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.