Galatians 2:6-10 – The Right Loaves and Fishes

As usual, here is my fairly literal translation of these verses:

⁶But from ones seeming to be something -- what they were makes no difference to me; God is not receiving a face of man – for the ones seeming [important]added nothing to me ⁷but, on the contrary, seeing I had been entrusted [with] the Gospel of uncircumcision just as Peter of the circumcision, ⁸(for the One energizing Peter into apostleship of the circumcision also energizes me into the Gentiles), ⁹and knowing the grace which was given to me, James and Cephas and John, the ones seeming to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas a right hand of fellowship that we [might go] to the Gentiles but they to the circumcision; ¹⁰only [asking] that we might [continually] remember the [very] poor ones, which was also the very thing I was eager to do.

A couple thoughts. First, this passage doesn’t help me much with my question from the last post. If anything, it’s worse. Clearly, Paul and the Apostles did in fact make a major distinction between the Jewish and Gentile Christians. Once again that doesn’t make sense to me theologically. I understand that it would be difficult for the Jewish people to completely embrace the reality that all of their national customs were no longer essential. And once again, one can make the argument that, out of love for them, one should not push hard for those changes. BUT, still, the very fact that the distinction was allowed to continue certainly left the door wide open for the legalists. I don’t know. I still just don’t understand.

There is also something interesting to note in this section of Scripture. Paul’s grammar is usually pretty logical and fairly easy to diagram grammatically. Not in this section. In the Greek text it is obvious that he is throwing down thoughts on paper actually faster than he can think them. Eadie notes, “The anakolouthon is the result of mental hurry, the main thought and subordinate ideas struggling for all but simultaneous utterance …” Paul is definitely very passionate about what he is saying. Which leads to my next thought.

As I have mentioned before, I think it very important to note that, at the heart of all Paul’s arguments here is the monumentally important issue of Truth. The legalists’ question of whether or not Paul was really, fully an apostle is not an assault on him, but on the very office of apostleship, which then bears directly on the whole matter of Truth.

Calvin notes that some “accuse the holy man of pride, because he claims so much for himself that he cannot endure to learn anything from others; because he boasts of having become a teacher without any instruction or assistance, and because he labors so hard not to appear in an inferior character.” I have, in fact, known exactly such people in my life – men who loved to assert that they learned from no one but the Lord. They were full of pride. But Paul was not.

Paul’s defense is extremely important – that his was apostolic truth – truth he did not “learn” but received directly from the Lord Himself. What is at issue is truth itself. Biblical truth must come directly from God. It must be true that “holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” It must be strictly and purely true, “Thus saith the Lord.” The Bible is and must be the very fountain of truth, not a stream thereof. Since the prophets and apostles, every teacher and preacher goes to the fountain, attempts to learn and understand what was written, then to pass on to others the truth he has understood. However, his understanding is innately formative and subject to error, his transmission of it is subject to error, and people’s reception and understanding of his teaching is subject to error, not to mention the liability of their (often poor) memories. Were one generation to orally pass the teaching on to the next, the truth itself would be inevitably and hopelessly lost. However, in the Bible we may always return to The Fountain itself. The noble Bereans listened carefully then went back “and searched the Scriptures to see if these things were so.” The Bible itself is and must be absolute truth; not truth as someone has understood it. It must have come undiluted from the mind and mouth of God Himself. Prophetic and Apostolic teaching differed in this way from all subsequent teaching. And this explains why Paul is going to such great lengths to assert that he absolutely did not receive his teaching even from the apostles themselves. It is why he even seems diminutive or disparaging toward them. It is essential to understand that when he spoke and when he wrote, he did so as an apostle himself – as one whose’ teaching is directly from The Fountain, directly from the Lord. What he spoke and wrote was not just truth but original, undiluted, inerrant, absolute truth.

If I may inject here: I am a scientist, an engineer. The very heart of my profession is truth, scientific “facts.” We study physics and chemistry and microbiology and try to unlock the “laws” of the universe. When we think we’ve grasped them, we call it “empirical” truth and we then set out to design things based on those laws, those truths. However, any honest scientist or engineer will admit that everything we do is subject to improvement. Our “truth” is never quite settled. It’s empirical. It’s based on observations and even our most fundamental “laws” we hold loosely. What is unfortunate in our world is that people see no difference between scientific “truth” and spiritual Truth. If my scientific “truth” is not quite correct it may or may not make any difference at all. To err in spiritual truth will, at minimum, make me mildly dysfunctional; at worst it may cost me my soul for all eternity.

All of this explains why Paul is almost frantic in the defense of his apostleship and of his gospel. The Galatians think that just because someone comes along and teaches something more appealing, they can just disregard Paul’s teaching and embrace the new. They (not Paul) are missing the whole point. You can hang your soul on Paul’s teaching because it came from The Fountain. Now if someone differs from him, it is them, not him, who is in error – and the worst kind of error: spiritual error.

Pilate’s question: “What is truth?” was far more profound than he could have known. It is THE question. Our world is crumbling around us, families are crumbling, businesses are crumbling, the government is crumbling, religion is crumbling in our modern day famine of truth. Not because it isn’t there, but because few care. Lord help us to care. Help us build our lives on Your absolute truth. I can’t change the world, but I can change me. And I can be a vessel that tries to live truth and offer it in love to others. May the Lord see fit to bless our few loaves and fishes, break them, and multiply them to the blessing of our generation. Lord help us.

Galatians 2:3-5 – Coddling Legalizers or Not?

As usual, here is my fairly literal translation of these verses:

³But not even Titus, who [was] with me, being Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. ⁴But [it was] because of the false brothers stealthily introduced, who snuck in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, in order that they might enslave us, ⁵to whom we did not yield in submission not even an hour that the truth of the Gospel might remain with you.

                                         

Paul was presenting his ministry to the elders at Jerusalem. Jews had gone to Antioch and told the Gentile believers, “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). Then at some point in Paul’s presentation, “… some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, ‘The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the Law of Moses’” (Acts 15:5).

Paul of course resisted them and holds up Titus as an example of a Gentile believer who in fact was not compelled to be circumcised. The very apostles themselves in Jerusalem did not require Titus, being a Gentile, to be circumcised. Peter responded to the Judaizers, “Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are”(Acts 15:10).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

You’d think that would have ended the whole discussion.

But it clearly did not.

Why not?

Here is something I definitely do not understand: What about the Jewish Christians? The case is clearly made that the Gentile believers were not bound to keep the Law. And theologically I would think the same was true of the Jews. But note some things:

Following Peter’s response and further discussion, the Apostles and elders, sent a message, “To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings, We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said” (v24). Notice it is specifically written to “the Gentile believers in Antioch, …” What about the Jewish believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, … and everywhere else for that matter? Were they required to keep the Law or not? Why is the letter only addressed to the Gentile believers? Why wasn’t it simply addressed to the church? What if I was a Jewish Christian sitting in the church at Antioch, listening to the letter as it was read to the congregation? What would it be telling me? I would be thinking, “It sounds like the Gentiles are getting off easy, but apparently the message doesn’t apply to me, since I’m a Jew.” That doesn’t make sense to me.

Later in Acts 21, when Paul returned to Jerusalem, the Apostles and elders told him, “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the Law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs … so do what we tell you … then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the Law. As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision …” (vv20-25).

First of all, I thought that was exactly what Paul did teach … that Christ is “the end of the Law to all who believe,” that there is now “neither Jew, nor Greek … but Christ is all in all.” And why again, did the Apostles and elders specifically distinguish, “As for the Gentile believers …” It would seem to me that they clearly held different standards for the Gentiles as compared to Jews. Secondly, I read, “…and all of them are zealous for the Law” and I think to myself, “That was wrong. Rather than coddling the Judaizers, they should have been confronting the error. Then my mind goes on to think, “No wonder, the Judaizers maintained such a presence in the early church, if the distinction between Jewish and Gentile believers was actually made, if the Jewish Christians were living according to the Law and right beside them in the pew sat a Gentile who did not.

Hmmmmmmm. Clearly I don’t understand something. Based on my way of thinking, the Apostles and elders were wrong. (Which is a sure indication I’m wrong!) In my mind they were coddling the legalists when they should have been confronting them. Even in Galatians, in 2:11-14, we read Paul’s famous confrontation with Peter where it says,

“Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?”

“…he was clearly in the wrong,” “because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group,” “And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him …” Clearly there was some kind of ambivalence going on, where the Jewish Christians (including Peter) normally lived with an element of liberty and then, all of a sudden the legalists show up, and the Jewish believers (including  Peter) suddenly have to abide by the Jewish laws and customs.

Which was it? Did they or did they not have to live by the law?

It seems to me, had the letters been written to the church in general (both Jews and Greeks), had the apostles and elders taken a very clear position that Jew and Gentile alike were no longer bound by the Law, it would have silenced the Judaizers. But because they did not make such a clear statement, it left the church in a state of confusion and easy prey to the Judaizers.

Let me say again obviously I’m wrong. Obviously there is something here I don’t understand. But, in my humble opinion, one of the best ways to uncover my error is to spell it out, state it as clearly as I know how, then sit back, pray, study some more, and hope the Lord opens my eyes. Whenever this happens, of course what I learn is usually monumental.

Finally let me say that these questions are not simply theological conundrums to me. I feel that legalism is one of the worst curses of the church still today. For years I have heard the Romans 14,15 argument that we need to “not offend” those people, that we need to deal gently with them in love, etc. However, the problem with that approach is the same confusion I think I see in the early church. Too much gets done and said because like Peter leaders are “afraid of those who belong to the circumcision group,” because they’re afraid of the rule-keepers. Like the Judaizers, the rule-keepers of today are very vocal and very demanding and very persuasive. Their “standards” and arguments unfortunately are very appealing to the legalistic twist in everyone’s heart. When the leadership doesn’t clearly renounce those errors, people in the pews are left confused as to what is really true. And so legalism continues to run rampant, sowing its toxic venom throughout the church.

Again, that is my take on it all. Obviously somewhere in the middle of it all, I’m missing something. I’m quite sure the Apostles and elders weren’t wrong. But I don’t see it. So … looks like it’s time for another Habakkuk. I’ll “stand at my watch and see what the Lord will show me.”

Galatians 2:1,2 – Guarding Truth

As usual, here is my fairly literal translation of these verses:

¹Afterward, through fourteen years, I went up again into Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking along Titus also; ²but I went up according to a revelation and I presented the Gospel which I am preaching among the Gentiles to them privately but to ones seeming [important] lest I should be running or had run into emptiness.

Paul is still asserting here his apostolic authority. I see no reason to connect these statements with anything but Luke’s account in Acts 15, where certain men had gone to the Gentile churches and insisted that they too must abide by the OT law (in this case, the rite of circumcision in particular) if they were to be saved (Acts 15:1).  I know there is a lot of scholarly debate whether Paul is here referring to the Acts 15 events or not. For whatever it’s worth, I personally think the simplest explanation is usually the best. I don’t think God wrote the Bible to confuse us. On the other hand it is good to ask the questions, to take the time and wonder, to compare, to think. It’s just, when it’s all said and done, the simplest is usually the best, so I would go with Acts 15. To do so gives some background to what Paul is saying here.

Also, for whatever it’s worth, there is an interesting little Greek idiom in the “afterward, through …” I’ve tried to be literal in my translation, but obviously it doesn’t translate well into English. It actually does mean “at the end of,” as is usually the translation, but the words literally are “afterward, through …” What is interesting is that in Deut 9:11, it says something like, “At the end of the forty days and forty nights, Moses …” In Hebrew it is definitely, “from the end of.” No question. But the Greek translation in the Septuagint is identical to ours here in Galatians 2:1. So when the Jewish scholars translated from the Hebrew OT into Greek, they chose the very idiom we find in Galatians 2:1, even though in their language it didn’t translate any better than ours.  Here’s a case where Hebrew pretty much translates word for word to English but the Greek does not. Fortunately we have the three languages falling in one place to confirm our meaning. Interesting.

In the passage, Paul continues to assert his independence from and equality with the other apostles. First of all, he did not go to Jerusalem in any hurry. It was 14 years, whether after his conversion or after his earlier visit with Peter and James. Second of all, he did not go because they summoned him. He went “according to a revelation.” It was (again) the Lord Himself who sent Paul. In Acts 15:3, it specifically says the church sent him, but I have no problem with the Lord first calling Paul there, then his local church “commissioning” him to go.

And when he arrived, he presented to them the details of “the gospel which I am preaching among the Gentiles.” Here is a point where I’m offering my opinion, but I think Paul clearly was not presenting his Gospel to obtain the apostles’ approval. I think rather he was keenly aware of the importance of unity among the apostolic messengers. It is bad enough today when people hear one thing from one preacher then the complete opposite from another. It has caused widespread confusion. But what was at stake then was the apostolic message itself. There were not two versions. I think that is what Paul means by fearing he was running or had run in vain. If there was dissension among the apostles themselves, there would be irreparable confusion among the churches. The very Galatians to whom he’s writing were case-in-point. Someone came along and said basically, “Paul’s message is different from the other apostles.” And though they had embraced salvation by grace originally, such an argument threw them into a complete spiritual tail-spin. Such would be the result all over Asia and Europe if the legalists’ message were in any way endorsed by the other apostles.

Of course the other apostles did clearly express their complete unity with Paul and clearly renounced the legalists’ error. But it was bigger than that. What they confirmed was that the apostolic message was clear and unified.

Unfortunately that didn’t stop the legalists from continuing to peddle their toxin in every church where they could gain a hearing. They obviously made it into Galatia, and though the very issue had been addressed, yet their presentation of their legalistic teachings still effectively deceived the Galatians.

All of this leads me to a number of thoughts, at least one of which I’ll record here: It is very true that the message of the church needs to be consistent. I don’t suppose anyone reading this isn’t heart-broken to think of the horrid confusion that exists when every church in town preaches a different message. It’s no wonder, to some extent, why believers are so immature and why unbelievers see the church as just another smorgasbord of competing truth-systems. Some of that is due of course to satan and his minions deliberately sowing confusion. However, we of course can’t “stop” him. May I offer an opinion of what I think we’re doing to contribute? I personally think there is way too much said that does not come clearly, undeniably from the rightly divided Scriptures themselves. I have said before that I honestly try as I’m studying to clearly determine, based on the text, what God clearly says and what He clearly does not say. When I step out into life, then, the only “authority” I have to speak on God’s behalf is to say clearly what He says and clearly what He does not say. Unfortunately, I haven’t always been that careful. It took years to see the things I was holding as “truth” which had no clear Biblical support. And now, looking back, it is clear to me that every time I was careful to say what God said, I can still stand on those same truths today. But again and again, I look back to times when I even knew I was (at best) on thin ice exegetically and now today it grieves me to think of things I taught which were not Biblical. Anyone hearing those things would have to then make like a Berean, search the Scriptures, see that those things were NOT so, and disregard them. How much more beneficial it would have been to have just carefully stuck to the plain simple Bible? Big regret for me. But that is part of why I am determined today to not only study the Bible but also to try the best I can to put together a life that is based entirely on it. If all believers would genuinely study the Scriptures and strive to stand on what the Bible clearly does and does not say, if our “dialogue” was sincerely based on the rightly divided text itself, and if we were all driven like Paul to keep a unified message before the world, I don’t think there would have to be the confusion that exists. If our people truly held in their hands the Sword of the Spirit and not all the plastic imitations, they would certainly be better able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

One other thought and just an observation: It is interesting that Paul had the wisdom to first present his message to the apostles privately. And here I am just throwing out an observation which may or may not be of merit, but I would suggest there is great wisdom in presenting controversial positions to as small a group of leaders as possible. If such a group can emerge unified, it of course will go a long way toward pacifying people’s tendency to go berserk in public meetings. Just a thought. Sometimes I think our idea of democracy can end up applied in very unwise, naïve ways. Just a thought.

Truth is a delicate thing. It is true, but its truth takes a lot of guarding.

Interesting.

Galatians 1:20-24 – Of God and the Impossible

As usual, here is my fairly literal translation of these verses:

²⁰But the things I am writing to you, behold that before God I am not lying. ²¹Afterwards I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, ²²but I was being an unknown one by face to the churches of Judea [which are] in Christ, ²³but they were hearing only that the one once persecuting us is now preaching the faith he once was destroying, ²⁴and they were glorifying God in me.

Once again, Paul is in the middle of a rather protracted defense of his ministry. However, as I have said before, I have no problem simply observing the man himself, what he does, what he says, what he believes, and learning from him. The Bible is in fact a book of truth propositions but I believe we can say it is above all else a book of discipleship. Its very purpose is that we might think God’s thoughts and be like Him. Our Great Commission is to “Be fruitful and multiply,” to reproduce ourselves and that not only in child-bearing but in every possible way. From one perspective, the very essence of human existence is reproduction. Hence we can read the Bible not only to unlock its propositions of truth but also to simply observe the people involved and to learn ourselves as we observe them. He who walks with the wise, will be wise.

Here’s what strikes me most as I read Paul’s words: Our God is in fact the God of the impossible.

Before I explain, let me say I definitely need this reminder and I rather suspect everyone else does too. Our God is the God of the impossible. David prayed,

Listen to my cry, for I am in desperate need;

Rescue me from those who pursue me,

      for they are too strong for me.

Set me free from my prison,

      that I may praise Your name.     (Psalm 142:6,7).

David was a very wealthy, powerful king who had enjoyed miraculous deliverances from the Lord. Yet even he found himself living in a world beyond himself. Even he could be in “desperate need,” could find himself facing threats “too strong for me,” and feeling that his troubles were like a “prison.”

We live in a world beset by the impossible.

I’m not just “in need.” I’m in “desperate need.”

I am not just facing difficult issues. No, they’re not just difficult, they’re “too strong for me.”

And I’m not sitting here looking at some difficult path for how I can work my way out of all this. If the path was only difficult, I could handle that. No, it’s not just difficult, I’m “in prison.” I see no way out. In so many ways, I can look out through the barred window; I can see all the places I want to go, all the things I want to do, all the things I should do, all the things I wish I could somehow make different. But I find myself utterly unable to even contribute toward those changes. I doubt that I’m unique. I am reasonably sure that anyone reading this feels exactly the same way.

So what do we all do? Try harder? I already tried hard. I am trying hard. That’s the problem. It’s simply not enough. I’m tired. I don’t see any light at the end of the tunnel. I could offer a long list of my own personal troubles. But then add to that our national scene. The bozo’s in Washington are systematically destroying my beloved country. I seriously don’t know if there is any hope. I fear it has simply gone too far. What can I do? I already voted. I already wrote my congressman. Basically, it is all beyond me. Their gross incompetence (and I fear malicious intent in certain very high offices) are “too strong for me.” They leave my world fearful and in “desperate need.” I wish I could charter a Mayflower and sail to the new world, but I cannot. I’m imprisoned in their stupidity.

Gack. I’d better move on before I go look for a 7^th floor window somewhere.

What do we need? I suggest the only real answer is a God of the impossible.

And this is the good news we all need: The God of the Bible, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is no other than the God of the impossible.

Back to our passage, Saul of Tarsus was not only a mean, cruel man. He was a mean, cruel man with power. He said, “On the authority of the chief priests, I put many of the saints in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them” (Acts 26:10). He says, “I was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth … in my obsession against them, I even went to foreign cities to persecute them.” (Acts 26:9-11). Those early Christians lived like hunted animals while Saul “breathed out threatenings and murder” (Acts 9:1) against them.

What would you think in that situation? What if I suggested you pray for the man, that God would change his heart? I can imagine in fact praying exactly that prayer, yet realizing in my heart what I was asking for was a miracle. It’s not likely to happen, though I pray and pray and beg God for deliverance.

But it did happen.

The impossible happened.

“… the one once persecuting us is now preaching the faith he once was destroying, …”

“ … and they were glorifying God in me.”

Saul of Tarsus became Paul the Apostle.

That’s impossible.

Yup.

Our God is the God of the impossible.

We “ought always to pray and not give up.”

“… strengthen the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees …”

Get our gaze once again “fixed on Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith.”

“Is anything too hard for Me?”

“O ye of little faith.”

In my life and I hope in yours, may we all pray together, “Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen” (Eph 3:20,21).

Let us today cast our hearts and our fates on our God of the impossible. May He give us the grace that whether threatened or not, whether overwhelmed or not, we should genuinely love everyone He brings in our life, that we should sincerely try to be faithful to all that we should be. May we in fact see Him today work the impossible on our behalf, and where He in His wisdom chooses not to, may He give us the faith to keep on.

Our God is the God of the impossible.

Galatians 1:18, 19 – On Being Factual

 As always, here’s my fairly literal translation of this passage:

¹⁸Then, after three years, I went up into Jerusalem to inquire of Cephas and remained with him fifteen days ¹⁹but I did not see other of the apostles except James the brother of the Lord.

Once again, I am aware that Paul is making a point here. I intend to pull it all together and consider his point. However, on the way there I have no problem whatsoever observing the man and learning what I can simply watching him. “He who walks with wise men will be wise.”

That said, notice a little thing Paul does. Notice how he is reporting the facts of his visit to Jerusalem, emphasizing he had little initial contact with the other apostles. To that end he says, “I did not see other of the apostles” but then adds “except James the brother of the Lord.”

Paul was always careful to be factual when recounting details. I remember in I Corinthians 1:14-16: ^“I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)”

Notice he’s doing the same thing as in our passage. He makes a statement of fact to support his point, but he is also very careful to make sure what he reports is factual: “I didn’t baptize anyone except Crispus and Gaius … well, oh yes, there was also the household of Stephanus … beyond that I don’t remember anyone …” His point being made was that baptism wasn’t an important part of Paul’s ministry to the Corinthians. “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (v.17). But in making that point, notice how he is careful of his “facts.”

One of the advantages of telling the truth is you don’t have to remember what you said or who you said it to. You just speak the truth to whomever you’re speaking to the best of your knowledge. Over the years, memory may jumble facts but it’s good when you’ve sincerely tried to be factual. It is easy when speaking to conveniently “leave out” certain details which might “distract” from our point. It’s also easy to embellish the truth “just a little” to make it more “colorful.” But we do so at the peril of our own integrity.

I believe this matter of being carefully and deliberately factual is a fundamental issue of our integrity and not something to be taken lightly. Paul didn’t take it lightly. He was personally, internally motivated to make sure that what came out of his mouth was truth.

Here we are back to the issue of truth. Truth is such an important thing. We constantly make decisions based on what we perceive to be (or want to be) the truth. What is at stake in our present discussion is the “facts” we give each other. We all depend not only on our own perceptions of truth, but then we have to depend on others around us. We actually depend to one extent or another on other people telling us the truth, that they accurately relate facts, that they mean what they say. And when we don’t, one way or another we mess up everyone else. When we say, “I’ll be there at 5:00,” or “I’ll take care of that for you,” or “Here’s what I’ll charge you/ pay you to do that,” etc., others make decisions based on those statements. When we simply don’t do what we said then we mess up their plans, perhaps making it difficult for them to keep their promises. It simply is very important for all of us to realize it is of utmost importance that what comes out of our mouth is truth.

Paul was careful to be factual. We should be too.

Galatians 1:15-17 – “But when God …”

As always, here’s my fairly literal translation of this passage:

¹⁵But when God, the One setting me apart out of my mother’s womb and calling [me] through His grace, was pleased ¹⁶to reveal His Son in me in order that I might be preaching Him among the Gentiles, I immediately did not confer with flesh and blood ¹⁷neither went up into Jerusalem toward those [who were] apostles before me, but I departed into Arabia and returned again into Damascus.

As I am studying these verses, there is an enormously important issue at stake, that being the entire matter of apostolic authority. I am tempted to jot down some thoughts on the subject but I might wait until I’m further into the text.

For today, indulge me a moment to pause on those opening words, “But when God …”

Many, many times in my earthly existence, those words have been my strength and stay: “But when God …”

I often think, “and it’s a good thing …!”

Praise God that He intervenes in the cobbled up mess of our human bunglings!

I am constantly amazed how He has in the past and continues to intervene in my life. My wife and I are quite sure we’d both be dead today if He hadn’t stepped into our lives in college. There are just so, so, so many ways I have set myself on completely the wrong course, thinking I was doing the right thing, only to have the Lord somehow intervene and rescue me before I [completely] crashed and burned. “But when God …”

It’s just one more reason why we all desperately need Him in our life. I seem to have an infinite propensity for bad decisions. And I live in a malevolent world where the very air itself is trying to kill me. Washington is cruising on a path of national complete self-destruction. If it’s “up to me” basically I’m dead. I desperately need a God Who’s bigger than it all, Who’s committed to my good, and Who will intervene and rescue me whether it’s me or the world or Washington or satan’s demonic hosts trying to kill me. My wife needs that kind of God. My kids need that kind of God. We all need that kind of God. The good news is that our God’s name is Jesus “for He shall save His people from their sins.” His very name means “savior,” “deliverer.”

Good thing. Someone once said, “It be our wisdom to trace our every good gift back to God’s benevolent heart.”

And one more thing. I realize I’m seriously extrapolating from the text, but notice that the Lord’s interest in Paul didn’t start one sunny day as he was traveling to Damascus. He refers to the Lord as “the One setting me apart out of my mother’s womb.” All of us are seriously indebted to the One Who has actually been watching out for our good since our very conception. Of course we could extrapolate even that back to “eternity past,” “since the world began,” “before the foundation of the world …” Point is that we are no “lately” thought in God’s heart. He said to Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you and ordained you to be a prophet …” (1:5).

There was clearly a time when the Lord “called” Paul “by His grace.” But He had set him apart from his mother’s womb. So with us. Calvin said, “…He is said to separate us from the womb, because the design of our being sent into the world is that He may accomplish in us what He has decreed. The calling is delayed till its proper time, …”

This is a truth on which I nurse to maintain my sanity. Again, I have made so, so, so many bad decisions in my life. There is so, so, so much I would go back and change if only I could. So many things I wish could have been so different. On the one hand I fully realize I am responsible for my every bad decision. There is a sense in which I am simply suffering the consequences of those bad decisions. It is my fault. Yet … just before I go find a seventh floor window somewhere, I can sincerely comfort myself with the thought that God has allowed it all. Even my bad decisions. Jesus warned Peter he was going to fall. “Satan has desired to sift you.” He knew he would fail. He encouraged him to succeed, “Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation.” Yet what He told him was, “but when you’re restored, strengthen the brethren.” Next to Judas Iscariot, Peter’s failure probably goes down in history as one of the worst. Judas hanged himself. Peter got up and changed the world. The Lord took his “bad decision” and used it to finally purge out Peter’s pride, to make him a genuinely humble man, a man who no longer constantly self-destructed putting himself forward. And so it is with each of us. He has very carefully allowed even our failures and the failures of others who have influenced us. When we survey it all, we can do like Judas and hang ourselves or like Peter and learn from our failures, be better for what we learned, and let God use the “us” we are today. He’s been in charge all along. We are where we are today, we are who we are today, because of a good God.

Left to ourselves, we’ve all proven again and again our fetish for self-destruction.

“But when God …”

Galatians 1:13,14 – Considering What We're About

As always, here’s my fairly literal translation of this passage:

¹³For you heard [about] my former lifestyle in Judaism, that I was excessively persecuting the church of God and destroying it, ¹⁴and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many ones of the same age in my race, being exceedingly a zealot of my ancestral traditions.

Obviously, Paul’s point is to emphasize that he is not in any way unfamiliar with Jewish traditions. His repudiation of them in the Gospel is no way rooted in ignorance of them. As Luther observed Paul saying: “I have,” he says, “at one time defended the traditions of the Pharisees more fiercely than any of your false apostles. Now, if the righteousness of the Law had been worth anything I would never have forsaken it”.

Looking at this verse actually reminds me of three things:

1. Zeal is a delicate thing. Notice it says of Paul that he was “excessively” persecuting the church” and he was “advancing in Judaism beyond many” and he was “exceedingly” a zealot for his ancestral traditions. Paul was a zealous person. But, as it says in Prov 19:2, “It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way.” Paul observes of the Jews (like himself) in   Rom 10:2: “For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge”. Zeal is, of course, in itself a good thing. God made us to work and to work hard. It is good to “throw oneself” at a task. “Whatever you do, do it with your whole heart …” Col 3:23. The problem in a sinful world is that we have the freedom to be zealous for anything, good, bad, or indifferent. We should be zealous but we need to be careful what we’re zealous of. That is one way I think parents can help their children, by helping them think through what they’re throwing their energy at. They can, of course, be so easily enamored by things that are wrong, or simply unimportant, but they’ll be far better off to pursue things of value. I suppose it’s even incumbent on all of us who are “older” to try to guide the “younger” to channel their energies into things that will really matter, whether at work, at church, in our extended families, in chance encounters, whatever, we should sincerely try to help young people channel their zeal in valuable directions. Zeal is a very good thing but it is also a delicate thing. “It takes a steady hand to carry a full cup.”

2. Our strengths are also our weaknesses. Interesting, Paul says, “You heard about my lifestyle …” My lifestyle. Paul wasn’t just occasionally zealous about something. It was his lifestyle. It was one of the strengths of his character that whatever he did, he did it with uncommon energy. Occasionally we all know someone like that, someone seeming to have an endless reserve of energy. Whatever they do, they go at it passionately, whether a job assignment, a competitive game, a new hobby, whatever. It is a strength that some people possess. Unfortunately, that same strength becomes their weakness when it gets channeled in a bad direction or used in selfish or inconsiderate ways. Martin Luther was another person like that. He said of himself: “I too may say that before I was enlightened by the Gospel, I was as zealous for the papistical laws and traditions of the fathers as ever a man was. I tried hard to live up to every law as best I could. I punished myself with fasting, watching, praying, and other exercises more than all those who today hate and persecute me. I was so much in earnest that I imposed upon my body more than it could stand. I honored the pope as a matter of conscience. Whatever I did, I did with a single heart to the glory of God.” Before he met the Lord, he was a zealous person, but that zeal was misdirected into a cruel asceticism. But when that same zeal got aimed toward the Lord, Luther became the “morning star of the Protestant Reformation.” It was true of Paul, it was true of Luther, and it is true of us: our strengths are our weaknesses; and our greatest strengths are also our greatest weaknesses. Realizing this, it is very important that we consciously sanctify our strengths.

3. Legalism makes people persecutors. It’s interesting that, before meeting Christ, Paul was “being exceedingly a zealot of my ancestral traditions.” He says in Phil 3:5 he was “…a Hebrew of Hebrews, in regard to the Law a Pharisee.” In today’s language we would say he was a howling legalist. A keeper of the rules. And what did it make him? Did it make him gracious and kind? No. It made him a vicious persecutor. The same was obviously true of the rest of the Pharisees of his day. They were a pompous, immoral, self-righteous, critical, hateful, cruel bunch of people who persecuted anyone who deviated from their rules. They even murdered the Messiah Himself because He didn’t keep their rules. (He had a little talk with them one day in Matthew 23. Everyone should read it some time.) I hope anyone reading this can see exactly where I’m going. It is my definite conclusion that still today legalism makes people persecutors. Paul will go on later in this same book to tell us that a real relationship with God, a real knowledge of Grace, will make us gracious – the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, … As far as I can see it has always been and always will be a pitfall of the church to fall into legalism. Obviously it was happening in Galatia. And obviously it is excessively common today. And how does it affect people? It turns them into vicious Pharisees. I believe that is a major reason why the face of Christianity is clearly not love but rather cruel, judgmental, rule keeping and the forcing of those rules on everyone else. Legalists are incapable of communicating grace because there’s none of it in their own hearts. I could go on and on about the subject but I’ll conclude by saying what I see is that even supposedly born-again people who allow legalism in their hearts become persecutors. To whatever extent they allow legalism, to that extent they become cruel rule-keepers. If they are a little legalistic, they’ll be a little a mean Pharisee. If they are very legalistic, they become monsters who may impress themselves and each other, but, like Paul, a tool not of God but the devil. It is incumbent on everyone who names the name of Christ to resist every possible intrusion of legalism and instead to cultivate a genuine grace relationship with Christ. That and that alone will make us gracious people. That and that alone will make us like Jesus.

I seriously could write on for hours on the three points above. When it comes to “what we’re about,” each one is monumentally important, I feel. God help me to be zealous for good things and encourage others (especially young people) the same. God help me to realize how much my strengths must be sanctified, lest they express themselves as weaknesses. And God help me fill my heart with the grace of knowing Him. May my heart truly be so filled with grace that it simply has no room for legalism and all its cruelty. In my tiny corner of the world, may the face of my faith be really truly Jesus.

Galatians 1:11,12 – The Delicate Issue of Truth

As always, here’s my fairly literal translation of this passage:

¹¹For  I make  known to you, brothers, that the Gospel preached by me is not according to man, ¹²for I neither received it nor was taught [it] from a man but through a revelation of Jesus Christ..

This passage, once again, reminds me of the importance of Truth. Obviously, as all commentators note, Paul’s opponents apparently proffered the argument that his teaching of the Gospel was not as authoritative as that of the apostles who actually learned it from Christ. “The truth he taught you,” they imply, “is not true truth.”

Interestingly, Peter engaged in the same kind of emphasis in II Peter 1:16-19: “We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, …  And we have the more sure word of prophecy; to which you do well to take heed, as to a light shining in a dark place,…”    

“Truth” is a very delicate thing. What both Paul and Peter are dealing with is the problem that people must discern for themselves what is “truth;” and that they must do so while barraged by messages from a million different angles (and motives). Pilate scoffed, “What is truth?" as he looked Truth in the face and turned away. What is truth? What is true? In a sense we are all locked continually in a battle to discern what is truth? On the relational plane we must discern whether people are “telling us the truth,” whether it be at home, at work, at the grocery store, etc. And on the much larger plane, we must discern what is “truth” in the religious world or should I say in the world of values and motives and our entire “world-view.”

(I suppose I have to interject the people who want to say there is no truth. That mentality is a huge problem today but I will choose to ignore it here. I’ll just say it is as absurd as the fact that the very statement itself is a statement of truth. They want us to believe it is true that there is no truth. Absurdly illogical.)

See what is at stake here for the Galatians. If what Paul says is truth, then they should hang their eternal destiny entirely on grace. If what the others are saying is true, then they also need to include the practices of Judaism in their lifestyle. Heaven and hell hang in the balance. Yes? Yes. Each individual Galatian must make a choice. What is the truth? … and then order their life accordingly. And realize their choice is of eternal consequence. Such is our life every day.

Hmmmmmm. Since this is my blog, indulge me to meander a moment. Truth is very important to me. I don’t know if that is somehow my nature and/or the fact that I am an engineer. (The field of engineering is based on applied science – figuring out the truth of why things do what they do, harnessing that knowledge, and using it to solve problems). It may also be due to some extent to the fact that early in my life I read Francis Schaffer’s book, “How Shall We Then Live?” in which he emphasized the importance of not only truth but absolute truth. The thesis of that book was that the rise and fall of Western culture is entirely a matter of our having embraced truth, then abandoned it. For myself, I feel to this day that what Dr. Shaffer said is in fact absolutely true.

But what I see around me is that hardly anyone else appears to care about truth. It seems to me that all anyone cares about is what they want to be true. I study the Bible because I want desperately to know the truth. I know almost no one else who even cracks it. I know a lot of professing believers who I would think would be ravenous for truth. Yet they seem quite content to basically ignore the Bible and go on living based on what they want to be true. A tidbit or two from the pulpit is good enough. Where are the noble Bereans who “search the Scriptures daily and see whether these things be so”? And then no one is even interested in discussing “truth.” If I perceive that a person might be a truth-seeker, I might bring up some “truth” I’ve been pondering, only to get their disinterested “Oh” for a response. I’ve about gotten to the point where I just don’t even bring it up. I do my studies, think my thoughts, jot down some of them in this blog, and for the most part just content myself with trying to live these things out in my own life.

It is something I totally don’t understand. I am NOT better than anyone else. But that said, I just don’t understand why people don’t care about truth. I know, I know, people are sinners and naturally driven by their lusts not by truth (that was Shaffer’s whole point), and so it will always be true (in this world) that the human race as a whole will always be gullible, easily deceived, and even antagonistic toward truth. They would actually rather follow their lusts than be told the truth. But still, surely there are people who rise above that.

Oh, well. Love God. Love others. That’s my mission for today. That’s the truth. I will go on doing the best to seek and live out the truth as I discern it, and grant those around me the freedom to do the same (or not).

But what Paul is saying IS of monumental importance. What is Truth? To determine that is absolutely incumbent upon every individual and it is of eternal consequence what we determine.

As for me, I am convinced that the Gospel of the Bible, the God of grace and His Son Jesus Christ, of salvation totally by that grace, lived out in a life of gratitude is the TRUTH. God help me if I’m wrong anywhere that I would see it. And God help me where I’m right to live out that Truth everyday. And by Your grace, where I’m right, may I be a light in the life of someone else around me. Truth. Not from “man.” Not just someone’s ideas. But absolute, eternal TRUTH delivered to us from the absolute, eternal God.

Martin Luther: “God creates faith in us through the Word. He increases, strengthens and confirms faith in us through His Word. Hence the best service that anybody can render God is diligently to hear and read God’s Word”.

Galatians 1:10 – The Insidiousness of Motives

As always, here’s my fairly literal translation of this passage:

¹⁰For am I now conciliating men or God, or am I seeking to be pleasing [to] men? If I were yet pleasing men, I would not have been being a servant of Christ.

At first glance this seems like a fairly vanilla passage. “Right, right. Yeah those people-pleaser types. Pleasing God, not people. Yeah, that’s my goal.” Hmmmm. I suspect anyone’s natural response would be to read this passage, assume it applies to someone else (certainly not ME or the group I associate with), and read on.

That is always a baaaaaad thing to do with Scripture. The Lord didn’t write the Scriptures for “them.” When I’m reading His Word, He is speaking to me. “Ten-hut! Front and center!” I have to stop and say, “Lord, help me see that this does in fact apply to me. I’m cut out of the same bolt of cloth as everyone else. I share their weakness. But how? In what specific ways?”

As I have pondered this passage, I think it is all too applicable. In fact, I would go so far as to say it ought to be a bombshell in anyone’s life. Actually, my mind is whirling. I will try to put it in some kind of logical order.

First of all, and I have run across this before, I think the church groups of which I have been a part have grossly failed to see this sin in their own hearts. The groups I’ve been a part of clearly see the sin of making a goal of “getting rich.” They are quick to say that no one should ever “serve God” for the love of money. It’s easy to see the evil of the televangelists. Most of their pastors, missionaries, and seminary professors live in relative poverty (by American standards). They are quite sure that is proof-positive that they are serving God, not money. But what no one sees is that one can “get rich” in more ways than money. And the verse before us addresses another perhaps more insidious way – people pleasing.

I fear it is really easy for a church-group to become an approval system. Like the Pharisees of Paul’s day, one can join the group and then literally ride the approval wave. Since the group thinks everything they do pleases God, one can conform zealously to their practices and convince oneself and the group I’m pleasing God. Just a few verses further in Galatians 1, Paul says of himself, “I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers” (v14). In Judaism (Pharisaism), Paul could literally ride a wave of adulation. He could strictly and zealously conform to the traditions of the group and thereby garner their enthusiastic applause, all the while convincing them and himself that he was quite the servant of God.

Yet, all the while, he was nothing but a people-pleaser. He was “getting rich” in applause, adulation, and approval. I suspect he is referring back to that when he says, “If I were yet pleasing men, I would not be a servant of Christ.” Notice the “yet.” When he met the risen Christ and chose to follow Him, he knew he was giving up that entire approval system. From now on, those same people would hate him and malign him. No more applause. No more easy “just follow the rules” approval system. I’m afraid we all err greatly if we let our church affiliation become an approval system. Greed is greed no matter what it is I “want.” And it is an abomination to make any group’s “rules” or “traditions” the standard of righteousness. Too, too often in my own life, I have conformed to the group’s standards of “righteousness,” often even myself questioning, “Where is that in the Bible?” But that is one thing I am trying hard to correct now. I want the Bible and it alone to be my standard of righteousness, whereby I measure myself and people around me. And my goal should be to be constantly letting God measure my heart and life according to that standard and not any other. As Paul says in I Cor 4:3,4: “I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me.” Even my own conscience isn’t a reliable guide. Even it needs constantly to be submitted to the correction and oversight of the Scriptures.

I guess the sum of it all is to say that I think it extremely important, being a part of a church group, to constantly be guarding my heart and making sure I do not simply conform to their “approval” system, but rather that I am, in fact, a servant of Christ, and Him alone. The idol of “approval” is just as insidious (maybe more) that the idol of wealth. Yet, we cannot serve two masters.

That is, ultimately, I think Paul’s point here. What is he saying? He is actually allowing his own motives to come under scrutiny. “What was my goal in preaching to you?” Note that, even in proposing the question, he’s making a profound logical connection: errant teaching arises from a heart with ill motives. He is asserting the purity of his own motives to accredit the truth of his teaching. Matthew Henry noted, “He did not, in his doctrine, accommodate himself to the humors of persons, either to gain their affection or to avoid their resentment; but his great care was to approve himself to God.”

As Someone important once said, “Go and do likewise.”

Galatians 1:6-9 -- Thoughts and Encouragement

As always, here’s my fairly literal translation of this passage:

⁶I am astonished [continually] that you are so quickly transferring from the One who called you in [the] grace of Christ into a different gospel, ⁷which is not another except some [are] agitating you and wishing to subvert the gospel of Christ. ⁸But even if we or an angel out of Heaven should be preaching to you [something different] from what we preached to you, let him be anathema. ⁹As we said before and I am now saying again, if someone is preaching [to] you [something different] from what you received, let him be anathema.

As I said before, this isn’t necessarily the book I would choose to study, but I am excited to in fact study it just for that reason. I love when the Lord leads me to think about things I wouldn’t choose to think about, to show me things I would not have looked for.

Even in this opening passage, there a couple of things that “surprise” me and one that is a very pleasant thought.

The first thing that surprises me arises out of Paul’s statement, “I am astonished that you are so quickly transferring …” Robertson laments, “It is a continuous amazement today that so many are so silly and so gullible to modern as to ancient charlatans.” I agree. But it surprised me how much I agree. His words were like salt in a wound. “Astonished” is hardly strong enough. Sickened. Shocked. Disappointed. Incredulous. It has long been a grief to my soul to watch the human race and see this so true. A man can do an excellent job preaching and teaching straight from the Bible and gather no following at all, but the miserable charlatan televangelists garner followers by the millions year after year after year. And no matter how many of them go down in disgrace, the same people flock to listen to the chicaneries of the next one.

And it isn’t just in religion. Politics is no different. We have in Washington now beyond a doubt the worst, most grossly unqualified president in US history. Yet polls continue to say about 50% of the people approve of his performance. What?????? Every time he gets up to speak I personally hear very clearly that he is telling people what they want to hear. He’s pandering. There’s no substance whatsoever to anything he says. He just says “all the right things.” But I can also hear that he does it in that familiar smooth way that I already know will in fact appeal to the masses. Pied piper. It is a crying shame that there are so many people who could do an excellent job, but we would all say, “They’re probably not electable.” Why not? Because they aren’t “Hollywood” enough. What does Hollywood have to do with choosing the best person to serve as the President of the United States (or any other office for that matter)? Gullible masses. That’s what Hollywood has to do with it.

And what really drives me crazy is that too many times I’ve known these people. I would take them for reasonably sensible, intelligent people. And then to hear them fall headlong for the chicanery just utterly befuddles me.

Now here’s my rub: I don’t like the “way” all of that bothers me. I sense that somehow I’m simply “bothered” by it. Irritated. Not a godly thing, you understand. Some kind of personal thing. Which is not good. Like I said earlier, “like salt in a wound.” Paul goes on to write a whole book to these people. God commits one whole book of Scripture to Paul’s appeal. I haven’t studied very far yet, but already commentators note how loving and gentle he is considering the seriousness of the offense. I don’t think I’d be that way. I would just be fed up and go spend my time with someone else. Have said for years I wish I could charter a Mayflower and sail to the new world. Hmmmmmm. Obviously have something to learn here. As I study through the book, I hope to learn some things from Paul’s heart. Hope to learn how he clearly could keep on loving and not get fed up. Hmmmm. Always fun to study Scripture. Challenges my mind right down to the depths of my heart.

Now here’s a second thing that surprised me as I began to study: It surprises me to realize how much I don’t know how to balance a couple of things. Obviously, Paul is lit up about the Galatians defection from the Gospel. He sees the need to pounce on their embracing “another gospel, which is no gospel.” Obviously, within the church there is a time to confront error, to affirm truth, and obviously, this Judaizing of the Gospel is one of those times. On the other hand, in my experience, there has been way, way, way too much witch-hunting in the church groups I’ve been involved in. “Standing for the truth” has meant cutting off a young man from mission support because he’s decided maybe the rapture will come in the middle of the Tribulation. That’s “worth” pulling a couple off the mission field? Once I knew of two Baptist churches in the same (very) small town. I asked a member of one congregation about the other and they replied, “Oh, they’re kind of funny on the Holy Spirit.” That’s worth the complete disgrace of two Baptist churches in the same (very) small town? From my reading of history, I strongly suspect that witch-hunting was the destruction of the English church. In the 1500’s, 1600’s, 1700’s and even somewhat into the 1800’s, there was an enormous amount of profoundly sound teaching from many, many truly godly people in England. How then could that nation turn almost completely godless? The one thing that I read that does NOT impress me is how viciously the various Christian groups attacked each other. And that over such important issues as how to organize the leadership of the church – to which the Bible actually says very little. I strongly suspect their constant in-fighting completely destroyed their credibility with a watching world until today when English people want nothing to do at all with “church.” The Reformers themselves were shockingly vitriolic toward each other. Calvin hated Luther hated the Anabaptists hated … Every time any one of them learned anything from the Bible they pronounced an anathema on anyone who disagreed with them.

I could go on. But I hope you see my point. How does one balance the safeguarding of “truth” without becoming a carping witch-hunter? I can’t say I know the answer except that I think there ought to be an enormous amount of humility and prayer invested before we do anything less than openly love other professing Christians. “They’ll know we are Christians by our love.”

At this point, I don’t know if I have any answers. Once again, I don’t like the way it bothers me. I think there may be some things the Lord wants to teach me. And I hope, again, I can learn something from the heart of Paul to change my own. Hmmmmm.

Finally, I want to note something encouraging I see in this passage. Paul says he’s astonished how quickly they are transferring “from the One Who called you …” Note he doesn’t say “from the Gospel.” It’s “from the One Who called you …” I’m continually blessed by the fact that real Christianity is not just a “belief system” but rather an intensely personal relationship. I wonder how arresting it was to the Galatians to have it suggested they were transferring “from the One Who called you …”? It’s one thing to change one’s opinion on a matter. It’s an entirely different thing to cut off a relationship! One of the earliest delights of my own Christian experience was realizing that it wasn’t just a “belief system” but rather a matter of “knowing God.” Early on I ran across John 17:3, “For this is eternal life, that they might know You …” And I, of course, consumed JI Packer’s book, “Knowing God.” From the very beginning, He has been very personal with me. Without any doubt, I can say that what I treasure most about it all is this personal relationship with Him. The rest of life swirls about my head, profoundly important questions pummel me for answers, uncertainties and doubts and fears surround me, but I can honestly say I find a refuge in Him. He is, in the end, really truly all that matters. And the worst thing that could happen to me is not that I would get something wrong in my belief system, but rather that somehow I’d lose my connection with Him. I wonder sometimes how much I’ve offered to other people a belief system and how much I actually offered them a relationship(?). I wonder how many people supposedly embrace Christianity but only as a belief system, and never really ever get to enjoy the simple soul-pleasure of a relationship?

Great start to the book. Already has me thinking on some things and encouraged by others!

Galatians 1:1-5 – More Miscellaneous Thoughts

Here is my fairly literal translation of these verses:

¹Paul, an apostle, not from men neither through a man, but through Jesus Christ and God [the] Father Who raised Him out of [the] dead ones, ²and all the brothers with me, to the churches of Galatia: ³Grace to you and peace from God [the] Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, ⁴Who gave Himself on behalf of our sins, in order that He might rescue us out of the evil of the present age according to the desire of our God and Father, ⁵to Whom [be] the glory into the ages of the ages. Amen.

Just some more miscellaneous thoughts I want to jot down before going on:

Notice how in verse 2, Paul adds, “²and all the brothers with me, …”. I realize that he may make mention of “all the brothers with me” in an attempt to augment his case, that not only is he himself a divinely called apostle, but that his message is not in any way unique to him – it is shared by many others. However, that said, I have many times noted how much of a team player Paul was. He was not in any way, shape, or form a lone ranger. He deeply valued the talents and contributions of his friends and associates. Think about it: In verse 1 he asserts his own miraculous calling, then right away in verse 2 he’s thinking of all those with him. Point is just that I think we all need to seriously learn to value the people around us, those we work with and associate with, our spouses, families, etc. When we think somehow we really don’t need them (desperately) we’re missing it big time.  

In verse 4 we are reminded that Jesus gave Himself “on behalf of our sins” and then the text goes on to note why He did it. There is a textual variant in the “why” that is at least interesting to think about. Many translations follow one variant and will read something like “to rescue us from this present evil age.” However, there is another variant which changes the word order and based on that I translate it “ that He might rescue us out of the evil of the present age…”  It is a minor point, but notice that, in the first He recues us from the age, while in the second (mine) He rescues us from the evil. I personally think the evidence slightly favors the latter and I also think it is more Biblically precise. For whatever it’s worth, my good friend John Eadie agrees with me, so it must be right (!). Again, I know I’m splitting exegetical hairs and even my variant could be reasonably translated to read just like theirs.

But … I think it is a very sad mis-emphasis in the Christian world to see the present world as evil. The world is not evil. This is the world God created. Yes it is spoiled and contorted with evil but it is a sad, sad mistake to be unable to mentally separate the beautiful wonder of God’s creation from the distortions of it. Jesus’ entire mission is to deliver us from the evil of the world. He Himself prayed, “I ask not that You take them out of the world, but that You would deliver them from the evil …” The Lord’s prayer is not that He would deliver us from the world but that He would deliver us from evil. I’ve probably said enough but I strongly believe one of the reasons Jesus Himself got along so well with people in this world is because He saw even the people themselves as God’s creation. He saw their sin and their evil as a contortion of the beauty which still resided in them. He could honestly value and respect prostitutes and tax-collectors by seeing them in the inherent dignity of their creation in the image of God. He could look straight at them and mentally separate that dignity from the contortions caused by their sins. They obviously sensed His respect for them – which they got nowhere else, and as a result they valued Him and many received Him. It is sadly very common for believers to have an attitude that basically this world is useless and evil and the only way they can be spiritual is to somehow escape it. Such a mistake. Even in II Peter 1:4, we’re told that God has “given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, escaping the corruption that is in the world through lust.” Notice that, through faith in His promises we escape “the corruption that is in the world…” I think it is an enormous step of Christian maturity to make this distinction.

Finally one last note: In verse 5 we are told all of this happened “according to the will of God the Father.” Here is another place where I think we need to note the distinction between the Greek words boulomai and thelo. The two words are both translated something like “will” and are considered by many to be essentially synonymous. I personally beg to differ and I do not think it is a matter of splitting hairs in this case. I think a lack of translative precision in the case of these two words is at the root of much theological confusion. Boulomai is specifically a word which speaks of deliberate purpose while thelo speaks of desire. Even in English, there is a huge difference between deliberate purpose and simple desire. Again, even in English, the two can seem to overlap: One sets about a deliberate purpose because he no doubt desires something and we can say that someone obviously desires something because he sets about a deliberate purpose. However that doesn’t change the fact that the two ideas are, in and of themselves, not the same. And I personally think it is often critically important to understand whether God simply desires something, that He in some way expresses the wish that something be true, as compared to those cases where He has clearly purposed that something will be true, that it will come about. One passage where this distinction is of profound theological importance is II Peter 3:9. (Anyone interested can look up my notes on that from back around 2010). At any rate … in this particular verse, the word used is thelo (or specifically the noun form thelaima), so it is specifically expressing God’s desire, not necessarily His purpose. And so how does it read? “According to the desire of God the Father …” Jesus “gave Himself … to rescue us out of the evil of the present world … according to the desire of God the Father.” He obviously also did it as a part of God’s eternal deliberate purpose, His eternal plan, but in this passage what’s in focus is God’s desire. I personally think that is significant. In this case, He’s showing us His heart. He didn’t offer grace as some kind of wise governmental policy. He wants us to know grace.

Maybe someone is reading this and thinking I’m quite obsessed with minutiae. However, I think not. I would suggest that many see God as someone far away, issuing royal decrees and being only somewhat available or even interested. I maintain that, while it is true that He is a great King, the Sovereign of the Universe, and we must acknowledge Him in that role, yet to know Him is to know His personal, generous, affectionate, embracing, totally benevolent heart. I think it is critically important that someone not only accept His plan of salvation, His offer of grace, but that they realize He’s offering it because He wants to. That’s Who He is. Go ahead. Climb in His lap. Bury your face in His big strong chest. Feel His arms around you. Even enjoy Him tickling you now and then. But know this: He loves you.

He’s a wonderful Savior. If only we could all see Him clearly. We’d all rush and jump in His lap together. It's certainly fitting to conclude with the words, "to Whom [be] the glory into the ages of the ages. Amen."

Galatians 1:1-5 – Miscellaneous Thoughts

Here is my fairly literal translation of these verses:

¹Paul, an apostle, not from men neither through a man, but through Jesus Christ and God [the] Father Who raised Him out of [the] dead ones, ²and all the brothers with me, to the churches of Galatia: ³Grace to you and peace from God [the] Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, ⁴Who gave Himself on behalf of our sins, in order that He might rescue us out of the evil of the present age according to the desire of our God and Father, ⁵to Whom [be] the glory into the ages of the ages. Amen.

These opening verses are in no way arbitrary greetings. Verses 1&2 affirm Paul’s authority as an Apostle, while verses 4&5 assert the doctrine of grace. The two surround v3, his benediction of “grace to you and peace…” Note Lightfoot’s observation: “The two threads which run through this Epistle—the defense of the Apostle’s own authority, and the maintenance of the doctrine of grace—are knotted together in the opening salutation. By expanding his official title into a statement of his direct commission from God, he meets the personal attack of his enemies; and by dwelling on the work of redemption in connection with the name of Christ (v. 4.) he resists their doctrinal errors.”

As I have begun to study, it seems clear Lightfoot is right. The purpose of the book seems to be Paul’s response to the errors which had infected the Galatian church and specifically they are: #1 – the deprecation of his authority, and #2 – their deviation from the doctrine of grace.

This is an interesting place for me to start. I selected this book particularly because I have a John Eadie commentary on it through which I’ve never studied. When it comes to Bible study, him and I are kindred spirits. It’s too bad he’s been dead for 150 years. I would sure enjoy studying with him today. But to follow along his commentary through any book feels like I’m studying with him and I seriously enjoy it. However, wading into the book, my first reactions are less than enthusiastic. As Chrysostom noted, “…this Epistle breathes an indignant spirit.” Here’s my rub: The book itself is a fight. Paul needs to fight. This battle is one which must be engaged, no less than Jesus’ castigation of the Pharisees in Matt 23. The problem for me is that I am not a fighter. I don’t want to fight. With anyone. Over anything. I’ve never been a fighter. I have fought plenty of battles in my life. But I hated every one of them. I did it because I must. But I don’t like it. And so, as I look ahead to several months of studying a book about fighting … well, you understand my quandary.

However (and this is a HUGE however), this is the very reason I love to study the Bible. I can essentially pick any book at random and know that the Lord will make me think about things I didn’t necessarily intend (or even prefer) to think about. And there is even a sense of excitement when He leads me to something I “don’t like.” … I know that means He wants to teach me something. He wants to rock my world, to blow my mind, to “cast down imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of Christ.” So I wade in – on the one hand wishing I could study something more pleasant, but on the other hand, in anxious anticipation of what He’ll teach me. Come back and visit me in about a year. Hopefully, I will have learned something that makes me more like Christ, more ready to fight the battles which must be fought. Cool.

Another random thought: I found a new friend. My good friend Joe Fleener recommended some websites where I could find commentaries on the book. In the process I wandered across translations from John Chrysostom, who lived from 349 to 407 AD. The guy is another real exegete! He takes each verse phrase by phrase and actually considers the Greek, the meanings of the words, then draws applications. Cool. Another kindred spirit – even if his bones are quite cold by this point 1600 years later!

Another random thought from the first five verses: Notice God’s goodness: He specifically, deliberately, and miraculously called out an apostle for us Gentiles. He raised Jesus out of “the dead ones,” that we too might have life from the dead. He wishes “grace and peace” for us. Jesus “gave Himself for our sins.” He wants to “rescue us out of the evil of the present age.” This all was very specifically God’s “desire” for us. As I mourned before, it seems to me that so many people think hard thoughts of God. But if they would just read the Bible and let it say what it says, they would realize what it says is, “I love you,” over and over and over and over and over. Like John, we should all lay our heads on Jesus’ breast and long to never leave.

Another thing I’m looking forward to is following Martin Luther’s commentary on this book. I am a history nut so I relish his writings for their profound historical significance. But I also simply relish hearing the thoughts of the man who was the “morning star” of the Protestant Reformation, and especially when those thoughts are rising from one of the very books of the Bible which fueled his cause. Here is just one quote of his from the opening verses: “Grace remits sin, and peace quiets the conscience. Sin and conscience torment us, but Christ has overcome these fiends now and forever”.

Looks like fun.

I will probably post again on these five verses as I would like to record a few exegetical thoughts.