|
Word Gems
exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity
Galatians
Chapter 2
return to the main-page article on Galatians
[Prefatory note: The Authorized (King James) Version, unless otherwise indicated, is employed herein, featured, most notably, in bold type as plenary verses and, at times, as key words and phrases.]
A Survey and Critical Analysis of Galatians 2
2. 1-2. 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.
fourteen years after. Presumably, Paul here continues to maintain his original reference-point, the date of his conversion, lest he be accused of unaccounted for lapses of time during which he might have contacted and learned from Jerusalem.
went up by revelation. Paul is intent to have us know that when he finally did travel to Jerusalem for anything more than a leisure-trip, he did so because God gave message to that effect -- not because he was to be "called on the carpet" by Peter.
communicated. “laid before them for consideration” (Cole 62). After 14 years it was far too late for Peter and the others to have instrumentally sculpted Paul's vision of the gospel. Paul, a man among equals in Jerusalem, in a spirit of collegiality, merely informs his fellow apostles of his own missionary efforts – he is not there to ask for their permission.
privately. Though he has admitted that he did in fact travel to Jerusalem, and, while there, did discuss his gospel with others, Paul makes very clear that any such meeting was in no sense a trial before some general “synod” or official “conference” (Stott 41) – no, these were private, “man-to-man” talks (Cole 63) – in no sense an official dressing-down by Peter.
lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. Some read this phrase to signify a sudden discomfiture, a “misgiving” of Paul regarding the “soundness” of his own message. But such a sudden reversal of position would be “contrary to Paul's habitual attitude of settled conviction” regarding that which he had received directly from Christ and which “had been confirmed by experience” (Vincent 95). Paul’s purpose here is not to quash his own personal doubts about his own work but, more importantly, to maintain the “integrity and unity of the Christian movement" (Mikolaski 1094). In other words, Paul, in seeking apostolic Jerusalem’s formal endorsement of his gospel, desires to create a united front against those who would claim that he and The Twelve were working at cross-purposes. Such a rift, or even mere rumor of it, could only hurt Paul’s missionary efforts.
2. 3-5. 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.
Titus [. . .] being a Greek. It is difficult for us today, 2000 years after the fact, to appreciate Paul’s “daring step” in taking his convert Titus, the young uncircumcised Gentile, into the midst of the Jerusalem church. Some may have judged this to be an act of deliberate “provocation” by Paul (Stott 42). But the “thirteenth apostle” had more than grandstanding on his mind. Titus, a bona fide, Spirit-led Christian, much like Peter’s Cornelius (Acts 10), was living, walking proof that Paul’s gospel message was “real,” fully sanctioned by God. We can almost hear Paul, the lawyer, introducing into the debate Titus as Exhibit A: “I ask everyone to look carefully at this young man, this Spirit-filled, Gentile man, as clearly he lives under the favor of God; but – and I want you all to understand this – he has never observed any of the rituals commanded by Moses.” Such “provocative” audacity by Paul, his insistence upon honoring facts – the truth -- above time-honored prejudice, and even plain-vanilla demagoguery, should remind all of us of many similar such battles being fought today.
circumcised. The Mosaic ritual of circumcision attained such extreme importance in the Jewish religion that it came not only to symbolize their entire ritualistic system but the single most important thing a man could do to gain salvation. The following passage by Hodge provides insight regarding the depths of fervor displayed by Paul’s critics:
It is obvious that the Jews regarded circumcision as in some way securing salvation. [. . .] For example, the Rabbi Menachem, in his Commentary on the Books of Moses, fol. 43, col. 3, says, 'Our Rabbins have said, that no circumcised man will see hell.' In the Jalkut Rubeni, num. 1, it is taught, 'Circumcision saves from hell.' In the Medrasch Tillim, fol. 7, col. 2, it is said, 'God swore to Abraham, that no one who was circumcised should be sent to hell.' In the book, Akedath Jizehak, fol. 54, col. 2, it is taught that 'Abraham sits before the gates of hell, and does not allow that any circumcised Israelite should enter there.' (63)
false brethren. “bogus Christians” (Cole 65); “pseudo-Christians” (The New Testament in Modern English 845). John Stott insightfully reminds us that Paul was one to readily make “concessions” to “weak brethren” - but not false (44).
unawares brought in, who came in privily. “wormed their way into our meeting” (The New Testament in Modern English 845); "literally, brought in by the side, and so, insidiously, illegally” (Vincent 96). This is beginning to sound like dirty politics and more. Apparently, in Jerusalem that day some were conducting intelligence operations in an effort to “dig up dirt” on Paul and his “liberal” doctrine of grace. Who were these “bogus brethren”? Paul may be implying that his critics then might be the same men who were dogging him in Galatia. The Greek speaks of "the false brethren," the definite article indicating "them as a well-known class" (Vincent 96).
liberty [. . .] bondage. Paul, the lawyer, sees the root issue very clearly; there is more afoot here than simple demand for the continuance of circumcision. Moreover, the essence of this debate is not, as some modern Christian legalists assert, merely that of Jewish customs versus Christian customs, with Paul favoring the latter. The reality of the issue is delicate, subtle, readily misunderstood -- and easily demagogued by unscrupulous opponents. For Paul, as we will see unfolding in this letter, the morality of Christianity is not centered in law. Christianity transcends law -- all law – even the good and holy Old Covenant law! Yes, at this point, Paul’s critics will claim that they’ve finally unmasked him for the libertine that he really is – but Paul will deal with that charge later. For the moment, he will persist in his efforts to explain the true nature of the gospel and its emphasis on liberty. Paul, the “grace” man, the one who would never forget having been personally forgiven by Christ, knew intuitively that law differs from spirit as a two-dimensional square differs from a cube; he knew, as his detractors did not, that law – all law -- is about external motivation, a far country from life in Christ. Paul is not anti-law but simply sees it as having come to full-flower with the advent of Jesus; that is, no longer necessary now that the teleos, that to which the law pointed, is now with us. This sense of having come of age is what Paul calls “liberty” – and anything less, any return to types and shadows, the function of which simply served as sign-posts to Ultimate Reality, Paul says, is “bondage” - a slavery to old, out-dated ways of looking at God and life.
2. 6-10. 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.
them which were of reputation [. . .] these who seemed to be somewhat [. . .] they who seemed to be somewhat [. . .] who seemed to be pillars. The Authorized Version’s rendering of these phrases suggests a “somewhat ironical” tone by Paul (Wuest 58); however, traces of such sentiment are not to be found in the original text. Paul’s necessary references to the other apostles are prompted by the Judaizers’ undue exaltation of his Jerusalem colleagues’ “status” – at Paul’s “expense” (Stott 44). The Greek of these phrases is difficult. Alan Cole comments:
Three times in short compass Paul will use the participle hoi dokountes [. . .] 'the influential men' (Arndt-Gingrich). But in each case the expression is slightly fuller and stronger, as though Paul's rising indignation is finding the studied courtesy of 2:2 impossible to maintain. There, they are described as hoi dokountes, 'the somebodies'; by verse 6 they have become hoi dokountes einai ti, 'those who seemed to have some official position' (although Paul at once bursts out in indignation expostulating that God cares nothing about any such 'rating'). By verse 9 they are hoi dokountes stuloi einai, 'those who are rated as pillars of the church': and the veil of anonymity is dropped -- they are Peter, James, and John. It is as though Paul deliberately refrains from giving them the disputed name of 'apostle' here. (67)
the right hands of fellowship. “accepted [. . .] as partners, and shook hands upon it” (New English Bible 846). Paul scored a “complete victory” in Jerusalem, at least on that particular day (Robertson 286). The Judaizers’ propaganda machine was slowed significantly at the official display of unity between Paul and the other apostles. But a sharper rebuke to his critics would soon follow: the fact that Paul himself was accepted – as an apostle! -- lends strong evidence to his assertion that his gospel too was received. For the moment, the unity of the church had been preserved, with special-interest groups having been dealt a severe blow. Like a president barnstorming the country to garner support for a cherished program, Paul had made his case before Jerusalem’s quasi-intrafaith ecumenical council – and had won; denominationalism had been defeated, for a while.
Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision. A sub-plot interwoven here concerns the shifting responsibilities of some of the players. Peter, due to his, albeit reluctant, association with the Gentile Cornelius, had become the de facto “apostle to the Gentiles,” a mantle, we sense, he wore uneasily and readily surrenders to his brother Paul; the old fisherman will focus his efforts on “the circumcision,” his own people, the Jews.
remember the poor. The essence of this parting scene is likely one of Peter and his associates, in a friendly tone, asking Paul not to forget the poverty of the Jerusalem brethren; with Paul, in equal congeniality, assuring them that he would continue to do all that he could. On this note, in a spirit of mutual respect, they parted company.
With an air of unreality, like a scene in a poorly written play that ends too wonderfully, this picture of warm, convivial handshakes and bear-hugs all around is about to be blown away by the cold winds of caustic, public rebuke and confrontation. As we read the subsequent account of Paul’s stand-off with Peter, we must keep in mind what is likely Paul’s larger reason for mentioning it in the present context: he is still defending his apostleship to his wayward converts and, whatever else he means to convey, is also making the point, to the discredit of the Judaizers, that he plays no second-fiddle to Peter, and is his equal in every respect.
2. 11-12. 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.
Peter [. . .] was to be blamed. "he stood self-condemned" (Twentieth Century New Testament 846). Last verse, we left the apostles agreeing on the essence of the gospel, that it was grace-oriented in substance. So why now do we find Paul publicly confronting Peter for gospel-damaging reversions to legalism? Was Peter a hypocrite? Yes, he was - Paul will make that claim. But before we condemn Peter absolutely, let us keep in mind the later New Testament record of solidarity between the two men; Peter repented when called to task. But why did he stumble? The likely reason is that Peter, while agreeing in principle with the gospel of grace, had failed to grasp many of its implications. Possibly, for a time, he found it difficult to admit, to internalize, that the freedom implied in the Good News, effectively, meant the death of centuries-old Jewish culture. This was hard to take for a nationalist zealot like Peter. And even if Peter did understand some of the implications of grace, he may not have wanted to “rock the boat” too quickly for his fellow Jews; maybe he wanted to give his countrymen time to adjust to the many changes; a fine sentiment; but what about the feelings – more importantly, the dignity -- of the new Gentile brothers? This prompted from Paul an immediate and indignant response.
certain came from James. We find again our old friends, the Judaizers, still making the rounds to the scattered churches, still attempting to shore-up their sagging doctrinal fortunes. We invoke the words of Cole Sear in The Sixth Sense as he reported of dead people - “they’re everywhere!” Peter does not fare well against them; he “caves” to this lobbying pressure-group, something Paul did not do when confronted with a similar situation (2. 5).
There was a time when, seeing this verse, my mind would automatically provide editorial comment: "certain who claimed to come from James." But the text does not allow this qualifier. I now label this kind of almost-involuntary censorship a "pathological harmonizing," an autonomic effort to view the Bible and its main characters as a kind of Camelot, a place where picnics and parades are never rained on and socks are never eaten by your automatic dryer. Yes, Paul tells us, James of Jerusalem, the brother of Jesus, was directly or indirectly behind this ecclesiastical inspection of the Gentile churches. No wonder Peter and Barnabas felt a little intimidated. These two apostolic heavy-weights certainly wouldn't have given ground to mere understudies promoting their own private agenda. More is in play here than meets the eye. Dr. William Hagan of California State University argues that here we begin to see evidence of a major theological rift between Paul and James, competing proponents of grace and law. See 5. 7-10 for further discussion.
he did eat with the Gentiles: “He [. . .] was in the habit of eating his meals with the gentiles” (The New Testament in Modern English 846). "[. . .] the imperfect tense of the verb shows that this had been his regular practice" (Stott 50).
2. 13. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
Barnabas. That day in Antioch, the extreme measure of the hypocrisy, the tight grip of peer-group pressure, is expressed by the involvement of one man – the “son of encouragement,” everyone’s best friend, Barnabas! By his participation, Paul informs us of the extent of the damage; if Barnabas played handmaid to disingenuity, we can know the pandemicity of subservience to those sporting the credentials of James.
2. 14. 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?
I saw. Paul's spiritual perception gave him view of the root issue.
walked not uprightly according to the truth. Paul, the preacher, here explains to all of us that it is not enough for one simply to believe; that is, to offer to the gospel mere intellectual assent as if it were only a set of academic propositions. No, the gospel – because it is “truth,” reality -- requires one to “walk uprightly” in accordance with it. We can deny God’s message, not only by our words but, more significantly, by our actions. The man who says, “I believe,” but goes on to act contrariwise, does not know his own mind, and it is just this indictment that Paul brings against Peter and his accomplices.
I said unto Peter before them all. Paul is neither exhibitionist nor sensationalist. He's shown himself as one prudent enough to address sensitive issues in private discussion (2. 2); but he cannot do that in this case. There has been a public storming of the gospel, and he must now defend it in like manner. To do otherwise would leave doubts and confusion in the minds of the slighted Gentile Christians. Paul immediately sees the grave danger of even wider scope: a general and permanent Gentile-Jew rift resulting from this local-church apartheid. Paul will defend the gospel "even at the expense of publicly humiliating a brother apostle" (Stott 54). So often, in many churches today, we know that this would not be the case. Ecclesiastical politicians, protecting at all costs their good-old-boy system, relegate to second-priority status the spiritual welfare of the brethren.
If thou, being a Jew. Paul, as prosecuting attorney, now shifts into high gear; his keen, probing mind slices to the red meat of the real issues at hand, and their logical, unspoken conclusions. Employing a scorched-earth debating policy, Paul will take no prisoners and leaves those on the “other side of the aisle” with little to salvage but humiliation. After the following discourse, we can easily picture the Jerusalem delegation storming out of the room in protest – no wonder they hated Paul and would attempt to undermine him whenever they could. For Peter and the others, like men dazed after having been under a hypnotic spell, there will be, we presume, almost tangible relief. Peter, the old burly fisherman, a good man at heart, will likely marvel at his sharp-tongued, erudite brother Paul, shake his head, and confess, “I wish I could have thought of those things!”
The first phase of Paul’s argument unfolds like this: “Peter – you are a full-blooded, ethnic Jew. Yet, until a few days ago, you were freely mixing with your Gentile brothers, ‘living like a Gentile,’ so to speak; that is, for example, you had abandoned your thoroughly Jewish scruples regarding eating with Gentiles! God directly showed you his will here (Acts 10). But now, by your actions, effectively, your ad hoc re-instituting of old Jewish ways, you are saying that your Gentile brothers must begin living like an Old Covenant Jew! Does this make any sense? Peter, don’t you see that your actions implicitly tell the church that ‘who you are’ and ‘what you do’ is more important than a surrendered heart to God? Do you really mean to send the message that only Jewish Christians are first-class citizens in the church?”
2. 15. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
We. Paul now switches from exclusive focus on Peter to include himself. The “sinners of the Gentiles,” “common terms within Judaism” (Cole 78), may have been the actual pejorative phrase used by the visiting Judaizers as they justified their high-handed policies. Paul seems to be saying this: “Peter, both of us were born Jewish. We are ‘the covenant people,’ the recipients of all of the promises made to our fathers! We are not, as certain ilk use the phrase, ‘sinners of the Gentiles’ or ‘Gentile dogs.’”
2. 16. 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.
Paul continues his argument (offered here in expanded form): “Peter, despite our glorious Jewish heritage that includes the great law of God – we, even we – have come to know that no man can ever be justified by human effort, even noble law-keeping effort! Jesus, the Man you followed and lived with for three years, came to this world as a Jew, preached to Jews, died among Jews! Peter, do you see my point? If God considered it necessary to send Jesus Christ to save the Jews, the keepers of the holy law, the guardians of as much truth as man has ever possessed, the people who invented strict religion – if all of our law keeping couldn’t save us, then we – especially we – should know clearly that human effort of any kind will never save any man! Both of us, in effect, acknowledged all of this when we ‘believed in Jesus’ in order to be saved.”
for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. The reference here to Psalm 147 verse 2 seems to be Paul’s way of saying: “Not only by the death of Christ do we know the truth of what I’ve just said, but our very own holy law itself testifies to man’s inability to save himself.”
believed in. “The expression in the middle of verse 16 is (literally) 'we have believed into (eis) Christ Jesus.' It is an act of committal, not just assenting to the fact that Jesus lived and died, but running to Him for refuge and calling on Him for mercy” (Stott 62).
justified. “Nobody has understood Christianity who does not understand this word. [. . .] 'Justification' is a legal term [. . .]. 'To condemn' is to declare somebody guilty; 'to justify' is to declare him not guilty” (Stott 59, 60). A clear understanding of this word will take us a good distance toward appreciating the importance of Galatians. This 2000 year-old letter to a congregation from its original minister, upon cursory reading, may appear arcane, passé, even irrelevant to us. Can “elements of the world,” first-century rabbinical arguments, Gentile-Jewish syncretistic religion, Greek pedagogue-slaves, Old Testament allegory, and much ado about long-gone rituals be of much use to us now? Surprisingly, yes.
Galatians addresses the biggest questions in life: What must I do in order to be right with God? And, once reconciled, How must I then live my life? These are timeless issues, pondered over and worried about by, it’s probably safe to say, just about every person who's ever lived. And at the heart of these universals lies that little word justified . But, someone will ask, aren’t these simply “religious” questions, of interest only to certain groups in society, particularly “Bible believers”? I submit to you that these so-called “religious Bible questions,” in a very real, visceral sense, are the only questions for which anyone truly seeks answers, whether they profess belief in God or not. Reconstituted in another guise, these core questions manifest themselves as: Is life worth living? Am I a worthy and honorable person? Does anyone love me or care whether I live or die? Do I have a future and will it be good? Does life have any meaning? All men and women, consciously or subliminally, spend their lives seeking answers to these great questions, the failure of which quest has driven a great many to despair, madness, and suicide.
As I said, at the heart of these questions lies that innocuous religious word, “justified.” The person who knows deep within his inner being that his life has been stamped “not guilty” by the ruling Power of the universe; knows that the “bad things” he has done plus the “bad thing” he has become is in process of repair; becomes avenue to hope - for life, for love, for a future. This all begins to sound like – dare we say it? -- Good News. The person who experiences such transformation will laugh at the notion that “justification” is simply a “religious” or “Bible” word. This is like telling a starving man that a meal set before him is merely a conversation piece for organic chemists. To paraphrase an old proverb, the wise man drinks true religion like water, but he will drink justification like wine. The man or woman justified will find his or her new status affecting everything in life: from choice of mate to political party, from career to leisure activities; and most everything in between. Not bad for an arcane religious word. We begin to understand the reason why the itinerant Judaizers risked life and health negotiating bandits, the high seas, and malaria in order to influence the developing working definition of one little word - “justification”.
the works of the law. Justification, as explained, has a way of affecting everything else in life. Please allow me to “connect the dots” for newcomers to this concept regarding its influence on “the works of the law.” Paul will have much to say in later chapters about “the law” and its purpose and relationship to Christian conduct; however, for the moment, he concentrates on what the Jews called the law’s “works”; that is, activities, efforts, or duties exercised in fulfillment of the law’s demands.
To restate the classic meaning of justification, a metaphor borrowed from the courtroom: a man is declared either “not guilty” or “guilty.” There is nothing in between, no such thing as “half pardoned.” Likewise, there is no such thing as “more pardoned” or “super-acquitted”. Such concepts do not exist, either in secular law or in Christian “jurisprudence.” Yet many had attempted (and do so today) to use the Jewish law for these “extra-legal” purposes. The Judaizers tried to say that “Yes, Christ died for our sins; but when he says to us not guilty , we have to finish the job! He pardoned you, but only as phase one.” Enter “the works of the law.”
Paul deeply desires for us know that God and his offer of salvation is so wonderful, so humanly out of reach and high above us, that no amount of extra “credit” or “merit badges” will help us to bridge that gap. We can receive salvation only as a gift; we cannot earn it.
law. The English word "law" appears 223 times in the Authorized Version New Testament, 32 times in Galatians, and not always in the same sense. The following are some of its principal meanings: (1) the Pentateuch (Rom. 3. 21); (2) the entire Old Testament (Rom. 3. 19, suggested by verses 10-18); (3) a principle, for example, works versus faith (Rom. 3. 27); (4) a moral code within every person (Rom. 2. 14f.); (5) generic law: Jewish or Roman (Rom.7. 1f.); human or Divine (Gal.2. 19); (6) the will of God and source of light for mankind (Rom. 7. 22); (7) the law of Christ, self-sacrificial love (Gal. 6. 2); (8) an external restraint placed upon man's carnal heart (Gal. 5. 23). But, most relevant to our study here, (9) the entire Old Covenant law-system.
Some read “law” in the passage under review to mean “a list of rules and regulations” with the implication that Paul has set himself to the task of sorting out the “good rules” from the “bad rules”; that is, the essential Christian laws from outdated Jewish rituals. This misses the thrust of Paul’s argument. The central issue of Galatians is not that of “good law versus bad law”! The apostle’s contention is that any law, any human effort of any kind -- even honorable and good effort -- is wholly inadequate to justify us before God. A law may in fact be “holy,” “just” and “good,” as Paul tells us in Romans, but the relevant point for us is that even such law is entirely impotent to make us holy or acceptable to God. When Paul refers to “law” here, and in many other passages in Galatians, he means to say that the entire Old Covenant law-system – not merely particular Jewish rituals – cannot save mankind.
This is an extremely important point, one that will threaten many, even Christians, because the full implications of Paul’s statement signifies that the Ten Commandments and all other moral law – what many consider to be “good law” – cannot offer to anyone salvation. If they had been able to do so, the Judaizers would have created a 15-second sound-bite of Paul making this assertion, branding him in their propaganda a “pinko liberal” finally revealed to the whole world. Paul, of course, is not advocating immorality, a charge frequently leveled against him, but he cannot explain everything in one breath and will deal with this attack later; however, he means to say that that the entire Old Covenant law-system, including its “good law,” cannot save humanmankind. Law, though “holy,” was made for another purpose.
Before leaving verse 16, a most important discussion of “justification,” it will be helpful to consider an additional point. Many commentators believe that Paul’s principle focus here is that of generally explaining justification, how it affects one’s personal standing before God. While this view has some merit – and it seems clear that Peter could have profited by a refresher course on the subject – such position may miss a larger issue. I think Verdict magazine editor, Robert Brinsmead, is on the correct track when he points out that those “to whom Paul writes had already heard the gospel and believed it. They had already received the Spirit (Gal. 3) [. . .]. When Paul introduces [justification] he does not do so as a means of explaining to either Jewish or Gentile Christians how a person is to find salvation and acceptance before God” per se.
This begins to make a measure of sense. Paul was writing to his own converts. He had already taught them the ABC’s of justification. His purpose in introducing the subject again here, Brinsmead maintains, is revealed by the “context of Jewish and Gentile Christians meeting together in table fellowship.” Further, he suggests that Paul’s “main purpose in bringing up [justification] is to explain why Christians should accept each other” – not why God accepts us! Brinsmead puts the cap on his argument with the wry comment, “God is not that difficult to get along with.” We act as though He had reluctantly justified us and may take it all back any minute. No, the problem with justification is that we, not God, too often, forget its implications in terms of how we should treat each other (Brinsmead 1-5).
Let’s quickly restate all of this. Paul’s larger thesis becomes: “If God has fully accepted these Gentiles on the sole basis of faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ, who do we Jews think we are to put up extra hoops for them to jump through before we accept them in our fellowship?” (Would that this insight might prompt many a modern denomination to rethink its rules regulating the taking of communion.)
2. 17. 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.
God forbid. This exclamatory phrase, Stott asserts, often, in other letters, marks for us Paul’s response to his critics’ attacks (64). If that format holds in the present case (and I sense that it does), Paul here begins to anticipate objections to the gospel of grace.
Christ the minister of sin. Paul seems to be quoting a phrase used by the Judaizers. Their argument appears to have run along these lines: “Paul, your gospel of grace sounds very lovely. The only trouble with it is that it could never work in the real world. We all know how people are. If they don’t have controls or restraints in their lives – if they don’t have the law! -- they’ll just run wild. Paul, your doctrine, frankly, is very dangerous and a threat to civilized society. The practical effect of your libertine teaching, with its flouting of the holy law, is to make Christ the agent of sin!”
2. 18-19. 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.
the things which I destroyed. In the context of the present discussion of justification, Paul’s somewhat cryptic phrase here, more than likely, refers to his previous life-style, the time when he was focused on the law. But this mind-set was all abandoned when God’s grace touched him (1. 13-16). Like a man dynamiting his own house, Paul destroyed his own mental paradigms of God and life, carefully constructed since boyhood – he had totally rejected legalism.
I make myself a transgressor. Paul answers one of the charges against him: “Christ is not the agent of sin! We don’t need much help in that area, do we! If I were to return to my old legalistic ways, quite apart from any outside help, I would make myself a sinner.” Why does Paul speak so harshly of the old law-system? It is for these reasons: to say that one’s efforts are quite sufficient to please God is to deny God’s evaluation of humankind as frail and helpless; it is to deny that we need a Savior; it is to reject the Cross and what Jesus did. Legalism says, “I have the strength to save myself, in my own way, apart from the work of Christ.” This declaration of independence from God is at the very heart of sin (John 16. 9).
I through the law am dead to the law. "The word law is in the Greek without the article both times; 'the law' would suggest that Paul is giving up only the Mosaic law, whereas he is repudiating all kinds of legalism! Dying to law meant ceasing to regard obedience to law as the means of securing acceptance with God” (Stamm 488).
Paul shifts his view from the Old Covenant law-system to all law-systems – any system of activity designed to earn God's approval. Let’s put this in modern terminology, the exposition of which will madden not a few: Paul is rejecting religion! all rigid, doctrinaire, rule-book forms of religion! be they Jewish or Gentile! And let’s not forget the background of the person speaking. This Pharisee-of-the-Pharisees wrote the book on strict religion (he may have literally written the Judaizers’ textbooks). So when Paul tells us that he “died to law” we must understand that he plumbed depths of this subject in a way that most of us will never know. When he, Mr. Law-Fanatic, crashed and burned to the law, God, at the same time, granted him a unique insight regarding the utter impossibility of any person earning salvation by human effort! This is why Paul speaks of “grace” so often, more than any other apostle. He'd become utterly sensitized to the issue.
2. 20. 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 am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live. This verse -- in particular, this phrase -- is one of the most beloved in all Scripture. We sense that Paul is speaking from the heart concerning the essence of Christianity. The Judaizers had spoken of Christ as if he were, as lawyers use the phrase, a legal fiction; that Jesus as Messiah occupies some pleasant position of sinecure! but when the serious business of how salvation is truly wrought in the lives of hapless souls, well then, they retorted, we must fall back upon the law! For Paul, it becomes clear to us, Jesus as the Christ is no legal fiction. Paul knows – we sense that he has experienced – a personal relationship with the Crucified One. And it is on this basis that Paul protests the folly of the Judaizers’ claim: “Without the law, the people will run wild.” “No,” says Paul, “if this is your view of Christ, then I can see that you haven’t met him.”
loved me [. . .] gave himself for me. Like reading someone else’s love letter, we might gasp as we sense Paul’s emotion at having been personally loved by Christ: “loved me, gave himself for me.” We see Paul shaking his head at the gross distortion of the legalists’ view of Christianity. Someone “who is united to Christ is never the same person again. [. . .] It is not just his standing [a bureaucratic legal status] before God which has changed; it is he himself, radically, permanently changed. To talk of his going back to the old life, and even sinning as he pleases, is frankly impossible” (Stott 65).
Christ liveth in me. “Christians won’t ‘run wild’ when grace is preached,” we hear Paul saying, “because Jesus himself lives within them! That’s better than any law, better than any external code. You might say that Jesus himself becomes their ‘law’ (6. 2), their internal guidance system and motivation for doing right!”
2. 21. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Christ is dead in vain. Paul, the prosecuting attorney for the truth, is about to wrap up his closing arguments. He has saved the best, the most damning indictment, for last. He is about to posit, reductio ad absurdum, the extreme, logical conclusion of his opponents’ ill-conceived teachings. We see Paul, his rhetoric never better, leaning, with both hands, on the courtroom rail, as it were, toward the jurors, eyes transfixed, speaking directly to their souls: “I tell you solemnly - if humankind could achieve right standing in the eyes of God by the law, then Christ made a terrible mistake when he came here and died for us; if we may be counted righteous on the basis of any self-help system, then what Christ did on the Cross becomes for us a useless, albeit gracious, gesture of good will! if we can save ourselves, then Christ need not have bothered to die!"
In these final verses of chapter two, Paul speaks of the key to transformational Christian living. Some people think that being a Christian is living according to The Book. As important as the Bible is, Christianity, at its heart, is not about following a Book. Christianity is not better than Islam because the Bible is better than the Koran; better, not because of The Book, but because we live “in Him.” And that Person will guide us through this mortal life, and if it were our lot never to read a single word of the holy printed text (as has been the case for most Christians down through the ages), the Living Word, dwelling in us, would surely, as the apostle John explains, "teach us all things necessary for salvation" (1 John 2. 27).
|