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.
No comments:
Post a Comment