The Israel of God

Galatians 6:15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. 16 And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

15 οὔτε γὰρ περιτομή τί ἐστιν οὔτε ἀκροβυστία ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις. 16  καὶ ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν, εἰρήνη ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔλεος καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ.

This is another one of those passages that seems to blur the distinction between Israel and the church.  In fact, here Paul uses the terms synonymously.  Those who are new creations are part of τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ.  Of course, one could also make the argument that the καὶ before this phrase means that there are two distinct groups -- those who walk by this rule and the Israel of God.

But why does Paul have to add the τοῦ θεοῦ if that is the case?  Simply mentioning Israel would be sufficient to make the reader think of the descendants of Abraham.  Back in chapter 3 Paul made the point that the promise was not to the offsprings referring to many, but to the offspring who is Christ.  In other words, it seems to be all about Christ.

What is the point of writing this?  First, this is my blog and I use it to work out things over which I'm wrestling.  I attend a strongly dispensational school, but I have my doubts and here is one place I'm working them out.  Not every day is going to be a wonderful devotional, so I'm sorry about that.

Another is that I do think that this opens up the Old Testament.  It seems to me that if you do not blur the lines between Israel and the church then the Old Testament has practically no relevance for the Christian other than to show God's providence in sending Christ for us.  We can glory in the fulfilled prophecies, but what do we do with Psalms, for example?  Do we read the whole Psalter and say, "That's for Israel, not for us?"  I don't think so.  I don't know any dispensationalist that does so, but it seems like you should if you want to be consistent.

Again, I don't claim to have a deep knowledge of dispensationalism.  By this time next year I will after taking Systematic IV.  Until then, I'm just going to keep musing as I read Scripture.

Freedom!

Galatians 5:1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

1 Τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν· στήκετε οὖν καὶ μὴ πάλιν ζυγῷ δουλείας ἐνέχεσθε.

I've not seen Braveheart, but I understand that there is a moment where William Wallace yells, "Freedom!"  Obviously freedom is a big deal to all of us.  The United States was founded on the idea.  We want to be free to do what we want to do.

I think that I have taken this verse out of its context for a long time.  If you know anything of my story, you know that I am painfully aware of what slavery to sin looks like.  I also know what it means to be free in Christ.  It is a glorious thing to enjoy the freedom from sin that Christ gives us.  As I reflect on this it makes me want to treasure Him all the more.  This is a great thing.

However, that is not what this verse is about.  Paul is continuing his argument about slavery to the Law.  He finished chapter 4 contrasting Sinai (the Law) with freedom in Christ.  After this verse he discusses circumcision more.  Circumcision was a symptom of the bigger problem of folks trying to be saved by the Law.  So while in Christ there is certainly freedom from sin, the bigger issue here is freedom from the chains of the Law.

What does this mean to us?  It means that we do not need more rules.  We do not go from bondage to sin into bondage to rules.  Legalism will not save us.  We obey the commands of Scripture because we are saved from sin.  It is a response, not a requirement for salvation.  Those of us who run in more fundamentalistic circles need to be particularly careful about this.  Let's obey Paul's command to στήκετε, amen?

Reading Scripture

Galatians 4:30 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."

30 ἀλλὰ τί λέγει ἡ γραφή; ἔκβαλε τὴν παιδίσκην καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς· οὐ γὰρ μὴ κληρονομήσει ὁ υἱὸς τῆς παιδίσκης μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἐλευθέρας.

I find that blogging through Paul means either quoting a verse at the beginning or the end of each chapter.  His writing is so logical as he lays out his arguments.  Here his is concluding a section where he is describing two covenants -- one of works and one of faith.  Or, to us his language, one of slavery and one of freedom.  It is clear that the way of works leads to slavery and death, but Christ leads us to freedom.  It also seems clear that Jews need Jesus as much as anyone else.  But that's not what I want to emphasize here.

What fascinates me is how Paul starts this verse.  He asks the question ἀλλὰ τί λέγει ἡ γραφή.  That really needs to be the first question we ask as well.  What does the Scripture say?  That needs to be how we decide truth.  It doesn't really matter what we think or even what theologian we admire.  What does the Scripture say?

I will admit that this is a tad simplistic because we cannot really determine what the Scripture says until we have some basis in hermeneutics.  Godly men differ on how to interpret various passages.  But that doesn't mean that both interpretations are valid.  There will come a day when the Presbyterians and Baptists will both know exactly what the proper mode of baptism is, for example.

Even though this is a bit simplistic I think that it gets to the fundamentals of how we must think.  What does the Scripture say?  There may indeed be some difficult passages.  However, enough of it is crystal-clear and that should settle matters for us.

Abraham's Offspring

Galatians 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

29 εἰ δὲ ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ, ἄρα τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ σπέρμα ἐστέ, κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαν κληρονόμοι.

This is the conclusion of one of my favorite chapters of Scripture.  Here Paul lays out how the gospel was for the Gentiles.  And in fact he seems to say that somehow by faith the Gentiles are now Abraham's offspring.  This is the culmination of his argument.  I love this chapter because it shows how I as a Gentile can partake of the promises and blessings God gave to Israel.

This chapter is also why I have a hard time diving into Dispensationalism.  Paul seems to be equating the church with Israel.  It looks like the term "Israel" goes beyond the traditional meaning of the nation-state.  In fact, given how the current nation-state of Israel operates I don't see much connection between them and the kingdom of David.  But I can definitely see how the Old Testament promises to Israel have either found or will find their fulfillment in the church.

I admit that I do not have a deep knowledge of Dispensationalism.  But what I do know is that one should judge a doctrine based on theology, history, and practice.  Does it make sense according to the Bible?  I would say that it is tenuous, based on what I know.  What church father read his Bible with a Dispensational hermeneutic?  Maybe some did and I just don't know.  The practice is what scares me.  I don't see the validity of the Zionism that we display in America.  I also see a lot of people reading their Bibles in one hand their newspapers in the other.

I'm going to lean toward Calvin until I'm convinced otherwise.  I look forward to examining this in more depth in Systematic IV.  Meanwhile, to me the straightforward reading of Scripture shows me that Paul merged Israel and the Church.

Not Above Scripture

Galatians 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

11 Ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην, ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν.

To me, this is one of the more surprising verses in all of Scripture.  Here we see the Apostle Paul publicly call out the Apostle Peter.  This is the same Peter that the Roman Catholic Church calls the first pope.  To be fair, no thoughtful Roman Catholic thinks that the pope is without sin.  However, it is interesting that Paul calls Peter out in a letter that has become part of our canon of Scripture.

What do we make of this?  It shows me that no one and certainly no leader is above Scripture.  We are all accountable to God's truth.  That is the final arbiter of everything.  If one of us goes off and starts preaching a wrong gospel then we should be called on to the carpet for it.  The phrase κατεγνωσμένος ἦν means that he was in a state of condemnation. I don't think that means he lost his salvation, but it does mean that he was doing something terribly wrong.  He was confusing people about the gospel.  He made the Gentiles behave like Jews and they thought that there was something salvific about doing that.  Big mistake.

This also shows me that there are times for rebuke.  It is much more loving to correct someone going astray than it is to let them keep walking down the wrong paths.  Sometimes this is more important than other times.  I don't think that every mistake in doctrine requires a stinging public rebuke, but I do think that there are times when we all need to be called on the carpet.

As someone who may be a leader someday this is a great reminder that I need to remain humble.  I could certainly find myself in error.  I hope never to be wrong about the fundamentals of the gospel, but I don't want to underestimate the sin I can commit.  This reminds me to be on guard against error.  How do I do that?  I stay in the Word.

False Gospels

Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

8 ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίζηται [ὑμῖν] παρ᾽ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.

There is so much in this chapter to write on, but I want to focus on this verse.  Paul gets right down to business after a very brief introduction.  Here he makes quite a bold statement.  Even if he who was the Apostle Paul preaches a different gospel then even he should be declared ἀνάθεμα.  A lot hinges on the meaning of this word.

Thayer has a fairly extensive entry on it.  First, it mentions that in the Septuagint it refers to a "thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, and, if an animal, to be slain."  Here is the entry for the NT:

a. a curse b. a man accursed, devoted to the direst woes and in  Rom. 9:3 (pregnantly equivalent to doomed and so separated from Christ). 

So that's pretty heavy, right?  The Council of Trent made a big deal about this.  As Luther worked to return the world to the true gospel the Roman Catholic Church needed a response to save their false view of the gospel.  You can read their declarations. Clearly there are two different views of the gospel here.  Paul makes it clear that there is only one true gospel; therefore, either Protestants are ἀνάθεμα or those holding to the Roman Catholic view of salvation are ἀνάθεμα.  It cannot go both ways.

This business between Protestants and Roman Catholics goes back five centuries.  It is vital that we pay attention to this as this is a matter of eternal life or eternal torment.  But we can't stop there.  What about those nice young men wearing white shirts, blue pants, and ride around on bikes while knocking on doors and telling them the "good news of Jesus Christ?"  If part of their story involves The Book of Mormon then you need to be aware of what Paul has to say here to the Galatians.  Joseph Smith claimed that the angel Moroni gave him gold tablets with inspired text.  The problem is that the Mormom gospel is subtly different from the Christian one.  Therefore, one group or the other is ἀνάθεμα.

The Jehovah's Witnesses don't claim special revelation, but they do claim to be God's faithful stewards of His truth here on earth.  They preach a different Christ and they preach a different, works-based salvation.  Therefore, either the Christians or the Jehovah's Witnesses are ἀνάθεμα.  You can't have it both ways.

So, despite our age of ecumenicalism and the desire to forget all our differences while singing "Kum-Ba-Ah" around the campfire, Paul draws a very clear line in the sand.  We need to understand what Scripture has to say and stop there.  I join what Luther said at Worms:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen.

Where do you stand?

Freedom

Galatians 5:1
(1) For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

Josh Hamilton has done much damage to his witness for the gospel recently. He admitted that the wild party photos of him are legitimate. Drunk or no, what he was doing was not acceptable no matter how you look at it.

Now as a Christian as well as someone who has come out of a couple of enslaving habits I certainly can extend grace to Josh. I know what it's like to stumble. I haven't done it quite on that scale, but I certainly know what it's like.

The problem is that the world doesn't understand this. Now I'm not about to say that everyone's salvation is dependent on Josh's sobriety. However, I do know that his Jesus-talk took a big hit in the eyes of the watching world.

What upsets me is that I don't think he has the mindset of a freed person. He speaks of "recovery" all the time. He still uses the language of addiction. He does not speak of being free. I realize that there is a semantics issue here too. However, I wish that he would acknowledge that Christ came to set him free and not just to manage his sin.

I don't want to pile on Josh. He got cocky and thought that he could take some liberties. It happens to everyone sometimes. However, I also hope that he realizes what comes from the big stage he has. I also hope he can get past the injuries he has and get back into his baseball groove that he enjoyed last year.

Boasting

Jeremiah 9:23-24
(23) Thus says the LORD: "Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches,
(24) but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the LORD."

I look at my life and I wonder what I have to boast in. I could boast in my family. The kids are healthy and generally well-behaved. I could boast in my wife. She is a good wife and she turns some heads when we're out in public. I could boast in my job. It's nice to have a stable white-collar job in a good environment. I could boast in my learning. The guy next to me at the baseball games says that he told a coworker about how much mintuae I remember about games I've seen. I also could boast in my knowledge of the Bible. I've read it several times and know what it says better than most people.

The problem is that I have boasted about those things. Maybe not out loud because I know how to play the Christian game too well for that, but I have boasted about them internally. I have put my hope in things like these.

What I realize is just how much folly there is in my heart. I know how easily distracted I am by so much junk online (both visual and mental). I'm also distracted by otherwise good stuff when I should be doing other things. I'm distracted by my own desires more often than I'd like to admit.

Yet through it all I have the Lord. He needs to be my source of strength. He needs to be my comfort. He needs to be what I rely on to get me through the day. He needs to be the basis for all my decision. This passage also reminds me of:

Galatians 6:13-15
(13) For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh.
(14) But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
(15) For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

The outward stuff doesn't matter so much as the heart. I am so glad that I am not to be judged on what I do but on what Christ has done!

The Message is Everything

Galatians 1:8-9
(8) But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
(9) As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

I have been known to use this passage in a little proof-text war with Roman Catholicism. After all, this is the language that they quoted at the first Council of Trent when they declared the Reformation idea of justification by faith alone to be anathema (what is translated "accursed" here). Basically, the idea is that there is only one gospel and anyone who preaches a different one is accursed.

But as I review this passage I am struck by a different point of emphasis. The authority here is in the message. Paul is emphasizing the truth of the gospel that the Galatians first received. In Gal 1:1 he states his authority as an apostle. But here he makes the point that even he does not have the authority to give them a different gospel.

To me, this is a great argument for the importance of Scripture. Yes, it is important to have educated people interpreting what the Bible says and means. However, I think this passage makes it clear that no one has the authority to change the gospel in any way. If Paul didn't then we certainly don't.

1 Corinthians 15:1-2
(1) Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,
(2) and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.

Hold fast to the gospel!

EDIT: R. Scott Clark happened to write something similar here. I promise I wrote this before I read what he wrote. I find it reassuring when a "real" theologian writes something that I also wrote. It makes me feel like I'm stumbling in the right direction in this case.

Don't Fear the Reaper

Galatians 6:7-9
(7) Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
(8) For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
(9) And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.

This is a passage that has a lot to say about reaping and sowing. I think it helps to dispel any idea that what we do in this world has no meaning. There is a sense here that our eternal rewards will have to do with what we sow in this life.

Put another way, I look forward to heaven because of Christ's righteousness, but it seems to me that there is a sense of rewards in heaven based on how I live. This passage also seems to speak to this idea:

1 Corinthians 3:11-15
(11) For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
(12) Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw--
(13) each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.
(14) If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.
(15) If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

The point is that sometimes Christians are accused of accepting a cheap grace where we punch our ticket for heaven and then go about abusing grace. I don't think it's supposed to work that way. Not only are we to live in such a way that God is glorified, but as we do these good works there are rewards waiting for us in heaven, provided that our works stand the test of fire.

The key is the foundation. What is yours?