Psalm 139:1 – Knowing and Being Known

Here is my fairly literal translation of this verse:

¹To one directing. To David, a psalm.

 LORD, You search me and You know.

A couple of technical thoughts: The literary “critics” propose that this is not a psalm of David because there are two words in the Psalm which they say are “chaldaisms.” David lived around 1000 BC. The Jewish people were deported to Babylon (Chaldea) in about 587 BC. From living in Babylon, many Hebrew words became “chaldaized” where their spelling or pronunciation changed slightly because they lived in a world that spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew. Hence, if the “critics” find a word that is spelled in a Chaldean form rather than Hebrew, they conclude the document had to be written after 587, not before. My response would be that is not only bad theology, it’s poor science. A good scientist (and that is what the “critics” are claiming to be) would say, “The presence of apparently chaldaized words presents the possibility of a later date. However, there are other possible explanations which should be considered.” Like the evolutionists, as soon as the critics find any explanation that demeans the Bible and pushes God in a corner, they jump on it and present it as fact. As I said above, that’s not only bad theology, it’s poor science. Based purely on the science of textual criticism, I would suggest that we not forget the Jewish people came from Babylon to start with. God called Abraham out of “Ur of the Chaldeans.” They may have retained traces of chaldaism even down to David’s time. Also, any interaction with Aramaic speaking peoples could have encouraged chaldaisms – and David was a great king who would have had a great deal of international interaction – especially when the trade routes between the east and Egypt ran generally through Palestine. My bottom-line would be that the “critics” are talking about a period of time two to three thousand years ago and acting like they have total knowledge of all that happened when the truth is they have very little. Let them offer their opinions, call them just that, then choose what they want to believe. I have offered my opinions and I choose to believe the Bible. It says “To David” and I will choose to believe that.

Secondly, someone might ask, “Why is it ‘to David,’ not ‘by David’”? I have addressed that question at length before, but basically I think it is because David knew he was writing under inspiration and he was much too humble a man to take credit for what he wrote. It was given to David, by the Lord, and he knew it.

As for the Hebrew text of the Psalm itself, notice my translation, “LORD, You search me and You know.”  When the Hebrew name Yahveh is given, I usually just write it out as its four Hebrew letters YHVH. But, I’m in the mood to use the old King James convention of capitalizing LORD to represent it. There is another name for God which is Adonai, which means literally “master” or “lord.” When that name is used, it is translated “Lord,” to distinguish it from Yahveh/LORD. I think I’ll follow that convention for a while.

David says, “LORD, You search me and You know.” I think most translations fill in the “You know me.” However, there is no pronominal suffix on the verb “know,” so I chose not to insert one. The LORD searches me and He knows. “Knows what?,” one might ask. I kind of think the question is the point! One stops to answer the question and what do you conclude? He knows everything. He knows everything about me, but He also knows everything around me. He knows my circumstances. He knows my strengths, He knows my weaknesses. He knows my sins and He knows my successes. He knows my past, He knows my present, and He knows my future. He sees clearly through all subterfuge and feigning. He knows.

Interesting this is written in the first person. It is one thing to say, “He knows.” It is another thing to pause for a moment, sincerely focus on Him, and say to Him, “You know.” It is very deeply personal, is it not? “LORD, You search me and You know.”

A lot of people would take that as a negative. The minute one talks about the Lord searching and knowing, too many immediately turn it into a courtroom, anticipate their guilty verdict, and quickly shun the thought. That is too bad. Nothing could possibly be better than to have the God of grace search me and know. His grace comes with His infinite power and wisdom and His promise to “work all things together for my good.” I find those words very comforting. “LORD, You search me and You know.” On the other hand, at first glance, there is a sense in which I find them painful. At first they seem to be a finger rubbing in my wound, my wound of all the things that I find painful in my life. The words remind me of those things and then I have to face the bald fact that the Lord knows about those things but hasn’t and may not do anything about them. He knows how much it hurts, He has the power to change those things, but He doesn’t. He knows, but leaves me in it. My heart’s first response is to find that painful. But then I remember that He does all things for my good. Even allowing me to suffer is part of His kindness and a love that is beyond me. I couldn’t arrange suffering for my children, subject them to it, leave them in it, listen to their cries and do nothing. But that is because I don’t love them enough. It’s actually me that can’t bear their suffering – even if I knew it was for their good. But not so with my Father. He loves me so much He will put me through whatever it takes to make me what I ought to be. That is part of His searching and knowing. He sees the dross and loves me too much not to do whatever it takes to purge it out. That is once again a comforting (though painful) thought.

LORD, You search me – perhaps far deeper than I can even imagine – and You know – You know everything.  You gather together all of Your knowing and use it to my good and Your great eternal purposes.

Hmmm. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me. It is high, I cannot attain unto it. (!)

Galatians 2:20,21 – Thoughts on a Favorite Passage

 Once again, here is my fairly literal translation of these verses:

²⁰I am crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ is living in me. [The life] which I am now living in [the] flesh I am living in faith, that of the Son of God who loved me and delivered Himself on my behalf. ²¹I am not setting aside the grace of God, for if righteousness [comes] through law then Christ died in vain.

This verse has long been a cheery and pleasant cordial to my soul. I memorized it early in my walk with God and have found it always an endearing friend. “I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me …” Thinking about it, there are three thoughts I’d like to record:

First , I like what Barnes said: “The Redeemer, by the death of the cross, became insensible to all surrounding objects, as the dead always are … Paul says that he became insensible to the law as a means of justification; to the world; to ambition and the love of money; to the pride and pomp of life; and to the dominance of evil and hateful passions. They lost their power over him; they ceased to influence him.”

I of course am still a miserable wayward sinner, but it is at the same time true that I have died to this world. Oh, I still live in it. I still love it in many ways (sometimes too many). Yet I find I really can (at times) hold it with open hands. It just isn’t THAT important to me anymore. It really is true in a sense that I’ve “died to it,” I’ve been crucified with Christ. I can do without the things of this world. But I can only do without them because I know Christ. When I face the pain of losing in this world or the pain of having to live “without” it still hurts very, very deeply. But as long as I can look into the face of Christ, know that He knows, know that He knows best, know that He loves me, know that my times are in His hands, from somewhere I find the strength to go on (for a few seconds, anyway). “I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me …” Even though I all too often fail, yet I know that in Christ I’ve been freed from this world. I can literally be “dead” to it, and alive to Christ; I can be literally insensitive to its allures and feel my heart entirely Christ’s. And it’s not me, it’s Christ living in me. I find all of this (except my own waywardness) very comforting.

Second, here is one of those places where the Bible reminds us that, although God “so loved the world” (Jn 3:16) and Jesus died “for the sins of the whole world” (I John 2:2), yet at the same time His death was entirely personal for each and every one of us. Paul says, “…Who loved me and gave Himself for me.” David knew the same personal relationship: “O God, Thou art my God …” (Ps 63:1). He loved me. He gave Himself for me. He is my God. “Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Mt 11:28). It is so nice that a real relationship with God is totally and delightfully personal!

Finally, and growing out of the last point, my mind goes back to my last post, that justification by faith is a far, far better plan than works because, properly embraced and understood, this is exactly its effect – wonder at His love. If I can be justified by some checklist, then I suppose I have to add “Love God” to my list. When I know I came to him filthy and stinking and deserving hell, when I know that He offers me complete forgiveness if only I’ll accept the Christ who “loved me and gave Himself for me,” I no longer need any checklist. I love Him Who first loved me. As one man said, “There is no higher sense of obligation or duty than that generated by love.” It is no “burden” to have to do what’s right. I want to. Like Jacob, my seven years of service seem as nothing because of my love for this One who first loved me. Again, this is a far, far better way. To love, “duty” is a welcome but meaningless word. What mother ever thought it her “duty” to nurse her newborn child?? Duty? Well, yes, it is. But it isn’t. Love compels her, not “duty,” so the “duty” still gets done, but in a far, far better way.

So it is with God. To know His love is to love Him. All down through the ages, the debate has raged that Sola Fide breeds licentiousness. Mai Genoito! Justification by faith can only breed licentiousness in those who never really understood it to begin with. Real justification by faith generates people who will be moral, do right, be conscientious, love their neighbors, control their tongues, and all the other things they “ought” to do, yet never count it a burden or even see it as an obligation. Love compels them. There is absolutely no form of works-righteousness anywhere that produces people who love from their hearts. Only justification by faith in Christ – in Him who loved me and gave Himself for me. If people somewhere are claiming justification by faith but living godless lives, the answer is not to confront them with a fresh “to do” list, but rather to call them into question whether they really ever knew Him, and if they have, to perhaps see beyond their “checklist” religion and lay hold of a real relationship with Him Who loves them.

I could say more about the details of exegesis of these verses, but I’ve said enough. This brings me to the end of chapter 2 of Galatians. I think this is good spot to take a break. I am in the mood to do some Hebrew work for a while, then come back to Galatians. I plan to do a study of Psalm 139, then come back. The fun never ends!

Galatians 2:17-19 – The Far, Far Better Way

Once again, here is my fairly literal translation of these verses:

¹⁷But if we ourselves are also found [to be] sinners [while] seeking to be justified in Christ, then [is] Christ a servant of sin? May it never be! ¹⁸For if I am building again those things which I destroyed, I am presenting myself [to be] a trespasser, ¹⁹for through the Law I died to the Law that I might live to God.

Commentators all try to decide if Paul is still speaking to Peter regarding his duplicity or if he is now simply discoursing the subject of justification for the benefit of the Galatians. I don’t see any clear evidence to definitively conclude the matter. But, regardless, Peter’s prevarication is still the backdrop of the discussion. With the “we ourselves” I would conclude Paul is referring to himself and his fellow Jews. He’s already acknowledged the Jewish penchant for calling the Gentiles “sinners.” Like all legalists in every age, the Jews’ lives were consumed with scrupulously “keeping the rules” (never mind Jesus called them a “wicked and adulterous generation” – Pharisees always have an amazing ability to figure out which rules they have to keep and which ones they can conveniently overlook), so, as they observed the Gentiles’ lives, all they could see was all the broken rules. Sinners!

So it would seem to me verse 17 is asking the question, “For those of us who accept salvation by grace and thus cast aside the scrupulous rule-keeping – if others see us “breaking the rules” and conclude we have become “sinners,” is it then somehow true that Jesus and His teachings actually promote sin?? Of course Paul’s answer is “May it never be!” – his oft repeated “Mai Genoito!”

I think in the next line, he’s saying after having embraced salvation by grace and taught it to others, if he himself returned to justification by law-keeping, that would in fact make him a trespasser. Of course the implication is that is exactly what Peter was doing.

And then he goes on to explain what Law-keepers cannot understand: “… through the Law I died to the Law that I might live to God”.   In “through the Law, I died to the Law,” I think what he means is that the Law did its job of condemning him and having realized its hopelessness, he turned to the only possible answer, justification by faith, apart from that Law. But note that justification by faith was not simply a way to escape condemnation. He does not say, “… through the Law I died to the Law that I might not be condemned.” He also doesn’t say, “… through the Law I died to the Law that I might live a lawless life.” Note again what he does say: “… through the Law I died to the Law that I might live to God”.  That I might live to God. This is what rule-keepers cannot understand. The issue isn’t rule-keeping or not. The issue is “living to God.” It is a relationship.

As I pointed out above, Jesus called the scrupulous rule-keeping Pharisees a “wicked and adulterous generation.” Like all rule-keepers of every age, the Pharisees conveniently picked which rules they needed to follow and which they could conveniently overlook. I have observed myself that some of the staunchest rule-keepers in the church today actually live unbelievably godless lives behind the scenes. That is why so many supposedly “fundamentalist” preachers and evangelists go down in immorality. Like the Pharisees, they put on a good face of rule-keeping, while having affairs and committing other acts of immorality, greed, deceit, and cruelty. Rule-keeping simply breeds rule- management.

Real justification by faith throws itself into the arms of Jesus and leaves a person not caring about “the rules” but rather in love with the God Who has saved them. They actually put aside rule-keeping “that I might live to God.” And, again, here is what rule-keepers cannot understand: living to God, living in love with Him, doesn’t make me go wild in immorality. I love Him. Why would I want to do things that displease Him? Isn’t that true in any love relationship? A man marries his wife and soon discovers there are things that displease her – like taking his shower in the morning. She doesn’t like it. She doesn’t like to sleep with a “dirty” man. So what does he do? He starts showering in the evening. Why? Because that is a new rule he has to keep? No. It has nothing to do with rules. He loves her. It pains him to see her displeased. He learns to call when he’ll be home late, put his clothes in the hamper, wipe his feet at the door, help her with the dishes, etc., etc. and why? Because he loves her. It’s not about rule-keeping. It’s about love. And so it is with any love relationship and so it is with God.

Again, rule-keepers cannot understand this. This is why those justified by faith still talk about “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ” (Rom 8:2) and the “perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25) and why we can say, “I delight in the Law of God in my inner man” (Rom 7:22). This is why Paul can say, “Sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace” (Rom 6:14).

As Paul says in I Tim 1:9, “Laws are for law-breakers.” A person who loves has risen to a far higher standard than “rules.” A person who loves sees the heart of the loved one. They see the goals. Then they don’t need “rules” because their heart already wishes to live pleasing their loved one. That is in part why Jesus can tell us (those justified by faith) that the entire Law can be summed up in just two commands, “Love God and love others.” A person who genuinely loves doesn’t need “rules.” Paul will go on to say this same thing later in Galatians, listing the fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control) and then say, “Against such things there is no law” (5:22,23). You can’t make enough rules to produce love and joy and peace. Those are the blessings of living a love-life.

Once again, Sola Fide is not the “preferred method” of justification because it “works” or because it is the only alternative to law-keeping. Sola Fide is the method of salvation which God provided and it is far, far better than rule-keeping because it raises its people to the much higher standard of love. As Paul says to us in Romans,

⁸ Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. ⁹ The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”^{] 10} Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Peter, in his duplicity, was throwing all of this away. No wonder Paul withstood him to his face!

God help us all to see past our propensity for rule-keeping and help us to instead genuinely live a life of love.

What if everybody did?

Galatians 2:17-19 – “Somewhat Obscure?”

 Once again, here is my fairly literal translation of these verses:

¹⁷But if we ourselves are also found [to be] sinners [while] seeking to be justified in Christ, then [is] Christ a servant of sin? May it never be! ¹⁸For if I am building again those things which I destroyed, I am presenting myself [to be] a trespasser, ¹⁹for through the Law I died to the Law that I might live to God.

I find the logic and logical flow of this passage somewhat elusive. Interestingly, Barnes says, “The connection here is not very clear, and the sense of the verse is somewhat obscure.” It’s always nice to know someone else feels the same! Even Eadie calls it a “difficult verse,” and goes on to say, “The structure of the verse … prevents it from being well rendered into English …”

This definitely happens from time to time in the Bible. As I’ve studied along verse by verse down through the years, there have definitely been passages like this where I can translate the words, diagram the grammatical structure, read it over and over, and yet still struggle to follow its logic.

Why does this happen?

Sometimes I wonder if their minds were simply clearer 2000 years ago. As I read history, observe archaeological findings, and just all around in life I see a lot of other indications that this is so. We think because we have computers and technology that we are the intelligent ones and everyone who lived before us was ignorant. “Why, people 2000 years ago were practically cave men!” I don’t think that at all the case. What we have today is collective knowledge but I fear that we as individuals are far behind the mental acumen even of our grandparents, and how much more so the ancients? So it’s possible that is the problem with verses like this. They are simply speaking in a logic that was for them child’s play but which to us remains obscure.

It’s also possible it is simply a cultural difference. I have long realized from exegeting ancient languages (Hebrew and Greek, specifically) that a people’s language is actually a window into their culture. What they say and how they say it is sometimes distinct to them because it reflects what they find important (or not). It will always blow my mind to realize there is no real past, present, or future tense in Hebrew. We could not speak in English if we were unable to express whether we meant past, present, or future! Time means everything to us. It apparently meant nothing to them. That is an enormous cultural difference expressed through the very structure of a people’s language. When it comes to the passage before us, we can translate the words, study the grammatical structure, and do our best to translate it into English, but perhaps because we simply do not share their culture, we may be left a little confused as to what exactly they’re saying.

One last explanation would be the problem of context. We all know how a group of friends, classmates, co-workers, or perhaps a family can say things which they all understand but no one else does. “You had to be there.” “It’s an ‘inside joke.’” It’s true of history, jokes, catch phrases, etc. When people share a context they can begin to communicate in a sort of verbal shorthand. They don’t need to explain themselves. They all know what they mean. But if you come in as an outsider, you’re like, “Huh?” It’s very possible that is often a problem studying an ancient language. We simply do not share their context. For instance, Paul’s suggestion that justification by faith makes Christ the “minister of sin” could easily have been an assertion of the Judaizers. The Galatians would know that immediately. We’re just left with, “Huh?”

All of this does not mean we cannot understand the writings of ancients. Usually (as I think is true of the passage before us) their point is obvious enough. It’s just that it can be difficult to follow their logic line by line and word by word. Frankly, I think it just means we ought to study all the more carefully and humbly, realizing we are studying someone else’s language. …And we shouldn’t be surprised when, “The structure of the verse … prevents it from being well rendered into English …” It is simply a fact of working with someone else’s language and would be true whether what we’re studying is Scripture or any other ancient document or even something contemporary. Translation simply cannot always be a neat and tidy business.

Having said all this, I’ll come back and try to unravel this “difficult” passage in another blog.

Galatians 2:15,16 – Why Sola Fide?

Once again, here is my fairly literal translation of these verses:

¹⁵We [being] Jews by nature and not out of sinners of Gentiles, ¹⁶knowing that a man is not being justified out of works of law but rather through faith of Jesus Christ, even we believe into Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified out of faith of Christ and not out of works of law, because all flesh will not be justified out of works of law.

In my last blog, I thought hard about this matter of justification. And it is a very important matter to think hard about. It has to be dealt with. My condemnation is very real. My heart knows it’s real. Somehow the guilt cannot go on. My heart knows it. And, as I discussed in that last blog, the matter is quite hopeless. I cannot undo my did. And I continue didding. What God offers us in Christ – a substitutionary atonement – is the only possible answer. And thank God for it! Fallen angels have no such offer. And Jesus didn’t die for raccoons. He died for people … and I just happen to be a people.

We might simply say that is why Sola Fide, why we can only be justified by faith – because we simply cannot be justified by Law. But, I think there is a much, much bigger picture that should be addressed. Here’s what I’m thinking: All of this talk of justification really leaves us specifically discussing our relationship to the Law. It is the Law that condemns us and we need a means of delivering us from that Law. Justification by faith allows us to be reconciled though we ourselves remain guilty.

That is all well and good.

But it is a cold, icy, judicial discussion. Very, very important, but cold and icy.

Here is another way of looking at it: Instead of focusing on our relationship to the Law, Sola Fide means we can (or should?) view the matter in relationship to God Himself.

What do I mean? I’m thinking that what we are dealing with is actually a question of how can we be in a good relationship with God? What the Judaizers are telling the Galatians is that the way to be in a good relationship with God is basically to “keep His rules.” “Here are the rules,” they tell the Galatians. “If you keep them, God will like you.” This is more and the same of the mistaken understanding the Jews had from the very beginning. Moses read them God’s Law and they replied, “All that the Lord commands us, we will do.” Do you see that, from the very beginning, they thought of God as their Judge? He gives His Law and you follow it. That’s how you have a relationship with Him. How well did they do? The words had barely left their mouth and they were worshipping a golden calf. It didn’t work. Their attempt to have a cold, icy, judicial relationship with God was a complete failure. And what was their answer? To do better. And what does God have to say about it? “Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness” (Romans 10:3).

They missed the whole point of the whole thing. Just like legalism does today and always will. What they should have said was “Woe is me! I am undone! I am a man of unclean lipss, and I dwell among a people of unclean lips! Woe is me! This Law is good. It is what I should do. But the good that I would do, I do not! What it tells me is that I already stand condemned! And to live longer will only add to my guilt! My sins are innumerable, like the hairs on my head! Who shall deliver me from this body of death???” They should have fallen on their faces and cried out to God, “Be merciful to me, a sinner!” they should have cast themselves on the mercy of God and begged Him in His love to come up with some solution … some solution other than “do better.” But they did not. And 1445 years later when Jesus came, they had not seen the failure of their plan, but rather had codified it into an elaborate system of works-righteousness. And what did that produce? Pharisees. Cold, cruel, self-righteous, judgmental, greedy, immoral, murderous Pharisees. And that approach is still producing the same Pharisees today. God has no interest in a legal relationship with people. Only the Law itself induces a legal relationship.

Had the Israeiltes realized the abject poverty of their souls, had they faced the reality that they could not keep the Law, they’d have had no choice but to throw themselves on the mercy of God. But does anyone else see what happens in that moment?? In that moment, what is a person doing??? In that moment of total spiritual poverty, they are ceasing to seek a relationship with the Law, a relationship with God through the Law, and suddenly they are dealing directly and personally with Him. Suddenly they must deal directly with Him. Suddenly they can no longer just glance at their “do and don’t” list and think that makes them “okay” with God. They need Him. Does that make sense?? I think this is stratospherically important. If we can be justified by the works of the Law, then we don’t really need a personal relationship with God, we just need His checklist, His rules. “There you go. Do this and live.” That doesn’t require any personal relationship and frankly doesn’t even invite it.

I would suggest this is an enormously important answer to “Why Sola Fide?” There is an alternative to the cold, icy impersonal relationship born of Law. It is THE alternative. It is what God actually wanted for Israel from the very beginning. It’s what He wants for all of us. How can we be in a good relationship with God? Amazingly, it is to have a relationship with Him. With Him. Not with His Law. With Him. Yes, His Law condemns us. But that’s not His fault. And it’s not because He wants it that way. The problem is our fault. His Law condemns us because we sinned. We’re the ones who destroyed the relationship. But this is the very wonder of grace – He’s still offering us a relationship! But there cannot be a relationship as long as we’re under Law. Law has already condemned us. More Law will only condemn us more. That is exactly why, “…now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known” (Romans 3:21). It is righeousness from God, from His hand, from His love, from the warmth of His open arms and affectionate embrace, from a personal relationship with Him! Sola Fide cuts off all other approaches to God and forces us into the only way – a personal relationship. It forces us to go directly to Him.

And that was the whole point from the whole beginning. God created us to know Him. He created Adam and then came to walk with him in the cool of the day! Sin made Adam and Eve “hide from the Lord God among the trees of the Garden.” When the Lord didn’t find them there, it was Him who called to them, “Where are you?” He was still seeking a personal relationship. And He still is today.

I believe that is one of the big “Why?’s” for Sola Fide, for why we can only be justified by faith in Christ. Justification by works invokes only an impersonal legal relationship with God through His Law. It misses the point. It misses Him. If it is Sola Fide, then I must appear at His feet, beg His mercy, and when a soul does throw itself at His feet, it finds Him for who He is – a warm, embracing, loving God, who did in fact make a way. He made a way that I could be justified apart from the works of the Law, which doesn’t work anyway. He made a way, the only way, a way that cost Him His own Son, that required the horrible death of Jesus on the Cross, a way born of love. And that is the whole point of the whole matter – the great God and His child wrapped in each others’ arms!

I hope all of this makes sense to someone else. The ultimate horror of legalism is not just that it doesn’t work, but that its pursuit hides from our eyes the whole point of all – to know Him, to love Him. Sola Fide draws us to God in a relationship that begins, grows, and ends in love.

I believe this is exactly why legalism breeds people who are judgmental, critical, and unloving while Sola Fide (truly embraced) breeds people like Jesus – people who humbly, kindly, generously love. When I know the kind, generous love of a personal Savior and know it more and more, how can it do less, as the years go by, than make me a kind, generous, loving person?

Thank God for Sola Fide. Not just because it’s the only way that works, but because it is born of love and breeds love.

What if everybody did?

Galatians 2:15,16 – Sola Fide

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

¹⁵We [being] Jews by nature and not out of sinners of Gentiles, ¹⁶knowing that a man is not being justified out of works of law but rather through faith of Jesus Christ, even we believe into Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified out of faith of Christ and not out of works of law, because all flesh will not be justified out of works of law.

Here we go. Here’s where Galatians joins Romans as cornerstones of the Protestant Reformation. Sola Fide. “By faith only.” This doctrine is so monumentally important, I feel like I should take off my shoes just to type about the truth of these two little verses.

Barnes does a really good job summing it all up and is worth a read on this passage.

What does it mean to be “justified?” Of course it means to be “declared right.” Anytime a person is accused of some fault or crime, there are only two ways he can be justified. He either must prove that, in fact, he is not guilty of that which he is accused, or he must demonstrate that somehow his actions were excusable. Either exonerating evidence is produced and all involved agree he did not commit the act – hence we have “justified” him – or we all say, “Yeah, normally that would be really bad, but under the circumstances …” Adam and Eve clearly could not deny their guilt so they sought to justify their sin by implicating someone else: “The woman you gave me, she …” and “The serpent deceived me …” Of course those defenses were just excuses and they yet remained accused before God’s tribunal that day.

So it is with us. We stand accused before the Law of God. “…for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23). Even without God’s Law, our very consciences accuse us, not to mention other people, civil law, not to be outdone by the merciless specter of regret that cruelly parades endlessly through our minds.

“Guilty!” the icy finger and cold hard eyes point at me. And what shall I answer? Not guilty? That would be laughable. Excused? Try that one all day every day but it doesn’t seem to work.

Promise to do better? Ah, now that one has captured the approving minds of the human race. It makes sense to us. We’ve come up with a “third” means of justification – I’ll do enough “good” to somehow “outweigh the bad” and then I’ll be okay. I’ll be justified.

Really? Under inspection, it isn’t even logical. How does doing anything change the fact of my guilt?

Did you do it?

Yes.

Then you are guilty.

But you don’t understand the circumstances.

Did you do it?

Yes.

Then you are guilty. Your excuses won’t work. You are guilty.

But I promise I’ll do better.

That is nice but it doesn’t change the fact of your guilt.

But I promise I’ll do a LOT better.

That’s nice but it doesn’t change the fact of your guilt.

Then what must I do to be justified?

Hopeless fool. There is nothing you can do to be justified. You.Are.Guilty. To the gallows you go.

And so it is with us. Though we run, hide, make excuses, contrive complicated defenses, sew fig leaves, feign righteousness, pretend that somehow time will erase our guilt, anaesthetize and medicate our consciousness, distract ourselves with pastimes, immerse ourselves in “church,” and more – yet that icy finger still points. Like the troubled sea which cannot rest, casting up mire and dirt -- There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked. “For by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.”

It is the Law which condemns us. How could it ever justify us? Yet that is exactly the game-plan presented to the Galatians by the Judaizers. “Here is what you must do to be justified.” Do? I already did. That is exactly the problem. Doing now doesn’t undo my did.

Guilty.

If I travel north, eventually I’ll be going south. But how far east must I travel to begin going west? It will never happen. It is logically impossible. A hopelessly endless quest born of stupidity. So how much must I do to undo my did? It will never happen. It is logically impossible. A hopelessly endless …

Guilty.

For by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.

Finally, the accused soul falls to the floor sobbing uncontrollably, “Lost! I am lost forever. Judgment and hell stand ready to swallow me and my guilt forever!”

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been made known, … This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. …God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this…so as to be just and the One who justifies those who have faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:21-26).

Someone else did my time. Someone else hanged in my stead. He took my place.

What?? How can this be??

Believe it. Simply believe it.

Sola Fide.

“… knowing that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.”

There is no other way. There can be no other way. “I am the Way,” says Jesus. “Have I been with you so long and still you don’t know Me?”

“Peace, peace, and I will heal them,” saith the Lord.

Sola Fide.

Galatians 2:11-14 – More Coddling of Legalists?

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

¹¹But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to [his] face, because he was to be blamed, ¹²for before certain ones came from James, he ate with the Gentiles, but he was withdrawing and separating himself, fearing those out of circumcision, ¹³and the rest of the Jews pretended with him so that even Barnabas was led away together with them in hypocrisy. ¹⁴But when I saw that they were not walking in a straight course toward the truth of the Gospel, [I was] saying to Cephas before all, “If you being Jewish [act] like a Gentile and do not live like a Jew, how are the Gentiles being compelled to act Jewish?”

I’m sorry to say this passage only adds to my confusion. Here comes the same group, the Legalists, the Judaizers, the rule-keepers, the church’s first century “Hate-Brigade.” “We have a rule!” they exclaim, “and all who don’t scrupulously observe it stand condemned!” The “circumcision group.” This is the same group that accosted Peter after he went to the house of Cornelius: “So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, ‘You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them’” (Acts 11:2,3). It is the same group that caused the Acts 15 problem: “Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved’” (v.1). It is the same group of whom Paul tells Titus, “For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach …” (1:10,11). This is the same group that is causing the same problem in the churches of Galatia, necessitating this very letter itself. Paul says of them, “Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be anathema!” (1:7,8). He goes on to add, “As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” (5:12).

I think it all too clear what a blight these people were to the early church. Yet, once again, I see that the proclamation of Acts 15 was delivered to the “Gentile believers,” and not clearly established for Jew and Gentile alike. And then, again, in Acts 21:20, 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.” Instead of confronting the problem, it looks like the apostles are just coddling them. Then we find even Peter caving in to their judgmental gaze. This is the Peter who three times saw the vision of the sheet, who defended himself against them, and who defended the Gentiles in the Jerusalem Council. Yet here we find him “fearing those out of circumcision.”  Fearing the hate-brigade. When it would seem to me he should have confronted them. Instead Paul has to confront him. But then why didn’t Paul (and Peter) go ahead and confront the legalists? Why were they tolerated? Why didn’t the apostles make it crystal clear that Jew and Gentile alike were no longer bound by the Law? Obviously the Jewish people were free to continue with their traditions, which would be totally understandable as their entire culture was built on those traditions. But it seems to me the apostles in Jerusalem should have been just as clear to the Jews as Paul was to the Gentiles about the relationship of all NT believers to the Law.

It seems to me that the perpetual presence and influence of the Legalists was at least in part owing to the apostles’ very reticence to openly and clearly state the case. These men “came from James.” Why had James even allowed them to persist in such thoughts? What they told the Gentiles should not have been said even in the church at Jerusalem. And may I add, Jesus certainly had no problem meeting these guys head on; “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in … you outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness … Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?” (Matthew 23:13-33).

I don’t know. I strongly suspect I am missing something here. I still suspect it is me, not the apostles who are wrong.  Hmmmmmmmm. Well, I think I’ve stated my case clearly. Now I will go on studying and hope to find something that clearly corrects me.

Once again, for whatever it’s worth, I don’t think these are idle curiosities. I think I see the same dynamic still going on today. People come up with their “rules” and then despise everyone who doesn’t conform. Probably a glaring example is the King James Only bunch. But it goes on to some militant homeschoolers and peoples’ music preferences, dress “standards,” and a whole multitude of personal choices about which the Bible says nothing. It becomes convenient when an entire church group gathers around such “rules.” Then they can all agree with each other, preach it from the pulpit, and all go on smugly, comfortably (and arrogantly) in their bald-faced legalism.  Then they too can travel over land and sea to make one disciple, and when they’ve done it, make him two times more the son of hell than they are. To me, their presence in the church is what gives all of us that ugly, critical, unkind, judgmental stereotype. It’s still the Pharisees vs. Jesus. Still. I don't want to live in the Pharisees' camp. I want to be like Jesus. He was clearly NOT one of them. They shut up the kingdom of Heaven, while He threw the doors wide open.

I don’t know. Again, I want to be open to the Lord’s correction. All that matters in the end is that we “take every thought captive unto the obedience of Christ,” that we “be not conformed to this world but rather be transformed by the renewing of our minds.”

So, once again, I’ll keep studying and “stand at my post and see what He will say to me.”

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.