole purpose of Jesus coming into the world (expounded on in verse 20) becomes a nullity. The conclusion guts the very essence of the Judiazer’s position – for if you accept their argument, we should all just become Jewish, and Christianity, and Christ’s sacrifice, is useless.
But this final statement of Chapter 2 does more than simply refute the arguments about the law, but one about ethnicity as well. As I said, the Jews believed that by birth, by heritage, they had a ticket to heaven, that could only be “lost” by gross disobedience. Gentiles traditionally could only get their own ticket by converting to Judaism, and following the law in all its detail. Paul’s final statement/argument shows that Christ leveled the playing field, and Jew and Gentile have equal access to God’s grace exclusively through Christ. If righteousness comes via Christ alone, then ethnicity or culture has no bearing on who we are in God. That issue had been nailed to the cross!
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Galatians Journal: Chapter 2, verse 20
Galatians 2:20: “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”
The Judiazers would have recognized the connection with death and the law’s system of animal sacrifice for atonement. But the Judiazers were also Christians – they had accepted Jesus as the Messiah. Here, Paul makes the ultimate connection with the concept of death. Christ’s crucifixion is the atonement for all sin. His resurrection power conquered death, and set us free and empowers us “to rescue us from the present evil age” (Galatians 1:1& 3). Death and resurrection are the foundation of our faith, and the ongoing theme of our walk with God. In verse 20, on of the most oft quoted verses in Scripture, Paul makes those concepts real and personal. Jesus died for our sins; in our union and relationship with Him, we also die to the law, and die to sin. Jesus rose from the dead; we also are united with Him, but the “me” that rises from the dead is not “me” any longer. I am new – a new creation. The power that drives us, the force that allows us to breathe again – is Jesus living in us. The last sentence of verse 20 states the logical conclusion. The life I live “in the body” that is, my life on earth today, I live by faith in Jesus. This is the reality that refutes verses 17 and 18. The Judiazers central argument was that following the law was necessary in order to live a moral life, pleasing to God. In verse 18, Paul shows that no matter how hard we try to follow the rules, that will not happen. We will fail – guaranteed. But here in verse 20 is the answer! Christ’s death and resurrection!! “I live by faith in the Son of God.” We ourselves die spiritually, and live anew by faith. We are able to live in holiness and sanctification by faith, and the power of Jesus, “who loved me and gave himself for me.” This last phrase may be the most important. Once again, the theme is RELATIONSHIP. The effectiveness of God’s plan is not based on a formula or a set of rules, but on a personal, intimate relationship with God—initiated by Him!! He loves US!! He made the sacrifice! Everything is summed up by this most important RELATIONSHIP with Jesus! That is what delivers us from death, sets us free, and empowers us to live a life of righteousness not on our own strength, but relying completely on God, and His Grace! It is truly, and most indeed truly, “Jesus, only Jesus!” “Jesus, all for Jesus!”
The Judiazers would have recognized the connection with death and the law’s system of animal sacrifice for atonement. But the Judiazers were also Christians – they had accepted Jesus as the Messiah. Here, Paul makes the ultimate connection with the concept of death. Christ’s crucifixion is the atonement for all sin. His resurrection power conquered death, and set us free and empowers us “to rescue us from the present evil age” (Galatians 1:1& 3). Death and resurrection are the foundation of our faith, and the ongoing theme of our walk with God. In verse 20, on of the most oft quoted verses in Scripture, Paul makes those concepts real and personal. Jesus died for our sins; in our union and relationship with Him, we also die to the law, and die to sin. Jesus rose from the dead; we also are united with Him, but the “me” that rises from the dead is not “me” any longer. I am new – a new creation. The power that drives us, the force that allows us to breathe again – is Jesus living in us. The last sentence of verse 20 states the logical conclusion. The life I live “in the body” that is, my life on earth today, I live by faith in Jesus. This is the reality that refutes verses 17 and 18. The Judiazers central argument was that following the law was necessary in order to live a moral life, pleasing to God. In verse 18, Paul shows that no matter how hard we try to follow the rules, that will not happen. We will fail – guaranteed. But here in verse 20 is the answer! Christ’s death and resurrection!! “I live by faith in the Son of God.” We ourselves die spiritually, and live anew by faith. We are able to live in holiness and sanctification by faith, and the power of Jesus, “who loved me and gave himself for me.” This last phrase may be the most important. Once again, the theme is RELATIONSHIP. The effectiveness of God’s plan is not based on a formula or a set of rules, but on a personal, intimate relationship with God—initiated by Him!! He loves US!! He made the sacrifice! Everything is summed up by this most important RELATIONSHIP with Jesus! That is what delivers us from death, sets us free, and empowers us to live a life of righteousness not on our own strength, but relying completely on God, and His Grace! It is truly, and most indeed truly, “Jesus, only Jesus!” “Jesus, all for Jesus!”
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Galatians Journal: Chapter 2, verse 19
Galatians 2:19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.”
Paul now introduces the concept of "death" to the argument. He expounds on this more in Romans 7, where he uses marriage as the vehicle to explain – we are married to our spouse until they die, then we are free to re-marry. We must die to the law so that we can be free of it. The Law itself required a death, in the Temple’s sacrificial system, and the Judiazers would have focused on that concept.
“Through the law, I died to the law” Verses 17 and 18 make it clear that a person cannot himself fulfill the law – the implication here in verse 19 that trying to fulfill the law on our own strength leads to death. But once we are dead to the one concept-- like the concept of the death of a spouse as explained in Romans 7 -- we are free to live for the other “so that [we] might live for God.”
Paul now introduces the concept of "death" to the argument. He expounds on this more in Romans 7, where he uses marriage as the vehicle to explain – we are married to our spouse until they die, then we are free to re-marry. We must die to the law so that we can be free of it. The Law itself required a death, in the Temple’s sacrificial system, and the Judiazers would have focused on that concept.
“Through the law, I died to the law” Verses 17 and 18 make it clear that a person cannot himself fulfill the law – the implication here in verse 19 that trying to fulfill the law on our own strength leads to death. But once we are dead to the one concept-- like the concept of the death of a spouse as explained in Romans 7 -- we are free to live for the other “so that [we] might live for God.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
