tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-86270522024-03-08T18:55:46.733-05:00Sacra Eloquia"Thus in the Sacred Eloquence we read both, 'His mercy goes before me,' and also, 'His mercy shall follow me.' It predisposes a man before he wills, to prompt his willing. It follows the act of willing, lest one's will be frustrated." - Augustine of HippoScott McClarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16860823837991898060noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627052.post-72444001435118811272009-05-12T12:00:00.002-04:002009-05-12T15:23:02.272-04:00Galatians IX: Sarah and Hagar<p><i>(This blog post makes use of the BWGRKL font for some Greek text, available for <a href="http://www.bibleworks.com/fonts.html">download</a> from <a href="http://www.bibleworks.com/">BibleWorks</a> at no charge.)</i></p>
<p>I am a big fan of science-fiction film, as many of my Faithful Readers are probably aware. One of my favourite films in the genre is 1999's surprise hit <cite>The Matrix</cite>. (It's hard to believe it has been over 10 years since its release!) <cite>The Matrix</cite> is about a small-time hacker, Neo, who is contacted by a man named Morpheus who is regarded by the authorities as a notorious computer terrorist. Morpheus reveals to Neo what is probably the best-kept secret in the world: everything is actually a virtual-reality simulation created by intelligent machines, to keep the human race from realizing that they are being farmed and harvested as an energy source. "You are a slave, Neo," he says. "Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind."</p>
<p>Morpheus has been freed from his slavery, and his mission is to make others aware of the truth and set them free as well. This is why he is so dangerous to the authorities. Morpheus wants Neo and the rest of the human race to be free. The machines want them to be slaves.</p>
<p>The Apostle Paul, too, had been a slave: to his former religion of Judaism. But he now understood that he had been redeemed - set free - by Jesus Christ, and wanted nothing more than to tell people of the Gospel, the good news that Christ saved sinners from bondage. But in the churches of the district of Galatia, some Jews who professed Christianity were claiming that in order to be <em>truly</em> saved, it was necessary not only to have faith in Christ, but to be circumcised. Paul recognized this as antithetical to the Gospel that had been revealed to him, and a step backward into the bondage of legalistic religious observance. Paul wanted the Galatian Christians to be free. The Judaizers wanted them to be slaves.</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written,</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">"Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
<br />break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
<br />For the children of the desolate one will be more
<br />than those of the one who has a husband."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. (Galatians 4:21-5:1)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Paul addresses those within the Galatian church who desired to return to the Law by accepting circumcision as a prerequisite to their salvation. "Listen to the Law," he instructs them. To a devoted Jew, this meant more than just hearing the words: the Law was read in the synagogue, and they were expected to not only listen to it but heed what it said. The Law was not only something to obey, but a source of pride. God had said, when the Law was delivered, "<span class="bible">[W]hat great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today?</span>" (Deut. 4:8). Paul is asking, "Do you realize what you are in for?" Obviously the Galatian church had not yet reached the point of complete apostasy, despite the pressure that the Judaizers were putting on them.</p>
<p>Once again, for his final theological argument and the rhetorical climax of this letter, Paul returns to the story of Abraham, albeit to an event that was not a particularly high point in his life.</p>
<p>In Genesis 15, Abraham (then still called Abram) was already an old man, and because his wife Sarai was barren, he had no heir of his own - his dynasty would pass to a man in his household, Eliezer of Damascus. Nonetheless, God promised him a son, even in his advanced age: "<span class="bible">This man shall not be your heir;(A) your very own son[a] shall be your heir</span>" (Gen. 15:4).</p>
<p>But Sarai remained barren, so she and Abram decided to take matters into their own hands. She gave him her Egyptian servant Hagar as a concubine (Gen. 16:2), and by her Abram had a son, Ishmael (Gen. 16:15). However, this led to hostility between Sarai and Hagar, which led to Hagar being driven out of the household twice (Gen. 16:6,21:9-14). Eventually, of course, Abraham and Sarah had a son of their own, Isaac (Gen. 21:1-3). Isaac became the father of Jacob, who was the patriarch of the nation of Israel.</p>
<p>Not only the Law, but Jewish heritage, was a source of pride. They were the children of Abraham, his true heirs, not mere Gentiles, or worse - the illegitimate offspring of Abraham through Ishmael. They interpreted the story of Isaac and Ishmael in such a way as to prove that only the children of Isaac had a true share in the promises of God. But what Paul does here is to offer an interpretation of his own - he repudiates theirs by reversing the story and throwing it back in their faces. It isn't the <em>physical</em> seed of Abraham that receives the blessings, but the <em>spiritual</em> seed.</p>
<p>This is what Paul has already argued, in chapter 3. Abraham was right with God because he believed God (3:6), before his children had received the Law or he himself had even been circumcised. He was justified because of his faith, not his good works. All the promises given to Abraham have, as their final object, Christ (3:16); therefore, those who by faith receive Christ imitate the faith of Abraham and become his heirs - Jew and Gentile both (3:28-29). But Paul was only repeating an argument already implied by John the Baptist and by Jesus himself. While John was heralding the coming Messiah and baptizing in the Jordan, he warned the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to make a public appearance: "<span class="bible">And do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham</span>" (Matt. 3:9). Jesus came right out and said it:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">"I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet(A) you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you." . . .</p>
<p>They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did." (John 8:37,39-40)</p>
</blockquote>
<h4>Allegory?</h4>
<p>Paul calls his interpretation an "allegory," translated from the Greek word <span class="greek">avllhgore,w</span>, meaning "to speak allegorically." Allegory was a popular figure of speech in the Greek world, and it even had a following amongst the Hellenistic Jews. In Alexandria, for example, the Jewish philosopher Philo had taken the Sarah-Hagar story and allegorized it, so that Hagar represented basic education and Sarah the higher life of the mind. The allegorical method was soon inherited by the early Church, particularly in Egypt where the "Alexandrian" school of theology included such Church fathers as Clement and Origen, who adopted the forms of secular philosophical discourse to lend Christianity some additional intellectual respect. By the early Middle Ages, the Church had developed a fourfold system of interpretation: the <em>literal</em> sense (what the text actually said in plain language), the <em>allegorical</em> sense (what it said about Christ or the heavenly realm), the <em>anagogical</em> sense (what it said about right Christian living), and the <em>tropological</em> sense (what it said about the afterlife or the end of the world). The highest of these was the allegorical. Read Anglo-Saxon poetry from the Dark Ages, and you quickly realize that this hermeneutic was not limited to the Bible - the poets interpreted <em>everything</em> this way. The current Catechism of the Catholic Church still officially teaches the fourfold method. Although evangelical Protestantism tends toward the grammatical-historical method of interpretation, there are still a few holdovers from before the Reformation. If you've ever read Isaiah 14 as the fall of Satan from heaven, for example, or heard Song of Solomon taught as describing the relationship between Christ and the Church, that is allegory.</p>
<p>Interpreting allegory requires a key that comes from outside the text. Certainly nothing intrinsic to the story of Sarah and Hagar suggests the Greek educational system as Philo allegorized it, nor does Song of Solomon actually mention Christ or the Church (and reading it that way can get, frankly, weird). The danger of allegorization is that since that key is not drawn from the text itself, the text can be made to mean almost whatever the interpreter wants it to. A recent and egregious example of this is Harold Camping, the head of Family Radio, whose heavily numerological method of allegorizing Scripture led him to predict the end of the world in 1994, and also to declare the end of the church as God's vehicle for salvation. Obviously, the world failed to end 15 years ago, and Camping has revised his original prediction to 2011; however, I personally know some people who have fallen for Camping's nonsense.<sup>1</sup>
<p>While the debate about this passage is ongoing, I personally believe that what Paul is doing is properly <em>typology</em> rather than allegory. Instead of importing a foreign concept into the text, typology finds the Old Testament foreshadowing the New, and uses the Old Testament example (the <em>type</em> to explain the New (the <em>antitype</em>). Hence when Matthew cites Joseph and Mary's resettlement in Nazareth after their flight to Egypt as a fulfillment of Judges 13:4 or 13:7 (Matt. 2:23), he isn't claiming that Jesus was a Nazirite or that Samson came from Nazareth (which didn't even exist in his day), or even that Judges 13 predicts the birth of Jesus. He is declaring Samson to be a type of Christ: Samson, the strong man who delivered his people from the Philistines by the power of God; Jesus, the strong man who delivered his people (the Church) from sin by the power of God (cf. Matt. 1:21,12:29). The ultimate type, of course, is Adam, whose foreshadowing of Christ Paul explains in Romans 5 (and indeed Adam is the only explicitly named type, in Rom. 5:14). This is what Paul is doing with Sarah and Hagar: declaring the <em>literal</em> story of their antagonism to be a foreshadwoing of the antithesis between Law and grace.</p>
<h4>A tale of two . . .</h4>
<p>But in either case, Paul says he is <span class="greek">avllhgorou,mena</span> - speaking in allegory - so I will use his word. In this allegory are two women. Though Paul doesn't name them yet, they are of course Sarah and Hagar: Sarah the wife of Abraham, and Hagar the maid.</p>
<p>These two women had two sons. Isaac was Sarah's son, the child of promise; Ishmael was Hagar's, born according to the flesh. This alludes to the different circumstances of their births. Isaac's birth was miraculous, in the sense that Sarah was 90 years old - well past childbearing age! - when he was promised to her. No such promise announced Ishmael's birth to Hagar: he was the product of normal, carnal relations with a fertile woman, at a time when Abraham's faith in God's promise faltered and he tried to help it along by taking a younger woman.</p>
<p>Hagar and Sarah represent two covenants. These covenants were given at two mountains, and represent two cities. Hagar is the Old Covenant, the Law given to Israel through Moses at Mt. Sinai. Sinai is in Arabia, and would underscore the foreign nature of Hagar's descendants: traditionally Ishmael is seen as the father of the Arab nations, and despite their descent from Abraham, they were not to benefit from the promises made to him. To this, Paul's Jewish opponents would readily assent. But Paul's reversal of this story would be shocking. The Law received at Mt. Sinai was the pride of the Jewish nation, the supposed sons of Isaac!</p>
<p>Paul keeps turning this story on its head. In his allegory, Hagar represents the present city of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the capital of Judea: the focus of Jewish worship, because that was where the Temple was. Prior to the Babylonian exile, there was a widespread belief that the city was virtually invulnerable, because the Temple represented the very presence and protection of God. The prophet Jeremiah warned the people of the fallacy of this mindset (see Jeremiah 7), and I think that to an extent this is what Jesus probably had in mind when he told the disciples (who were exclaiming about the grandeur of Herod's Temple) that not one stone would remain standing on another (Matt. 24:2). Both times, it was not long before Jerusalem was sacked and the "invulnerable" Temple destroyed.</p>
<p>It must have incensed the Judaizers to hear Paul saying that Jerusalem and her children were the slaves. However, Paul has already made this argument in Gal. 3:23-4:11. Those who are under the Law are enslaved to the Law, even if they are sons of God. But at the appointed time, Christ redeemed those who were enslaved to the Law and set them free so they could be adopted as sons. This is the New Covenant, represented by Sarah, and delivered on Mount Zion (although Paul does not say so explicitly) by Christ. He inaugurated the New Covenant in his own blood shed on the cross (Eph. 2:7-8), foreshadowing it at the Last Supper, when Jesus shared the cup, announcing, "<span class="bible">Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins</span>" (Matt. 26:27-28). When this covenant was enacted, our citizenship was transferred from the "present Jerusalem" to the "Jerusalem above" (cf. Col. 1:13-14). Citizenship in the present Jerusalem is earthly. Paul has more than one run-in with the "circumcision party" over the years: for example, he warns the Philippian church to "look out for the dogs," whom he calls "evildoers" and the false circumcision - who, contrasted with the "true circumcision" in Christ, seem to put their confidence in earthly things (Phil. 3:2-3). The citizenship of Christians is not earthly, but heavenly; not limited to the physical descendants of Abraham, but as John says in his vision of heaven, they come "<span class-"bible">from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages</span>" (Rev. 7:9). As citizens of heaven, we are destined to receive a heavenly inheritance: Christ will "<span class="bible">transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body</span>" (Phil. 3:21). We have not yet received this inheritance, but we will - because we are no longer slaves, but but free sons of Abraham.</p>
<p>In chapter 53 of Isaiah, the prophet alludes to the "suffering servant" - a sorrowful figure, a human scapegoat who "was wounded for our transgressions," because "the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:5-6). Of course, this is a prophecy of Jesus' sufferings. Chapter 53 concludes: "He bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors" (v. 12). It is because of this that Isaiah can turn from sorrow to rejoicing, and write of this dramatic reversal:<p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Sing, O barren one, who did not bear;
<br />break forth into singing and cry aloud,
<br />you who have not been in labor!
<br />For the children of the desolate one will be more
<br />than the children of her who is married," says the LORD. (Isa. 54:1)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Paul quotes this same verse to the Galatians, and identifies the "barren one" as Sarah. She could rejoice because, though barren, she finally had a son, and through him came a great nation. Christians can continue to rejoice, because they, too, are the spiritual children of Abraham according to the promise, through the work of Abraham's antitype, Christ. The children of Abraham, the Church, would ultimately outnumber the unbelieving Jews, the children of the slave woman. This reversal, from despair to blessing, could only be accomplished by God himself.</p>
<p>"That is <em>you</em>," Paul is telling the Gentile Christians of Galatia. "<em>You</em> are the children of promise, if not of biology." They are already like Isaac, though it is not due to anything they have done, any more than it was with their father Abraham, who "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness" (Gal. 3:6).</p>
<p>Nonetheless, there is another historic parallel between the story of Hagar and Sarah and the present situation that must be addressed. On the day that Isaac was weaned, Sarah discovered that Ishmael was mocking his half-brother. The hostility between Sarah and Hagar resurfaced, and she demanded that Abraham expel her and her son from the household. This he did, albeit reluctantly, after God promised that Ishmael, too, would father a great nation (though Abraham's legacy would still be through Isaac).</p>
<p>The persecution of Isaac by Ishmael is a type of the persecution of the Galatian Church by the Judaizers. And if the Church wasn't being persecuted from within, it was being persecuted from without by the civil authorities. Persecution is a constant that has endured throughout the history of the Church and continues to this day. Privilege alongside persecution is a paradox of the faith; as Luther said, "Whoso will not suffer the persecution of Ishmael, let him not profess himself to be a Christian."<sup>2</sup></p>
<p>Now Paul gets to what I believe is the punchline of this letter. Just as Abraham cast out Hagar, he counsels the Galatians to "<span class="bible">[c]ast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman</span>" (Gal. 5:30). If the Judaizers are disrupting the fellowship of the church and throwing them into confusion, then <em>throw them out!</em> There are limits to the diversity that can be tolerated within the congregation. Passages like Romans 14 show that Paul was willing to accommodate a certain amount of difference between Christians for the sake of unity. However, this was not a minor dispute over an arguable matter: the core of the Gospel itself was at stake. The Judaizers were <span class="greek">yeudade,lfouj</span> - false brethren - who were in fact sons of the slave woman posing as sons of the free woman, and wanting to make the free children into slaves. But the slaves have no inheritance with the free, and if they are persecuting the free sons, they must be expelled from the assembly.</p>
<p>My sense is that the first verse of chapter 5 fits better as the conclusion to this argument than as an introduction to the next section. In 4:31, Paul again reminds the Galatians that it is them, not the Judaizers, who are the free children. And in 5:1, he admonishes them: "Keep standing firm." Hold your guard; do not submit to the influence of the Pharisees. To return to the Law would have been to return to slavery. Later, at the council of Jerusalem - held to address this very subject and settle the issue once and for all for the entire Church - Peter confronted the Pharisee Christians who were arguing for circumcision, saying, "<span class="bible">why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?</span>" (Acts 15:10). Paul had stood his ground with Titus against the Judaizers on his first trip to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:3-5); he later stood his ground against Peter when he had withdrawn fellowship from the Gentile Christians in Antioch (Gal. 2:11ff). The authors of the Gospels have shown Peter faltering again and again; here, in his final appearance in the biblical narrative of the early Church's history, Peter stands firm with Paul. Luke leaves us with a positive last impression of him as he exits history.</p>
<p>Again, however, it is a good reminder that freedom in Christ is not freedom from any kind of moral restraints. Paul warns the Galatians against turning their freedom into an opportunity for the flesh (5:13), though this passage is the subject of a later post. It is unfortunately common amongst the evangelical world to throw out words like "legalism" or "Pharisee" against anyone who suggests <em>any</em> boundaries to doctrine or conduct. We have been set free from the burden of earning God's favour through the strict observance of a moral code; we are free to approach God by faith in the atoning work of Christ on the cross. We cannot earn God's acceptance, but we are accepted by him because he accepted Christ's obedience on our behalf. Jesus, too, has a yoke that he invites his followers to wear, but unlike the oppressive yoke of the Judaizers that was too great to bear, his yoke is easy and the load is light (Matt. 11:29-30). The Law demanded a return to endless, wearisome work that could offer no salvation from sin. Jesus offers rest to weary souls, since he has done the work to take away sin once and for all.</p>
<h4>Footnotes</h4>
<p><sup>1</sup> For a rebuttal of Camping's heresy and a defense of the Church, see <cite>Dangerous Airwaves</cite> by James R. White (Calvary Press, 2002).</p>
<p><sup>2</sup> Martin Luther, <cite>A Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians</cite> (New York: Robert Carter, 1844), 441.</p>Scott McClarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16860823837991898060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627052.post-1122669037438172882005-07-29T16:30:00.000-04:002009-05-12T15:24:29.541-04:00In case anyone is wondering<p class="first">Yes, this blog is still alive.</p>
<p>I have been concentrating my blogging recently on <a href="http://mcclare.blogspot.com/">The Crusty Curmudgeon</a>, and offline, I've been doing some teaching efforts for my church's Sunday school.</p>
<p>Those lessons will be posted at one blog or the other, and a new installment of my Galatians series <em>is</em> in the works. I promise.</p>Scott McClarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16860823837991898060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627052.post-1112900259796015582005-04-07T14:53:00.000-04:002009-05-12T15:24:29.542-04:00Post-O-Meter says: [E\. . . F]<p class="first">With the publication of Galatians Part VIII, I've run out of material for the time being. The rate at which I can prepare these posts is less than the rate at which I have been posting them.</p>
<p>Henceforth posts to Sacra Eloquia will be more intermittent, perhaps one every 2-3 weeks. I knew it would happen eventually. This isn't a hiatus.</p>Scott McClarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16860823837991898060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627052.post-1112886553462238972005-04-07T13:00:00.000-04:002009-05-12T15:24:03.239-04:00Galatians VIII: They started out so well<p class="first">One of the hottest stories in the music world in 1978 was the conversion of Bob Dylan from Judaism to Christianity. It wasn't long before he started releasing a series of blatant gospel albums, most notably <cite>Slow Train Coming</cite>, which in every respect is an excellent record. In fact, its first cut, "Gotta Serve Somebody," was Dylan's last top-40 hit. At the time, Dylan was so "on fire" for Jesus that he began alienating many of his fans, who weren't quite as enthusiastic about the subject as he was. I don't know exactly what happened to him after that. Maybe he got tired of being booed or the constant accusations of "selling out" yet again. Perhaps he was turned off by much of evangelicalism treating him as a new "scalp" hanging off their belt. Maybe it was something else entirely. But by 1982, Bob Dylan was recording more secular music again, took a highly publicized trip to Israel, and was lending his name to Jewish causes. By all appearances he had abandoned Christianity and returned to Judaism, prompting Steve Taylor, another prominent voice in Christian music, to ask in 1984: "Is it gonna take a miracle to make up his mind?"</p>
<p>Closer to home, I have a friend whom I have known for many years. Like me, he was raised in a strong Christian home. As a younger man he was a student at a prominent Bible college and when he attended university, he was the consummate "campus Christian," active in Campus Crusade and other such organizations. Then, suddenly, a few years ago he took everyone by surprise by announcing that he had been "received" by the Roman Catholic Church.</p>
<p>Steve Taylor was saying to Dylan, "I am perplexed about you," because Dylan started out so well. I am perplexed about my friend, because he started out so well. And Paul says to the Galatians, "I am perplexed about you" - "I stand in doubt of you," as the King James puts it - because they, too, started out so well.</p>
<div class="fulltext">
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.</p>
<p class="noindent">Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am; for I am as ye are: ye have not injured me at all. Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first. And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me. Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? They zealously affect you, but not well; yea, they would exclude you, that ye might affect them. But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, and not only when I am present with you. My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you, I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you. (Gal. 4:8-20)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Paul's passionate argument for <i>sola fide</i> - justification by faith alone - has climaxed in his slaves-to-sons analogy. Now, he sums up his confusion in a series of short then-and-now contrasts.</p>
<p>Back then, the Galatians were ignorant of the true God. They were slaves to false pagan gods which, Paul adds, are really no gods at all. They are the product of a corrupt imagination, like every other part of a person's being, affected and impaired by sin. This is what theologians mean by "total depravity": the total extent of the natural man's being is corrupt, <em>including</em> the reason. It's common in evangelical circles these days to assume this isn't the case. If you just throw enough evidence for the Resurrection and proofs for the existence of God in the skeptics' way, then eventually they will have to concede that Christianity is true. But this approach ignores the effects of sin on the human mind. For Paul, ignorance of God is not mere lack of knowledge. It is rebellion against what the unbeliever <em>knows</em> to be true. Scripture says that "[t]here is none that seeketh after God" (Rom. 3:11); they have willingly exchanged knowledge of the true God for an invention of their own imaginations (Rom. 1:23). The unbeliever is prejudiced against God and will accept any substitute. The philosopher and apologist Blaise Pascal put it this way:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">All men seek happiness. This is without exception. . . . What is it, then, that this desire and this inability proclaim to us, but that there was once in man a true happiness of which there now remain to him only the mark and empty trace, which he in vain tries to fill from all his surroundings, seeking from things absent the help he does not obtain in things present? But these are all inadequate, because the infinite abyss can only be filled by an infinite and immutable object, that is to say, only by God Himself. He only is our true good, and since we have forsaken him, it is a strange thing that there is nothing in nature which has not been serviceable in taking His place; the stars, the heavens, earth, the elements, plants, cabbages, leeks, animals, insects, calves, serpents, fever, pestilence, war, famine, vices, adultery, incest. And since man has lost the true good, everything can appear equally good to him, even his own destruction, though so opposed to God, to reason, and to the whole course of nature. (<cites>Pensée</cite> 425)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But now, the Galatians are not slaves but sons, because they know God - or, as Paul is quick to correct himself and say, rather, they are <em>known by</em> God. Reason does not correct the prejudice of the unbeliever; the only effective remedy is a supernatural work by God to open his heart to the truth of the Gospel. Remember that when Paul recounted his salvation story back in Galatians 1, he said it was God "<span class="bible">who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen</span>" (Gal. 1:15-16). Salvation is something that happens by God's initiative and in God's timing for God's purpose, and Paul realizes that though it is true that the Galatians know God, it is more fundamentally true that they are "known by" God. And thus the cause of Paul's perplexity: Formerly the Galatians did not know God, and they were enslaved to an invention of their own mind. But now God has revealed himself to them; he has taken the initiative to redeem them from their slavery and adopt them as his sons. Now that they have tasted the benefits of being an adopted son of the living God, why do they now wish to return to their former state of ignorance? They have returned, Paul says, to "<span class="bible">weak and beggarly elements</span>"; they have abandoned living by faith in favour of an external code of observances. When my friend told me he had converted to Romanism, he said the main attraction had been the weight of history and the significance of its traditions. Sad to say, the history and traditions of a human institution might be significant, but they are not <em>eternally</em> significant. Confessions and masses and Lent and rosaries - these are "weak and beggarly" things of no value when compared to the sufficiency of the Lord Jesus Christ. As Luther once said, poverty won't make you rich.</p>
<h4>Give an inch . . .</h4>
<p>Paul accuses the Galatians of the same thing: they "<span class="bible">observe days, and months, and times, and years</span>" (Gal. 4:16). This is simply a way of saying that they have begun observing the Jewish religious festivals: they had holy days, such as Sabbaths; monthly New Moon festivals; seasonal observances, such as the Passover; and even Sabbath years in which the land was not cultivated. The situation really goes beyond circumcision: the Galatians' departure from <em>sola fide</em> is serious enough to make Paul wonder whether all his work with the Galatians has been a waste of time.</p>
<p>I think it is interesting that Paul starts talking about observing holy days, when the original issue with the Galatians was circumcision. Paul must have realized that circumcision was nothing but the camel's nose in the tent, but the remainder of the Law was the whole camel. In our own day, the Seventh-day Adventist sect exists ostensibly to restore one commandment - Sabbath observance - to the worship of Christ, in the belief that the rest of Christendom has abandoned the Sabbath by gathering for worship on Sunday. If that were all the Adventists were about, I wouldn't have much of an issue with them. However, with my dealings with Adventist individuals, I have yet to find one who does not want to persuade me that true holiness consists of observing some other part of the Law as well, usually the dietary laws or holy days - "<span class="bible">days, and months, and times, and years</span>." Many go even farther, advocating such things as vegetarianism or "alternative medicine" as "God's way." The Sabbath issue is just the nose in the tent. There is nothing new under the sun.</p>
<h4>What happened?</h4>
<p>Finally in verse 12, we get what is actually the first command in the letter. All this time Paul has been making his case for his readers, but up to this point he hasn't actually encouraged them to <em>do</em> anything. His first command is, "<span class="bible">be as I am</span>." In other words: Be committed to the Lord Jesus, not this mechanical checklist of observances that is nothing more than a cheap substitute for genuine faith. He gives his reason: "<span class="bible">for I am as ye are</span>"; that is, he too was once zealous for the Law, "<span class="bible">an Hebrew of the Hebrews</span>" (Phil. 3:15) and a Pharisee, but in Christ he gave all that up as a way of earning God's favour. Paul is not an ivory-tower theologian, arguing theoretically about justification with people he has never met. He is their pastor and the founder of their church, and he has been exactly where they are.</p>
<p>Notice how careful Paul is to guard the Galatians' feelings: he is probably fully aware of how such a strong letter might be received. He takes some trouble to ensure that they see him as someone who is sympathetic and genuinely concerned for them, since he can relate to their situation.</p>
<p>At the end of this verse, Paul reassures them that he is not motivated by a personal grudge. On the contrary, "<span class="bible">ye have not injured me at all</span>" (Gal. 4:12), he says, he remembers that they had paid him a great kindness. "<span class="bible">Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first. And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus</span>" (Gal. 3:13-14). Apparently Paul had arrived in Galatia suffering from some illness. Students of Paul have speculated for ages about what this might have been. Some say he contracted malaria from the swamps in the area, and sought relief in the higher ground where Galatia was situated. Others see the next verse, where Paul says the Galatians would even have offered him their eyes if he had asked, and conclude that he probably suffered from an eye condition such as glaucoma or conjunctivitis. Still others try to draw a parallel between this illness and Paul's "<span class="bible">thorn in the flesh</span>" (cf. 2 Cor. 12).</p>
<p>I don't think it matters, and it's beside the point in any case. It was sometimes believed that a disfiguring illness was a sign of divine displeasure. When Paul's illness, whatever it was, brought him into Galatia, the Galatians might have shunned him, but they didn't. Instead, they treated him with kindness. I believe that when Paul says they would have given him their eyes, he isn't necessarily talking about a specific solution to his specific problem. He's simply saying, in a graphic way, that he knows they would have gone to great lengths for his sake. His illness was a providential opportunity to preach Jesus to them. Again, they could have rejected him <em>and</em> the Gospel, but instead they received it willingly, and they received Paul as though he were the Lord himself.</p>
<p>The Galatians were blessed by Paul, and he by them. But now, where did that sense of blessing go? They treated him like a friend, and they received the truth from him eagerly. The truth didn't change, so obviously their attitude toward it had. Was Paul now their enemy for preaching the same truth they had previously received with gladness?</p>
<p>Now Paul stops questioning the Galatians' motives. Instead, he warns them about the true motives of the Judaizers. The KJV says: "<span class="bible">They zealously affect you, but not well; yea, they would exclude you, that ye might affect them</span>" (Gal. 4:17). This is confusing; the New International Version says it more clearly: "<span class="bible">Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may be zealous for them.</span>" Paul hastens to add that being devoted to a <em>good</em> cause is perfectly commendable, but the implication is that the Judaizers are anything but a good cause. Here he can't resist getting in a sarcastic jab: "You don't need <em>me</em> there to do the right thing, either."</p>
<p>While I haven't had too many encounters with cult evangelists over the years, I have had a number of run-ins with the International Churches of Christ. Back in 1994 when I lived in Toronto, when I was in the mall or on the subway, I frequently had people from the Toronto Church of Christ accosting me to invite me to their church or a "Bible study." On one such occasion I told the recruiter that I was happily involved and active in a Bible-believing church, and I had no real interest in getting involved with any other groups. He actually became quite rude with me, trying to cast aspersions on my church for not teaching the Bible. (The funny thing was that I never told him even what church I attended, let alone anything else about it.) It seems to me that if his motives had been honourable, he would have been happy that I was active in a church already. But his real motive was to cut me off from my church, and persuade me to join his. There is nothing new under the sun.</p>
<h4>A pastor's pain</h4>
<p>"<span class="bible">My little children</span>," Paul continues, "<span class="bible">. . . I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you</span>" (Gal. 4:19). Back then, the Galatians had done Paul no harm. But now, because they had strayed so far from the truth after his back was turned, he was in such anguish for their sakes that it was like birth pangs. But again, we see how Paul's heart is a pastor's heart. He doesn't give up on his spiritual children. He is determined to bear his pain for however long it takes for Christ to form in them - again, curiously, a childbirth metaphor. It's as though Paul is saying he will carry the Galatians for as long as it takes for them to give birth to a mature Christianity.</p>
<p>Finally, Paul sums up: "<span class="bible">I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice [i.e. my tone of voice]; for I stand in doubt of you</span>" (Gal. 4:20). Paul is well aware that he is writing some very forceful rhetoric. Maybe if he were with the Galatians in person, he would know the right words for the situation. But as it is, from such a long distance away, that is impossible. Hence the perplexity.</p>
<p>Paul takes a keen, personal, sometimes intense interest in those under his care. This is the mark of a good pastor. Over the years I have been under the authority of a number of pastors, and I don't believe that I have ever been let down in that respect. Pray for your pastors, that as they have charge of your soul they continue to show the same care and concern as Paul does.</p>
<p>I am sure many of you, like me, have had friends who have gone off the rails in their faith, or even walked away from it entirely. Don't give up hope for them. Paul could have written off the Galatians, but instead he agonized over them, reasoned with them, even pleaded with them to return to their first love. The Bible says this isn't easy. The author of Hebrews writes that it is impossible for someone who has tasted the benefits of Christ and turned from them to be renewed to repentance (Heb. 6:6). This is a powerful warning that such people are on the pathway to a final rejection of the faith. But while they are still on that path, there is still time for them to turn back. Don't write them off. With God, nothing is impossible.</p>
</div>Scott McClarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16860823837991898060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627052.post-1112298682058405182005-03-31T13:00:00.000-05:002009-05-12T15:24:03.240-04:00Galatians VII: Sons, not slaves<p><i>(This blog post makes use of the BWGRKL font for some Greek
text, available for <a
href="http://www.bibleworks.com/fonts.html">download</a> from <a
href="http://www.bibleworks.com/">BibleWorks</a> at no
charge.)</i></p>
<p class="first">The doctrine of some professing Christians of Jewish
descent, the so-called "Judaizers," was undermining the most
fundamental question of Christian doctrine: What is the true Gospel?
How are we made right with God? The Judaizers were telling the
Galatians that in order to become a Christian, it was not enough
merely to have faith; they also had to obey the Law. This teaching
alarmed the Apostle Paul, who wrote to the churches of Galatia in Asia
Minor to tell them that we are not saved on the basis of our
obedience, but by our faith. In fact, faith and Law are antitheses,
opposites. What one is, the other is not - if the Law could
justify, then Christ died for no reason. Moreover, he argues from
their own experience that they received the Holy Spirit after they
heard the Gospel from Paul, not after obeying the Law.</p>
<p>Anyone who seeks to obey the Law is under a curse, because no man
is able to keep the Law, and therefore all men are subject to
condemnation. But, he says, Christ became accursed for our sakes. We
are made right with God, not because of our own obedience, but because
of <em>Christ's</em> obedience on our behalf. The covenant blessings
promised to Abraham and his seed find their culmination in Abraham's
descendant, Jesus Christ, and because we are united with him through
faith, we too are children of promise.</p>
<p>Why the Law, then? If it cannot save, and it cannot create
righteousness, what is its purpose? Paul answers that the Law shows
the sinfulness of sin. In his letter to the Romans, for example, Paul
says how he had no desire to covet until he heard the commandment:
"<span class="bible">Thou shalt not covet</span>" (Rom. 7:8-9). He
used the everyday illustration of the <span
class="greek">paidagwgo.j</span> (<i>paidagogos</i>), a trusted slave
responsibile for the upbringing of the male children of the household.
He was a harsh disciplinarian, authorized to administer corporal
punishment. His job was to teach right conduct and supervise the boys'
daily life, staying with him at all times, including leading him back
and forth from school every day. This is the picture of the Law Paul
wants the Galatians to have: a stern taskmaster that teaches right and
wrong but whose ultimate purpose is to bring us by faith to Jesus
Christ. Now that faith has come, we believers have "come of age," as
it were, and we are no longer subject to the <span
class="greek">paidagwgo.j</span>.</p>
<p>Having said all that, it appears as though another analogy drawn
from everyday life occurred to Paul: the difference between sons and
slaves.</p>
<div class="fulltext">
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a
child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but
is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the
father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the
elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God
sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem
them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of
sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his
Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more
a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through
Christ.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A quick digression: Paul specifically has <em>sons</em> in mind
here. These rights and privileges applied to male children only.
This sounds archaic, if you think about it from the perspective of
contemporary sensibilities. But male privilege was a fact of life in
Paul's day; he doesn't pass judgment on it, he simply takes it for
what it is. Nonetheless, we have already seen that Paul goes to some
length to make sure his readers understand that in Christ; all people
have equal standing without distinction: "<span class="bible">There is
neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is
neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus</span>"
(Gal. 3:28).</p>
<h4>Coming of age</h4>
<p>In the Roman empire, extended families often lived together under
the same roof, and the head of the household was the <i
xml:lang="la">paterfamilias</i>, the "father of the household." The <i
xml:lang="la">paterfamilias</i> was the king of his domain - his
power extended even to determining the fate of newborn babies lived
and died, or the discipline that a disobedient family member would
receive, which could range from a mild punishment to slavery or even
death.</p>
<p>Don't make the mistake of assuming this was a cruel, callous
society. Just because the <i xml:lang="la">paterfamilias</i> had this
legal entitlement doesn't mean that in practice he was any more of a
tyrant than our fathers are today. Nonetheless, I think we can see
where Paul is coming from when he says that the son "<span
class="bible">differeth nothing from a servant</span>" (Gal. 4:1). He
was the property of the father. He was unable to tend to his own
business affairs - in fact, he was not even allowed out of the
house without the <span class="greek">paidagwgo.j</span> to keep an
eye on him. But Paul says that he was "<span class="bible">lord of
all</span>." Despite his <em>current</em> low status, he was still
the legal heir, and the ownership of the estate would eventually pass
to him.</p>
<p>But this state of affairs did not last forever; as Paul says,
there was a "<span class="bible">time appointed by the father</span>"
(Gal. 4:2) at which the boy came of age. Typically, this occurred
between the ages of 14 and 17. At that time, the boy became an adult,
receiving the right to manage his own affairs, to marry, and to take
part in Roman public life. He was entitled to set aside the clothing
of his childhood, a simple tunic or robe or, in upper-class families,
the <i xml:lang="la">toga praetextis</i> that had a coloured hem and
imitated the robes of civil magistrates. The son exchanged these
childish outfits for the pure white <i xml:lang="la">toga virilis</i>,
the symbol of Roman citizenship. He had to wear this garment to
conduct business or to participate in public functions. Think back to
what Paul said in Gal. 3:27: "<span class="bible">For as many of you
as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.</span>" Perhaps,
being a Roman citizen himself by birth, when Paul wrote about
Christian baptism being the symbol of citizenship in the Kingdom of
God, he had the <i xml:lang="la">toga virilis</i> in mind.</p>
<h4>Adopted heirs</h4>
<p>Paul doesn't just liken being in Christ to coming of age. He adds
yet another analogy from Roman custom. The Romans held to a form of
filial piety, or ancestor worship; they believed that the spirits of
their ancestors kept watch over them and their property. Thus it was
very important for a man to have an heir; in fact, it was considered
disgraceful to die without one.</p>
<p>If a man had no offspring, he might try to become adopted by
another family. In that case, his goods were transferred to the heir
of his new family, and his own ancestors would supposedly be
satisfied. Better yet, though, he might adopt an heir himself.
Typically this was the son of another family of lesser status, and
there was a ceremony by which he was formally separated from his
natural family and legally bound to his adoptive father. He might also
adopt a slave as his son.</p>
<p>There's a good instance of this practice in that traditional
Easter movie, <cite>Ben-Hur</cite>. Judah ben-Hur is a Jewish merchant
and a close friend of the local Roman tribune, Masala. They have a
falling out when Masala misinterprets an accident as an attempt on his
life, and as a consequence he sells ben-Hur into slavery, where he
spends three years chained to the oar of a Roman galley. When the
galley is sunk, only ben-Hur and the captain, Arius, survive, the
latter because ben-Hur saved his life. In gratitude, Arius redeems
ben-Hur from his slavery, and adopts him as his own son and heir.</p>
<p>This is the kind of relationship that Paul is speaking about. He
writes that "<span class="bible">God sent forth his
Son . . . to redeem them that were under the law, that
we might receive the adoption of sons</span>" (Gal. 4:4-5).</p>
<h4>The essence of the true Gospel</h4>
<p>This is the climax of Paul's letter. It is the very heart and soul
of the Gospel. <em>God loves sinners.</em> We know this because God
has taken the initiative to reconcile sinners to himself. We were
slaves: slaves to sin, slaves to an external code of righteousness
that could not save us. Paul says that "<span class="bible">we were
children . . . in bondage under the elements of the
world</span>" (Gal. 4:3). In Greek, the word <span
class="greek">stoicei/on</span> (<i>stoicheion</i>), which the KJV
translators rendered "elements," might also be translated as
"elementary rudiments": in other words, so to speak, the
ABCs. Specifically by "we" Paul means those who received the Gospel
first, his own people the Jews, and their Law. But the Gospel has
become an inclusive thing embracing Jew and Gentile both, so by
logical extension his meaning can mean any worldly code of
righteousness other than faith in Christ. God has redeemed us from
slavery to the ABCs of a righteousness by which we cannot redeem
ourselves. Jesus Christ - the eternal Son of God -
condescended to be "<span class="bible">made of a woman, made under
the Law</span>" (Gal. 4:4). He who was ruler and master of all,
consented to be a servant to his own creation. At the appointed time,
he lived a life of active obedience to the Law to satisfy the demands
of the Law upon us, and died on a cross to make satisfaction for our
sins. That is the price of our redemption. It is the basis upon which
we are no longer slaves to sin, but adopted children of the Father. It
is on the basis of Christ's life, death, and resurrection that we are
justified - counted righteous - accepted by God. Though by
nature we are children of wrath, by God's grace we are children of
love.</p>
<p>Because we are now sons, Paul says that "<span class="bible">God
hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba,
Father</span>" (Gal. 4:6). Read also what he writes in Romans 8:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">For ye have not received the spirit of bondage
again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we
cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit,
that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of
God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him,
that we may be also glorified together.</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="noindent">We are now on intimate terms with the heavenly
Father; we are able to call him "Abba," which as everyone knows by
now, is a term of endearment used between a small child and his
father: Daddy. Papa.</p>
<p>Paul continues to list the privileges of adoption: "<span
class="bible">Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if
a son, then an heir of God through Christ</span>" (Gal. 4:7). In
Roman society, there was only one heir who got the estate. But in the
family of God, we are all entitled to share in the inheritance. What
is this inheritance? Nothing less than the resurrection of the body,
eternal life, and eternal life.</p>
<p>(By the way, take note of the Trinitarian nature of adoption. The
Father sends the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son redeems us from the
curse of the Law. And the Holy Spirit guarantees our adoption.)</p>
<h4>The responsibilities of Kingdom citizenship</h4>
<p>Naturally, along with the privilege of being a citizen of Rome,
there were responsibilities. And there are responsibilities that go
along with the privilege of citizenship in heaven as well. I want to
finish by highlighting three of these.</p>
<p>Our adoption should produce a <em>likeness to God</em>. "<span
class="bible">Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear
children</span>" (Eph. 5:1). What does Paul mean by this? He
continues: "<span class="bible">And walk in love, as Christ also hath
loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to
God for a sweetsmelling savour</span>" (5:2). Compare Jesus' words in
the Sermon on the Mount:
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt
love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love
your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate
you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he
maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain
on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you,
what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="noindent">A likeness to God entails two things: to pursue
love as God loves, and to pursue the righteousness that God
commands.</p>
<p>Our adoption should produce a <em>love of peace</em>. Jesus said
in the Beatitudes, "<span class="bible">Blessed are the peacemakers:
for they shall be called the children of God</span>" (Matt. 5:9). The
children of God pursue peace. By this I don't necessarily mean
pacifism. I have friends who can argue passionately for Christian
pacifism. But I respectfully disagree with their conclusions: I
believe there are times when self-defense or justice are, at that
particular moment, greater virtues than the lack of conflict.
Nonetheless, the Bible does say that the children of God are to be
characterized by peaceful lives. The New Testament speaks of peace in
at least three ways. For example, Paul says, in Philippians, to be
anxious for nothing, and then "<span class="bible">the peace of God,
which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds
through Christ Jesus.</span>" (Phil. 4:7). So peace is partly the
personal, inner peace that comes from contentment. There is also peace
within the church: "<span class="bible">[A]bove all these things put
on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. And let the peace of God
rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and
be ye thankful</span> (Col. 3:14-15). And third, there is also with
the world around you: "<span class="bible">Recompense to no man evil
for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be
possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men</span>"
(Rom. 12:17-18).</p>
<p>Last, our adoption should produce a <em>spirit of
prayer</em>. Again, I turn to the Sermon on the Mount, this time in
Chapter 7:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye
shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that
asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that
knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his
son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he
give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good
gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in
heaven give good things to them that ask him? (Matt. 7:7-11)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Remember that this follows practically on the heels of Matthew 6,
in which Jesus has just taught the proper way of praying. Here in
Chapter 7, he tells us that our prayer ought to be persistent. The
great preacher Matthew Henry put it this way:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">Ask, Seek, Knock; that is, in one word, "Pray; pray often; pray
with sincerity and seriousness; pray, and pray again; make conscience
of prayer, and be constant in it; make a business of prayer, and be
earnest in it. Ask, as a beggar asks alms." Those that would be rich
in grace, must betake themselves to the poor trade of begging, and
they shall find it a thriving trade.<sup>1</sup></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Jesus draws the analogy of an earthly father and his children: if
we can openly approach our own earthly fathers and ask for food, we
will receive it, won't we? Therefore, how much more should we expect
the same of our heavenly Father? Just as we can communicate freely
with our earthly fathers, so can we with our heavenly Father.</p>
<p>Overall, I believe that when we contemplate what it is that God
has done for us - taken us children of wrath and adopted us as
his own children - above all else I think what we should have on
our minds is gratitude. How can we not? As the last stanza of the
hymn "The Love of God," quite possibly the greatest piece of sacred
verse ever penned, says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">Could we with ink the ocean fill,
<br />And were the skies of parchment made,
<br />Were every stalk on earth a quill,
<br />And every man a scribe by trade,
<br />To write the love of God above,
<br />Would drain the ocean dry.
<br />Nor could the scroll contain the whole,
<br />Though stretched from sky to sky.</p>
</blockquote>
<h4>Footnotes</h4>
<p><sup>1</sup> Matthew Henry, <cite>Commentary on the Whole
Bible</cite>, vol. 4, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 22 Mar
2005, 31 Mar 2005 <<a
href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc.iv.i.viii.html">http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc.iv.i.viii.html</a>>.</p>
</div>Scott McClarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16860823837991898060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627052.post-1111695635192989922005-03-24T13:00:00.000-05:002009-05-12T15:24:03.240-04:00Galatians VI: Why the Law, then?<p><i>(This blog post makes use of the BWGRKL font for some Greek
text, available for <a
href="http://www.bibleworks.com/fonts.html">download</a> from <a
href="http://www.bibleworks.com/">BibleWorks</a> at no
charge.)</i></p>
<p class="first">What must I do to be saved?</p>
<p>A few years ago, I was doing some shopping when I was approached
by a man who wanted to invite me to church. He handed me a card that
identified himself as part of the "Ottawa Church of Christ" and
invited me to attend a talk on some practical topic or other, along
the lines of "coping with life's ups and downs." I politely
declined. The International Churches of Christ, of which the Ottawa
Church of Christ is a part, preaches a false gospel, on at least two
fronts: first, by saying that to be saved you must be baptized -
and by the right church (which of course means them); second, by
saying that you must submit to the authority of a discipler, who
becomes your <i xml:lang="la">de facto</i> highest moral authority,
and to whom you are accountable even for many of the tiny details of
your daily life.</p>
<p>False gospels that add something to faith are nothing new. Paul
wrote his letter to the Galatians to combat a first-century version of
the same error. Professing Jewish Christians, or "Judaizers," were
stirring up controversy by saying that circumcision was necessary to
be saved. The Campbellite error of the ICOC is the same old heresy in
modern packaging.</p>
<p>Paul defends the true Gospel of <i>faith alone</i> by first
showing that he received his Gospel not from men, but by a revelation
from God. He shows that he has the endorsement of the other Apostles,
and then he shows that he was willing to stand up publicly even to
them if their behaviour were at odds with his Gospel. Then he appeals
to the personal experiences of the Galatians themselves, who received
the Holy Spirit because of their faith, not their obedience to the
Law. This is nothing less than the same faith as Abraham had, who was
counted righteous by God because he believed God's promises.
Righteousness by the Law results in a curse because it is not by
faith. But Christ has redeemed us from the curse by taking it upon
himself at the cross.</p>
<p>The obvious question, then, is: Why the Law, then? Now, starting
with Galatians 3:15, Paul discusses what the law was for, and why it
was incapable of saving anyone.</p>
<div class="fulltext">
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though
it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man
disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the
promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one,
And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant,
that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four
hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make
the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it
is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by
promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of
transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was
made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a
mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Is the law then
against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law
given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have
been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that
the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that
believe.</p>
<p>But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto
the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was
our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified
by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a
schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ
Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put
on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor
free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ
Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs
according to the promise.</p>
</blockquote>
<h4>The promise is better than the Law</h4>
<p>God's promises to Abraham are like a man's will, Paul says. When
a man prepares his will, once it is set down it cannot be changed.
Similarly, God's promises to Abraham are irrevocable. A law that came
430 years later could not supersede what came first. What Paul is
<em>specifically</em> talking about is is not quite clear, because
wills, then as now, could be changed by the testator before he
died. Perhaps he is thinking of a third party, other than the testator
or heir. There were also some Jewish inheritance laws that
<em>were</em> irrevocable. Maybe there was some other law that we no
longer know about. The point is the same, however: If a man's will
cannot be revoked once it is ratified, how much more is God's will
irrevocable? Adding the requirements of the Law to God's promise would
change its very nature, and it would be contrary to the character of
God for him to go back on his promise.</p>
<p>God first makes a promise to Abraham when he tells him to leave Ur
and head for the Promised Land. This takes us practically back to the
beginning of the Bible:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of
thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a
land that I will shew thee: and I will make of thee a great nation,
and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a
blessing: and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that
curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be
blessed.</p>
<p>So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went
with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed
out of Haran. (Gen. 12:1-4)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Right from the beginning of his story, Abraham has enough faith to
believe God and obey him. But then God promised Abraham a son, taking
him outside to count the stars, and saying, "<span class="bible">So
shall thy seed be</span>" (Gen. 15:5). It is here that it is written,
"<span class="bible">And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to
him for righteousness</span>" (15:6). Abraham was declared righteous
by God simply because he believed the promise.</p>
<p>Right after this, we read of a ritual that is strange to our
modern minds: Abraham cut a ram, a dove, and a pigeon in half and laid
the halves on the ground in two rows. Then, when it was dark, the
presence of the Lord himself passed between the halves of the
sacrifices, first as a smoking pot, then a flaming torch. This is an
ancient form of oath that was used to confirm a covenant between
parties. It is what is known as a "self-maledictory" oath - when
the parties to the covenant passed through the dismembered animals,
they were in effect saying, "May this also be done to me if I break
the covenant." In effect the God of the universe is himself saying to
Abraham: "May I be dismembered like these animals if I break my
promise to you to give you an heir." This is another reason Paul gives
why the Abrahamic covenant is superior to the Mosaic law: it is based
on a promise instead of law. God's promise to bless Abraham is
unilateral. Abraham himself does not walk between the halves. There
are no conditions. By contrast, the covenant of Moses promised
blessings, but they came with strings attached: the children of Israel
were given a Law at Mt. Sinai, consisting of over 600 different
regulations, and told to obey it. Faithfulness resulted in blessings;
unfaithfulness, in judgment. The Law was not unilateral, but mediated
by Moses between the children of Israel and God.</p>
<p>Fast-forward a few more years. God was good to his word, and
Abraham and Sarah had a son, Isaac. But then God issued a command to
Abraham: bring Isaac to Mt. Moriah and offer him there as a burnt
offering. At the moment of truth when Abraham was ready to do the
deed, God stopped him. He provided a lamb as a substitute sacrifice,
uttering these words:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">[B]ecause thou hast done this thing, and hast not
withheld thy son, thine only son : that in blessing I will bless
thee. . . . And in thy seed shall all the nations of
the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my
voice. (Gen. 22:16-18)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Next, Paul does what looks like some extreme theological
hairsplitting: he latches on to the singular "<span
class="bible">seed</span>" in Genesis 22:18 and says that this promise
finds its fulfillment in one single person, Jesus Christ, Abraham's
true seed. Of course Paul was aware that the natural meaning of "seed"
is a collective noun meaning Abraham's descendants. He doesn't dispute
that, and anyway there is no question that the promise to Abraham was
<em>literally</em> fulfilled in Abraham's descendants. But what Paul
says is that the ultimate fulfilment of the promise is spiritual,
rather than biological: not the nation of Israel, but Christ -
and, as 3:29 says, the promise extends to all, Jew and Gentile alike,
who are in Christ.</p>
<p>The promise to Abraham foreshadows Christ. Think it through. Out
of his love for God, Abraham was willing to give up his beloved, only
son. Out of his love for us, God the Father was willing to give up
<em>his</em> only Son. God provided Abraham with a ram to sacrifice as
a substitute for Isaac; he provided the Lord Jesus as a
substitutionary atonement for our sins. Christ is the Lamb of God who
takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Not only that, but
Mt. Moriah, up which Abraham led Isaac to sacrifice him, is in the
same part of the world where God led Christ up another hill to die on
a cross. God's promise to Abraham was literally fulfilled in Isaac and
his descendants according to the flesh. God's promise to Abraham was
<em>ultimately</em> fulfilled in Christ and Abraham's descendants
according to promise.</p>
<h4>The purpose of the Law</h4>
<p>Paul raises the obvious question: "<span class="bible">Wherefore
then serveth the law?</span>" (Gal. 3:19). If the Law doesn't save
you, and if the Law doesn't replace God's covenant with Abraham, then
why did God even send down the Law to begin with?</p>
<p>First, it was "<span class="bible">added because of
transgressions</span>" (Gal. 3:19). The purpose of the Law was to
demonstrate what sin was. It doesn't accomplish this merely by giving
us a checklist of dos and don'ts. It's more personal than that. The
Law shows us how truly sinful we are.</p>
<p>In C. S. Lewis' novel <cite>The Pilgrim's Regress</cite>, the main
character, John, is given a card containing the rules his Landlord
expects him to live by. Lewis writes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">At first he tried very hard to keep them all, but
whe it came to bed-time he always found that he had broken far more
than he had kept; and the thought of the horrible tortures to which
the good, kind Landlord would put him became such a burden that next
day he would become quite reckless and break as many as he possibly
could; for oddly enough this eased his mind for the moment. But then
after a few days the fear would return and this time it would be worse
than before because of the dreadful number of rules he had broken
during the interval.<sup>1</sup></p>
</blockquote>
<p>John discovers that there is a war going on within him; knowing
the rules, he desires to keep them, but despairs of actually
accomplishing it. Compare what the Bible says about the Law, in
Rom. 7:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God
forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known
lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking
occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of
concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive
without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and
I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be
unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me,
and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment
holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto
me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me
by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become
exceeding sinful. (Rom. 7:7-13)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Law shows sin for what it is, and it shows sinful people for
what <em>they</em> are. Paul closes Romans 7 with this lament: "<span
class="bible">O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from
the body of this death?</span>" (7:24). Fortunately, he answers his
own question: "<span class="bible">I thank God through Jesus Christ
our Lord</span>" (7:25).</p>
<p>Righteousness cannot be based on law. The Law is unable to bring
life - only death. It imprisons men in their sins. The Law is a
jailor that holds men until faith comes to set free those who believe
in Christ, in fulfilment of the earlier promise.</p>
<p>Paul uses another analogy to describe the purpose of the Law: he
calls it a "<span class="bible">schoolmaster</span>" in Galatians
3:24. Some translations use words like "tutor" or "guardian" which
doesn't really do the image justice; the NIV ambiguously says "<span
class="bible">the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ</span>."
Really, there's no equivalent in our society <em>or</em> our language.
Paul has in mind a kind of Greek slave, called a <span
class="greek">paidagwgo.j</span> (<i>paidagogos</i>). In an
upper-class household, he was a trusted, educated slave who was
responsible for the upbringing of his master's boys. He was a stern
disciplinarian, authorized to administer even corporal punishment. He
taught them moral conduct, and supervised their lives, keeping them
away from evil. In fact, before a boy became of age, he was not
allowed even to set foot outside the house without the <span
class="greek">paidagwgo.j</span>. One of the main jobs of the <span
class="greek">paidagwgo.j</span> was to lead the boys to and from
school every day.</p>
<p>This is the image of the Law that Paul wants us to have: It is a
harsh disciplinarian, teaching us right and wrong, but whose ultimate
purpose was to bring us to Christ by faith.</p>
<p>But now that faith has come, we are no longer under the <span
class="greek">paidagwgo.j</span>. We "<span class="bible">are all the
children of God by faith in Christ Jesus</span>" (Gal. 3:26); we have
come of age and we receive all the benefits and responsibilities of
being the legal heirs of the heavenly Father. This is something that
Paul will flesh out at the beginning of chapter 4; Lord willing, I
will come back to what that means in the next instalment in the
series.</p>
<p>The Law is not contrary to God's promise. Indeed, the Law
<em>assumes</em> the promises to Abraham. The Law does not add to the
promise, but supplements it. The Law reminds the sinner of his
sinfulness, driving him to appeal to God's mercy and grace. The Law
leads us <em>back to</em> the promise. In fact, the Law ought to
<em>remind</em> us of the promise. In Exodus 19:18, the words
describing the smoke and fire of the visible presence of God on
Mt. Sinai are the same words used to describe the smoking pot and
flaming torch that ratified God's oath to Abraham.</p>
<h4>Who we are in Christ</h4>
<p>This passage tells us what our identity is. One of the
ramifications of a postmodernist, poststructuralist worldview is that
we are nothing but the sum total of our relationships. Consider, for
example, the 1997 movie <cite>Fight Club</cite>, directed by David
Fincher. This movie is the story of a wage slave in a mundane
corporate job whose life is driven by the acquisition of material
goods. He is completely alienated from others. He has no identity of
his own; the credits simply list him as the "Narrator." At the
beginning of the film, he begins to manufacture an identity for
himself by faking serious illnesses and connecting with people at
various support groups. Later he joins a "Fight Club" in which
members bond by beating each other senseless. As the movie
progresses, the level of violence in the encounters escalates, even to
the point of picking fights with random strangers, as the Narrator
seeks out more authentic experiences.</p>
<p>Paul gives the Biblical answer to the question of our identity in
contrast to Fincher's artificially constructed one. We are the adopted
children and legal heirs of God the Father. We are the spiritual
brothers of Christ, God's firstborn, on the basis of his real,
historical death on a cross as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. We
are Abraham's descendants. We fulfill a promise made by God 4,500
years ago. We are <em>not</em> merely the sum of the shifting sand of
our relationships. Our identity is firmly grounded on the objective
rock of the unchanging God and the facts of history.</p>
<p>We are citizens of a different kingdom. As one of the pastors at
my church once put it, "we are no longer ordinary." We have given up
our private citizenship and become ambassadors of Christ. Paul says
that if we were baptized into Christ, we have "<span class="bible">put on Christ</span>"
(3:27) - essentially, we have put on Christ's uniform and we have
declared ourselves to be in his employment. If you profess Christ,
and you have not yet been baptized, ask yourself why you have not yet
donned Christ's uniform. Do you feel you don't know enough about it?
When When Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:36-38), he had
been a Christian apparently for only a few minutes, and had only one
theology lesson. He had <em>faith</em>, not knowledge. Do you think
the time isn't right? Then when will be the right time? A more
<em>convenient</em> time? Death does not come at convenient times. You
do not know what will happen to you even in the next day. Can you
imagine yourself trying to explain to the Lord Jesus why you had been
a believer for years, and even with all this time to be baptized you
never actually found a convenient time?</p>
<p>Someone might also object: "But you don't need to be baptized to
be saved." That is true enough as far as it goes. If I were arguing
the Gospel with a member of the ICOC, I would insist on it, because
that is the very point upon which their false doctrine differs from
Biblical Christianity. In fact, I would argue straight from this very
letter to the Galatians. The ICOC is recycling the Judaizers'
arguments and simply replacing circumcision with baptism. But it is
an invalid logical leap from "you don't need to be baptized to be
saved" to "you don't need to be baptized <em>at all</em>." Baptism is
not essential to salvation. But it <em>is</em> essential to
obedience.</p>
<p>This passage tells us that God does not play favourites within his
family. Gal. 3:28 says that we are all one in Christ Jesus. Racial
differences are irrelevant; there is
neither Jew nor Greek. When Peter
first brought the Gospel to the Gentiles, he announced that "<span
class="bible">Of a truth I perceive
that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that
feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him</span>"
(Acts 10:34-35). Class differences do not matter; there is neither slave nor free man. James tells his readers not to give
preferential treatment to rich men who come into the assembly, while
humiliating the poor (James 2:1-13). Sex differences do not matter; there is neither male nor female. It is interesting to me that when Paul
preached in Athens before the Areopagus, the only person mentioned by
name as having believed the Gospel is a woman named Damaris.</p>
<p>This does not mean that sex, class, or ethic differences do not
exist, or that they are to be disregarded altogether. The same Paul
who says there is neither male nor female also establishes different
roles for men and women in the church and the home, and he grounds
these roles in the created order at the Garden of Eden
(1 Tim. 2:11-14). I have been glad to have had friends with
money when I have not, who were willing to who were willing to loan me
a bit of money now and then so that I didn't get left out of social
activities. And I can't help but appreciate the variety that my
friends of Chinese, Filipino, or African descent bring to my life.
But God doesn't play favourites. We are all adopted into his family by
the same rules. We are <em>one</em> family.</p>
<h4>Footnotes</h4>
<p><sup>1</sup> C. S. Lewis, <cite>The Pilgrim's Regress</cite>
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992) 6.</p>
<h4>Postscript</h4>
<p>Dr. Edmund P. Clowney, professor and first president of <a
href="http://www.wts.edu/">Westminster Theological Seminary</a>, died
this Sunday</p> at the age of 27. His book <a
href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0875521746/104-2945746-3969563?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=507846&s=books&v=glance"><cite>The
Unfolding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament</cite></a>
was a great help when I originally prepared this message in 2003.</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a
good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his
people. (Genesis 25:8)</p>
</blockquote>
</div>Scott McClarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16860823837991898060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627052.post-1111128829515159392005-03-17T13:00:00.000-05:002009-05-12T15:24:03.240-04:00Galatians V: Faith, not Law, justifies<p class="first">The first recorded controversy in the early Church
was over the question of justification. There were certain professing
Christians of Jewish descent who were agitating the churches, claiming
that to be right with God, it was necessary to keep the Jewish Law as
well. Specifically, they were saying that circumcison was a
prerequisite for salvation.</p>
<p>This contradicted the true Gospel as preached by the apostle Paul,
who taught that one entered a right relationship with God through
faith alone, not by keeping the Law. To support his argument, Paul
cites examples from his own experience. First, he recounts how he
brought his protégé Titus to Jerusalem to show how the
Holy Spirit was moving amongst the Gentiles. Then he explains how he
confronted Peter to his face about his withdrawing table fellowship
from Gentile Christians in Antioch. To return to the Jewish pattern
of things, he told Peter, was to rebuild what Christ had destroyed and
say that his death on the cross was unnecessary.<p>
<p>Now, Paul has finished reasoning from his own personal experience,
and he starts to address the Galatians personally.</p>
<div class="fulltext">
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that
ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been
evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of
you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing
of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now
made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if
it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit,
and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law,
or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was
accounted to him for righteousness.</p>
<p>Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the
children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would
justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto
Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they
which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. For as many as
are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written,
Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are
written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is
justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just
shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that
doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse
of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is
every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might
come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the
promise of the Spirit through faith. (Gal. 3:1-14)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Paul calls the Galatians "foolish." It's almost as though he is
dumfounded as to why they have been led astray. Has someone put a
spell on them? He can't think of a better reason why they would
depart from the true Gospel and start following the Judaizers.</p>
<p>This is especially true considering that "<span
class="bible">Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified
among you</span>" (Gal. 3:1). Paul preached "<span
class="bible">Christ and him crucified</span>" to the Galatians -
effectively, it is as though Jesus had been placarded in front of them
on a billboard. And still they had been led away from the truth.</p>
<p>Therefore, Paul begins a systematic refutation of the Judaizers.
He approaches the issue from three perspectives: experience, Old
Testament history, and the Law.</p>
<h4>Paul's argument from experience</h4>
<p>Paul poses a series of questions to the Galatians about their own
spiritual experiences.</p>
<p>First, he asks: Was it by faith or by Law that you received the
Holy Spirit? Obviously this is a rhetorical question. The Galatians
would have to answer, "By faith."</p>
<p>So, second, Paul asks them: If the new birth started with faith,
are you so foolish that you think you need the Law to finish the job?
Does your faith only go so far?</p>
<p>Third, he asks: Are the things you are suffering all for nothing?
What he is referring to isn't evident. After all, we're only reading
one side of the conversation here. Perhaps he is thinking of
persecution at the hands of the non-Christian Jews living in
Galatia. Maybe the same kind of violence that Paul often experienced,
from Jew and pagan alike, when he preached the Gospel in an
unbelieving city (cf. 2 Cor. 11:21-29).</p>
<p>Last, he asks them: When God works in your midst, giving you the
spirit and working miracles, is it because of your faith? Or is it
because of your obedience to the Law? Maybe Paul has in mind the
conversion of Cornelius and his household (Acts 10). The Holy Spirit
came upon them while Peter was still preaching. They hadn't even had
a chance to <em>do</em> anything yet.</p>
<p>Paul is again setting up an antithesis between Gospel and Law. As
I said last week, what the Gospel is, the Law is not. We are
justified by faith in Christ, but no one is justified by the Law. If
the Law could make us right with God, then Christ died for
nothing.</p>
<p>Paul's series of rhetorical questions forces the Galatians to
admit that they received God's blessings by faith alone. By
believing the Judaizers, they are making claims that run counter to
their own experience.</p>
<h4>Paul's argument from Old Testament history</h4>
<p>Paul isn't finished yet. Next, he argues out of the Old Testament
Scriptures: specifically, from the life of Abraham. Now that he has
refuted the Galatians themselves, he turns his attention to answering
the claims the Judaizers are troubling them with.</p>
<p>The rabbinic Judaism of that day viewed Abraham as a hero of the
faith. He was righteous, obedient - even to the point of being
willing to sacrifice his only son - and therefore, for his
obedience, God credited Abraham with righteousness. But Paul says that
this understanding of Abraham's faith is exactly backward. And to
prove it, he appeals to an earlier event in Abraham's life:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">After these things the word of the LORD came unto
Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy
exceeding great reward.</p>
<p>And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go
childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?
And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one
born in my house is mine heir. And, behold, the word of the LORD came
unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come
forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him
forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if
thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed
be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for
righteousness. (Gen. 15:1-6)
</blockquote>
<p>What exactly has Abraham <em>done</em> in this story? Nothing. He
has simply heard God promise that he will provide a son and heir, who
will produce many descendants. Effectively Abraham is credited for
righteousness because he had ears, and he took God at his word.</p>
<p>A better commentary on Genesis 15 and Galatians 3 can be found in
Paul's letter to the Romans:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Cometh this blessedness then upon the
circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that
faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then
reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in
circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of
circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had
yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that
believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be
imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are
not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that
faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet
uncircumcised. (Rom. 4:9-12)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Abraham was justified <em>before</em> he was circumcised. That
covenant sign isn't even introduced until Genesis 17. Therefore, the
"<span class="bible">children of Abraham</span>" are not the ones
clamouring for circumcision; rather, they are the ones who, like
Abraham, believe the Gospel by faith.</p>
<p>The faith of Abraham was a foreshadowing of the Gospel going to
the Gentiles. His blessing extends to "<span class="bible">all
nations</span>" - not to the Jews only, and not to the
circumcised only. Timothy George puts it graphically: "Descent by
blood or physical procreation does not create sons of Abraham in the
sight of God any more than the alteration of one's private parts
does."<sup>1</sup></p>
<p>Paul sums up his argument: "<span class="bible">So then they which
be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham</span>" (Gal. 3:9).
Having spiked one of the Judaizers' guns, then, he turns to another
weapon in their arsenal: Moses.</p>
<h4>The curse of the Law</h4>
<p>Everyone who fails to do the works of the Law is under a curse:
"<span class="bible">Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of
this law to do them</span>" (Deut. 27:26). Note that the Scripture
does not say, "do <em>most</em> of the Law" or "lead a pretty good
life" - but those who seek to justify themselves by Law are bound
to the <em>entire</em> Law, and that perfectly. As James says, if we
fail on one point of hte Law, we fail on all of them (Jas. 2:10). But
no mere human being has ever accomplished this, nor could one.
Therefore, all are cursed (cf. Rom. 2:17-24; 1:18-23). And so Paul
can dismiss the alternative of Law-keeping, as he says: "<span
class="bible">no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it
is evident</span>" (Gal. 3:11). Why? Because "<span
class="bible">[t]he just shall live by faith</span>." This passage is
quoted three times in the New Testament: in Romans, where Paul shows
how one is made right with God; in Hebrews, where it precedes the
great "Faith Hall of Fame"; and here.</p>
<p>We can live by faith because Christ has redeemed us from the curse
of the Law. He accomplished this by "<span class="bible">being made a
curse for us</span>" (Gal. 3:13). Paul demonstrates this with another
curse from the Law: "<span class="bible">he that is hanged is accursed
of God</span>" (Deut. 21:23). Under the Law, when a transgressor was
put to death, his body was sometimes hung up on a tree. It wasn't so
much that he was cursed because of this; rather, the fact that he was
put on display in this fashion was a sign of God's curse upon him
because he was a transgressor.</p>
<p>Christ was the only man who ever kept the Law perfectly.
Nonetheless, for our sake, he hung on a tree, thus "<span
class="bible">being made a curse for us</span>." We are free of the
curse ourselves because Christ's righteousness is imputed to our
account when we believe in him by faith.</p>
<p>Thus we are blessed with Abraham when we have faith. The
alternative is to be cursed for attempting to keep the Law by our own
strength. This is a frightening alternative, to be sure.</p>
<h4>Application</h4>
<p>Do we walk by faith? Abraham certainly did. Read Hebrews 11. He
obeyed God and set out for the land of promise, even though he did not
even know where he was going (v. 8). He believed God's promise that
he would have a son and many, many descendants, even though he and his
wife were well beyond childbearing age and "<span
class="bible">as good as dead</span>" (vv. 11-12). He was even
willing to kill his only son, whom he knew was the fulfillment of
God's promise, believing fully that if he did, God would raise Isaac
back from the dead just so he could keep his word (vv. 17-19).</p>
<p>Do we even have a fraction of this faith? Granted, we aren't asked
to sacrifice our children or believe we can have them in our
eighties. But think of some of the smaller things.</p>
<p>Consider the current economic downturn, particularly in the
hi-tech sector. There's no guarantee that our jobs will be there for
very long. Do we trust God's promise to supply our needs, even if we
are not working?</p>
<p>The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were the single most
significant event of my generation to date. It was to us what the
Kennedy assassination was to our parents. Even now, three and a half
years later, practically a day doesn't go by where 9/11 gets a mention
in the media. It set a new standard for human wickedness, proving
there are men so depraved that they have cast off all restraint and
have no compunction against murdering thousands for a cause. Do we
cower in fear because we think world events have spiraled out of
control? Or do we have faith that despite all present appearances,
God is still in control? "<span class="bible">And we know that all
things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are
the called according to his purpose. </span>" (Rom. 8:28). Can we
agree with Paul that we can <em>know</em> this, or do we just sort of
hope for the best?</p>
<p>This is what it means to have the faith of Abraham: to take God at
his word.</p>
<h4>Footnotes</h4>
<p><sup>1</sup> Timothy George, <cite>Galatians</cite>, The New
American Commentary, vol. 30 (Nashville: Broadman, 1994) 223-24.</p>
</div>Scott McClarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16860823837991898060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627052.post-1110486088990383792005-03-10T13:00:00.000-05:002009-05-12T15:24:03.240-04:00Galatians IV: Paul vs. Peter<p class="first">One of the reference works that I return to
frequently while preparing these posts is Martin Luther's <a
href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/galatians.titlepage.html">commentary
on Galatians</a>. Not only is it one of the great works of Christian
literature, but it's just good reading. There's something attractive
about Luther's down-to-earth style - not only his wit and the
rhetorical force of his polemics, but the devotional qualtiy that
comes through even under all the bombast. It makes his work a
pleasure to pick up again and again. There's one point near the
beginning of the commentary where he slams the Anabaptist sect,
writing:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">They do not go where the enemies of the Gospel
predominate. They go where the Christians are. Why do they not invade
the Catholic provinces and preach their doctrine to godless princes,
bishops, and doctors, as we have done by the help of God? These soft
martyrs take no chances. They go where the Gospel has a hold, so that
they may not endanger their lives.<sup>1</sup></p>
</blockquote>
<p>As a Baptist, of course I think that the doctrine of baptism is
one place where Luther and the other Reformers didn't Reform things
quite enough. Still, the story goes to show that there is nothing new
under the sun. Just as the Anabaptists in Luther's day were on the
trailing edge of evangelism, so too were the "circumcision party" of
the early Church: going from city to city, trying to persuade
Christians there that unless they were circumcised and observed the
Law of Moses, they could not be saved. We have Paul's letter to the
Galatians because of their attempt to infect the church at
Galatia.</p>
<p>But this wasn't the first run-in Paul had had with the
circumcision party, nor was it the last. If you skim the New Testament
you will also see that when he writes the Philippian church, he calls
them "<span class="bible">evil workers</span>" (Phil. 3:2), and in his
letter to Titus he calls them "<span class="bible">vain talkers and
deceivers</span>" (Tit. 1:10). Their <i xml:lang="la">modus
operandi</i> was to go from church to church spreading their doctrine
and upsetting churches for their own gain. Paul refuted the
circumcision party in Jerusalem, and in this instalment we will
encounter his second run-in with this group. This time, the
circumcision party had managed to sway even an Apostle, endangering
the very unity of the Church itself unless Paul did something about it
quickly.</p>
<div class="fulltext">
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood
him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain
came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were
come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of
the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him;
insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their
dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according
to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If
thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do
the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We
who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that
a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of
Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be
justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for
by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we
seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners,
is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build
again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For
I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I
am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ
liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the
faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do
not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law,
then Christ is dead in vain.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Paul brought Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile, to Jerusalem to
prove that the Holy Spirit was moving amongst the Gentiles. Last
week, I argued that Paul's reason for bringing Titus along was to
force the issue, provoking the leadership in Jerusalem to make a
decision on the circumcision controversy. He did this in private
(Gal. 2:2). At that time, Paul didn't want to make a public spectacle
out of this doctrinal controversy.</p>
<h4>Peter sticks his foot in his mouth again</h4>
<p>But there are times when the issue demands nothing less than a
bold, direct, <em>public</em> confrontation and rebuke. Paul knew that
there was <em>one</em> Church and <em>one</em> set of rules, but
Peter's hypocrisy threatened to split the Church and set up
<em>two</em> different standards for Jews and Gentiles. This was not a
minor controversy. It undermined a fundamental principle of the
Christian Gospel.</p>
<p>Even our leaders are not immune from error, and when that error is
public, when it is severe, when it touches on such a basic truth of
the faith, or when it threatens to divide the people of God into
factions, then it might be necessary to be bold and confront that
leader publicly. In fact, Paul told Timothy it was a very serious
matter to bring an accusation against an elder - it's not even to
be considered unless there is more than one witness
(1 Tim. 5:19). But he follows that right up with this
instruction: "<class="bible">Them that sin rebuke before all, that
others also may fear</span>" (5:20).</p>
<p>Peter was not <em>ignorant</em> of God's dealings with the
Gentiles. He was a witness to Christ's ministry. More than that, it
was through him that God brought the Gospel for the first time to the
Gentile nations. Peter should have known better, and Paul knew it. If
you will allow me the anachronism and a little creative license, let's
suppose that Paul pulled out his New Testament and pointed out episode
after episode from Peter's life that refuted Peter's present
conduct.</p>
<p>First, Paul might have turned to John 4 and said, "Peter, here's
this story about Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well. You know
that Jesus talked with her and told her that he was the Messiah. In
fact, didn't you stay in her village for two days and see all the
people who believed in him because of her testimony?"</p>
<p>Or he could turn to Matthew 15 and say, "What about the Canaanite
woman with the demon-possessed daughter? Jesus didn't ignore her, did
he? No, he healed her, even though she was a Gentile. The time for the
Gentiles hadn't come yet, but he gave her a little preview, didn't
he?</p>
<p>"Here's another one in John 12. After Jesus' triumphal entry into
Jerusalem, it says here that some Greeks were there and wanted to see
him. Were you there, Peter? It is because of those Greeks that Jesus
announced that his time had come, and that when he was lifted up from
the earth he would draw all men to himself. Not just Jews, Peter,
<em>all</em> men, Jews <em>and</em> Gentiles. What happened? Did you
miss the point?</p>
<p>"And what about Matthew 28? '<span class="bible">Go ye therefore,
and teach all nations</span>' (Matt. 28:19). You did hear that,
right?</p>
<p>"How about the first third of Acts? Isn't that your life story,
Peter? What did you say to the crowd on Pentecost? '<span
class="bible">Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift
of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children,
and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall
call</span>' (Acts 2:38-39). Now, when I wrote to the Ephesians,
Peter, by those who were '<span class="bible">far off</span>,' I meant
the Gentiles (Eph. 2:13). Is that who you had in mind?</p>
<p>"Here's your second sermon, the one you did at the Temple. You
were speaking to the Jews, but you quoted the covenant with Abraham
from Genesis 22:18: '<span class="bible">And in thy seed shall <em>all
the nations</em> of the earth be blessed</span>' (emphasis added). I
use that verse too, Peter. In fact I tell the Gentiles that the 'seed'
is the Lord Jesus, and then I use this verse to prove to them that God
would justify them by faith just as he did Abraham.</p>
<p>"This one's good. Acts 10. You're up on Simon the tanner's roof
and you have this vision of a sheet full of lizards and other animals
coming down from heaven, and a voice invites you to dinner. You
object, being a good Jew, and the voice tells you not to declare
unclean what God has declared clean.</p>
<p>"Later you meet up with Cornelius the centurion, and you find out
that he was directed to seek you out by a vision of his own. So you
compare notes, and you <em>finally figure out</em> what God was
telling you: '<span class="bible">Of a truth I perceive that God is no
respecter of persons</span>,' you said, "<span class="bible">but in
every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is
accepted with him . . . To him give all the prophets
witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall
receive remission of sins</span>' (Acts 10:34-35,43).</p>
<p>"And what happens? Cornelius and all his relatives are there, and
they receive the Holy Spirit, and it's so obvious what is going on
that you can't even come up with a good reason not to baptize
them!</p>
<p>"But then a few days later, you came back to Jerusalem, and some
Jewish Christians confronted you and they accused you, saying: '<span
class="bible">Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with
them</span>' (Acts 11:3). And you answered them like this: '<span
class="bible">Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did
unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I
could withstand God?</span>' (11:17) And that shut them up.</p>
<p>"So, Peter, what changed between then and now? You didn't refuse
to eat with the Gentiles in Jerusalem; why are you doing it in
Antioch? Have you forgotten everything that has happened to you, so
that you drag Barnabas and all the other Jewish believers into
hypocrisy with you? I know you've put your foot in your mouth before,
Peter, but this really takes the cake. Explain yourself!"</p>
<p>And, of course, Peter cannot. He has no excuse. He knew that God
had established a relationship with the Gentiles on the very same
basis as with the Jews: faith in the finished work of Christ on the
cross. The Gentiles in Cornelius' household had no Law of Moses to
obey, but nonetheless, they received the Holy Spirit when Peter
preached to them and they believed. In fact, it was so obvious to
Peter and the other Jewish believers present what had happened, Peter
even said he could see no reason why they should be refused baptism!
(He didn't even make them go to baptism class.)</p>
<p>The problem wasn't with Peter's <em>knowledge</em>. It wasn't his
<em>doctrine</em> that angered Paul. It was his <em>conduct</em>. His
refusal to eat with the Gentiles when the circumcision party came was
inconsistent with his professed belief. He wasn't motivated by
righteousness, but "fear of the Jews." Peter wanted to ingratiate
himself with the circumcision party, so he played the hypocrite; he
played the part so well that he drew Barnabas and the rest of the
Jewish believers into sin with him. He was compelling the Gentiles to
live like Jews, because by his actions he was implying that there was
more to Christianity than they were getting, and that if they wanted
to be <em>real</em> believers, they would have to start observing the
Law as well. But this was the very opposite of the Gospel Paul had
received from Christ. Peter, Barnabas, and the others were "<spen
class="bible">not in step with the truth of the Gospel</span>," as the
ESV puts it, so Paul is compelled to corner the ringleader and chew
him out in public.</p>
<p>Paul continues to state his case from Gal. 2:15 onward. Since
Greek doesn't use quotation marks, we can't tell where Paul's
narrative ends and he addresses the Galatians directly
again. Practically every translation assumes the rebuke goes right to
the end of the chapter. Either way, it is Paul's thought; it makes no
difference to the meaning.</p>
<p>In verses 15 and 16, Paul tells Peter, effectively, "We are Jews,
not Gentile sinners. Look at all the advantages we have! God chose us
out of all the nations. He gave us the Law and told us that if we
obeyed it, all the other nations would see us and know how enlightened
we were. He gave us the prophets. He even promised us that we would
produce the Messiah and bring light to the entire world. But guess
what? All those advantages make no difference. We are not made right
with God by observing the Law. God counts us righteous by our faith in
Jesus Christ."</p>
<h4>The antithesis between Law and faith</h4>
<p>All the way through this passage, Paul sets Law against
Gospel. When it comes to being in a right relationship with God, the
Law and the Gospel are <em>antithetical</em> to one another. What one
is, the other is not. We are justified by faith in Christ; on the
other hand, "<span class="bible">by the works of the law shall no
flesh be justified</span>" (Gal. 2:16). Or, "<span class="bible">if
righteousness come by the law</span>," then what need is there of
Christ? He "<span class="bible">is dead in vain</span>"
(Gal. 2:21).</p>
<p>Law cannot save. This truth goes against "conventional wisdom,"
which supposes that if someone were to live an upright and moral
life - never killing anyone, selling drugs to children, robbing a
bank - that somehow God "owes" him a spot in heaven if he can
manage to be a basically decent citizen for threescore and ten
years.</p>
<p>But if we think we can earn God's approval like this, we are
deluding ourselves. No one has ever accomplished perfect conformity to
God's perfect standard of righteousness. And if we break even the
finest point of the law, we might as well break the whole thing as far
as God is concerned. Do you hate? Then it doesn't matter that you've
never murdered anyone. You've done it in your heart. Do you cheat on
your taxes? Then all those times you've successfully resisted the urge
to rob the bank just came to nothing. We just can't do it. The Law
cannot save.</p>
<p>But Christ is the single person in history who was able to keep
the entire Law perfectly. His <em>active obedience</em> to the
Father's decrees is transferred (or <em>imputed</em>) to us when we
believe. God <em>justifies</em> us, or declares us righteous, because
Christ was righteous on our behalf. And that's why, unlike the Law,
faith in Christ brings justification.</p>
<p>Then Paul raises a potential objection. What if, someone might
ask, "<span class="bible">while we seek to be justified by Christ, we
ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of
sin?</span>" (Gal. 2:17). Maybe some of the circumcision party
cornered Peter with this question. "Peter, you know eating with
Gentiles goes against God's law. By doing it in the name of Christian
liberty, aren't you using Christ's name to justify sin?"</p>
<p>"<span class="bible">God forbid,</span>" Paul says. he
says. "Christ has destroyed the Law as a basis for justification. If I
go back to the Law now, I would be saying the Law could do something
Christ could not. I would be rebuilding what Christ has destroyed. The
Judaizers are saying that fellowshipping with the Gentiles makes you a
lawbreaker. But they've got it backwards. It's actually
<em>separating</em> from the Gentiles that breaks the Law, because God
has broken down the barriers between us. '<span class="bible">What God
hath cleansed, that call not thou common</span>'" (Acts 10:15).</p>
<p>And from there Paul goes into what is probably the best-known
passage in Galatians:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">For I through the law am dead to the law, that I
might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live;
yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in
the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and
gave himself for me. (Gal. 2:19-20)</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="noindent">Martin Luther has a wonderful remark on this
passage:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">Did the Law ever love me? Did the Law ever
sacrifice itself for me? Did the Law ever die for me? On the contrary,
it accuses me, it frightens me, it drives me crazy. Somebody else
saved me from the Law, from sin and death unto eternal life. That
Somebody is the Son of God, to whom be praise and glory forever.<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="noindent">The Law never loved anyone and never died for
anyone. But Christ did. He was crucified for us so that we might have
forgiveness of sins. And we are crucified <em>with</em>
Christ. Because Christ bore our sins, we identify with him on the
cross, and in a sense we died <em>with</em> him. Paul writes in Romans
7 that it was the Law that enslaved him to sin, making him aware of
what sin was and arousing those sinful passions in him. The Law
legislated the life of God's people, and because no man could live up
to its standards, it condemned them. But since we have died with
Christ, we are also dead to the Law. We are not under its jurisdiction
any longer. Being dead to the Law, we are able to live freely for
God, because although we continue to live in our own flesh, Christ
lives within us through the person of the Holy Spirit who enables us
to live for God. My favourite passag of the Bible says:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities:
for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit
itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be
uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of
the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to
the will of God.</p>
<p>And we know that all things work together for good to them that
love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For
whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the
image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he
called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also
glorified. (Rom. 8:28-30)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>One of the Holy Spirit's tasks is to conform us to
Christ-likeness. It is the Spirit who enables us to live for God,
because we cannot do it on our own effort: "<span class="bible">For if
ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do
mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live</span>" (Rom. 8:13).</p>
<p>Consider the alternative. What if we <em>could</em> live according
to the flesh? What if we <em>could</em> make peace with God by our own
effort in obeying the Law? Paul closes his argument with this: "<span
class="bible">if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in
vain</span>" (Gal. 2:21). There's that antithesis again - it's
either Law or Christ, but not both. If it were possible to obtain
righteousness in God's eyes by our good works, then why did Christ
need to die at all? Did the Father send him down for fun? Was it
merely to make him a public spectacle? Indeed, there are those who
hold to the so-called Moral Government theory of the Atonement, who
say that Christ's death did not function as a substitutionary
atonement for the sins of men, but merely demonstrated to the world
how seriously God takes sin. Christ's death does not pay for sin so
much as show men why they should live righteously. Are they right? I'm
with Paul: God forbid! If the Law can save, there is no need for
Christ. If we can add our human merit to Christ's, if we can earn
passage to heaven, if we rebuild the Law that Christ has torn down,
then we mock his death, and we're no better than those who taunted him
to save himself on Golgotha, because in effect we're saying the same
thing: "Come on down, we don't need you up there. We'll just take care
of it ourselves."</p>
<h4>A final warning</h4>
<p>Whenever the truth of justification by faith alone has been
preached, it has always been met with the same objection: it provides
an excuse for loose living. Paul heard it from the Jews. Martin Luther
heard it from the Roman priests. I have heard it myself from modern
legalists such as the Seventh-day Adventists. Such people
misunderstand or misrepresent the doctrine. Paul says faith alone
<em>justifies</em>; it makes us righit with God. No human work can
merit that.</p>
<p>These days, though, it also seems that in some Evangelical circles
the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. How often have
you heard the slogan, "Oh, we're not under law, we're under grace"?
Far too often, someone is saying this to summarily dismiss any sort of
standard of conduct that he finds too restrictive or
"legalistic" - another word that gets thrown around with far less
care than it should.</p>
<p>(For example, just this week someone accused me of "legalism"
online, because I pointed out how he had used a Scriptural proof-text
out of context. When "legalism" extends even to "<span
class="bible">rightly dividing the word of truth</span>"
(2 Tim. 2:15) and insisting that Scripture be handled with
integrity, the term has lost all meaning.)</p>
<p>When Paul says we are "under grace," he means something very
different. It is sloppy reasoning to leap from the doctrine of
justification by faith alone to the idea that being "under grace"
legitimizes any sort of sinful conduct. In fact, the Word of God says
the exact opposite:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body,
that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your
members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield
yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your
members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not
have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under
grace.</p>
<p>What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but
under grace? God forbid. (Rom. 6:12-13)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Since we are under grace, not law, we are being conformed into
Christ-likeness by the Holy Spirit. Because we are free <em>from</em>
the power of sin, we are free <em>to</em> live righteously for
God. That is what it means to be under grace, not Law.</p>
<p>Paul writes to the Philippians to "<span class="bible">work out
your own salvation with fear and trembling</span>" (Phil. 2:12), but
he adds to this that "<span class="bible">it is God which worketh in
you both to will and to do of his good pleasure</span>" (2:13). That
is what it means to have Christ living within you.</p>
<p>John wrote in his first letter that "<span class="bible">we say
that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do
not the truth</span>" (1 John 1:6), but he turns right around and
says soon after, "<span class="bible">If we confess our sins, he is
faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness</span>" (1:9). That is what being "crucified with
Christ" is all about.</p>
<h4>Footnotes</h4>
<p><sup>1</sup> Martin Luther, <em>A Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle
to the Galatians</em>, tr. Theodore Graebner, Christian Classics
Ethereal Library, 10 March 2005 <<a
href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/galatians.htm">http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/galatians.htm</a>>.</p>
<p><sup>2</sup> Luther, <em>Galatians</em>.</p>
</div>Scott McClarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16860823837991898060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627052.post-1109887165753040202005-03-03T13:00:00.000-05:002009-05-12T15:24:03.240-04:00Galatians III: The test case<p class="first">In Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925, the "trial of the
century" - the so-called "Scopes Monkey Trial" - was held. A
schoolteacher named John Scopes had been charged with violation of the
Butler Act, a state law that prohibited the teaching of evolution in
schools. This famed court case brought a number of famous
personalities into Dayton. Clarence Darrow, the most notorious
criminal defense lawyer of the day, declared that it was civilization
itself being put on trial. William Jennings Bryan, onetime
presidential candidate and the greatest political orator of the day,
saw his prosecution of Scopes as the duty of an evangelical Christian
standing for orthodoxy against the forces of unbelief. H. L. Mencken,
the greatest journalist of the time, was an atheist who thought the
whole thing was a joke and the good people of Dayton and Tennessee
were ignorant boobs. Between the grandstanding of the two attorneys,
Mencken's mocking, and the descent of 200-odd reporters on the town,
the whole event was a media circus.</p>
<p>The Scopes trial was a <em>test case</em>. John Scopes wasn't
charged because he was caught teaching evolution. He volunteered to
stand trial at the prompting of the American Civil Liberties Union and
a local businessman who thought the law was unfair. It wasn't even
important that Scopes won; in fact, he lost. The purpose of the case
was to <em>test the validity</em> of the law. Eventually, the ACLU and
other critics of the Butler Act were vindicated. It was
repealed . . . in 1967.</p>
<p>Similarly, we see in Paul's letter to the Galatians that the
Gospel he preaches has effectively been put on trial. "Judaizers,"
Jews professing Christianity, are agitating the church in Galatia,
telling them that in order to be Christians it is first necessary to
become Jews by being circumcised according to the Law of Moses. They
seem to be attacking Paul himself as well, trying to cast doubt on his
authority as an apostle of Jesus Christ.</p>
<div class="fulltext">
<p>Fourteen years after his conversion, Paul finally gets the chance
to "talk shop" with the Apostles in Jerusalem. He brings a friend
along with him, a man named Titus. Titus is Paul's test case to prove
the validity of his doctrine. He writes:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Then fourteen years after I went up again to
Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up
by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach
among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation,
lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. But neither
Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be
circumcised: and that because of false brethren unawares brought in,
who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ
Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place by
subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might
continue with you. But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever
they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:)
for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
but contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision
was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto
Peter; (for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of
the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) and
when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the
grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right
hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto
the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor;
the same which I also was forward to do. (Gal. 2:1-10)</p>
</blockquote>
<h4>When was Paul in Jerusalem?</h4>
<p>When did this trip to Jerusalem take place? Most Bible scholars
equate the "fourteen years after" trip with the council of Jerusalem
(Acts 15). Since the accounts in Acts 15 and Galatians 2 have a
number of surface similarities, including their subject matter, this
argument is not without merit. The council of Jerusalem was convened
to deal with the relationship between Law and Gospel.</p>
<p>There are difficulties with this harmonization, however. Paul
says in Galatians that he went to Jerusalem because of a revelation.
God told him to go. According to Acts 15:2, however, he and Barnabas
were delegated to go by the church in Antioch. More significantly,
however, if the council of Jerusalem has already taken place by the
time Paul is writing this letter, why did he bother writing it at all?
The issue of circumcision had already been debated at length, a
conclusion reached, and an open letter issued. The resolution of the
council had the approval of all the Apostles. If the letter copied by
Luke into Acts 15:23-29 was already in circulation, then Paul's letter
to the Galatians was redundant. The letter from Jerusalem should have
settled the matter.</p>
<p>I hold a minority view. I personally believe that the Jerusalem
trip Paul is speaking of is the one mentioned briefly in Acts
11:27:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem
unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and
signified by the spirit that there should be great dearth throughout
all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. Then
the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send
relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea: which also they did,
and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This harmonization fits the facts: the "revelation" Paul responded
to <em>could have been</em> direct instructions from God; on the other
hand, it <em>could have been</em> Agabus' prophecy. And since Luke is
completely silent on what Paul and Barnabas did while in Jerusalem,
there aren't any difficulties in harmonizing this passage with
Galatians 2. Finally, Paul says that the Apostles had asked him to
remember the poor, and the very reason he was in Jerusalem in the
first place was to deliver relief money to the believers there. Of
course, there are perfectly good Christians who disagree with me.
It's a minor issue.</p>
<h4>Paul meets the Twelve</h4>
<p>Paul says, then, that he went up to Jerusalem and submitted his
Gospel to the apostles, "<span class="bible">lest by any means I
should run, or had run, in vain.</span>." My original thought when I
read this verse was that Paul was showing some normal, human
uncertainty about his teaching - a very understandable situation
given the opposition he was obviously feeling. But I realized that
this isn't consistent with Paul's argument up to this point, where he
claims Christ revealed the Gospel to him directly, and he has been
preaching it all over the place for 14 years. These are not the
actions of a man with doubts about the correctness of his doctrine!
Paul is not seeking reassurance, but <em>unity</em> - by seeking
the endorsement of the Apostles in Jerusalem, he derails the attempt
by the Judaizers to cause him to "run in vain" by discrediting his
ministry.</p>
<p>He receives the endorsement he seeks. Verse 6 says that "<span
class="bible">they who seemed to be
somewhat . . . added nothing to me</span>." If Paul's
detractors were right, and circumcision was necessary to salvation,
then the Apostles would have told Paul to preach it. On the contrary,
the Apostles had recognized God had been working through Paul to bring
the Gospel to the Gentiles, just as he had worked through Peter to
bring it to the Jews. They gave him the "<span class="bible">right
hands of fellowship</span>" and sent him back out to preach to the
Gentiles with their blessing.</p>
<p>The Apostles do attach one "rider" to their endorsement: they
remind Paul to "<span class="bible">remember the poor</span>" (v. 10).
Paul is quick to point out that this was "<span class="noindent">the
same which I also was forward to do</span>." In fact, caring for the
poor Christians in Judæa formed a major part of Paul's
ministry. If I am right in my harmonization of Galatians 2 and Acts
11, then the primary reason Paul was in Jerusalem in the first place
was to deliver relief funds. His instructions on giving in
1 Cor. 16 and 2 Cor. 9 are given in the context of taking up
a collection for the poor. Paul was finally arrested in Jerusalem
after he insisted on being the courier for this offering, against the
advice of the church members at Caesarea, including the same prophet
Agabus who foretold the famine that took Paul there with his
<em>first</em> offering! The welfare of the poor saints in Judea, and
the unity of the Jewish and Gentile Church that this offering
symbolized, were more important to Paul than his own freedom. Paul was
eager to remember the poor because it <em>proved</em> that there was
<em>one</em> Church, <em>one</em> people in Christ, all saved by
<em>one</em> Gospel of grace.</p>
<h4>Titus the Gentile</h4>
<p>In the meantime, Paul had brought a friend with him: a young
protégé named Titus. Though an important New Testament
figure, the details of his life are actually pretty obscure. Luke
doesn't even mention him in Acts. In Paul's later letters we find out
that he was sent to Corinth to take up a collection (for the saints in
Judea, naturally!). And later, when Paul is in prison for the first
time, he writes a letter to Titus, who is church-planting in
Crete. Finally, he is sent on an errand from Rome, where he is with
Paul during his final imprisonment. As for the remainder of his life
and missionary career, there is silence.</p>
<p>Titus, being a Gentile, was not circumcised unlike the Jewish
Christians in Jerusalem. Those Jews in Jerusalem who had converted to
Christianity still had a high regard for the Mosaic Law; they were
Christians by faith, though Jews by culture. However, some of them
were "<span class="bible">false brethren</span>." By all appearances,
they were a part of the Body of Christ. However, they were agitating
the Church, attempting to persuade them that, as Acts 15:1 says,
"<span class="bible">Except ye be circumcised after the manner of
Moses, ye cannot be saved.</span>." More than this, Paul accuses them
of having "<span class="bible">came in privily to spy out our liberty
which is in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into
bondage</span>."</p>
<p>Whenever I read this passage, I am struck with the mental image of
robed and bearded Peeping Toms, skulking around people's houses,
trying to catch a clandestine glimpse of Titus with his pants down so
they can be appropriately scandalized and go off and tell everyone how
outraged they are. There is still no shortage of busybodies and
mudslingers in the world, after all. Realistically, however, I think
Paul was saying that the false brethren were something like the
Pharisees who tried to entrap Jesus, as Luke 20:20 says: "<span
class="bible">And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should
feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his
words</span>." The Judaizers were trying to set a trap for Paul and
Titus, to discredit them. Maybe they wanted to catch Paul saying
something outrageous: advocating antinomianism (since we are not under
Law, but grace), repudiating Jewish tradition, or bringing Gentiles
into the Temple. These are the sorts of accusations that Paul's
enemies would make later in his ministry, anyway.</p>
<p>But it didn't work, and Paul did not give in; he says, "<span
class="bible">neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was
compelled to be circumcised</span>; and, "<span class="bible">we gave
place by subjection, no, not for an hour</span>." Thus the Judaizers
were <em>unsuccessful</em> in adding works to the Gospel. They were
<em>unsuccessful</em> in having Titus circumcised. And they were
<em>unsuccessful</em> in driving a wedge between Paul and the other
apostles that would discredit the Gospel of grace. On the contrary, as
we have already seen, Paul walked away from that meeting with the
endorsement and full support of the Twelve. Nonetheless, the
"circumcision party" was to be a thorn in Paul's side on more than one
occasion in the future. We will see another one of these encounters
in the next installment.</p>
<h4>But what about Timothy?</h4>
<p>There is nothing so plainly stated that someone won't try to find
fault with it. There have been those who have tried to argue that Paul
<em>did</em>, in fact, have Titus circumcised. Some of these have
latched on to Paul's statement that he wasn <em>compelled</em>, and
asserted that it meant he must have done so <em>voluntarily</em>.
Others have exploited the reading of a few corrupt Latin Bibles, that
read that Paul and Titus <em>did</em> give in to the false brethren,
suggesting that they at least made a concession for the moment. (I
have seen this line of reasoning or something similar used enough
times that I have started calling it the "it might be true, therefore
it must be true" proof.)</p>
<p>The motivating force behind this questionable interpretation
appears to be an attempt to "harmonize" Galatians 2 with another
passage dealing with Paul and another of his protégés,
Timothy. Look at the first few verses of Acts 16:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a
certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain
woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and
Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and
circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for
they knew all that his father was a Greek. (Acts 16:1-3)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Paul had Timothy circumcised, so why not Titus? The simple answer
is that Timothy was not Titus, and the situation was not the same.</p>
<p>First, Timothy was Jewish on his mother's side; that meant he was
effectively Jewish, too. Paul's argument was that Gentiles need
not be circumcised to be accepted by God; he was not arguing that
Christian Jews were to give up their Jewish identity as well. On the
other hand, Titus was not Jewish at all, but a Greek. He had no Jewish
identity.</p>
<p>Second, Paul had Timothy circumcised for the sake of the Jews in
the area. They knew Timothy's family, and they also knew that he was
half Greek. Paul had Timothy circumcised to identify him with the
Jewish side of his heritage rather than the Gentile. In effect, Paul
was carrying out his policy of "<span class="bible">unto the
Jews</span>" becoming "<span class="bible">as a Jew, that I might gain
the Jews</span>" (1 Cor. 9:20). Timothy's circumcision had
nothing to do with the truth of the Gospel itself, but it did deflect
an excuse that the Jews might have used to reject the Gospel: since
the one preaching it was a Gentile, it was not for them.</p>
<p>In Titus' case, on the other hand, it was not just a matter of
respecting a tradition. Paul flatly rejected Titus' circumcision
because the <em>very content of the Gospel</em> was at stake. He
admits as much to the Galatians, saying, "<span class="bible">[t]o
whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth
of the gospel might continue with you.</span>" Paul would concede a
point of tradition for the sake of the Jews, but he would not concede
a point of truth for the sake of false Christians. It defies all logic
for Paul to submit to the very concession he was opposing, then
announce to the Galatians that, nonetheless, the integrity of his
Gospel was intact!</p>
<p>My personal opinion is that Paul brought Titus along with him to
Jerusalem to be deliberately provocative. By this I don't mean that he
was a rabble-rouser, just trying to stir up controversy. Instead, I
mean that he did it to force the issue. He wanted to provoke the
Church authorities in Jerusalem to settle the matter. In essence, he
brought Titus along with him as a test case. Paul stood him up in
front of the Apostles and those false so-called brethren, and said,
"Behold the man!" Titus was Paul's trump card. He wasn't circumcised,
but his life and his testimony made a lie out of the false assertion
of those Judaizers that God only favoured the circumcised. God accepts
people not because of their lack of foreskin, but because they have
put their faith in the finished work of Christ as sufficient to atone
for their sins and make them right with God. There the evidence
stands, in the person of Titus. And if the Judaizers or anyone else
say differently, then they are under God's curse.</p>
<h4>Circumcision and the contemporary Church</h4>
<p>These days, however, the Church is mostly Gentile, and so
circumcision <i>per se</i> isn't what we'd call a hot issue any
more. Nonetheless, I think we can draw two <em>general</em> principles
from Paul's defense of the Gospel.</p>
<p>First, <em>it is OK to compromise on your personal policies for
the sake of the Gospel.</em> This is what Paul did with Timothy. As he
said in 1 Corinthians:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">[U]nto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might
gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that
I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without
law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law
to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak
became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to
all men, that I might by all means save some. (1 Cor. 9:20-22)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Arguably the best modern example of this philosophy is the
ministry of Hudson Taylor in China in the 19th century. At the time,
overseas missions in China were having little success, and part of the
reason for this was that when British missionaries brought the Gospel
overseas, they brought Western civilization as part of the
package. Taylor decided instead to leave Western civilization
behind. He grew his hair long and braided it into a queue, as was
mandatory for Chinese men at the time, and dressed as a
mandarin. Taylor wasn't interested in making English Christians out of
the Chinese. Hudson Taylor's approach to evangelism allowed him to
travel almost anywhere in China and be respected. He removed the
<em>unnecessary</em> stumblingblock of Western culture; to the Chinese
he became a Chinese, so that he might win Chinese.</p>
<p>On the other hand, however, <em>it is not OK to compromise the
truth of the Gospel to make it more acceptable.</em> This is why Paul
refused to have Titus circumcised. Maybe if he had capitulated, he
might have won more Jews that way. Who knows? The principle of liberty
says that it is OK to remove unnecessary stumblingblocks from in the
way of the Gospel. The problem is, the Gospel is itself a
stumblingblock. Paul writes that his fellow Jews were perishing</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">[b]ecause they sought [righteousness] not by
faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at
that stumblingstone; as it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a
stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him
shall not be ashamed. (Rom. 9:32-33)</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="noindent">By all means, remove any unnecessary barriers to
hearing the Gospel, but do not compromise on the Gospel itself. If
unbelievers take offense at the truth itself, so be it.</p>
<p>In 1997, the Promise Keepers organization made an important
revision to its statement of faith. It originally read:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">We believe that man was created in the image of
God, but because of sin, was alienated from God. That alienation can
be removed only by accepting, through faith alone, God's gift of
salvation, which was made possible by Christ's death.</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="noindent">The revision read:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">Only through faith, trusting in Christ alone for
salvation, which was made possible by His death and resurrection, can
that alienation be removed.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A few words can make all the difference. The word <em>alone</em>
was moved from qualifying <em>faith</em> to qualifying
<em>Christ</em>. The change was made specifically to accommodate Roman
Catholic men who were interested in getting involved. Catholic
doctrine rejects <i>sola fide</i>, because the Roman church claims
Christians must continually <em>do something</em> to remain in a state
of justifying grace. But the Romanists have no problem at all with
"Christ alone." It affirms the exclusivity of Christ but allows for
human merit to be added to faith. I don't want to seem too down on the
Promise Keepers. I think the aims of the organization are worthwhile,
and I'm sure that their intentions were good. But they have
compromised the true Gospel to make the organization more
acceptable. This is the very opposite of the right approach.</p>
<p>If you've ever been involved with some sort of non-denominational
parachurch organization or campus club or activity, then you know that
inevitably the "Catholic question" comes up. To what extent may we go
to accommodate those from other traditions who want to get involved?
Paul's example is clear: the facts of the Gospel are
non-negotiable. If we are part of an organization whose doctrinal
statement is deficient when it comes to the facts of the Gospel; if we
are part of an evangelistic effort but we are constrained in the way
we may present the Gospel because of the different groups involved; if
we are restricted in how we can speak in public because the
organization wants to put forth an appearance of unity; then
unfortunately, it might be necessary to rethink our involvement. We
don't <em>like</em> to do that. It makes us uncomfortable to be even a
little divisive, because disagreement is nearly taboo in today's
society. But that kind of "unity" is only a façade. There is no
true unity outside the truth. Stand firm for the truth, and do not
subjugate yourselves to those who would compromise it. Then you can
say with Paul that the truth of the Gospel remains intact.</p>
</div>Scott McClarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16860823837991898060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627052.post-1109230702865866822005-02-24T13:00:00.000-05:002009-05-12T15:24:03.240-04:00Galatians II: Paul's alibi<p><i>(This blog post makes use of the BWGRKL font for some Greek text, available for <a href="http://www.bibleworks.com/fonts.html">download</a> from <a href="http://www.bibleworks.com/">BibleWorks</a> at no charge.)</i></p>
<p class="first">I grew up reading a lot of mystery novels,
especially Agatha Christia. Many of her stories had a common plot
twist in them. At some point in the novel, Hercule Poirot confronts
the prime suspect in the murder. This person always appears as though
he has something to hide. However, it is soon revealed that what he
is hiding is not guilt in the crime. He has an alibi for that, but it
turns out that for him to reveal it would be personally
embarrassing - so much so, in fact, that he would rather face the
music for a murder he didn't commit than admit that he was (for
example) in the arms of his lover at the time.</p>
<p>Apparently Paul's opponents were trying to undermine its authority
by spreading false accusations about him. His apostleship wasn't
authentic. It was "second-rate," because he never met Christ. His
Gospel was different from that of the "true" Apostles in Jerusalem.
Or he had ulterior motives (an accusation I will examine later). Paul
responds to this by <em>establishing his own alibi</em>.</p>
<div class="fulltext">
<h4>The origin of Paul's Gospel</h4>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel
which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it
of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus
Christ. For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews'
religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and
wasted it: and profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in
mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of
my fathers. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's
womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I
might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with
flesh and blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were
apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto
Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter,
and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none,
save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you,
behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of
Syria and Cilicia; and was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea
which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which
persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he
destroyed. And they glorified God in me. (Gal. 1:11-21)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In defending his Gospel, Paul says four things about it. First, it
was <em>not from man</em>. In other words, it was not a human
invention. Second, Paul elaborates, it was <em>not received from
man</em>. That is, no human institution handed it down to him.
Third, Paul was <em>not taught by man</em>. He did not receive the
Gospel sitting in Sunday school or from the Apostles in Jerusalem.
Finally, on the contary, it was <em>received by revelation</em>. Paul
got his doctrine directly from Christ himself.</p>
<p>But one could well ask him, "This is all fine, Paul, but where's
the proof?" So Paul begins to construct his alibi with three proofs of
the Gospel's divine origin.</p>
<h4>First proof: Paul's former life</h4>
<p>Paul was formerly a
practitioner of Judaism. Writing to the Philippians, he said that he was</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">[c]ircumcised the eighth day, of the stock of
Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as
touching the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church;
touching the righteousness which is in the law,
blameless. (Phil. 3:5-6)</p>
</blockquote>
<p><em>By birth</em> Paul was a Benjamite. Because Saul, the first
king of Israel (of whom Paul was a namesake), had been a member of the
tribe of Benjamin, Paul's pedigree was a prestigious one.</p>
<p><em>By education</em> Paul was a Pharisee, a member of a religious
party whose name meant "separated one." He was affiliated with the
spiritual leadership of Israel. He was also educated by Gamaliel, one
of the most famous Pharisees of all, the grandson of the great rabbi
Hillel and the president of the Sanhedrin. For a Pharisee to be able
to name Gamaliel as his teacher would be the equivalent of a physicist
having his dissertation supervised by Albert Einstein or Stephen
Hawking.</p>
<p><em>By zeal</em> Paul was unparalleled. He writes that he "<span
class="bible">profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in
mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of
my fathers</span>" (Gal. 1:14). He applied his zeal: writing that
"<span class="bible">beyond measure I persecuted the church of God,
and wasted it</span>" (Gal. 1:13). Elsewhere in his letters he
elaborates. He was in hearty agreement with the martyrdom of Stephen
(Acts 8:1). He "<span class="bible">made havock of the church,
entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to
prison</span>" (Acts 8:3). He "<span class="bible">breath[ed] out
threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord</span>"
(Acts 9:1) and "<span class="bible">persecuted this way unto the
death</span>" (Acts 22:4). Finally, he cast his vote against them
when they were being put to death; he "<span class="bible">compelled
them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, [he]
persecuted them even unto strange cities</span>" (Acts 26:10-11).</p>
<p>Paul's first proof of his Gospel's divine origin is that he had
not been born or educated into Christianity. He was so fanatical
about his own tradition that he was incapable of having his mind
changed!</p>
<h4>Second proof: Paul's conversion</h4>
<p>But Paul isn't finished yet. He says that he was set apart from
his mother's womb (Gal. 1:15) - as Daniel says, God
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">doeth according to his will in the army of heaven
<br />and among the inhabitants of the earth:
<br />and none can stay his hand,
<br />or say unto him, What doest thou? (Dan. 4:35)</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="noindent">In fact, Paul didn't stand a chance. Being on
the way to Damascus to do even more damage to the Church wasn't going
to thwart God's plans for him. God called Paul "<span class="bible">by
his grace</span>" (Gal. 1:15), not because Paul deserved it. Quite the
opposite, in fact.</p>
<p>On the contrary, it was because "<span class="bible">it pleased
God</span>." Paul often speaks of God's pleasure in saving souls. For
example, consider Eph. 1:5,9, in which salvation is said to be "<span
class="bible">according to the good pleasure of his
will</span>" - or, as the NASB renders it, "<span
class="bible">the kind intention of His will</span>." God is not
obligated to save sinners. He does it because it gives him
pleasure.</p>
<p>Paul's second proof of his Gospel's divine origin is his
conversion: accomplished at God's initiative, in God's time, for God's
purpose, which was to use Paul to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles.
He became a Christian because of what God had done for him, and not
because some man had persuaded him.</p>
<h4>Third proof: Paul's whereabouts</h4>
<p>Paul writes: "<span class="bible">[I]mmediately I conferred not
with flesh and blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which
were apostles before me</span>" (Gal. 1:16-17). His first thought was
not to rush immediately to Jerusalem, contact the Twelve, and make an
appointment to do lunch. Instead, he "<span class="bible">went into
Arabia</span>" (17). In those days, "Arabia" meant not the Saudi
penninsula as we would understand it today, but the kingdom of
Nabatea, which extended from there up to the area south of
Damascus. Nabatea's capital, incidentally, was Petra - that
amazing and mysterious city in present-day Jordan that was hewn out
of the cliff faces.</p>
<p>What Paul did in Arabia isn't stated. Some people have theorized
that he was evangelizing amongst the Gentiles that lived there. Others
suggest that he was on a "retreat" to reflect and contemplate his
conversion. Still more say that he was being taught his doctrine
directly by revelation of Christ (as though he was making up for the
three years of teaching the other Apostles received at Christ's
feet!).</p>
<p>But that doesn't really matter. What is important at this point is
not to work out a detailed diary of Paul's personal life, but to
establish an alibi for the divine origin of his Gospel. Paul was in
Arabia, and therefore he was not in Jerusalem.</p>
<p>Next, Paul says, he "<span class="bible">returned again unto
Damascus</span>" (17). Luke speaks about Paul's time in Damascus in
Acts 9:19-23. However, it is of note that Luke doesn't mention Paul's
time in Arabia. He gives the impression that Paul was in Damascus
continually for a few days. Keep in mind that Paul and Luke have
different purposes for writing, however. They are not trying to
collaborate on Paul's life story; rather, they are both describing
different aspects of Paul's conversion and ministry. Luke is
narrating an account of Paul's early life as a new believer, in
particular the reactions of the local Christians and Jews to his new
faith. Paul, on the other hand, is explaining to the Galatians that
he was in Damascus, and therefore he was not in Jerusalem.</p>
<p>Then, "<span class="bible">after three years [he] went up to
Jerusalem</span>" (18). Well, finally! Now he's had a chance to talk
with the Apostles and receive teaching from them, right? Not quite.
He went up "<span class="bible">to see Peter</span>" (18) -
literally, the Greek word here, <span class="greek">i`store,w</span>
(<i>historeo</i>), means to pay a visit, to get to know, to meet
face-to-face. It <em>doesn't</em> mean he was there to sit under the
teaching of Peter and the Apostles. But it would be interesting to
know what they discussed. It probably wasn't just a social call; no
doubt they had much to discuss. We could speculate, for example, that
Peter filled in Paul on details of Christ's life and ministry that he
hadn't known. And no doubt they could have swapped stories about God's
grace, since both Peter and Paul had done Christ a great disservice in
their past. In any case, he says he "<span class="bible">abode with
him fifteen days</span>" (18). Two weeks. Not a very long visit!</p>
<p>Also, Paul says, "<span class="bible">other of the apostles saw I
none, save James the Lord's brother</span>" (19). Again, Luke has
something to say of this visit (Acts 10:26-28) - and again,
though the details appear different on the surface, Luke is again
describing Paul's early life while Paul is explaining that he never
received teaching from the Apostles.</p>
<p>Finally, after this visit he went "<span class="bible">into
the regions of Syria and Cilicia</span>" (21), up near the northern
corner of the Mediterranean, where Turkey meets Asia. Luke adds:
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">And [Paul] was with them coming in and going out
at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and
disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him. Which
when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent
him forth to Tarsus. (Acts 9:29-30)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Paul's third proof of his Gospel's divine origin is his
whereabouts after his conversion. He was never around the Apostles to
receive his Gospel from them, and he never got to Jerusalem for three
years. When he finally did get there, he saw only Peter and James,
and he was only there to get to know them, then he was whisked away to
Tarsus after only two weeks.</p>
<h4>The significance of Paul's alibi to us</h4>
<p>The Gospel comes from God. All of Paul's proofs were intended to
underscore the fact that he got his teaching from God and not from
men. Therefore, it has <em>authority</em>. If Paul is merely one
more voice in the marketplace of ideas, he has no more authority than
anyone else, much less the right to bring down curses upon anyone who
disagrees with him (cf. Gal. 1:8-9).
<p>The Judaizers are not alone in trying to undermine Paul's
authority. Many individuals and movements throughout history have
attempted to discredit the divine origin of Paul's teaching in spite
of Galatians.</p>
<p>The Ebionites were a heretical sect of Judaistic Christians from
the second century. Amongst other Christological errors, they claimed
that God selected Jesus as Messiah because he kept the Jewish Law
perfectly. They rejected the Scriptures of the New Testament, with
the exception of a vetted version of Matthew's Gospel. Their canon
also included a writing titled the <cite>Ascents of James</cite>, in
which it is asserted that Paul was a Gentile who wanted to marry the
high priest's daughter, so he converted to Judaism. However, the high
priest rejected him, so he became bitter and began railing against the
Law and circumcision.</p>
<p>The Deists of the 17th and 18th centuries sometimes claimed that
the ethical religion of Jesus had been corrupted by his followers.
For example, Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United
States, published his own edition of the Bible in which he cut away
the supposed pure religion of Jesus from the corruptions of the
Biblical authors - a process which, in a letter to fellow Deist
John Adams, he likened to recovering the "diamonds in a
dunghill."<sup>1</sup> Jefferson was especially convinced that Paul
was the villain of the Christian story, having turned the simple
religion <em>of</em> Jesus into a religion <em>about</em> Jesus.</p>
<p>About fifteen years ago, former Episcopalian bishop John Shelby Spong
wrote a book titled <cite>Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism</cite>: a screed in
which he defends every fashionable notion of liberal Biblical
criticism of the last hundred years. He writes:
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">Paul's career as a missionary does not seem to have begun earlier than the late 40s. No evidence points to any direct knowledge of the earthly Jesus on the part of this man. What he knew of Jesus he seems to have gotten through the oral tradition at the feet of itinerant preachers, from the various apostles, or from disciples of the apostles. John son of Zebedee, mark, and Luke all appear in the letters of Paul as names of those with whom he had more than just a casual relationship (Gal. 2:9; Col. 4:14; Philem. v. 23; Col. 4:10).<sup>2</sup></p>
<p>Paul was a limited man captured by the worldview and circumstances of a vastly different time. It is the height of foolishness to try to claim eternal truth fro is culturally conditioned and time-limited words. Paul's words are not the <em>Words</em> of God. They are the words of Paul - a vast difference. Those who try to elevate Paul's words into being what they cannot be will finally discard Paul's words in the dustbins of antiquity.<sup>3</sup> (emphasis in original)</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="noindent">Then in the midst of this, he argues that Paul
was a repressed homosexual who persecuted Christians to prove his
masculinity to his fellow Jews. (Like Madonna, some people will say or do anything to get some press.)</p>
<p>But all these heretical claims run against the one who swore,
"<span class="bible">behold, before God, I lie not</span>"
(Gal. 1:20). While <em>we</em> might say, "I swear," and take it
lightly, a devout Jew who dared invoke the name of Yahweh meant
it.</p>
<p>And if the Gospel
does come from God, then this means that what happened to Paul on the
Damascus road can and will happen again. Paul declared that
the Gospel was "<span class="bible">the power of God unto salvation to
every one that believeth</span>" (Rom. 1:16). We see the
power of God at work all through the Acts, which says over and over
again that the Word of God spread and the disciples increased. And since the
Gospel <em>is</em> power, that makes our job as evangelists simpler!
Paul says:
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with
excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of
God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus
Christ, and him crucified. . . . And my speech and my
preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in
demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not
stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. (1
Cor. 2:1-5)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>When we proclaim
the gospel to our friends or co-workers or on campus, we don't have
to worry ourselves over the right arguments or the best means of
persuasion. This is not to say we should settle for a slipshod
presentation, but God's Gospel does not need slick packaging to
improve it. We need only speak the plain truth. The truth of the
Gospel speaks for itself, and the power of God does the rest.</p>
<h4>Footnotes</h4>
<p><sup>1</sup> Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 12 October 1813, "The
Code of Jesus," <cite>From Revolution to Reconstruction</cite>, 6
March 2003, 23 February 2005 <<a
href="http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl222.htm">http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl222.htm</a>>.</p>
<p><sup>2</sup> John Shelby Spong, <cite>Rescuing the Bible from
Fundamentalism</cite> (New York: HarperSanFrancisco - HarperCollins, 1991) 100.</p>
<p><sup>3</sup> Spong, 104.</p>
</div>Scott McClarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16860823837991898060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627052.post-1109015579591568292005-02-17T13:00:00.000-05:002009-05-12T15:24:03.240-04:00Galatians I: The Truth<p><i>(This blog post makes use of the BWGRKL font for some Greek text, available for <a href="http://www.bibleworks.com/fonts.html">download</a> from <a href="http://www.bibleworks.com/">BibleWorks</a> at no charge.)</i></p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man,
but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the
dead;) and all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of
Galatia: Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our
Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins, that he might
deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God
and our Father: To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.</p>
<p>I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into
the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but
there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of
Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other
gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be
accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any
other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be
accursed.</p>
<p>For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for
if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="first">Last week I introduced a series on Paul's letter to
the Galatians. This was likely the earliest letter Paul wrote, and it
was to address what was probably the earliest major doctrinal crisis
to face the early Church. This was the issue of "Judaizers," really
Jewish legalists, who were trying to persuade the early Church that in
order to become Christians, they had to become circumcised, and
effectively to be made subject to the Law of Moses.</p>
<p>To Paul, however, this was more than merely a checklist of things
for Christians to do or not do. It cut to the very core of
Christianity: <em>What is the Gospel?</em> He wrote this brief,
strongly worded letter to the church at Galatia defending the true
Gospel against the errors of the Judaizers. He specifically focuses on
the basis of the Gospel, <em>faith alone</em> - faith in
Christ,not mixed with the works of the Law.</p>
<div class="fulltext">
<p>Legalism is still with us and around us, not merely in the form of
"classical" Judaizers such as the Seventh-day Adventists, but also
different forms of the same error: baptismal regeneration as practiced
by the International Churches of Christ and other "Campbellite"
groups; the whole system of confessions, prayers, penances and other
rituals of the Roman church, which is the error the Reformers so
effectively wielded this book against; the superstitious
works-righteousness of Islam, and so forth.</p>
<h4>Paul's Gospel</h4>
<p>But what is the true Gospel, then? Paul actually gives a quick
thumbnail sketch of his preaching in Galatians 1:3-5. I want to focus
on those three verses for the most part, but also cross-reference
heavily from other parts of the New Testament, in particular Paul's
letter to the Romans, where he systematizes this teaching more
comprehensively than he does in Galatians.</p>
<p>Galatians 1:3 begins: "<span class="bible">Grace to you and peace
from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.</span>" It's worth
noting, as an aside, that even if Paul is upset with the Galatians, he
hasn't lost his graciousness. He still wishes them grace and
peace. His correction of their error is an act of love, not spite or
malice.</p>
<p>Gal. 1:4 continues: "<span class="bible">Who gave himself for our
sins</span>". Paul doesn't really touch on the problem of sin in
Galatians, but he gives it a much fuller treatment in the first few
chapters of Romans:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven
against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth
in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest
in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of
him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so
that they are without excuse . . . (Rom. 1:18-20)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Man is not ignorant of God. Man knows there is a God because the
evidence is all around him. He knows there is a Creator who ought to
be worshiped and obeyed. But he doesn't do this. Paul continues:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Because that, when they knew God, they glorified
him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Rom. 1:21)</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="noindent">And a little further down, he adds:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Professing themselves to be wise, they became
fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image
made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and
creeping things. (Rom. 1:22-23)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, the natural man is in a state of denial where God
is concerned. And what is the consequence of this?
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness
through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies
between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and
worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is
blessed for ever. Amen. (Rom. 1:24-25)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>God turns people over to their own desires, and their first
inclination is to sin some more. Paul says that they turn to
"uncleanness" - and, specifically, he is thinking of
<em>sexual</em> impurity as well as idolatry. The natural tendency of
man without God is to turn to perversion and paganism. That's not a
pretty picture, is it?</p>
<p>But Paul isn't finished yet. So far, he's only dealt with the
pagans. But "<span class="bible">there is no respect of persons with
God</span>" (Rom. 2:11). So he turns his focus on his own people, the
Jews. Focusing on their pride in being the chosen race, Paul writes
this:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the
law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest his will, and approvest
the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light
of them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher
of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the
law. (Rom. 2:17-20)</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="noindent">But then he brings the hammer down:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest
thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost
thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost
thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit
sacrilege? Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the
law dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the
Gentiles through you, as it is written. (Rom. 2:21-24)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No one on earth has any excuse that will wash before God. Paul
sums up his teaching on the sinfulness of man with a litany of verses
drawn from throughout the Old Testament:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">There is none righteous, no, not one:
<br />There is none that understandeth,
<br />there is none that seeketh after God.
<br />They are all gone out of the way,
<br />they are together become unprofitable;
<br />there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
<br />Their throat is an open sepulchre;
<br />with their tongues they have used deceit;
<br />the poison of asps is under their lips:
<br />Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
<br />Their feet are swift to shed blood:
<br />Destruction and misery are in their ways:
<br />And the way of peace have they not known:
<br />There is no fear of God before their eyes. (Rom. 3:10-18)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Is there any wonder that the wrath of God is directed against the
world? Man, in his natural state, is the very opposite of what God
is. The wrath of the perfect Judge, the morally perfect Creator of the
universe, whose creation has spurned him, is directed against the
unjust. Paul doesn't even have to defend the idea that God will judge
his creation; that is a given. All men, without exception, stand
accused and condemned for their sin because they have spurned the good
God and ignored his laws. The penalty for sin is death: eternal
separation from God and eternal punishment in a state the Bible
describes as a "lake of fire." That is the universal human
condition.</p>
<p>But that's the bad news. Paul has <em>good</em> news for fallen
man. Suppose someone else paid the penalty? None of us could do it,
because we all stand condemned ourselves. But one man, Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, God in the flesh, was completely without sin. When he
died on the cross, it wasn't for his own sins that he was put to
death, but for ours. And Paul goes on to write that:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">[N]ow the righteousness of God without the law is
manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the
righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and
upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: for all have
sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by
his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God
hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his
blood . . . (Rom. 3:21-25)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>"Propitiation" isn't a word we tend to use anymore. But it has a
simple enough meaning: Christ's death <em>satisfied</em> the
Father. It was an <em>acceptable</em> sacrifice. It met the
requirements of justice, and it took away God's wrath.</p>
<p>On the basis of Christ's death on the cross, it is possible for
God to both declare us sinful men righteous, <em>and</em> to meet the
demands of justice. It is not that God actually makes us
righteous. But he treats the righteousness of Christ as though it
belongs to us. The theological term is <em>imputed
righteousness</em>. It is imputed to anyone who will put his faith in
Christ's ability to save him from the penalty for sin. Because Christ
was not guilty, we are also declared "not guilty."</p>
<p>Furthermore, it is this faith alone that is a sufficient basis for
our justification, as Paul writes:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what
law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude
that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the
law. (Rom. 3:27-28)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is "faith alone." The Judaizers were trying to persuade the
Galatians that "faith alone" was not true, and that it was also
necessary to obey the Law of Moses. But Paul shuts down that
argument. If we could gain God's favour through some kind of good
work, we would have ground for boasting. But since it is <em>faith
alone</em> there is no ground. We have been saved because God is
merciful, not because we earned it.</p>
<p>Let us leave Romans for the time being and return to Galatians.
Next Paul says that Christ gave himself "<span class="bible">that he
might deliver us from this present evil world</span>" (Gal. 1:4). We
have been saved from the penalty of sin by Christ's substitutionary,
atoning death on the cross. As a result we are now set apart by God
from the world - we are being saved in this life from the power
of sin. Romans 8:29 says that those "<span class="bible">whom he did
foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his
Son.</span>" In the present we are being rescued from the evil age
because we have the Holy Spirit dwelling within us, and one of the
works of the Holy Spirit is to make us more like Christ. But there's
more to it than that, because Paul goes on in the next verse to say,
"<span class="bible">whom he did predestinate, them he also called:
and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified,
them he also glorified</span>" (Rom. 8:30). Those whom God foreknew,
that is, us Christians, he conformed to Christ-likeness; and in the
end we will have eternal life in glory. God is <em>absolutely
faithful</em> to do this.</p>
<p>Again, returning to Galatians: Paul says that all this is done
"<span class="bible">according to the will of God and our
Father</span>" (Gal. 1:4). Salvation isn't a contingency plan. God
wasn't caught unawares by human sinfulness so that he had to send
Christ to the cross as some sort of cosmic "plan B." It was planned
right from the beginning, when God promised Satan, the serpent, that a
descendant of Eve would crush him. When the risen Jesus walked with
the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, the Bible says that he "<span
class="bible">expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things
concerning himself</span>" (Luke 24:27). The death, burial, and
resurrection of Jesus Christ is threaded throughout the entire Bible!
Acts 2:23 says that Christ was handed over to be crucified "<span
class="bible">by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of
God</span>."</p>
<p>Finally, Paul says that this was all done for the glory of
God. <em>Soli Deo gloria</em>, as the Reformers said. Everything that
God does is for his own glory, and so should 5everything <em>we</em>
do be for his glory as well.</p>
<h4>Beware of counterfeits</h4>
<p>This is the Gospel Paul is guarding so closely, and what he is so
upset that the Galatians abandoned. And he pronounces a very strong
curse upon those who would pervert it: "<span class="bible">But though
we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than
that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed</span>"
(Gal. 1:8). In Greek, the word "accursed" is <span
class="greek">avna,qema</span> (<em>anathema</em>), and it's the
strongest curse Paul can pronounce on someone. In other words, he is
saying this: "If someone comes to you preaching something different
than what you learned from me, I don't care if an angel drops from the
sky and does it, it's a counterfeit, and he can go to hell." And he
says it again in verse 9: "If someone preaches something that
contradicts what I told you, he can go to hell."</p>
<h4>Can't we all just get along?</h4>
<p>Paul follows this up with what is surely a cynical and sarcastic
question: "So, <em>now</em> do you think I'm trying to please men?"
Apparently he had been falsely accused of preaching a Gospel that
tickled the ears of his listeners. Is claiming to have an exclusive
lock on truth, then proclaiming an anathema on anyone who contradicts
you, going to make friends?</p>
<p>Of course, there's nothing new under the sun. There is still an
awful lot of man-pleasing going on in the world these days. We live
today in a civilization where the cardinal sin is to be even slightly
critical of what someone else thinks or does.</p>
<p>The prevailing ethical worldview claims that it is much better to
seek understanding than insist upon truth. It's a by-product of
postmodern philosophy. Like most such philosophies it has its origins
in the humanities before percolating out into society in general.
Contemporary literary theory, for example, often places more emphasis
on the response of the reader to a text than the original intent of
the author (the so-called "intentional fallacy"). Stanley Fish,
professor of English and former Dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences at
the University of Illinois at Chicago, is probably the reigning king
of postmodern intellectuals. His book <cite>Is There a Text in This
Class?</cite><sup>1</sup>, a classic of reader-response theory, argues
that the meaning of a text arises from a reader's contact with
it. There is no objective meaning to the text, only agreement within,
and disagreement between, what Fish calls "interpretive communities,"
which filter the text through their own presuppositions. So there's no
<em>right</em> interpretation, only <em>competing</em>
interpretations, some of which are more competitive than others. The
"right" one is the one your community believes in, and you are
incapable of thinking outside of the limits of your own community.</p>
<p>This kind of thinking percolates outware into other disciplines.
Thus it is not unusual in certain academic disciplines (particularly
the non-scientific ones) to hear that society is structured to favour
those in power and oppress those without it, and therefore the "truth"
is nothing more than a social construct enforced by the existing power
structures. Unfortunately, this kind of thinking inevitably impacts
the non-academic world in very practical ways. Consider this excerpt
from an opinion piece in the New York <cite>Times</cite> from October
15, 2001:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">When Reuters decided to be careful about using
the word "terrorism" because, according to its news director, one
man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, Martin Kaplan,
associate dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the
University of Southern California, castigated what he saw as one more
instance of cultural relativism. But Reuters is simply recognizing how
unhelpful the word is, because it prevents us from making distinctions
that would allow us to get a better picture of where we are and what
we might do. If you think of yourself as the target of terrorism with
a capital T, your opponent is everywhere and nowhere. But if you think
of yourself as the target of a terrorist who comes from somewhere,
even if he operates internationally, you can at least try to
anticipate his future assaults.</p>
<p>Is this the end of relativism? If by relativism one means a cast
of mind that renders you unable to prefer your own convictions to
those of your adversary, then relativism could hardly end because it
never began. Our convictions are by definition preferred; that's what
makes them our convictions. Relativizing them is neither an option nor
a danger.</p>
<p>But if by relativism one means the practice of putting yourself in
your adversary's shoes, not in order to wear them as your own but in
order to have some understanding (far short of approval) of why
someone else might want to wear them, then relativism will not and
should not end, because it is simply another name for serious
thought.<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Who authored of this op-ed? Stanley Fish, professor of English and
former Dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois
at Chicago.</p>
<p>Note the implication of what Fish is saying: We can't declare that
killing thousands of people by using a loaded passenger jet as a giant
cruise missile is actually, objectively, <em>evil</em>. That moral
judgment has no basis except in our own culture's values. The
perpetrators have a different culture, with different values. So the
best we can do is try to understand the values of the people who would
do such a thing, and hopefully we can prevent them from doing it
again.</p>
<p>This is the prevailing sentiment of Postmodernism: no values are
truly objective, no act is truly evil. We should learn to
<em>understand</em>, not judge. The premiere episode of
<cite>Enterprise</cite> summed this up quite well when T'Pol
admonishes Trip after he has become upset at something an alien mother
has done to her child: "You should learn to objectify other cultures
so you know when to interfere and when not to." Those poor,
unenlightened humans, all too ready to pass judgment rather than seek
understanding!</p>
<p>Why doesn't secular society want to make moral judgments? They are
trying to <em>please men</em>. They don't want to invalidate anyone
or give the impression that they believe they have an exclusive lock
on the truth. The ultimate anathema (no pun intended) is to insinuate
that someone else might be wrong.</p>
<p> Unfortunately, this kind of thinking has made some inroads into
the Church as well. Ever heard someone say something like, "Doctrine
divides, love unites"? Or, "We should focus on what unifies us rather
than what separates us"? Even in the Church we don't want to say
anything that might displease someone else. Thus a televangelist like
like Robert Schuller can recast Calvary in terms of "sanctify[ing] the
ego trip" rather than showing mercy to condemned sinners. In his own
words, Schuller could never address an audience as a group of sinners
or speak of the wrath of God, because:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">If you preach that . . . I sure
hope you give it the kind of interpretation that I do or, I'll tell
you, you'll drive them farther away and they'll be madder than hell at
you and they'll turn the Bible off, and they'll switch you off, and
they'll turn on the rock music and Madonna. Just because it's in the
Bible doesn't mean you should preach it.<sup>3</sup></p>
</blockquote>
<h4>Conclusion</h4>
<p>Never compromise the integrity of the Gospel, even for a second,
even if it gains you a few brownie points with the people you are
witnessing to. Heed the advice that Paul gave to Timothy in
2 Timothy 2:15: "<span class="bible">15Study to shew thyself
approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly
dividing the word of truth.</span>" It's God's approval we should
seek, not men's. Peter and John understood this; they were called
before the Sanhedrin for preaching the Gospel, and told to stop. They
replied, "<span class="bible">Whether it be right in the sight of God
to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but
speak the things which we have seen and heard</span>" (Acts 4:19-20).
Paul said that if he were to trying to please men, he would not be
Christ's servant. If we are Christ's, we cannot compromise on the
truth. We can't afford to.</p>
<h4>Footnotes</h4>
<p><sup>1</sup> Stanley Fish, <cite>Is There a Text in This
Class?</cite> (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1980).</p>
<p><sup>2</sup> Fish, "Condemnation Without Absolutes," <cite>New
York Times</cite> 15 October 2001, late ed.: A19.</p>
<p><sup>3</sup> "A Discussion with Robert Schuller," <cite>On
Doctrine</cite>, 21 February 2005, <<a
href="http://www.ondoctrine.com/1schul01.htm">http://www.ondoctrine.com/1schul01.htm</a>>. [Originally
published in <cite>Modern Reformation</cite>, Nov/Dec. 1992.]</p>
</div>Scott McClarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16860823837991898060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627052.post-1108045903069304472005-02-10T13:00:00.000-05:002009-05-12T15:24:03.240-04:00Introduction to Paul's Letter to the Galatians<p><i>(This is adapted from a Sunday school lesson originally delivered on September 9, 2001.)</i></p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) and all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.</p>
<p>I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="first">So begins Paul's epistle to the Galatians, a short, but very important part, of the New Testament canon. I want to start here with an overview of the letter before walking through it start to finish.</p>
<div class="fulltext">
<h4>Authorship</h4>
<p>There is no doubt that this letter is from the apostle Paul. Of all Paul's letters, this is the one that is deemed the most certainly authentic - that is, it was actually authored by the Apostle and not someone using his name to lend his words credibility. The few cranks that have doubted its Pauline authorship have never been taken too seriously. On the contrary, where the authorship of other Pauline letters was less certain, it was by comparison with Galatians that their authenticity has sometimes been established.</p>
<h4> Date and location </h4>
<p>What is less certain, however, is where, when, and to whom this letter was written. <em>Whom</em> Paul was writing - and therefore <em>when</em> he was writing, and <em>where</em> the letter was going - is is one of the great debates of New Testament studies. There are two competing theories about this.</p>
<p>The <em>North Galatian</em> theory says that Paul was writing to the churches in the Roman province of Galatia, in the northern and central part of Asia Minor. He had visited that region twice, on his second and third missionary journeys, and established churches there. North Galatian theoirsts hypothesize that Galatians was written no earlier than AD 50-52, following his third missionary journey, during which he had had time for a second visit (cf. Acts 18:23). Paul wrote from Corinth, or possibly (as the subscript in the King James version says) Rome. Until the 17th century, the North theory was taken for granted.</p>
<p>But later, when the science of archaeology began to shed some new light on the Bible and the dating of significant historical events, conservative Bible scholars began to argue that it wasn't the northern <em>political</em> district of Galatia that Paul was addressing, but the southern <em>ethnic</em> district, named after the Gauls who had immigrated there from Europe in the third century BC. Paul had travelled through this region during his first missionary journey, retracing his steps on his way back to Palestine. Predictably, this is known as the <em>South Galatian</em> theory, and it hypothesizes that Paul wrote Galatians earlier, sometime between AD 46-50, probably from Syrian Antioch or somewhere else relatively close to Jerusalem.</p>
<p>Today the South Galatian theory is favoured by most conservative scholars. The North Galatian theory still has its proponents, but they tend to be the sort of liberal scholars that question the historical reliability of the New Testament in the first place. Stephen Mitchell writes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">The most authoritative champion of the South Galatian theory was the great explorer of Asia Minor, W. M. Ramsay, and although the North Galatian Theory still finds many supporters, his work should long ago have put the matter beyond dispute.<sup >1</sup ></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="noindent">(I find it interesting, however, that the next article in <em>Anchor</em> [on the Epistle to the Galatians] is written by a North Galatian proponent.)</p>
<p>The South theory resolves a number of dating and harmonization problems that the North theory poses. For example, according to the South theory, Paul would have written the letter prior to the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). If this council had already occurred, why would Paul have to formulate a complex theological argument in favour of justification by faith alone and against justification by works of the Law? Could he not simply have appealed to the apostolic letter on this subject drafted by the apostles and delivered to Antioch? The South theory also explains why Barnabas was able to travel with Paul to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1); they had travelled together during the first missionary journey, but by the time of Paul's second journey, they had already had a falling-out over John Mark.</p>
<h4>Major themes</h4>
<p>When you read the Epistles, remember that you are reading someone else's mail. At some point Paul must have received word of some crisis that provoked this response. Although we don't have that first message, we know what the crisis was about: <em>legalism</em>.</p>
<p>Compare the situation in Acts 15: while Paul and Barnabas were teaching in Antioch, some men had come along and started to teach that unless the Gentiles were circumcised according to the Law of Moses, they could not be saved. This resulted in controversy, and the issue was brought before the twelve apostles in Jerusalem. There again, these same people, who were converted Pharisees, insisted: "<span class="bible">[I]t was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses</span>" (Acts 15:5). After some debate, the apostles sent out a letter declaring that it was <em>not</em> necessary for Gentiles to observe the Jewish Law to be saved.</p>
<p>Obviously, the same sort of people had gone into the churches in Galatia and started spreading the same teaching around. We call these Pharisees and troublemakers "Judaizers," because they were Jews who were trying to turn Christianity back into Judaism. But for my purposes I prefer a more generic term: legalists. Simply put, they were claiming that faith in Christ was not enough to save, but you also had to meet some other legal requirement as well.</p>
<p>Apparently, the legalists managed to persuade a lot of the Galatians. A number of them had been led astray. This was a major crisis, and it was urgent that Paul respond. His letter reflects this urgency: it's brief, terse, forcefully written, and strongly worded. Paul knew the <em>true</em> gospel: justification by faith alone. <i>Sola fide</i>. The Galatians were turning away from the truth. To Paul, the gospel of faith alone was crucial. To abandon it and go back to the Law of Moses was tantamount to being a free man and turning back to a life of slavery!</p>
<p>This, then, is the major theme of Galatians: a defense of the <em>true Gospel</em>. Paul wrote to defend the good news that man can be put into a right relationship with God by faith in Christ alone, and not by accepting circumcision or following the dictates of the Law.</p>
<p>The commentator H. A. Ironside notes in his commentary on Galatians that Habakkuk 2:4 - "<span class="bible">the just shall live by faith</span>" - is quoted three times in the New Testament, each emphasizing a different aspect of this saying. (Ironside takes this recurring theme as strong evidence for Pauline authorship of Hebrews.)</p>
<p>Romans emphasizes <em>the just</em>. The purpose of this long letter is to show us how it is that we are justified by God.</p>
<p>Hebrews emphasizes <em>faith</em>. The author of Hebrews quotes Habakkuk at verse 10:38, which is only a few short words before the great "faith chapter" that holds up the faith of the Old Testament saints as an example worthy of following.</p>
<p>And in between them lies this little letter to the Galatians, emphasizing that the true saints of God <em>shall live</em> according to faith in Christ, and not the dictates of the Law. "<span class="bible">[I]f ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law</span>" (Gal. 5:16).</p>
<p>Another theme we see in Galatians is <em>the unity of believers</em>. Paul describes three different kinds of unity.</p>
<p>First, we are all the same before God despite our rank or social status or whatever authority we might have. When Paul recalls his interview with the apostles at Jerusalem, and he says that although they were of high reputation, nonetheless "<span class="bible">whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person</span>" (Gal. 2:6): that is, he doesn't play favourites. Perhaps Paul's detractors were claiming that he was only some kind of second-rate apostle, compared to the original Twelve. But Paul, aware of the authority the Twelve held in the church at Jerusalem, respected their <em>position</em> but was not in subjection to them because in the eyes of God, he was their equal. James says that we ought not to favour the wealthy over the poor in church (Jas. 2:1-9). We see it also in the sayings of Jesus, who said that "<span class="bible">many that are first shall be last; and the last first</span>" (Mark 10:31).</p>
<p>Second, Paul says that we are all the same before God despite our nationality. The whole purpose of the letter is to demonstrate that Jews and Gentiles both stand righteous before God because of faith. He writes:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal. 3:28-29)</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="noindent">Again, we see this thinking elsewhere in the Bible, such as Acts 10, where the Gentiles first receive the Gospel and Peter says,</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. (Acts 10:34-35)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Third, we are all the same before God despite when we lived. Justification by faith has <em>always</em> been the means by which we are made God's people. Abraham was justified by faith 430 years before the Law. And the Law itself was never intended by God as a means of earning his favour; when Paul writes, "<span class="bible">if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law</span>" (Gal. 3:21), he is implying that the law had <em>no</em> ability to save. Instead, he says,</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (Gal. 3:24)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A third major theme in Galatians is <em>liberty</em>. This is a recurring theme in Paul's letters. In Romans and 1 Corinthians, for example, he argues that where issues of conscience are concerned, such as the eating of meat, drinking wine, or observing certain holidays, Christians are free to make their own decisions as an act of faith. In Colossians he says that we are free of foolish philosophical reasonings and man-imposed rules and regulations. But here in Galatians, our liberty is from the works of the Law as a means of gaining favour with God.</p>
<p>It is important to remember that in the Bible, Christian liberty is never an excuse to do whatever we want, although some false teachers have portrayed it that way. Liberty is the freedom from law <em>as a means of salvific merit</em> - that is, trying to earn our way into heaven. We are saved through faith in Christ, and it is only because of <em>his</em> righteousness that we are enabled to be righteous at all! We have been freed <em>from</em> slavery to sin, and freed <em>to</em> obey God. Whenever Paul speaks of liberty, he always qualifies what he says by enjoining believers to "<span class="bible">[b]ear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ</span>" (Gal. 6:2); and, "<span class="bible">[a]s we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith</span>" (Gal. 6:10).</p>
<h4> Galatians' significance to us </h4>
<p>Of course, I don't believe that explaining all this is an end unto itself. The purpose of theology is to change lives or to equip saints. It has practical value. What, then, is the significance of Galatians to a contemporary reader?</p>
<p>First, <em>there are still Judaizers with us</em>. This error didn't just die out in the first century. There have always been fringe elements that have insisted that keeping the Law is a necessary prerequisite to salvation. Arguably the best known group of this type today would be the Seventh-day Adventists. Their theology is based on the premise that the rest of Christendom obeys only nine of the Ten Commandments, and that only they (and like-minded groups) observe all ten by observing God's Sabbath on the seventh day, Saturday, instead of the first day as we do. (According to official SDA doctrine, Sunday observance is the "mark of the Beast.") Practically speaking, the Adventists go even farther than this, because their moral standards extend beyond the Ten Commandments and into the minutiae of the Law.</p>
<p>Second, <em>other so-called Christians want to return us to the bondage of works</em>. It's no surprise that Galatians was a key text for the Reformers; it has been called the "Magna Carta of the Reformation." Luther once said that he was betrothed to Galatians, that it was his "Katy von Bora." His commentary on Galatians is a classic, arguably the <em>magnum opus</em> of his written work, apart from the German Bible. To the Reformers, this letter was not merely an apologetic against Judaizers, but the very "Christian" system that they sought to reform. Martin Luther wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">The papists quote the words of Christ: �If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments� (Matt. 19:17). With His own words they deny Christ and abolish faith in Him. Christ is made to lose His good name, His office, and His glory, and is demoted to the status of a law enforcer, reproving, terrifying, and chasing poor sinners around.</p>
<p>The proper office of Christ is to raise the sinner, and extricate him from his sins. . . .</p>
<p>With their doctrine these lying sects of perdition deface the benefits of Christ to this day. They rob Christ of His glory as the Justifier of mankind and cast Him into the role of a minister of sin. They are like the false apostles. There is not a single one among them who knows the difference between law and grace. . . .</p>
<p>Paul's argument has often comforted me. He argues: "If we who have been justified by Christ are counted unrighteous, why seek justification in Christ at all? If we are justified by the Law, tell me, what has Christ achieved by His death, by His preaching, by His victory over sin and death? Either we are justified by Christ, or we are made worse sinners by Him."<sup >2</sup ></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="noindent">Here is another pithy quote from John Calvin:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">Hence it appears with what silly trifling the Papists of our day dispute with us about the word, as if it had been a word of our own contrivance. But Paul was unacquainted with the theology of the Papists, who declare that a man is justified by faith, and yet make a part of justification to consist in works. Of such half-justification Paul knew nothing. For, when he instructs us that we are justified by faith, because we can not be justified by works, he takes for granted what is true, that we cannot be justified through the righteousness of Christ, unless we are poor and destitute of a righteousness of our own. Consequently, either nothing or all must be ascribed to faith or to works.<sup >3</sup ></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Knowing the enemies of truth was far easier in earlier times, when heresy was a capital crime and opposing Rome could have cost you your life. Today, the methodology is a lot more subtle, and therefore more persuasive. There have been a number of books published in recent years by Protestant converts to Catholicism, and an increase in the intensity of Catholic apologetics in general, that have had as their goal promoting the Roman church as Christ's true church on earth, by casting doubt on traditional Protestant beliefs such as <em>sola Scriptura</em> and portraying the Roman church as rich in history, tradition, and authority. Of course, the real issue isn't these things, but <em>truth</em> - what is the true Gospel? Knowing true doctrine is the first line of defense against false doctrine.</p>
<p>All the cults, to some extent, deny that faith in Christ is sufficient to save you. These groups are especially pernicious because they actively and aggressively recruit new members. Often they target campuses for "evangelism." Ten years ago as a student living in Toronto, I had frequent run-ins on the subway or in the malls with members of the "Toronto Church of Christ," who saw my school jacket and invited me to attend church or a Bible study. (One such person, after hearing that I already had a church I attended regularly, becameq quite antagonistic.) Controversy would ensue when the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) attempted to establish some sort of presence on campuses. The old Cult Awareness Network received more complaints about the ICOC than any other group except Scientology. (A word of warning: In 1996 the Church of Scientology actually took over CAN after an aggressive lawsuit designed to silence criticism.). The major error of the ICOC is twofold: First, they believe in the Campbellite error of baptismal regeneration; second, they believe in an extreme form of "discipling" in which a "discipler" has the authority to micro-manage virtually every aspect of members' personal lives. Is this not works added to faith, exactly the error Galatians refutes?</p>
<p>Third, <em>other world religions seek God's favour through works</em>. We cannot afford to ignore other religious movements - particularly Islam. It is the fastest growing religion on the planet, and some of its sects target students very aggressively. The Muslim student associations at my old school used to bill Islam as the fulfillment of Christianity. Islam is pure works-righteousness, and if you've ever seen one of those "ask the imam" sites on the Web, you know their form of legalism is often taken to the point of sheer superstition.</p>
<h4>Conclusion</h4>
<p>That is a very <em>superficial</em> treatment of a very complex letter for its size, but I hope it at least sets the stage for the the closer examination that it deserves. Starting next week I will start working through it from start to finish.</p>
<h4>Footnotes</h4>
<p><sup>1</sup> Stephen Mitchell, "Galatia," <em>The Anchor Bible Dictionary</em>, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1992) 871.</p>
<p><sup>2</sup> Martin Luther, <em>A Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians</em>, tr. Theodore Graebner, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 10 February 2005 <<a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/galatians.htm">http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/galatians.htm</a>>.</p>
<p><sup>3</sup> John Calvin, <em>Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians</em>, tr. William Pringle, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 10 February 2005 <<a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom41.htm">http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom41.htm</a>>.</p>
<h4> Works Cited </h4>
<p class="biblio">Calvin, John. <em>Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians</em>. Tr. William Pringle. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. 10 February 2005. <<a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom41.htm">http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom41.htm</a>>.</p>
<p class="biblio">Luther, Martin. <em>A Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians</em>. Tr. Theodore Graebner. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. 10 February 2005. <<a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/galatians.htm">http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/galatians.htm</a>>.</p>
<p class="biblio">Mitchell, Stephen. "Galatia." <em>The Anchor Bible Dictionary</em>. Vol. 2. New York: Doubleday, 1992. 870-72.</p>
<p>In addition to the above, my series on Galatians makes regular use of the following commentaries:</p>
<p class="biblio">Barclay, William. <em>The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians</em>. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976.</p>
<p class="biblio">George, Timothy. <em>Galatians</em>. The New American Commentary. Vol. 30. Nashville: Broadman, 1994.</p>
<p class="biblio">Longenecker, Richard N. <em>Galatians</em>. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 41. Dallas: Nelson, 1990.</p>
<p class="biblio">Stott, John R. W. <em>The Message of Galatians</em>. The Bible Speaks Today. Leicester: InterVarsity, 1986.</p>
</div>Scott McClarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16860823837991898060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627052.post-1107414432245458252005-02-03T13:00:00.000-05:002009-05-12T15:24:53.456-04:00Philemon: Background and word study<p><i>(This post is the final exam that I wrote for my Biblical Hermeneutics course last year. I decided to blog it since I did very well and it follows on last week's entry on Philemon. While I'm still satisfied with the results of the original, the answers to this exam reflect a bit more thinking about this short letter and suggest some different directions into which I could take a similar study today.)</i></p>
<p><strong>Update (Mar. 31/05):</strong> I located the hardcopy of the exam and have added the specific questions that the exam answered.</p>
<p><i>(This blog post makes use of the BWGRKL font for some Greek text, available for <a href="http://www.bibleworks.com/fonts.html">download</a> from <a href="http://www.bibleworks.com/">BibleWorks</a> at no charge.)</i></p>
<p class="first"><strong>What can we know about the geographical and chronological setting of this letter? For example, where is Paul when he writes? Where is Philemon living? (Note: Reading Paul's epistle to the Colossians might be useful at this point.) Make sure you support your claims from the text itself, indicating biblical references.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Question 1.</strong> Paul addresses his letter to both
Philemon and Archippus (Philem. 2). Paul also sends greetings to
Archippus in his letter to the Colossians (Col. 4:17). If Philemon
meets with the church in Archippus' home, as Paul seems to imply, then
Philemon also lives in Colosse.</p>
<div class="fulltext">
<p>The epistle to Philemon is a plea on behalf of Onesimus
(Philem. 10). Yet Paul sends Onesimus with Tychicus to deliver his
epistle to the Colossians (Col. 4:7, 10). He also sends greetings from
the same people in both letters: Epaphras his fellow prisoner
(Philem. 23; Col. 4:12), as well as Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke
(Philem. 24; Col. 4:10, 14). Clearly, Paul wrote both letters to
Colosse at the same time - one to be read to the church, and the
other a personal letter - and had them both delivered by Onesimus
and Tychicus on the same trip.</p>
<p>When Paul writes these letters, he is on good terms with Mark. At
first this suggests an early dating, before Mark abandoned Paul (Acts
15:38). However, Paul writes these letters from prison (Philem. 1;
Col. 4:18), and Acts does not record Paul being imprisoned during the
first missionary journey. Therefore, Philemon must be one of Paul's
<em>later</em> letters, most likely written after the third missionary
journey, after Paul had reconciled his differences with John
Mark. Possibly Paul wrote the letter in Jerusalem. More likely,
however, it originated in Rome, since Luke records that he and an
Aristarchus accompanied Paul on his journey there (Acts 27:2), and
Paul spent at least two years under house arrest (Acts 28:30).
However, Demas has not yet abandoned Paul (2 Tim. 4:10), and
Timothy and Mark are still with him. Therefore, although Philemon is
late enough that Paul describes himself as an old man (9), it must
still be somewhat earlier than 2 Timothy.</p>
<p><strong>Who are the different characters mentioned? What is their relationship to Paul?</strong></p>
<p>Aside from Paul, the two most
significant characters are the letter's recipient, Philemon, and its
subject, Onesimus. Philemon is a friend of Paul in Colosse. He is one
of Paul's converts: Paul writes to him, "you owe to me even your own
self" (Philem. 19). Philemon is the owner of Onesimus, a slave (16).
Onesimus apparently ran away from Philemon (15) and went to Rome,
where he encountered Paul and became another of his converts: Paul
says he has "begotten" him (10).</p>
<p>Paul co-addresses his letter to Archippus, his "fellow soldier"
(2). Clearly he is a Christian worker of some kind. He hosts a church
in his house. Paul saw fit to make sure he read the letter as well,
which suggests that he is Philemon's pastor. Possibly Apphia is
Archippus' wife, and Paul extends the courtesy of including her in his
greeting.</p>
<p>Paul's young protégé Timothy is included in the
salutation (1). This suggests that he co-authored the letter along
with Paul. Perhaps the addition of his name lends additional authority
to the letter. If Timothy is seen as backing Paul, then Paul's request
to Philemon becomes less of a mere personal favour, and more of an
official request of the Christian church at large (albeit a tactfully
worded one).</p>
<p>Other minor characters also receive mention in this
letter. Epaphras is imprisoned with Paul. Mark, cousin of Luke,
abandoned Paul on his first missionary journey, but at this time they
are reconciled. Aristarchus accompanied Paul on the voyage from
Jerusalem to Rome. Demas is another Christian worker with Paul, who
would later desert him (2 Tim. 4:10). Luke is the author of the third
Gospel and Acts, the "beloved physician" (Col. 4:14) who also
accompanied Paul from Jerusalem (evident from the first-person
narrative of the journey, e.g. Acts 27:1).</p>
<p><strong>What are the natural, logical divisions of the letter? Title these divisions. Use outline form for this question, and provide the biblical references (verse numbers).</strong></p>
<p>Philemon can be outlined as follows:</p>
<ol style="list-style-type: upper-roman;">
<li>Salutation and Blessing (1-3)</li>
<li>Thanksgiving and Prayer (4-7)</li>
<li>Letter Body (8-22)</li>
<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
<li>Paul's appeal on Onesimus' behalf (8-16)</li>
<li>Paul's request to Philemon (17-21)</li>
<li>Paul's hope to visit Philemon (22)</li>
</ol>
<li>Closing (23-25)</li>
<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
<li>Personal greetings (23-24)</li>
<li>Benediction (25)</li>
</ol>
</ol>
<p><strong>What does Paul mean when he writes about one "who is my very heart"? What is the meaning of the word translated as "heart" in v. 12 (NIV)? Conduct a word study of this word. . . . Limit yourself to the use of the word in the NT, but still conduct your research using appropriate tools such as Kohlenberger's <cite>Greek English Concordance to the New Testament</cite>, <cite>NIDNTT</cite>, <cite>TDNT</cite>, and <cite>BAGD</cite> (if you can access Greek). Set up a nuance chart.</strong></p>
<p>The word translated "very heart" in Philem. 12 is <span class="greek">spla,gcnon</span> (<i>splanchnon</i>). The word literally means intestines or innards. Figuratively, it is used of the intestines as the seat of strong emotion. While the King James Version literally translates the word as "bowels," modern English Bibles substitute the word "heart," a more familiar idiom to contemporary English speakers who speak of emotions as coming from the heart. Sometimes the term stands for the innards as the seat of compassion; Paul uses it to refer to the emotions themselves, particularly affection. In Philemon, however, he distinctively uses the word as a metonymy standing for the whole person. When he calls Onesimus his "very heart," he is saying that Onesimus is very close to him, as it were, part of himself.</p>
<h4>Nuance Chart for <span class="greek">spla,gcnon</span></h4>
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Nuance</th>
<th>Paul</th>
<th>Rest of NT</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>intestines</td>
<td> </td>
<td>Acts 1:18</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>tender mercy</td>
<td> </td>
<td>Luke 1:78</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>beloved</td>
<td>Col. 3:12</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>affection</td>
<td>2 Cor. 6:12; 7:15; Phil. 1:8; 2:1</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>heart (fig. the seat of compassion</td>
<td> </td>
<td>1 John 3:17</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>heart (fig. the whole person)</td>
<td>Philem. 7, 20</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>very heart (fig. the whole person)</td>
<td>Philem. 12</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><strong>Write a summary on the principal nuances of the word, and explain which nuance best fits v. 12.</strong></p>
<p>The original meaning of <span
class="greek">spla,gcnon</span> in the fifth century <span
style="font-variant: small-caps;">b.c.</span> was literally the
entrails or viscera of a sacrificial animal. It later came to mean the
sacrifice itself. In later usage, it was used to refer to the inward
parts of man, subsequently the organs of procreation, and then
figuratively for children, the result of procreation.<sup>1</sup></p>
<p>Acts 1:18 speaks literally of Judas' <span
class="greek">spla,gna</span> spilling out on the ground after his
suicide eviscerated him.</p>
<p>In later Jewish thought, the viscera figuratively became known as
the seat of the emotions.<sup>2</sup> With the exception of Acts 1:18,
all the uses of the term in the New Testament have some connection to
this meaning.</p>
<p>The synoptic gospels use the verb form of the word, <span
class="greek">splagcni,zomai</span> almost exclusively, and it is
uniformly translated "to have compassion." In Luke 1:78, the only use
of the noun form, <span class="greek">spla,gcnon</span> means "tender
mercy." John uses the word in a similar sense in 1 John 3:17,
where the heart or bowels are a metaphor for the seat of compassionate
feelings: "the source of action that helps and relieves
need."<sup>3</sup></p>
<p>It is Paul's letters where <span class="greek">spla,gcnon</span>
gets the most use. In most cases, Paul uses the word to mean
"affection": specifically, fondness, tender feelings. In one case,
Col. 3:12, the word means "beloved," standing for the object of God's
affections.</p>
<p>However, in the letter to Philemon, Paul uses a distinctive nuance
of <span class="greek">spla,gcnon</span>. Here the seat of the
emotions, the innards (usually translated "heart" for a contemporary
English-speaking audience), is a metonymy standing for the whole
person. Thus, "refresh my heart in Christ" (Philem. 20) means "refresh
<em>me</em> in Christ" (cf. Philem. 7). In v. 12 where Paul refers to
Onesimus as his "very heart," the sense is that by sending Onesimus
back to Philemon, he is sending a piece of himself back. This would
appear to be the best nuance for <span class="greek">spla,gcnon</span>
in this place. The metaphor as rendered in the NIV and other English
Bibles seems a little obscure; for a contemporary audience, it could
possibly have been rendered "my heart of hearts" or "a piece of
myself" and still retained Paul's meaning.</p>
<p><strong>Considering that Paul's letter to Philemon is a "masterpiece of tact and persuasion" steering "a delicate course between pleading and demanding" (<cite>KBH</cite>, 356), indicate how Paul's letter to Philemon might be significant to everyday life in the twenty-first century.</strong></p>
<p>The situation with Onesimus and
Philemon was one that, if left unaddressed, might have disrupted the
unity of the church. In secular life there was a profound class
difference between Philemon the slave owner and Onesimus the slave in
a society where slavery was taken for granted. However, Paul had
taught that in the Church these class differences did not exist, since
all believers had the same standing before Christ (Gal. 3:28). This
tension needed to be resolved for the good of the church. Thus, it was
tantamount to a church discipline issue.</p>
<p>The example of Philemon demonstrates that these matters ought to
be handled with grace, rather than coercion. Philemon was fully within
his civil rights to punish Onesimus even to death, and a direct order
from the Apostle to receive him back without consequence may have had
a chilly reception. Rather than pull rank on Philemon, however, Paul's
gracious letter appeals to him as a dear friend, his spiritual child,
and a partner, casting his request in terms of a personal favour
rather than an apostolic command.</p>
<p>There is also a subtext in Philemon: In the Christian community,
the relationships between believers are transformed. Paul calls
Onesimus his child in Christ and a brother. He appeals to Philemon to
treat him as he would Paul, a partner. One who is considered a
brother, a son, or a partner cannot rightly be considered a slave; the
positions are antithetical. While the social institution of slavery is
gone, the message of Philemon can still be applied in a general sense
to lessons about loving the unlovable. For example, in the United
States, which still has a relatively recent history of slavery,
D. A. Carson has noted that in the classroom he uses Philemon as a
starting point for serious discussion about the nature of
racism.<sup>4</sup></p>
<h4>Footnotes</h4>
<p><sup>1</sup> Helmut Köster, "<span class="greek">spla,gcnon</span> etc.,"
<cite>Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,</cite> tr. and
ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965)
548.</p>
<p><sup>2</sup> Köster 550.</p>
<p><sup>3</sup> Hans-Helmut Esser, "Mercy, Compassion," <cite>New
International Dictionary of New Testament Terms</cite>, ed. Colin
Brown, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975) 600.</p>
<p><sup>4</sup> D. A. Carson,"Old Testament Prophecy," Heritage
Expository Lecture Series, Heritage Theological Seminary, 4
Oct. 2001.</p>
<h4>Works Cited</h4>
<p class="biblio">Bible Gateway. 1995-2003. Gospel Communications
International. 5 Jul. 2004. <http://bible.gospelcom.net>.</p>
<p class="biblio">Carson, D. A. "Old Testament Prophecy." Heritage
Expository Lecture Series. Heritage Theological Seminary. 4
Oct. 2001.</p>
<p class="biblio">Esser, Hans-Helmut. "Mercy, Compassion." <cite>New International
Dictionary of New Testament Terms.</cite> Ed. Colin
Brown. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975. 593-601.</p>
<p class="biblio">Köster, Helmut. "<span
class="greek">spla,gcnon</span> etc." <cite>Theological Dictionary of
the New Testament.</cite> Tr. and ed. Geoffrey
W. Bromiley. Vol. 7. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968. 548-59.</p>
<p class="biblio"><cite>The Unbound Bible</cite>. n.d. Biola
University. 6 Jul. 2004. <http://unbound.biola.edu/>.</p>
<p class="next"><i>Next Thursday: Introducing Paul's letter to the Galatians.</i></p>
</div>Scott McClarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16860823837991898060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627052.post-1106805739725891042005-01-27T13:00:00.000-05:002009-05-12T15:24:53.456-04:00Philemon: We are all Onesimus<p class="noindent"><i>(This post is adapted from a Sunday school lesson delivered some time in 1999, and was my contribution to a series titled "The Little Books," discussing the shorter letters of the New Testament. It's one of my earliest attempts at exposition [only the two </i>sola Scriptura<i> pieces, below, are older] and despite the fact that my methods and outlook on Scripture have matured over the intervening six years, I'm still quite pleased with it.)</i></p>
<p class="first">You are the wealthy head of a Roman household in the midst of the first century: a wealthy, respected man in the city of Colosse. You own a number of slaves. The institution of slavery is essential to your society's infrastructure. Imagine how you would feel if one of your slaves ran away and what's more, you suspect that he has stolen a lot of money from you as well.</p>
<p>Think forward to a few months to a year later. You're relaxing in your house. One of your slaves or servants comes in and announces a messenger.</p>
<p>I should add you are a Christian. Not only that, but you're a close friend of a man named Paul - the Billy Graham of your generation. So you recognize the messenger. It's a man named Tychicus, one of Paul's most trusted associates. He's got a <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/index.php?search=philemon&version=9">letter</a> , which you take, and read . . .</p>
<p>How do you feel? What do you do?</p>
<div class="fulltext">
<p>This letter, which today we usually call the Epistle to Philemon, was most likely written by Paul when he was imprisoned in Rome, probably around <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">AD</span> 60. We also know it was written and delivered at the same time as Colossians, because Paul mentions the situation in Col. 4:9. But unlike Colossians, this letter is uncannily obscure. It is Paul's most personal letter. It doesn't teach any specific doctrines. I've never seen it quoted in any book of theology. Of the 3,500 sermons of Spurgeon's that saw publication, none of them were from Philemon. And, as I found out while doing my research, it apparently never inspired any hymns. In fact, over the years, it has been debated whether it rightly <em>belongs</em> in the canon of Scripture at all.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, Philemon is a personal favourite part of the Bible for me. As a rhetoric graduate, I can appreciate Philemon as a textbook example of the ancient art of letter writing, and I enjoy seeing how Paul structures his arguments. But Philemon is more than just a rhetorical model. It isn't just form and function. Rather, Philemon <em>is evidence of the power of the Gospel to change lives</em>. It is a <em>true parable</em> - a living analogy for God�s forgiveness and redemption of sinners.</p>
<p>Let's begin with the person of Onesimus. He is a slave. As I have already said, slavery as an institution was crucial to the Greek and Roman economy. Aristotle had once said that it was the natural order of things for some men to be slaves. Slaves were the personal property of their owners; they were "living tools."</p>
<p>But Onesimus was a runaway slave. He was rebellious. There were 60 million slaves in the Roman Empire. They had to be kept down, because if they had all decided to revolt, they had the raw manpower to overthrow the empire. Thus a slave owner had absolute power over the fate of his property. At best, a runaway slave might have been marked with a brand on his forehead, an "F" that stood for <em>fugitivus</em> - runaway. At worst, he would be crucified. Paul never said anything against the institution of slavery, at least directly, which is probably understandable given the social situation at the time.</p>
<p>But then, something happened to Onesimus. It seems he found his way to Rome. If you didn't want to be found, a big city like that was probably a good place to go. But while Onesiumus was there, he got in contact with Paul somehow, and as a result he became a Christian. And after he came to Christ, he decided that he wanted to do the right thing and risk returning to Philemon's household.</p>
<p>Paul, obviously agreeing, sends him back to Philemon in the company of Tychicus, but he also sends along a personal letter to Philemon. He begins the letter with a personal commendation (vv. 4-7), because Philemon loves for the saints, and because he has encouraged them.</p>
<p>But Paul then turns around and, having built up Philemon, becomes an advocate for Onesimus. He says that Philemon ought to welcome back Onesimus as though he were Paul himself, writing:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me: whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels: whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel: I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten while in my chains, who was once unprofitable to you, but now is profitable to you and to me. I am sending him back. You therefore receive him, that is, my own heart. (10-13)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Incidentally, Paul's use of the words "profitable" and "unprofitable" here is a pun. Onesimus' name means "useful."</p>
<p>Furthermore, Philemon was to welcome Onesimus back, but not just as a returning runaway slave. Thanks to his changed relationship in Christ, Philemon was now a brother:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? (15-16)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And then Paul guarantees the repayment of any debt Onesimus might owe Philemon. Maybe Paul made an educated guess that Onesimus would have had to steal to make his escape possible. Maybe Onesimus admitted it. We don't really know the situation, but whatever it was, Paul made a legally binding promise to cover Onesimus' debts (18-19). In that day, letters were customarily dictated to a professional amanuensis, or scribe. Writing in one's own hand signified a serious promise, as binding as a signature on a contract today.</p>
<p>We are Onesimus. Paul wrote his letter to Romans, he said numerous times that we were formerly "slaves to sin." We are all spiritual runaways from our true master, who is God. All men know who God is: "<span class="bible">For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse</span>" (Rom. 1:20). But although we knew that God is our Lord and Creator, we chose instead to run away from him: </p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. . . . [a]nd changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Rom. 1:21,23)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Instead of glorifying God for who he is, all of us wanted instead to run away from him, like Onesimus, and risk the death penalty that we had rightfully earned.</p>
<p>But then we, too, heard the Gospel, the Good News, and it transformed us, from willful runaways into willing servants. 2 Corinthians 5:7 says that "<span class="bible">if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.</span>" Where before we were useless, now "<span class="bible">we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them</span>" (Eph. 2:10). Or, as Paul wrote to Titus:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. (Tit. 3:8)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Moreover, we too return to God as more than a slave: Galatians 4:7 says that "thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ."</p>
<p>Just as Paul began his letter by identifying himself with Philemon, Christ identified himself as an emissary of his Father when he began his mission on earth. For example, John writes that at one point some Jews asked him:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. They understood not that he spake to them of the Father. Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. (John 8:25-29)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But then, in his death, Christ identified himself with us sinners, as John also wrote, later in his life:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:1-2)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Substitutionary atonement. Christ's death was an actual, real substitute for the death we deserved to die for our own sins. By taking our penalty on our behalf, Christ truly satisfied the justice of God, who no longer holds our sins against us, because our debt has been guaranteed by Christ, "<span class="bible">in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace</span>" (Eph. 1:7).</p>
<p>So, did he or didn't he? What was Philemon's reaction to this letter? I'm personally convinced that his answer was "Yes!" Here's why.</p>
<p>Paul's tone suggests that Philemon is accountable to many people for his response. First, to Paul himself, who tosses out his authority as an apostle, and then mentions to Philemon that he owes him his very life, spiritually speaking. This is a rather transparent rhetorical tactic - Paul says he doesn't want to bring these things up, and in fact he appeals to Philemon on the basis of their friendship rather than Paul's authority or Philemon's life-debt - but, well, there it is, anyway.</p>
<p>Paul also makes Philemon accountable to the church in Colosse, where Philemon lived. In fact, they met in his own home. Paul addresses the letter not only to Philemon personally, but also to the Colossian church at large, and also an "Archippus," thought by some to be Philemon's son, but evidently a pastor in the church. The letter to the Colossians was obviously written and sent at the same time, and says that Paul sent the letter with Tychicus and "<span class="bible">with Onesimus, our faithful and dear brother, who is one of you</span>" (Col. 4:9). So everyone in the Colossian church knew Onesimus, now a believer, was back.</p>
<p>He also makes Philemon accountable to Timothy, whom, it seems, was present with Paul and is named as the co-sender of the letter (Philem. 1). No doubt Timothy's assent to Paul's message carried some weight, as he was one of Paul's most trusted emissaries, as well as a pastor in his own right.</p>
<p>So with all these people watching you, what would you do?</p>
<p>Second, we can be sure Philemon carried out Paul's request, simply because we have this letter at all. What do you think would have happened if Philemon had been offended? Would he have kept it, much less given a copy of it to someone else? No, he would have destroyed it, and that would have ended the matter then and there. But here it is, prima facie evidence that Philemon joyfully received the message, in the same spirit that it was sent; not only that, but he must have made copies!</p>
<p>Finally, we have the testimony of history. One of the Apostolic Fathers, Ignatius, wrote an Epistle to the Ephesians, which began:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">I have become acquainted with your name, much-beloved in God, which ye have acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ our Saviour. Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God, ye have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you. . . . I received, therefore, your whole multitude in the name of God, through Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love, and your bishop in the flesh, whom I pray you by Jesus Christ to love, and that you would all seek to be like him. And blessed be He who has granted unto you, being worthy, to obtain such an excellent bishop.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Is this "excellent bishop" the same man for whom Paul wrote so passionately and graciously? To be honest, history doesn't tell us for certain.</p>
<p>But the romantic side of me wants to believe. I want to think that Philemon realized the ramifications of the changed relationship between him and Onesimus, that if they were equal in the eyes of God, he could no longer justify owning Onesimus as a slave, and he gave him his freedom. I'd like to believe that Onesimus made his way to Ephesus and became the overseer of the Ephesian church. History tells us that the Pauline epistles were first collected at Ephesus; I want to believe that Onesimus had kept a copy of the letter to Philemon, and that he went to the people who were compiling Paul's letters and said, "Here. Put this one in. It's my story. It's what God did for me. Paul wrote this. It's the Word of God."</p>
<p>Today we have received Philemon as the Word of God, which means there's an example in there for us. There is a practical message of forgiveness in this short book. Paul wrote Philemon to tell him to forgive Onesimus, not to demand his life as the law would have allowed, but to accept him as a brother, and even more. Legitimate personal grievances come to an end when the offender comes to Christ; forgive the wrong and move on. Paul knew something about this personally. Luke records, in Acts 9, how at first the church was afraid of him because they remembered that he'd been trying to kill them before his conversion. But Barnabas didn't hold a grudge: he took Paul by the hand and introduced him to the apostles. Those whom God forgives, we forgive. Our personal issues don't trump God's grace.</p>
<p>The story doesn't end there. We are all Onesimus. Sure, we don't all have a dramatic story to tell about escaping from slavery and running halfway across Europe, but for all of us there was a time when we were running from God. Yet God has accepted us back. God has been patient with those who are running from him, but there is a time appointed where his patience will finally end, and the just penalty for sin will have to be paid, and that penalty is death. But the good news is, if you will turn away from your sinful life, and will put your trust in Jesus Christ, then guarantee of eternal life wasn't signed only in pen and ink, but in Jesus Christ's own blood. Be a slave no longer; be received as a son.</p>
<p class="next"><i>Next Thursday: More on Philemon.</i></p>
</div>Scott McClarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16860823837991898060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627052.post-1106283176285137642005-01-20T13:00:00.000-05:002009-05-12T15:25:41.375-04:00Solus Christus I: The sufficiency of Christ<p><i>(This blog entry is a repost from <a href="http://mcclare.blogspot.com/">The Crusty Curmudgeon</a>.)</i></p>
<p class="first">The London Baptist Confession of 1689, with which I am in basic agreement as a personal statement of faith, has this to say about the person and work of Christ:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">This office of mediator between God and man is proper only to Christ, who is the prophet, priest, and king of the church of God; and may not be either in whole, or any part thereof, transferred from him to any other.<sup >1</sup ></p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is the LBC's expression of the Reformed doctrine of <i>solus Christus</i> (also sometimes referred to as <i>solo Christo</i>), or "Christ alone." In this post I want to discuss this doctrine from three perspectives: the atonement of Christ, the merits of Christ, and the mediatorship of Christ.</p>
<div class="fulltext">
<h4> <i>Solus Christus</i>: Christ's atonement alone</h4>
<p><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/index.php?search=leviticus%2016&version=9">Leviticus 16</a> spells out the regulations for the annual day of atonement, the day of the year in which the children of Israel collectively humbled themselves before God and confessed their sins. This was the one day all year where the high priest, robed in his priestly costume, brought the sacrifice into the most holy place and offered it in the very presence of God himself. The personal danger to the priest underscored the solemnity of the occasion: if he did not follow his instructions precisely, he might be struck dead.</p>
<p>On this occasion, two goats were selected from the herds of Israel. One of them was selected by lot to become the sin offering. It was slaughtered and its blood brought into the most holy place by the high priest, into the presence of God himself, as an offering for sin (Lev. 16:15-19).</p>
<p>The reality of sin is a crippling situation. Man cannot cleanse himself from sin (Prov. 20:9); his sin is part of his very nature (Jer. 13:23). Man can never be saved if he must depend on himself for salvation. Yet the perfect justice of a holy God requires that atonement be made for sin.</p>
<p>The animal sacrifices tell us something about the nature of atonement. While pure justice might demand that a man's own blood be shed as atonement for his sins, God by his grace allowed an animal to be substituted. The animal had to be unblemished, illustrating the an imperfect sacrifice was unacceptable. It had a cost, as it was taken from the sinner's own herds. And it had to shed its blood in death.</p>
<p>It was a fundamental truth of the sacrificial system that "<span class="bible">without shedding of blood is no remission</span>" (Heb. 9:22). But as the author of Hebrews reminds us, although the goats were offered year after year, it was impossible for their continuous deaths to remit sins perfectly. Hence, they were really only a reminder of sin (Heb. 10:1-3), and not a true atonement: "<span class="bible">For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins</span>" (4).</p>
<p>But, the author adds,</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">[W]e are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. . . . this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (10-14)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What continual animal sacrifice could never begin to accomplish, Jesus Christ did once and for all. Impaled through the hands, feet, and side, he shed his blood on the cross when he died. The cost of his sacrifice was great: he cost the Father his only Son. Knowing no sin, Christ was a perfect and unblemished sacrifice.</p>
<p>Lastly, as a man and not an animal, he was a perfect substitute. For Christ's death on the cross was not merely an example or a demonstration of God's justice, as some claim (though it was those things and more). It was an actual, real substitute of one life for another.</p>
<p>The story is often told in evangelical circles about George Wilson, a robber who had been sentenced to death in 1830 for his crimes. Thanks to pleas from his friends, President Andrew Jackson pardoned him. Amazingly, Wilson refused the pardon, choosing to accept his sentence and be hanged. The Supreme Court ruled that the value of a pardon was contingent upon its acceptance. Thus Wilson had a right to refuse if he wanted to. By this story, well-meaning evangelists appeal to sinners: Christ has paid the sins for all mankind, and God has offered a pardon, if only you will accept it.</p>
<p>The problem with this kind of thinking, however well-intentioned, is that the analogy breaks down at the most fundamental level.</p>
<p>Christ's death <em>expiated</em> sins, that is, it removed the penalty for them. Christ died in place of sinners: "<span class="bible">[T]he Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many</span>" (Matt. 20:28). The word translated <em>for</em> in this verse is one that means <em>in place of</em> or <em>instead of</em>. Christ's death expiates our sin because he died in our stead.</p>
<p>But Christ's sacrifice was also <em>propitiatory</em>, which means it was <em>satisfactory</em>. There was something in it, independent of our own change of mind from unbelief to belief, that satisfied God's justice and turned away his wrath towards sinners. Paul writes:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">[W]e all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) . . . (Eph. 2:3-5)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Formerly children of wrath and dead in sins, thanks to the mercy of God, his wrath is appeased by Christ.</p>
<p>And to the Romans, Paul says:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (Rom. 3:21-26)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It was Jesus' obedience of his Father's will (his <em>passive obedience</em> in theological terminology), culminating in the crucifixion, that provides the objective basis upon which not only divine justice was satisfied, but divine mercy could be offered. His death was a propitiation. Those for whom Christ died are no longer the subjects of God's wrath.</p>
<p>Jackson's pardon of Wilson, by contrast, was a Presidential decree, nothing else. It made an offer of mercy without a satisfaction of justice; it was expiation without propitiation. It lacked the objective grounding of a substitutionary atonement.</p>
<p>Theologians such as C. H. Dodd claim that where the Bible says <em>propitiation</em> it really means <em>expiation</em>, saying that Christ's death cleansed sin but had no need to turn away wrath. This theory has had some popularity with theological liberals who find the idea of a vengeful God abhorrent. However, such a theory has a hard time reconciling itself with Romans 3:25-26 and other Biblical passages that speak of the wrath of God against sinners.</p>
<p>Some theories of the Atonement, such as the Moral Influence and Moral Government theories<sup >2</sup >, also affirm that forgiveness of sins is something God can do simply by decree, <em>without</em> any objective satisfaction. A Biblical, substitutionary view of the atonement agrees with the Moral Influence theory that Christ's death demonstrates God's love toward sinners. And it agrees with the Moral Government theory in that the crucifixion demonstrates the need for justice and the seriousness of sin. But both theories are wrong in what they deny: that the demands of divine justice must also be met. God is both just <em>and</em> justifier (Rom. 3:26).</p>
<p>In <cite>Mere Christianity</cite>, C. S. Lewis also denied the idea of a substitutionary atonement, affirming instead a theory that could be called "vicarious confession," in which Christ the "perfect penitent" confessed and repented of sin on our behalf. Lewis found the idea of penal substitution barbaric. I think he failed to see, however, that Christ's death occurred amidst a culture in which shedding blood for the atonement of sins was integral to their worldview. Also, although the Bible calls Christ's death an act of obedience, it never discusses it in terms of repentance and confession on the part of Christ himself.</p>
<p>More recently, "Emergent Church" leader Brian McLaren agrees with Lewis' assessment of penal substitution, having one of the characters in his didactic novel <cite>The Story We Find Ourselves In</cite> call penal substitution "divine child abuse."<sup >3</sup > He provides thumbnail sketches of six theories of the Atonement (including a favourable view of Lewis' version). McLaren treats all the various theories as different "windows" giving different perspectives on the whole truth. Perhaps this is true as far as it goes; however, there is really nothing true about any competing theory that is not covered by the penal substitution theory.</p>
<p>Christ our Substitute <em>alone</em> pays the penalty for sins and makes forgiveness possible: "<span class="bible">Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved</span>" (Acts 4:12). Moses never died to provide salvation for sins. Neither did Mary, or Mohammed, or Buddha.</p>
<p>What continual animal sacrifice could never begin to accomplish, Jesus Christ did once and for all.</p>
<h4><i>Solus Christus</i>: Christ's merits alone</h4>
<p>The second goat on the Day of Atonement was the "scapegoat." Today, when we call someone a scapegoat, it's not a good thing: it means he is taking the blame for someone else's problems. But it was certainly a good thing for the goat! It escaped a bloody death (hence "<em>scape</em>goat"). Rather, the high priest laid his hands on its head and confessed the sins of the nation. The goat was then taken out of the camp and set free into the wilderness (Lev. 16:20-22).</p>
<p>Obviously, the goat itself was blameless. The sins of others were imputed, or transferred, to it, and then symbolically removed from the people by the goat's release.</p>
<p>Christ, too, was blameless, as Paul writes to the Corinthians:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Cor. 5:20-21)
</blockquote>
<p>Christ played the rôle not only of the sacrificial goat, but the scapegoat. Although he himself was blameless, he was "made sin for us" - or, as the prophet Isaiah prophesied, using the language of the day of atonement: "<span class="bible">the <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span> hath laid on him the iniquity of us all</span>" (Isa. 53:6).</p>
<p>Christ was the last righteous Israelite, the only one who obeyed God's Law perfectly - indeed, as the God-Man, the only one <em>capable</em> of so doing. It was his perfect obedience to the Law (his <em>active obedience</em>) that secured a righteousness - God's righteousness - that could be transferred to others. Our guilt was transferred, or <em>imputed</em>, to him, and his righteousness was imputed to us.</p>
<p>This truth is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Church of Rome, which claims there is a "treasury" of merit comprising not only the merits of Christ, but "includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary" and "all the saints."<sup >4</sup > In the Roman system, the merits of Christ are not sufficient; they must be supplemented with the superfluous merits of Mary and the saints. Rome also claims for itself the authority to dispense merit from the treasury for the remission of sins.<sup >5</sup > This is the basis of the practice of indulgences, the crass commercialism of which goaded Luther into nailing his 95 theses to the church door. In addition, Rome's system of confessions and penances entails the efficiency of one's own merits to expiate some sins. Thus Christ, Mary, the saints, and oneself all cooperate to atone for sin. This is a categorical denial of the sufficiency of Christ.</p>
<p>It is Christ's merit <em>alone</em> that is imputed to us. No one else has ever lived a sinless life. Not Mary, not the saints, and most certainly not me.
</p>
<h4><i>Solus Christus</i>: Christ's mediatorship alone</h4>
<p>A <em>mediator</em></p>
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">intervene[s] between two parties in order to promote relations between them which the parties themselves are not able to effect. The situation requiring the offices of a mediator is often one of estrangement and alienation, and the mediator effects reconciliation.<sup >6</sup ></p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the Old Covenant, the priest was the mediator between God and Israel, receiving the sacrifices from the people and presenting them to God. But he himself was in need of a mediator; before he could make atonement for the sins of his nation, it was necessary for him to make atonement for himself and the other priests with the sacrifice of a bull (Lev. 16:6). Moreover, the priests died and new priests had to replace them.</p>
<p>But, once again, the author of Hebrews says:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: but this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.</p>
<p>For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. (Heb. 8:22-28)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Christ is that priest. He is the antitype not only of the goat who is killed for a sin offering, and the scapegoat that is left in the wilderness, but the priest who offers them.</p>
<p>Christ's priesthood is better than Aaron's, first because, unlike the Levites, he never sinned, and thus needs to make no atonement for himself. Jesus never makes confession or atonement; he says on the cross, "Father, forgive <em>them</em>," not "Father, forgive <em>me</em>." Thus he was able to mediate between men and God,</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight. . . . (Col. 1:20-22)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Second, Christ's priesthood is better than Aaron's because, since he will never die, "his mediatory activity is never suspended."<sup >7</sup > His intercessory work was not completed at Golgotha. He is a priest forever (Heb. 7:21, 24), interceding before the Father with the needs of his people.</p>
<p>I personally believe that the intercessory work of Christ is the strongest argument for particular redemption. Just as the priests of the Old Covenant interceded in the Temple for <em>their</em> people, the nation of Israel, Christ, the priest of the New Covenant intercedes before the throne of God for <em>his</em> people, the Church. It is inconceivable that the Father having elected someone, the Son would fail to atone for him; or that the Son having shed his blood for someone, would fail to intercede for him or that the Father would refuse to hear his intercession. Scripture ties Christ's atoning sacrifice and his priestly intercession together. They are co-extensive. Here is a practical example. Does the church freely offer the Lord's Supper to all and sundry, even committed unbelievers? Of course not. Jesus said of the cup of wine, "<span class="bible">This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you</span>" (Luke 22:20). The elements are reserved for partakers of the New Covenant - Christian believers - because they symbolize the blood shed and the body broken for Christ's people, the Church.</p>
<p>Scripture comes right out and says that Christ <em>alone</em> is the mediator between God and man: "<span class="bible">[N]o man cometh unto the Father, but by me</span>" (John 14:6). And what could be clearer than 1 Tim. 2:5-6? "<span class="noindent">[T]here is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus: who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.</span>" Yet again, however, men have invented attempts to interpose other mediators between God and men. Popular Catholic piety views Mary as a mediatrix as well. How does the Hail Mary go? "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death." Indeed Mary-as-intercessor is an official teaching of the Church of Rome: "We believe that the Holy Mother of God, the New Eve, Mother of the Church, continues in heaven to exercise her maternal role on behalf of the members of Christ."<sup >8</sup > I once asked a Catholic online how they could reconcile this belief with 1 Tim. 2:5, and he said that Mary was not a mediator between God and man, but man and Christ. Counterargument: There is only one day left until Christmas, but that doesn't mean there aren't six more days between that one day and now. Both arguments are, of course, semantic tomfoolery. Again, the Roman church nullifies the Word of God for the sake of its traditions.</p>
<h4> Conclusion </h4>
<p>Another of the five solas, <i>sola fide</i>, is said to be the material principle of the Reformation. But <i>solus Christus</i> is the core truth of the Gospel. If Jesus Christ were unable to save perfectly and completely, he would not be someone we could put our faith in.</p>
<p>But he is a powerful Saviour who accomplished what no mortal man could ever achieve. He removed the guilt of sin from men who could not save themselves. He turned away the wrath of God from men who could only incur it. He is the perfect priest, giving his people access to God himself.</p>
<h4>Footnotes</h4>
<p><sup >1</sup > <cite>London Baptist Confession of Faith</cite> 8.xi.</p>
<p><sup >2</sup > Briefly, the Moral Influence theory of the atonement was developed by Peter Abelard in response to the theory of penal substitution of Anselm. Abelard argued that the purpose of the atonement was to demonstrate God's love for sinners, and so in part to soften their hearts toward God. The Moral Government theory, developed by Hugo Grotius and held by many Arminians, states that Christ's death demonstrates the necessity of divine justice and the seriousness of sin, again with the purpose of persuading men to repent and turn to obedience.</p>
<p><sup >3</sup > Brian D. McLaren, <cite>The Story We Find Ourselves In</cite> (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003) 102.</p>
<p><sup >4</sup > <cite>Catechism of the Catholic Church</cite> (New York: Image-Doubleday, 1995) 1477.</p>
<p><sup >5</sup > <cite>Catechism</cite> 1478.</p>
<p><sup >6</sup > J. Murray, "Mediator," <cite>International Standard Bible Encyclopedia</cite>, Vol. 2 (London: Inter-Varsity; Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1980) 970-71.</p>
<p><sup >7</sup > Murray 972.</p>
<p><sup >8</sup > <cite>Catechism</cite> 975.</p>
<h4> Works Cited </h4>
<p class="biblio"><cite>Catechism of the Catholic Church</cite>. New York: Image-Doubleday, 1995.</p>
<p class="biblio">Erickson, Millard J. <cite>Christian Theology</cite>. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998.</p>
<p class="biblio">McLaren, Brian D. <cite>The Story We Find Ourselves In</cite>. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003.</p>
<p class="biblio">Morris, L. L. "Atonement." <cite>International Standard Bible Encyclopedia</cite>. Vol. 1. London: Inter-Varsity; Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1980. 147-50.</p>
<p class="biblio">Murray, J. "Mediator." <cite>International Standard Bible Encyclopedia</cite>. Vol. 2. London: Inter-Varsity; Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1980. 970-72.</p>
<p class="biblio">"1689 LBC: Chapter 8: Of Christ the Mediator." <cite>The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.</cite> June 1996. Truth for Eternity Ministries. 19 December 2004. <<a href="http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc08.html">http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc08.html</a>>.</p>
<p class="next"><i>Next Thursday: Unpublished material begins! An old sermon on Philemon.</i></p>
</div>Scott McClarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16860823837991898060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627052.post-1105595292425171912005-01-13T13:00:00.000-05:002009-05-12T15:25:41.375-04:00Sola Scriptura II: The transforming power of Scripture<p><i>(This blog entry is a repost from <a href="http://mcclare.blogspot.com/">The Crusty Curmudgeon</a>, and was originally adapted from the second part of a two-part Sunday school lesson on </i>sola Scriptura<i> that I delivered on August 15, 1999 to the college and career class at my church.</i></p>
<p><i>I believe that </i>sola Scriptura<i> is foundational to all further doctrine and practice within the Church; hence I begin the content of Sacra Eloquia with my statement on the subject.)</i></p>
<p class="first">When I was first preparing this lesson, I ran
through the headings in my Bible just to do a quick survey of what all
the Psalms were about. I was surprised to learn how few of them
actually seem to be about the Word of God. Understandably, most of the
Psalms focus on God himself. Psalm 1 touches on it in passing, and of
course Psalm 119, the longest chapter of the entire Bible, is a series
of meditations on the Scriptures.</p>
<div class="fulltext">
<p>Psalm 19 is about the complete revelation of God. It starts with
what we call <em>general</em> revelation: that is, the evidence of God
from creation. Historically, Christians have held a view of "two
books" of revelation - one was the book of Creation, and the
other was the book of Scripture. This is the concept of Revelation
held by such men as Galileo Galilei and Francis Bacon, who once wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">[L]et no man . . . think or
maintain, that a man can search too far, or be too well studied in the
book of God's word, or the book of God's works, divinity or
philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress, or
proficience in both.</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="noindent">More recently, in the 19th century, the
theologian Charles Hodge could say: "Nature is as truly a revelation
of God as the Bible; and we only interpret the Word of God by the Word
of God when we interpret the Bible by science."</p>
<p>But for now I want to focus on verses 7-10. This passage is about
<em>special</em> revelation - that is, the Scriptures. It says:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul:
<br />the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
<br />The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart:
<br />the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
<br />The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever:
<br />the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
<br />More to be desired are they than gold,
<br />yea, than much fine gold:
<br />sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (Psa. 19:7-10)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Note the parallelism in this passage: six declarations containing
six descriptive titles and six characteristics of the Word of God, and
six transforming effects that it has on the soul.</p>
<p>First, <em>the law, or doctrine, of the Lord is perfect</em>.
Perfection is an attribute of the Word of God, as much as it is an
attribute of God himself. This is self-evident, since the Word is
<i>theopneustos</i>: God-breathed. A few years ago I took a course in
the philosophy of God; one of the subjects we touched on was the
divine attribute of perfection. In Greek thought, perfection carries
the idea of completeness; figuratively speaking, it was like a cake
that was cooked all the way through. In Hebrew, the word for "perfect"
also carries the idea of completeness. The psalmist, David, is saying
that the law of the Lord is complete, that nothing need be added to it
to make it better. And David was only speaking about the Law, the
first few books of the Scriptures. If David could call only a fragment
of the Scriptures, "perfect," how much more can we say the same about
the whole counsel of God?</p>
<p>Because the law of God is perfect, it <em>converts the
soul</em>. The Scriptures are designed to produce faith, to turn
sinning souls back to God, as Paul says in Romans 10:17: "<span
class="bible">faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
God</span>." In his commentary on the letters to Timothy, William
Barclay tells a story of a colporteur in Sicily who was held up by a
robber at gunpoint. (I had to look it up too: a colporteur is not a
songwriter, but a peddler of religious books.) The robber demanded
that he light a fire and burn his books. The salesman agreed, on the
condition that he was allowed to read a bit from each one before
consigning them to the flames. From the first one, he read the 23rd
Psalm; from another, the Sermon on the Mount; from yet another, the
Love Chapter from 1 Corinthians. Each time he read a passage, the
robber would say "That's a good book; we won't burn that one." In the
end, none of the books were destroyed. Years later, the two men met
again, only this time the former robber was a minister of the
Gospel. His first encounter with the colporteur had transformed his
character. The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.</p>
<p><em>The testimony of the Lord</em>, the Psalm then says, <em>is
sure</em>. Compare what Jesus said: "<span class="bible">whosoever
heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a
wise man, which built his house upon a rock</span>" (Matt. 7:25).
Last time I mentioned Luther at the Diet of Worms: how, when ordered
to repudiate the books he'd written, he replied, "Unless I am
convicted by scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the
authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each
other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God." Luther
recognized that only Scripture was a sure foundation for doctrine; the
shifting and unstable pronouncements of Popes and Church councils were
like a foundation of sand.</p>
<p>Scripture <em>makes the simple wise</em>. It isn't enough merely to be
converted. Did Jesus tell his disciples to "go and convert all the
nations"? No, to "<span class="bible">[g]o ye therefore, and teach
[i.e. make disciples of] all nations</span>" (Matt. 28:19). How many
times do the Scriptures admonish us to grow up in our faith? Yet
without continual study of the Bible and its application in our lives,
we will never grow as Christians; our faith is grounded in the
doctrines of this Book. In his farewell speech, Moses told the Hebrews
that knowing and obeying God's law would make the other nations
envious:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments,
even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land
whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is
your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which
shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a
wise and understanding people. (Deut. 4:5-6)</p>
</blockquote>
<p><em>The statutes of the Lord are right</em>: that is, they are
grounded in righteousness. Again, righteousness is an attribute of
Scripture that is inherited from God. A righteous doctor provides
right treatment; a righteous lawyer provides a proper defense; a
righteous God decrees righteous laws.</p>
<p>These statutes <em>rejoice the heart</em>. Have you noticed the
way the thought of the Psalm progresses? The Word of God first
converts the soul, then it makes it wise; now, it makes it
joyful. Charles Spurgeon once wrote that "that truth which makes the
heart right then gives joy to the right heart."</p>
<p>Next, David writes that <em>the commandment of the Lord is pure,
enlightening the eyes</em>. Similarly, another one of my favourite
Psalms says that "<span class="bible">The words of the LORD are pure
words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven
times</span>" (Psa. 12:6). They are <em>absolutely</em> pure, with no
dross whatsoever. To borrow the metaphor used in this passage, the
word of God is like pure, uncontaminated medicine for the eyes. Having
converted the soul, produced wisdom and then joy, this divine
medicine, applied to the eyes, clears the vision. Knowing God better
makes our picture of the world clearer, as George Croly's hymn "Spirit
of God, Descend Upon My Heart" says, in its second stanza:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">I ask no dream, no prophet ecstasies,
<br />No sudden rending of the veil of clay,
<br />No angel visitant, no opening skies;
<br />But take the dimness of my soul away.
</blockquote>
<p class="noindent">Interestingly, I have yet to find this verse in
any hymnbook I've inspected. Nowadays, we're more likely to sing:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">Turn your eyes upon Jesus,
<br />Look full in His wonderful face
<br />And the things of Earth will grow strangely dim
<br />In the light of His glory and grace.</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="noindent">This hymn, written by Helen Lemmel in 1922, shows
the influence of the Holiness and Fundamentalist movements of the late
19th and early 20th centuries. Many people consider a proper faith to
be a sort of pious tunnel vision, focusing on Christ and ignoring
everything else; but I dare say that given the choice between the two,
it is Croly's attitude that is the Biblical one.</p>
<p><em>The fear of the Lord is clean</em>, the Psalm continues. The
Scriptures clean the love of sin out of our souls.</p>
<p>The Scriptures <em>endure forever</em>. Jesus said that "<span
class="bible">[h]eaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall
not pass away</span>" (Matt. 24:35). History has testified to this
truth. Before the invention of the printing press, the Scriptures were
subject to over a thousand years of copying by hand; yet, when we
compare the newest copies with the oldest, the differences that can be
ascribed to mere human error - missing words, misspellings, and
the like - are minimal and do not affect a single teaching in the
slightest. I understand that the Jewish copyists were even more
meticulous, and that the variations in the Hebrew Old Testament amount
to all of <em>eight words</em> that affect the meaning of the
text. Skeptics have claimed that the Bible isn't reliable because it's
been copied, rewritten, edited, and corrupted over thousands of
years. Don't believe it for a minute! Whatever copy of the Bible you
might look at, there's no doubt that it's the same book as it's always
been.</p>
<p>Finally, David sums up his thought:
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">[T]he judgments of the LORD are true and
righteous altogether.
<br />More to be desired are they than gold,
<br />yea, than much fine gold:
<br />sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (Psa. 19:9-10)</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="noindent">In two other places, the Bible symbolizes someone
receiving the Word of God with a scroll that tastes like honey when it
is eaten (Ezek. 3:1-3; Rev. 10:9-10). We all know what a "gold rush"
or "gold fever" are; there seems to be a natural craving in man to
acquire this most valuable of metals. Similarly, if you've seen your
friends drooling over a dessert menu, you know that we seem to have an
innate craving for sweet foods, especially chocolate. David says that
the Scriptures are more valuable than either one.</p>
<p>That is the transforming power of Scripture: it converts us, makes
us wise, causes us to rejoice, and gives us a clearer vision. So how
do we experience this transformation?</p>
<p>First, and most obviously, by <em>reading</em> the Scriptures. We
should be doing this <em>diligently</em> - ideally, on a daily
basis. We can all find time in the day to watch some TV, read good
book, chat on the phone, or many other trivial tasks - is there
any reason why we shouldn't apply the same diligence to our devotional
duties? We should also read <em>wisely</em>: that is, not only using
our time wisely, but reading the Bible wisely - reading
systematically, rather than haphazardly; not limiting ourselves to a
few favourite passages, but reading as much as we can of the
<em>whole</em> counsel of God; and to aim to be well versed in the
basic tenets of Christianity <em>first</em>, rather than be bogged
down in the details.</p>
<p>After reading the Scriptures comes <em>meditation</em> - that
is, serious thought and study of what the Scripture means and how it
applies to us. The first Psalm says that the righteous man meditates
on the Law of God "<span class="bible">day and night</span>"
(Psa. 1:2). Meditation is like digestion. The food we eat has no
value to us unless it is digested; similarly, our spiritual
nourishment is only useful after it has been meditated upon. If we're
the most diligent readers of Scripture in the world, yet we forget
what we read only five minutes later because we haven't meditated upon
it and internalized it, then we've accomplished nothing at all.</p>
<p>Above all of this are <em>prayer</em> and <em>faith</em>. Prayer,
because we pray and give thanks before every meal; isn't our spiritual
meal that much more worthy of the same honour? And faith, of course,
because without faith it's not even possible to receive the Word of
God or believe it.</p>
<p>Finally, of course, we ought to <em>practice</em> what we read.
James admonishes us to be "<span class="bible">doers of the word, and
not hearers only</span>" (Jas. 1:22). Again, we can read all we want,
but if it doesn't change us, what have we accomplished?</p>
<p>The same points could be made about the second way we experience
the transforming power of Scripture: <em>hearing the
Word</em>. Protestant worship centres around the preaching of the
Word; any church that is slack in its preaching is not fulfilling its
mandate. On the other hand, a former pastor of mine once remarked that
it took him twenty hours to prepare a sermon; it was discouraging for
him to see many empty pews when he delivered it on Sunday. Our
pastors have been called by God to be ministers to our souls. It's
good for us to show up on time for Sunday services, to pay attention
to what is preached, to pray over it, and to discuss it with other
believers. And again, if we don't put what we hear into practice, our
pastors might as well not waste their time.</p>
<p>The Word of God is the final authority in our lives, because it
comes from God himself. In all matters of faith and behaviour, it is
sufficient; we need nothing else to tell us what we need to believe
and what we need to do. Scripture transforms us: it converts our
souls, cleanses them, teaches us how to be wise, causes us to rejoice,
and clears our spiritual vision. And when the Holy Spirit has opened
our eyes, we can say the same thing to God that the Psalmist wrote so
many years ago: "<span class="bible">I [can] behold wondrous things
out of thy law</span>" (Psa. 119:18).</p>
<p class="next"><i>Next Thursday: </i>solus Christus<i>.</i></p>
</div>Scott McClarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16860823837991898060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627052.post-1105328798595644752005-01-09T22:43:00.000-05:002009-05-12T15:24:29.542-04:00Administrivia: Back to the drawing board <p class="first">Unfortunately, I now know of <em>two</em> browsers which mangle my current template and style sheet for this blog. I've also had some other style sheet issues not affecting readability that I can't seem to resolve, for some reason. So I'm going to try something else. Too bad, because it looks darn nice in Firefox (IMO).</p>
<p>In the meantime, I've made a couple of quickie changes to one of Blogger's prefab templates, which looks alright. OK. I guess. <i>(sigh)</i></p>
<p><strong>Update:</strong> Well, it's not quite as ambitious as the previous homegrown design, but I like it anyway. It looks identical in IE and Firefox; so far, so good.</p>Scott McClarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16860823837991898060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627052.post-1098675547048525702005-01-06T13:00:00.000-05:002009-05-12T15:25:41.375-04:00Sola Scriptura I: The authority and sufficiency of Scripture<p><i>(This blog entry is a repost from <a href="http://mcclare.blogspot.com/">The Crusty Curmudgeon</a>, and was originally adapted from the first part of a two-part Sunday school lesson on </i>sola Scriptura<i> that I delivered on August 8, 1999 to the college and career class at my church.</i></p>
<p><i>I believe that </i>sola Scriptura<i> is foundational to all further doctrine and practice within the Church; hence I begin the content of Sacra Eloquia with my statement on the subject.)</i></p>
<p class="first">I have a love affair with Holy Scripture that started very early. I think I must have been around nine or ten years old the first time I sat through a whole church service, rather than being dismissed to Sunday school, and heard a sermon preached. It was a fascinating experience, one that I later wanted to repeat as much as I could. I found out later that particular message had been geared toward children, but nonetheless the seeds were sown, and I tried afterwards to find any excuse I could to get out of Sunday school, sit in the sanctuary, and listen to the preaching. The seeds of my later Christian maturity were sown that morning though it was a long time before they really sprouted.</p>
<div class="fulltext">
<p>500 years ago, another young man fell in love with the Scriptures. <em>His</em> love affair with the word of God lit a wildfire under Christendom that has never been extinguished. Martin Luther's life climaxed when he stood before the Emperor at the Diet of Worms. Presented with a collection of his books and told to repudiate their contents, Luther answered:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason . . . my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In that brief and triumphant speech, Luther had expressed the doctrine of <i>sola Scriptura</i> - Scripture alone. In a sentence, <i>sola Scriptura</i> teaches that the Bible is the sole and sufficient authority for Christians in all matters of faith and morals. The <a href="http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html">Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689</a>, with which I am in basic agreement, says this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture, to which nothing is to be added at any time, either by new revelation of the Spirit, or by the traditions of men. (I.6)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>My favourite verse in the entire Bible says the same thing. Paul, writing to his protegé Timothy to stand firm against loose morals and false teachers, writes in 2 Tim. 3:16-17:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.</p>
</blockquote>
<h4>The author of Scripture</h4>
<p>The passage starts by stating that God is the author of Scripture. Earlier in his life, Paul had commended the believers in Thessalonika for receiving the teaching of the apostles as though it came directly from God. "<span class="bible">For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God</span>" (1 Thess. 2:13). 2 Pet. 1:20-21 says that "<span class="bible">no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation</span>" - that is, its origin is not in human initiative - "<span class="bible">For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.</span>"</p>
<p>But Paul says something special about the Scriptures. He says it is <em>given by inspiration of God</em>. The NIV translates that word inspiration better: it reads, "[a]ll Scripture is God-breathed." This is a better translation for two reasons: first, it's a more dramatic image than "inspired"; second, it's a literal translation of the Greek word Paul uses, <i>theopneustos</i>, which means, literally, "God-breathed." In Genesis, God said "Let there be light," and there was light; here, Paul says, God breathed, and there was Scripture.</p>
<p>Only the Scriptures are said to be "God-breathed." In Greek, the Scriptures are <i>graphe</i> - a word which has been adopted in English for contexts related to writing: <i>graph</i>, <i>paragraph</i>, <i>biography</i>, <i>graphite</i>, and so forth. This word connotes written language; it is the written Word of God, and only the written word of God, that is said to be <i>theopneustos</i>.</p>
<h4>The authority of Scripture</h4>
<p>Paul moves on from the author of Scripture to its authority. Scripture is profitable for four things.</p>
<p>First, it is profitable for <em>doctrine</em>, or for teaching. It is through the Scriptures that we get our knowledge of who God is, or what Christ has done for us, or how we can be saved. Traditionally, Protestant churches center their worship around the preaching of the Word; any church that does not do this is not fulfilling its mandate. Furthermore, Scripture teaches these things clearly. The Baptist Confession says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="noindent">[T]hose things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and revealed in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the educated but the uneducated may attain a sufficient understanding of them by the due use of ordinary means. (I.8)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But Scripture is also profitable for <em>correction</em>. What we believe must be tested against what Scripture says. If there's a contradiction, it is <em>us</em> that must modify our beliefs or theories. The Word of God is not up for debate.</p>
<p>Paul also says that Scripture is profitable for <em>instruction in righteousness</em>; that is, in addition to teaching us what to believe, the Scriptures teach us what to do. The five books of Moses contain an elaborate Law that expressed God's standard of righteousness to the Hebrews. Although we as Christians are now bound to the spirit of that Law, rather than the letter, it doesn't change the fact that God expects us to behave in accordance with his will.</p>
<p>Finally, Scripture is profitable for <em>reproof</em> - or, you could say, conviction. In addition to teaching us the right way to act, the Bible shows us the error of our ways when we act wrongly. Again, the Word of God is not debatable. Wrong morals are sin.</p>
<h4>The sufficiency of Scripture</h4>
<p>Now, Paul goes on to say a third thing about the Scriptures. Not only are they God-breathed and authoritative, they are <em>sufficient</em>. 2 Tim. 3:17 says that, armed with a knowledge of the Scriptures, "<span class="bible">the man of God may be perfect [complete], throughly furnished unto all good works</span>."</p>
<p>Let's suppose that I need to buy a new computer, which I intend to use primarily as a means to get on the Net; however, as an amateur musician, I also want it to be powerful enough to use as a digital audio workstation. So I head down to Joe's Computer Warehouse, a store with a reputation for being able to provide hardware and software for virtually every application. There I buy a computer, monitor, keyboard, some kind of Internet starter kit, a high-end sound card, a few miles of MIDI cable, and some sequencing software. An hour after getting this new system home, I'm downloading my email; after a few more hours of fiddling with it, I'm able to lay down some tracks.</p>
<p>If Joe has sold me everything I need to experience the wonderful world of the Internet and digital audio, then I can say that Joe has "throughly furnished" me for those purposes. On the other hand, if Joe hasn't anticipated my need for the specialized hardware and software required for my little home studio, and I have to go to Fred's Guitars to get that, then I <em>haven't</em> been "throughly furnished" by Joe <em>or</em> Fred.</p>
<p>Similarly, the Scriptures are sufficient: they contain "those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation." However, if there were any such thing that were not found in the Scriptures but only outside them, then the Scriptures would not be sufficient. They would not "throughly furnish" the man of God.</p>
<p>In fact, the sufficiency of Scripture has been challenged many times by a wide variety of movements. Here are but a few examples. Many of these groups have recently been trying to gain greater respectability amongst evangelicals.</p>
<p>Some Charismatics split the "Word of God" into what they call the <i>logos</i>, or written word, and <i>rhema</i>, or the so-called "word of knowledge" or prophecy. This is in keeping with that Charismatic theology that says churches ought to be led by a prophet. Many such groups would put their "word of knowledge" on a par with the written Scriptures.</p>
<p>Similarly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints treats a number of its own books as though they are equal to the Bible. <cite>The Book of Mormon</cite>, for example, instructs its readers to ask God whether it is true; if so, it says, the reader will feel a burning in the chest. Rather than grounding the truth in the objective, written word, the Mormons appeal to subjective, mystical feelings.</p>
<p>The Roman Catholic Church claims that it has been entrusted with a "Sacred Tradition" that is equally authoritative with the Scriptures, and that only its teaching magisterium can infallibly interpret Scripture or define what that Tradition is. According to Catholic dogma, the Scripture is infallible provided it is interpreted infallibly by the Church; and only the Church can define Tradition. Thus the final authority is not <i>sola Scriptura</i>, but <i>sola Roma</i> - Rome only.</p>
<p>Finally, within evangelicalism itself, there is a movement of certain Fundamentalists, ironically mostly Baptist, that claims that only the King James Version of the Bible is truly the Word of God in English. (Some go farther and claim that the KJV is the only Word of God <em>at all</em>.)</p>
<p>Scripture itself says that Scripture can make the man of God complete, "throughly furnished unto all good works." In one way or another, all of these groups imply that this is untrue. Mormonism is the farthest of the four from Christian orthodoxy and adds its own authority to that of the Bible, but at least is consistent in that it claims the Bible has been corrupted and is not entirely reliable. While the Charismatics and the Catholics claim they have a high view of Scriptural inspiration, their position is inconsistent with Scripture's own claim of sufficiency, saying there is another authority required to supplement Scripture. And the KJV-onlyists raise their preference for the KJV to the level of dogma by appealing to a complex of arguments and traditions not found in the Bible, ironically doing so in the name of defending the KJV as the "final authority."</p>
<p>(Rebecca at <a href="http://everydaymusings.blogspot.com/">Rebecca Writes</a> has also posted a good essay about <a href="http://everydaymusings.blogspot.com/2004/10/why-king-james-version-onlyism-denies.html">why KJV-onlyism denies <i>sola Scriptura</i></a>.)</p>
<h4>Why <i>sola Scriptura</i> matters</h4>
<p>Here are three reasons why I believe holding to <i>sola Scriptura</i> is of fundamental importance to the Church.</p>
<p>Scripture itself promises blessings upon those who read and obey it:</p>
<blockquote class="bible">
<p class="noindent">Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day: And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known. (Deut. 11:26-28)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Jesus said, in John 14:21, "<span class="bible">He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.</span>" Those who keep Christ's words show they love him, and Christ promises that love will be reciprocated. Finally, the book of Revelation says in 1:3, speaking of itself, "<span class="bible">"Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.</span>"</p>
<p>Second, as Paul said, Scripture is our standard for faith and morals. We have laws against dishonest weights and measures; in fact there are government agents who go around with standard measures, making sure gas stations and other businesses aren't cheating their customers. Similarly, the Scriptures are a standard by which we must judge what we believe or how we behave. We use the word <em>canon</em> to refer to the collection of divine writings. This is a fitting word; it comes from a Greek word meaning "rule." Scripture is the "yardstick" against which we compare everything. Unfortunately, I've heard of some surveys that indicate that even amongst evangelical Christians, only 20% will actually open their Bibles on a weekly basis. When we're not steeped in knowledge of the Word, is it any wonder that sexual conduct or divorce rates in the evangelical world don't look all that different than the world any more? We don't measure our behaviour against the yardstick. Scripture left unopened is like gold left unmined: it has no value until it's brought out into the open.</p>
<p>Last, Scriptural authority is important because the Scriptures are true, and truth is the basis of real unity. These days, what we call "unity" seems really to be a sort of ecumenical smoothing-over of our differences, merely for the sake of presenting a unified front to the unbelieving world. It's a sort of postmodern ideal, whereby we prefer to emphasize what we agree about, or understand about each other, instead of what divides us. Division isn't nice. It isn't "tolerant." But this isn't true unity; it's a façade.</p>
<p>Someone might object: Didn't Jesus pray that his disciples would be one? If the visible Church is visibly divided, won't that hurt its credibility in they eyes of the world? Well, it's true that Christ did pray exactly that: that "<span class="bible">[t]hat they all may be one . . . that the world may believe that thou hast sent me</span>" (John 17:21). However, only a few moments before, he had asked the Father to "<span class="bible">[s]anctify [the disciples] through thy truth: thy word is truth</span>" (John 17:17). When Paul heard that dissension had arisen in the church at Corinth, he pleaded with them in 1 Cor. 1:10 to "<span class="bible">all speak the same thing</span>." Unity is grounded in a common knowledge of the truth. No truth, no unity.</p>
<p>It took me a long time to realize it, but I love the Word of God. I gladly affirm what Isaac Watts once wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="verse">Lord, I have made Thy word my choice,
<br />My lasting heritage;
<br />There shall my noblest powers rejoice,
<br />My warmest thoughts engage.</p>
<p class="verse">I'll read the histories of Thy love,
<br />And keep Thy laws in sight,
<br />While through Thy promises I rove
<br />With ever fresh delight.</p>
<p class="verse">'Tis a broad land of wealth unknown,
<br />Where springs of life arise,
<br />Seeds of immortal bliss are sown,
<br />And hidden glory lies.</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="next"><i>Next Thursday: Psalm 19 and the transforming power of Scripture.</i></p>
</div>Scott McClarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16860823837991898060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627052.post-1112726548926036892005-01-01T22:00:00.001-05:002009-05-12T15:27:29.352-04:00Sacra Eloquia: Series table of contents<h4 id="fivesolas-toc">Five <i>Solas</i></h4>
<ol>
<li><a href="http://sacra-eloquia.blogspot.com/2005/01/sola-scriptura-i-authority-and.html"><i>Sola Scriptura</i>: The authority and sufficiency of Scripture</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sacra-eloquia.blogspot.com/2005/01/sola-scriptura-ii-transforming-power.html"><i>Sola Scriptura</i>: The transforming power of Scripture</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sacra-eloquia.blogspot.com/2005/01/solus-christus-i-sufficiency-of-christ.html"><i>Solus Christus</i>: The sufficiency of Christ</a></li>
</ol>
<h4 id="galatians-toc">Galatians</h4>
<ol>
<li><a href="http://sacra-eloquia.blogspot.com/2005/02/introduction-to-pauls-letter-to.html">Introduction</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sacra-eloquia.blogspot.com/2005/02/galatians-i-truth.html">The Truth</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sacra-eloquia.blogspot.com/2005/02/galatians-ii-pauls-alibi.html">Paul's alibi</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sacra-eloquia.blogspot.com/2005/03/galatians-iii-test-case.html">The test case</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sacra-eloquia.blogspot.com/2005/03/galatians-iv-paul-vs-peter.html">Paul vs. Peter</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sacra-eloquia.blogspot.com/2005/03/galatians-v-faith-not-law-justifies.html">Faith, not Law, justifies</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sacra-eloquia.blogspot.com/2005/03/galatians-vi-why-law-then.html">Why the Law, then?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sacra-eloquia.blogspot.com/2005/03/galatians-vii-sons-not-slaves.html">Sons, not slaves</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sacra-eloquia.blogspot.com/2005/04/galatians-viii-they-started-out-so.html">They started out so well</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sacra-eloquia.blogspot.com/2009/05/galatians-ix-sarah-and-hagar.html">Sarah and Hagar</a></li>
</ol>
<h4 id="philemon-toc">Philemon</h4>
<ol>
<li><a href="http://sacra-eloquia.blogspot.com/2005/01/philemon-we-are-all-onesimus.html">We are all Onesimus</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sacra-eloquia.blogspot.com/2005/02/philemon-background-and-word-study.html">Background and word study</a></li>
</ol>Scott McClarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16860823837991898060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627052.post-1104633409167462502005-01-01T21:28:00.000-05:002009-05-12T15:24:29.542-04:00Hello and welcome <p class="first">This is the inaugural post of <a href="http://sacra-eloquia.blogspot.com/">Sacra Eloquia</a>, the theological companion to <a href="http://mcclare.blogspot.com/">The Crusty Curmudgeon</a>.</p>
<p>A while back I decided that if I was going to do the sort of detailed theology that I like to write about, it would be necessary to separate it from the rest of my writing ust for the sake of continuity. When I blog about five trivial things in a day, for example, longer, more "important" posts tend to get lost in the page. So I set out to create a parallel blog where I could collect specficially theological writings, usually extended series about certain topics or entire books of the Bible.</p>
<p>The name <i>sacra eloquia</i> comes from the works of Augustine, particularly the <cite>Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love</cite>. It means what it looks like - "sacred eloquence" - and is a nickname that the great African bishop often used for the sacred Scriptures.</p>
<p>As of today - on schedule, I might add - I think I've got everything preentable and operational, though no doubt there are a few bugs to work out here and there. For example, I notice that although my template looks pretty much as expected in Mozilla Firefox, in Internet Explorer it seems to be somewhat mangled. If anyone can suggest a way of making it look correct in <em>both</em> browsers, feel free to inspect my HTML source and <a href="http://web.ncf.ca/cj871/sacra-eloquia/sacra-eloquia.css">style sheet</a>.</p>
<p>A little bit about me: I haven't gone into too much detail about the specifics of my own beliefs over on the Crusty Curmudgeon, so now is as good a time as any. Specifically, I label myself as a Reformed Baptist, which means I am in basic agreement with the <a href="http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm">Baptist Confession of Faith</a>, the doctrinal statement of such notables as <a href="http://www.spurgeon.org/">Charles Haddon Spurgeon</a>. Thus my approach to Scripture is <em>credobaptist</em>, <em>Calvinist</em>, and <em>covenantal</em>, insofar as I believe these positions are the Biblical ones. Call me "Calvinist," "Evangelical," "Fundamentalist," "Baptist," or what you will.</p>
<p>Expect to see some actual content appear here starting on Thursday, and more or less weekly thereafter. (Why Thursday? Why not? "Theology" and "Thursday" are nicely alliterative.) If you want a preview of this week's offering, it will be a rerun of the first part of my <i>sola Scriptura</i> mini-series, which you can read <a href="http://mcclare.blogspot.com/2004/10/1-tim-316-17-authority-and-sufficiency.html">here</a>.</p>
<p>In a few weeks, Lord willing, I'll settle down with some exposition of Paul's letter to the Galatians and work my way through that short but important book.</p>
<p>As always: Enjoy.</p>Scott McClarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16860823837991898060noreply@blogger.com