Circumcision

Circumcision was a sign of the promise, and that promise was made to Abraham and his Seed. More than that it was promise about the Seed that was to come.

Therefore it makes sense to have such a weird sign. Not to be too crass, but the seed would come through reproduction of Abraham and his descendants.

Therefore, the offence to God in continuing to be circumcised after Jesus had come (and faith in him, Gal 3:25) is in denying that Jesus was the promised Seed. It says you are still waiting for the promise to be fulfilled and looking for another descendant of Abraham.

Be born in us today

Sarah and Rebekah were both barren women who God miraculously provided sons, in accordance with the promise given to Abraham for a Seed.

God trumps both in Mary, to whom he gives a son despite her being a virgin! He was THE promised Seed (singular) of Abraham, which the others were only shadows of.

I blogged about this series of shadows to Mary 3 years ago. But yesterday evening I came across whatever the opposite of a shadow is - reflected light?!

"Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labour!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband." (Gal 4:27 quoting Is 54:1)

Who is this barren woman? For Isaiah it was the land of Israel and Jerusalem that was the inheritance of the people of God. For Paul it is "the Jerusalem above" that is the inheritance of the church. She like Sarah, Rebekah and Mary also gives birth to "children of promise...according to the Spirit" (4:28-29). That is us when we are born again and "Christ is formed in [us]" though the "anguish of childbirth".

O holy Child of Bethlehem,
descend to us, we pray;
Cast out our sin, and enter in,
be born in us today.
We hear the Christmas angels
the great glad tidings tell;
O come to us, abide with us,
our Lord Emmanuel!

Who do you want to see in the Kingdom of God?

"the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." (Galatians 5:19-21)

Recently our home group studied this passage. Everyone there knew that they ticked one of the boxes so the plain reading of the text was that they would not inherit the kingdom of God. But it was the newer Christian who asked the obvious question: "How can that be true?"

Faced with that stark piece of 'law' the various 'answers' suggested were perhaps inevitable:

• Perhaps it meant "continue in such things" - so as long as you don't carry on doing such things you'll inherit the kingdom.
• Or perhaps it meant those whose life is "characterised by such things" won't inherit - you may do them, but they are just flashes in the pans when they happen.

It was a rather stark series of attempts to blunt the force of the 'law', which perhaps had missed the equally stark word in verse 24: "crucified". Sin leads to death and there is no way round that because God will never allow 'sinners' in his kingdom. And if a 'sinner' is all we are then it is an understandable defence mechanism to try and soften the sentence and find a way to sneak past the guards.

BUT, if we are also 'saints' by faith in Christ Jesus, then we don't care what happens to us as 'sinners'. In fact we rejoice over our death on Good (!) Friday 2000 years ago, in baptism a short while back, now (when we join in our own crucifixion of our desires and do not mind a little suffering!), and in our physical death in the future.

'Dave the Sinner' has no inheritance in the Kingdom of God. Great! I don't want to see him there frankly. I know he won't like the music or the company anyway.

Just as the plagues on Egypt meant freedom for Israel, so the death of the old me means life for the new me. In awareness of that we can welcome God's judgement - not blunt it - even as it comes down on us!

Four aspects of organic change

Christian change is:

1. Gradual - so be patient
2. Inevitable - so be optimistic, because the Spirit is omnipotent.
3. Internal - so cultivate love in your heart, because if works don't grow from love of God and neighbour it's dangerous (1 Cor 13:1; Matt 7:21-23).
4. Symmetrical - so be suspicious of 'self-control' with no joy, or 'love' but no faithfulness, because if what you call self-control/love etc exists without the others then it is probably counterfeit because they are interdependent (cf. 1 John 4:20).

According to Tim Keller, in his sermon on the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23.

Apologetics in Galatians

Paul in Galatians spends roughly the first half of Galatians explaining how his Gospel is true, and the second half how it is morally good.

So the first half of Galatians speaks to the agnosticism of our culture that thinks we cannot know the truth of God. Following Kant (?) most people I know think that it is impossible for us to know anything for certain about God. As naturalists they believe we live in a closed natural system where it is impossible for us to believe God has spoken or worked miracles. So given that it is impossible for us to know anything about God, it is permissible to believe anything about God but never permissible to be certain about it. The critique of the Bible you hear from people you meet is that it is just human opinion, and as such has no more weight than the speculation of any other human. In response to this I don’t think it is best to simply assert that we can’t avoid absolute truth in religious statements, instead it is better to FIRST admit that our culture is right that if the Bible is just human opinions then we shouldn’t say that the Gospel is absolute truth. THEN, as Paul does in the first few chapters of Galatians, demonstrate the Gospel is “not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father” so we can be certain of it’s truthfulness.

The second half of Galatians speaks to the belief that religious certainty breeds hate and events like 9/11. In fact, Paul actually anticipates the concerns of postmodern pragmatic-pluralists who believe that claims to absolute truth tend to be power-plays which end up in division. He shows the judaizer’s false gospel is a form slavery, which they only preach so that the Galatians “may make much of them” and they can “boast in [the Galatians] flesh” (4:17; 6:13). Not only that, but as it is only the true Gospel that brings the Spirit and the Spirit’s fruit, any false gospel we come across will only lead to “enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, [and] divisions” (5:20). So freedom from oppression and moral goodness are key concerns of Paul that overlap with our pluralist culture, but he would criticise pluralism as a false gospel that oppresses people and fractures society as much as any other worldview. So again, with Paul, we can FIRST agree that claims to absolute truth tend to be both oppressive and divisive. THEN as Paul does, show how the Gospel is unique in bringing freedom as well as the motivation and power to love our neighbour and bear one another’s burdens (5:14; 6:2).

Authority in Galatians

From my meetings with Mormons it seems that the thing that almost seems to excite them the most is the authority of the LDS Church and its Priesthoods. This is their solution to doctrinal confusion because, coupled with the warm fuzzy feeling they understand to be the witness of the Holy Spirit, they can know that a teaching is true because it comes from the LDS church.

Galatians has a different perspective on authority...

Paul recognises that the truth of the gospel he preaches depends on it coming from God.

• He is an "apostle - not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father" (1:1)
• He says: "I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (1:12)
• He spent years in the wilderness (metaphorically and literally at times) before coming to see the Apostles (2:1)
• Who these Apostles were "makes no difference" to Paul and they added nothing to his message (2:6)

Authority is not something inherent to any person other than God, but belongs to someone so long as he preaches the Gospel.

• His authority can be questioned if he preaches a different Gospel (1:8, and implied in 2:18)
• Peter's authority can be questioned on the same basis (2:14)
• Even angels should be questioned if they preach a different Gospel (1:8)

Paul's authority is paralleled in the authority of any Christian.

• Paul was "called by [God's] grace" to preach, and had Christ revealed to him so that he could preach him to the Gentiles (1:15-16)
• The whole Galatian church were "called [by God] in the grace of Christ" (1:6) when "Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified" to them (3:1)

The Gospel is equated by Paul with God the Father, Jesus Christ, and his crucifixion.

• Paul equates the Gospel with God the Father (1:6; 3:6)
• Jesus Christ (1:12; 1:16; 2:16; 5:2)
• Jesus' death (3:1; 6:14)
• Blessing of the Gentiles in Abraham/Christ (3:8; cf. 5:6)
• NB the revelation of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen One, included within it the calling of Paul to the Gentiles and knowing God as Father. These are not separate revelations or callings

The truth of the Gospel he preaches is shown in the effect it has - i.e. that it delivers the goods.

• By hearing it the Galatians received the Holy Spirit (3:2)
• The Spirit cries "Abba! Father!" (4:6)
• The Spirit (presumably) is what supplies a feeling of blessing that means a great desire to serve and give gifts to the person who shared it with you whatever the cost (4:15)
• The Spirit has fruit of "love, joy peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control" (although note this is a imperative (walk by the Spirit), that comes from the indicative (we live by the Spirit, 5:25)
• After all, if the Gospel is Jesus Christ then if it is being preached the Holy Spirit, who indwells the Son, will be with it.

God gives the Gospel, which is himself, to Christians who have authority in their re-presenting of the Gospel. The Gospel is both their possession and their master, just as God is given to us and yet we serve him. As soon as the Gospel is something we control we lose the possession of it, and so as soon as the preaching authority of the church is exercised outside of obedience to God we lose the authority.

To be joined to Christ by faith in him is to share his authority. To preach Christ is to exercise that authority. True authority never belongs to us or is exercised by us except dependent on Christ's personal authority. Not just in an initial gift, but continually. Christ must be the alpha and omega of our authority to teach.

I think Mormons believe Christ is the alpha, but not the omega, of the authority of their church.

Jews and Arabs

My home group leader pointed out today that in Galatians 4 when Paul is explaining how the Jews were sons of the slave woman (Hagar's son Ishmael) instead of the chosen sons of Abraham (Sarah's son Isaac), that actually he was saying to the Jews that they were Arabs. That was surely explosive then, and it is probably even more explosive now.

Also explains why Paul says that "Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia", a seemingly superfluous addition otherwise.

Seeing things as they really are

This is my first draft of notes for a bible study on Galatians 3:18-4:11. Any feedback gratefully received. Please feel free to be brutal.

'A theology of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theology of the cross calls the thing what it actually is' (Martin Luther)


1. How does Paul see the law in 3:18-4:7, and how does this imply that the false preachers viewed the law?

Verses	Paul's view of the law	The false teachers view of the law
3:18	Did not bring inheritance	Brought the holy spirit/land
3:19, 23, 25	temporary	permanent
3:19	mediated	direct from God
3:21-23	It imprisoned things under sin	righteousness
3:21; Rom 8:2	death	life
3:29	It did not determine who were descendants of Abraham	It determined who were descendants of Abraham
3:25; 4:1-3	for the child	for the mature
4:1, 7-9	slavery That is to be a slave to 'the elemental spirits/principles of the world' (4:2; c.f. Col 2:8 - human/worldly).  Connected to slavery to sin (3:22; Rom 6:6-20), and to those that are not gods (4:8).	freedom

[4:8-11 seems to be about Gentiles.  'you', 'those that are not gods'.  Although it is clear that the state of the Gentiles apart from Christ parallels that of the Jews.  Both involve slavery, and slavery to 'the elemental spirits/principles of the world']


2. Paul says in 1:6 that the Galatians were turning to a different gospel.  We are not attracted by the idea of circumcision, not eating pork, and observing Jewish holy days.  Why were they?  What made it 'good news' to them and the false preachers?

• 'They make much of you' (4:17) - where as Paul says the truth and becomes their enemy, the false teachers flatter
• It is implied that they made the Galatians think they were something, when they were nothing (6:3-5)
• Getting circumcised stopped persecution (5:11).
• Following the law makes a good showing in the flesh (6:12).

• Their teaching meant you were reassured that God is on your side because you can see the marks that prove it
• It meant other people are on your side and not persecuting you, but instead admiring you.
• It meant you can be on your own side, because there is hope that you can obtain life yourself

[NB there are biblical reasons for the false teachers beliefs, but Paul doesn't admit these as the real reasons why they taught them.  Compare:

• 'This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised [...] Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant' (Genesis 17:10-14)
• 'You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them' (Lev 18:5; cf. Ezekiel 20:11)
• 'listen to the statutes and the rules that I am teaching you, and do them, that you may live, and go in and take possession of the land [the inheritance, c.f. Gal 3:18] that the Lord, the God of your fathers, is giving you.' (Deut 4:1)
• 'it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void' (Luke 16:17)
• All of Deuteronomy 28]

3. What are the glasses through which Paul sees things as the opposite of how the false preachers saw them?

The Gentiles were baptised into Christ => put on Christ => sons of God (even though we can't see how by faith that is true) => there is no difference between Gentiles/Jews, men/women etc (3:26-29).  This is all 'through faith', not sight and not works.

in Christ / outside Christ - is now only division that really matters.  In Christ is every privilege.  Outside of Christ is nothing.

This is despite appearances.  Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, despite appearances.  The cross seems the last thing to boast in, but it is actually the only thing we boast in.

Paul sees the law as obsolete as he sees us living in a different age (cf. 1:4):

• 'It was added ... until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made' (3:19)
• 'before faith came' (3:23)
• 'the law was our guardian until Christ came' (3:24)
• 'now that faith has come' (3:25)
• 'when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son' (4:4)
  

[Split into groups of 2-3]


4. Where do you see places or ways to get good things?  Maybe think in the categories of:
    (a) What you do to make other people think more of you.
    (b) What you do to feel good about yourself.
    (c) What you do so God thinks more of you.


5. What do you see as bad things which you ought to see as good?  When and where do we undervalue Christ?

[NOTE TO SELF: This was a bad bible study - too clever by half]

The missing commandment

And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?" Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." (Mark 13:28-31)

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 8:8-10)

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." (Galatians 5:13-14)

If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself," you are doing well. (James 2:8)

Does anyone else find it odd that of the two greatest commandments which sum up the law, Paul and James say only the second is necessary to 'fulfil' the law. To love your neighbour as yourself keeps the whole law according to Paul. But what about the God-ward commandment, which is the first not just in order but priority?

While that may just seem an oddity, the fact we are still required keep such a sweeping commandment creates an additional problem. We often remind people that nobody loves God with their whole heart, mind, soul and strength. But isn't the second great commandment equally impossible? It is very nice of God to 'let us off' having to keep the first commandment, but the second will break us as well. Not very freeing is it?

Yet Paul in Galatians says that loving our neighbour as ourselves is living in freedom. James says we have to do what the 'law of liberty' says (1:25) which is presumably the same as the 'royal law' of 2:8. However, we may feel that far from being free we are still living under subjection to commands and laws if we have to obey this great (OT, indeed Mosaic) commandment. True, it seems we are given a little more freedom to work out what loving our neighbour may mean in practice. Rather than having it spelled out in detail for us (e.g. command to leave the edges of the field for the poor, Leviticus 19:9) we can decide the best way to help to help our neighbour ourself. But when Paul talks about freedom, he means more than this. He means freedom from the curse of not keeping the law and freedom from the sin it enlivens.

Perhaps the solution is contained in Luther's famous observation, in The Freedom of the Christian, of how we are both free and enslaved as Christians:

A Christian is perfectly free lord of all, subject to none.

A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all.

The first statement concerns our God-ward relationship. The second statement our human-ward relationships. They relate to what Luther described as two different kinds of righteousness.

The distinction between two kinds of righteousness rests upon the observation that there are two dimensions to being a human creature. One dimension involves our life with God, especially in the matters of death and salvation. The other dimension involves our life with God’s creatures and our activity in this world. In the former we receive righteousness before God through faith on account of Christ. In the latter, we achieve righteousness in the eyes of the world by works when we carry out our God-given responsibilities.

(Charles Arand on Melancthton's Apology)

These two dimensions of life are not unconnected, as Jesus demonstrates clearly when he answers the question 'Which commandment [singular] is the most important of all?' with two commandments. However they are ordered and distinguishable.

Only being righteous in the first (vertical) dimension can lead to being righteous in the second. But being righteous in the second cannot bring righteousness in the first. As Luther says: 'Good works do not make a good man, but a good man does good works; evil works do not make a wicked man, but a wicked man does evil works' (Freedom of the Christian). This is because it is God who justifies (Romans 8:33) and the judgment of men is meaningless (Luke 16:15). It is our relationship to God which defines whether we are righteous or not.

But God's justifying declaration, like all his words is creative. So righteousness in the first dimension not only can but will lead to righteousness in the second dimension. That is why Paul can express such incredulity when despite being justified before God we are not acting as just people in the world, and why James says that Abraham's 'faith was completed by his works' (2:22). If God has declared us righteous in Christ by faith, in the promise of baptism, then we must be righteous not just before God but before men.

This certainty that one kind of righteousness will lead to the other is why (human-ward) works do not supply something that (God-ward) faith lacks, but instead 'perfect' or 'complete' faith. As Seifrid comments on James' statement that we are justified by works:

His formulation is important: he does not say that they were justified 'by faith and works', but they were justified by works alone! Justification ultimately must be by works, because works are faith's perfection [...] works that justify are never alone. They are an outworking of faith, which is present with them

(pp.180-181, Mark Seifrid, Christ our Righteousness)

So works do not fulfil a law which has not already been fulfilled by Christ who is received by faith. Instead they complete what has already begun, in one sense what has already happened, in Christ's death and resurrection. This is why James says that in Abraham's work of offering up Isaac 'the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"' (2:23). What God had promised before the act (that Abraham was righteous) was being played out (fulfilled) in his obedience through his faith in that promise. God did not lie in speaking when Abraham was a sinner, but created the reality.

This word is perhaps what James is talking about in 1:23-25. He says:

But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.

The word tells us who we are in Christ Jesus. We are righteous in God's sight because Jesus loved God with all his heart, mind and strength. We can forget that truth and so don't live like it is true. But if we remember that image of ourselves, and believe it, we will act like it.

Does that makes sense? I've sort of skated along at quite a rate pulling in quite a bit of stuff, and maybe haven't been quite as focused as I should have been.

Further thoughts here.

Truth, goodness and beauty

"Beauty is truth, truth is beauty, that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

(John Keats, 'Ode on a Grecian Urn')

Apparently the three-fold distinction between things being true, good and beautiful is an old one, although I don't remember hearing of it till now. I can't quite find where it originates. Anyone know?

I think it may be quite helpful whenever we explain the Gospel to remember it is true, good and beautiful. Different people are encouraged in their growth by one or the other, and different people find one or another a stumbling block to coming to faith.

I was reading Galatians the other day, and I must confess that I was finding Galatians 1-2 quite boring (I know I shouldn't, but it is true). As I was reflecting on this I realised that it was because Paul is largely addressing why the Gospel he preached is true because it is of a divine origin, and I'm not really interested in whether it is true or not. Not because I don't care if it is a lie, but because I already accept that it is true. Instead I want to be reminded of its beauty!

But there is a reason it is in the Bible. As I thought more about Paul's audience I realised that most people I know don't believe for reasons that could broadly be categorised as either (whether they confess it or not):

• Christianity is not true (e.g. 'Science disproves Genesis', 'Miracles cannot happen', 'Jesus did not rise again on the third day', 'we cannot trust the gospels as historical accounts', 'a good God and suffering are logically incompatible'); or
• Christianity is not attractive (e.g. 'It is unfair for God send people to hell', 'Christianity is a straitjacket', 'Christianity causes wars', 'it is not worth me giving up X to become a Christian', 'a God who allows suffering is not worth worshipping')

I think I became a Christian primarily because it was attractive (morally and aesthetically) rather that because I believed it to be true. Because of that I think I am usually tend to be a bit of a fideist and I'm slow to address issues of truth when speaking to others.

But I don't think this is a good place to be. I may be more excited by the attractiveness of the Gospel but truth and attractiveness have to go together as Keats says. Therefore I need to change for my own benefit, and for the benefit of those I speak about the Gospel to.

The pregnant Apostle

…my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you… (Galatians 4:19)

This was the text for the last sermon I heard in 2006 and it may have been the best I heard (live) the entire year. It was a very challenging sermon for assessing 2006 and making priorities for 2007.

The sermon was by a visiting missionary called Andrew King (he has a blog here, mp3 can be found here). Andrew pointed out the aim of Paul’s life was to see Christ formed in people. Similarly Christ formed in us and in others ought to be our primary goal. But, this is not something for us to be lackadaisical or dispassionate about. Paul was in the ‘anguish of childbirth’ that this occur and the lack of Christlikeness, the spoiled image of God that he saw in others was a consuming pain and passion for him. In fact, that it is only in this total abandonment for others that Christ is formed in us, never mind anyone else.

Grrr, I can’t encapsulate what I’m trying to recount so that it has the impact it had on me, but hopefully you get the gist.

On reflection the sermon reminded me of Bruce Longenecker’s point that Paul in Galatians is too often seen as interested in ‘the issue of the law’ when actually he is concerned for ethics (see my post here).

Quotable: Longenecker on Galatians

In view of [the] profile of the agitators [judizers], it is tempting to think that Paul's letter to the Galatian Christians deals primarily with the issue of 'the law', not least since this seems to be the issue that has overwhelmed the Galatian communities. Such an impression, however, requires some qualification. While the Galatian Christians; regard for the law provoked Paul to write much on the subject, his deliberations on nomistic observance are framed within the context of prior convictions about the nature of Christian personal and corporate life. In particular, he surveys the Christian life in relation to two dimensions: a temporal and a qualitative dimension. With reference to the qualitative dimension, Paul demonstrates the Christian life to be intrinsically marked our by Christ-likenesss; in this context, his case relies on a portrait of self-giving as the essential component of Christian lifestyle.

Of these two dimensions, it is arguably the qualitative dimension, which focuses on cruciform lifestyle, that forms the backbone of the theological body of the letter. If that claim is over-stated it is only slightly so. Paul's strategy in Galatians is most effective when he exploits the full scope of the qualitative dimension. Although he employs various arguments concerning the law in Galatians, Paul's finest deliberations on the subject are informed by a belief that cruciform existence is intrinsic to Christian identity and is the most intimate form of relationship with God. Paul's instructions about the law follow in the wake of this pre-determined vision of Christian moral identity.

(pp. 65-66, Bruce Longenecker, ‘Galatians’, in J.D.G. Dunn (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to St Paul, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)

While I don't think Longenecker is spot on, he has an important point. After all Paul's argument (I think) hinges on vv. 3:1-9:

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"?

Faith is central in this passage, but so is the Spirit, and so by implication so is a transformed, cruciform, life.