GALATIANS: The Curse

The next section of Galatians seems to undo everything that we’ve been talking about up to this point.

For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”

At first glance, this appears to say that anyone who follows the Law is cursed. (And this has certainly been taught in far too many Christian circles!) But a closer inspection of the Text (especially when translated appropriately) reveals what Paul has just said within a Jewish context. That same phrase which refers to the “works of the Law” (remember the miqsat ma’asay haTorah, or ergu nomu in the Greek) is used here. Paul’s statement in context clearly says that those who rely on the miqsat ma’asay haTorah for their justification are under a curse. He then quotes Deuteronomy to make his case. Whenever a book is quoted like this, it is important to ask ourselves about the context of the quotation in order to understand what the author is driving at.

In the context of this Deuteronomy quote, the people of God are being reminded of their charge to carry the Law as they enter into the land God is giving them to possess. The story has the people of God being split up on two mountains; one party shouts out the commands of the Torah and the other party shouts back their agreement to follow the commands of God (see the story in Deuteronomy 27). The clear implication of Paul’s quotation is that if you are relying on the “works of the Law” for your justification, you have to live under this dark cloud that follows you everywhere you go; such reliance ends up being a curse.

Mt. Gerazim, where the people of God stood to renew their covenant

Paul continues to say (again) that we understand this, in fact, is not where justification comes from:

Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”

This time, when Paul wants to make the case that they are justified by faith, he goes to Habakkuk for his quotation. This is a brilliant move employed by Hillel when making his arguments about justification. Hillel noted that when Habakkuk talked about righteousness, he talked about “living by emunah”; this Hebrew word for “faith” refers more to “faithfulness” and putting your faith into action. By following the Habakkuk passage with another quotation from Leviticus connecting the idea of “living by,” Paul (employing a rabbinical interpretation method called gezerah shavah, something only the most educated could do) ends up making a case that the Law is not there for our justification; it is there to teach us how to live faithfully.

I realize all of that was probably incredibly confusing, so I’ll sum up Paul’s point like this: If you try to find your justification in the “works of the Law” you will find yourself under a curse. But the Law wasn’t given to find your justification; on the contrary, the Law was given to teach you how to live by faith.

Paul continues:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

By employing another gezerah shavah, Paul connects the idea of the curse to Jesus. By referring to Christ’s crucifixion in reference to being “hung on a pole [tree],” Paul says that when Jesus subjected himself to crucifixion, he redeemed us from that faulty way of thinking and showed us what God’s true plan is. When we properly understand where justification comes from and what God desires from that redemptive process, it opens us up to welcome the Gentiles into the family of God — not as theosabes, but as full-fledged children of Abraham.

Paul then uses an example to go back to his larger idea introduced in the last section:

Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

Paul's illustration demonstrates how he views the story of God. Just as you do not undo a covenant (we might think “contract” in our world) by entering into a new one, so this is the case with God’s story. Paul makes the point that God’s story is aboutpromise. The story of Abraham is a story about promise and not a story about Law. Just because God enters into a covenant relationship with his people through the Law over four centuries later, it does not undo the larger story of God as a story of promise. This is a story about believing in God’s promises — it always has been, and it always will be. This story is not about following rules; it’s about living by faith in the promises of God.

This will have extraordinary implications for the Gentiles.

But Paul has to explain why God would give the Law in the first place.

GALATIANS: Children of Abraham

After sharing with the Galatian believers about his confrontation with Peter and the leadership as they struggled to live in accordance to this gospel, he turns his attention to them. The same understanding of this gospel and this justification is what Paul stresses to the Galatians. This interpretation is apparently one they should have and understand.

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?

Paul calls them foolish Galatians, which happens to be a cultural play on the region of Galatia. We mentioned before that the region of Galatia was like the backwoods corner of the Roman empire. The people there were considered barbaric, uneducated, and primitive. This is one of the regions the Shammai Jews had settled to remain unbothered by the culture around them. This play of Paul’s is a direct attack on a very educated group of people who should know better than to believe the lies they are tempted to believe. It’s safe to say that Paul is upset.

Paul asks them to think about their own experience. Was it by faith or by being Jewish (the miqsat ma’asay haTorah) they received the Spirit? They aren’t Jewish; they are theosabes who are being tempted to convert to Judaism. So the answer to all of Paul’s questions is obviously faith. It is by faith they received salvation. It is by faith they experience the Spirit. It is by faith they are justified. Their whole story has been about faith — so why would they want to give that up and make it about the “works of the law”?

And Paul also mentions their suffering being in vain. But what suffering is Paul talking about? How have these Gentile believers suffered? The answer would be at least twofold. First, they have suffered by holding a very unpopular worldview within the Jewish world of Galatia. In a corner of the Diaspora where the Jews follow the teaching of Shammai, to hold to this view — which is even more progressive than Hillel’s — would antagonize the world where you belong and make you the source of intense religious persecution. Second, they would also be the source of serious Roman persecution. Remember, if these Gentiles are not accepted by the larger Jewish community of Galatia, they will not fall under the great “Jewish Exception” and would be required to engage in emperor worship (idolatry). At different times in history, refusal to do this would be punishable by death.

Yes, these early Gentile believers have suffered a great deal, and that is why they want to convert. But Paul’s point is that this is the very story they are trying to tell to the world of Galatia. They have suffered for the sake of the gospel. If they convert now, all of that suffering will have been in vain. But it hasn’t been in vain, because the gospel has been put on display through their refusal to give in to popular opinion.

Paul then uses a typical Hillel argument to say that Abraham is their great example when it comes to being justified by faith.

So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

Hillel used to make the point that in Genesis 15, Abraham was justified by his faith. He was justified before he was circumcised; he was justified before he had one single rule to follow. If this is the case in Genesis 15, then Shammai is wrong; you cannot be justified by your works. Abraham was justified long before there were any works to be done. However, Paul takes this reasoning one step further than Hillel ever did. It will be helpful here to review our conversation about brothers, “children of Abraham,” and theosabes.

Paul makes the case that the gospel was announced to Abraham himself; Paul sees his gospel in the very story where God announces He is going to bless ALL nations through Abraham. Paul says if this is the story of God (the gospel, as he calls it), then what makes a person a covenant member of Abraham’s family is not circumcision. Contrary to all Jewish thought at the time, Paul says faith is the marker of being a child of God in the family of Abraham.

To a Jew, a “child of Abraham” is a proselyte — someone who has taken on circumcision and converted to Judaism. They are actually Jewish and distinct from the theosabes. But Paul’s argument is that a Gentile with faith is adopted into the family of Abraham.

For Paul, the story of God has always been about the promise, not the Law.

For Paul, the story of God has always been about being a person of faith, not about being Jewish.

For Paul, the story of God has always been about believing in the promises of God, not about obeying the rules.

For Paul, this has always been about trusting the story of God.

If a person will trust in the promises of God, then they are of the same stock as Abraham.

But what of being Jewish? Does that mean nothing?! Why did God waste all of his time with the Law?

Well the Law will certainly have its purpose, but before he tells the Galatians about that, he has to make his case about the Law and the Promise.

GALATIANS: Through the Law

Even though Paul has given the community the authority to speak into his life, ministry, and calling, he is far from rolling over and thinking they are anything more than humans themselves. The ability of Paul to be a mature and well-balanced human being is astounding here. He not only submits to the authority of the church leaders and community of the early church, but he is also adamant about standing for truth and confronting inappropriate behavior when he finds it. Apparently Peter, the great leader of the church, is far from perfect and infallible. Paul tells the Galatians about an encounter he had with Peter in Antioch.

And remember Peter is the guy who had the first experience with these “outsiders” being welcomed into the community of faith. He was the one who had to fight for their place within the world of the gospel and help pave the way for their entrance into the family of God.

When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

The leaders in this early Jesus movement remind me a lot myself at times — full of mistakes and a concern for self. These leaders know what the gospel calls them to do; there are times when they don’t have any problem living up to the call of the gospel. When it is these leaders and the Gentiles, they are gracious and hospitable companions. However, when some of the folks from Judea showed up — those from James and the “circumcision group” — Peter and even Barnabas sought to keep the peace by switching to the traditions and practices of the Torah-observant Jews.

What is often missing from the conversation surrounding this passage is a proper treatment of Jewish halachah, or oral tradition. Halachah is the set of oral interpretations that surround the written law; in a more poetic sense, halachah is “how you walk.” After God gave you commandments, you needed to understand how you would walk these commandments out. The oral tradition provided that framework, but in the new way Jesus is inviting us to live (and even during his own ministry, I believe Jesus made this clear), some of these understandings were going to get in the way of the truth of the gospel. One in particular would be the restrictions of eating with Gentiles. While God never commanded this in Torah, the halachah of the Jewish world had deemed it inappropriate to eat with Gentiles as an issue of ‘cleanliness’ and remaining distinct.

The belief of those in the ‘circumcision group’ was that this distinction needed to remain intact. So Peter and Barnabas find it hard to shake the halachah they had lived with for their entire lives (you can see Peter reference this to Cornelius in Acts 10). But Paul sees this as inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus and he calls them on it.

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”

“Jewish customs” is the reference to halachah. While Peter and Barnabas are not asking the Gentiles to be bound by these commandments (or even the miqsat ma’asay haTorah), they are having a hard time not playing the role of Judean when the “good ol’ boys” come to town. Paul confronts Peter publicly and makes it quite clear he no longer lives by this halachah, so why does he hold people (including Gentiles) to it when the folks from Judea are here? Peter is putting on a show for the Judeans; he’s acting like he is somebody else who believes something other than what he believes.

I believe the NIV is correct in keeping the quotations marks through the rest of the chapter, indicating it is part of Paul’s address to Peter:

“We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.”

First, the old NIV (copyright 1984) put “sinful Gentiles” in quotes. I believe this is the correct move, as it helped communicate the nature of the statement. It is not a derogatory dig on Gentiles as being a bunch of sinners. The Jews understood the “nations” of the Old Testament to be the pagan people groups; it was their mission to remain distinct from them and display God to them. The phrase refers to their status as pagans and not their nature (or value) as human beings.

Second, notice Paul’s direct reference to the rabbinic argument surrounding the idea of justification. We have referenced multiple times in this series the debate that existed between the schools of Shammai and Hillel on whether or not a Jew was justified by faith or by the “works of the law.” The “works of the law” are referenced directly in the passage above (ergu nomu in the Greek). We said Shammai believed a person was justified or “declared righteous” (my favorite expression, like Lancaster, is “exonerated”) by following the miqsat ma’asay haTorah (the “works of the law”); Hillel disagreed and said that, just like Abraham, they are justified by faith and simply believing in the promises of God. The New Testament community decided the way of Jesus (almost always) sided with Hillel. Paul reminds Peter of this decision — a decision that those of the “circumcision group” disagreed with.

“But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

Paul mentions that “through the law I died to the law.” What he means by this is NOT that he stopped following the law; this is quite clear by simply examining the other arguments, assumptions, and behaviors of Paul in the New Testament. Paul is still observing Jewish festivals, worshipping at the Temple, and the taking of Nazarite vows. Paul is certainly still living according to kosher law. However, he is also saying it is through Torah itself that he learned he is not justified by following Torah. He agrees with Hillel and states that Torah itself testified to justification by faith. It is through the Law that he died to the need to be justified by the Law. This will be seen when Paul, in the next chapter, uses the books of Genesis and Leviticus to argue for the gospel and justification by faith.

Paul is looking at great leaders like Peter (and Barnabas) and claiming that if they — in these moments, with people who disagree — rebuild what the community of Jesus has worked so hard to tear down, then the gospel would be stripped of its power. If they rebuild what others worked so hard to tear down, then people don’t see the story God has been telling since Genesis. If they rebuild what others worked so hard to tear down, they will actually be lawbreakers — people who are abolishing the teaching of Torah itself!

“For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

GALATIANS: Right Hand of Fellowship

We left off wondering what the result of Paul’s continued ministry would be. After receiving a call from God, a “revelation from Jesus Christ,” and three years of training in Arabia and Damascus, Paul went and spent time with the key leaders of the early church (Peter and James). After receiving their blessing, Paul was sent out by the church with Barnabas to be about the work of spreading this gospel he received from Jesus. So, what could go wrong? It must have been smooth sailing, right?

Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

Apparently, their world has some similarities to ours; not surprisingly, there was still a significant amount of opposition to the work Jesus was asking Paul (along with Barnabas and others) to do. Again, Paul emphasizes that letting their loud voices win the day would be a loss for the gospel; so instead of being defeated or giving in, they persevered in their insistence that the good news of what God is doing in the world through Jesus invites all people to the table.

To be sure this was, in fact, how the apostles felt about the ministry of Jesus, Paul and Barnabas — fourteen years later — brought Titus along with them to Jerusalem as a sort of “test case.” They stood him in front of the church, told his story, and asked if he needed to be circumcised (which, means far more than just circumcision itself; the sign of the covenant means you carry the entirety of the Law). The church said no.

As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

Paul continues to say the leaders of the church didn’t even want to make adjustments to his message. They agreed the gospel he was sharing is in fact the announcement of God’s work and kingdom on earth. They reaffirmed and commissioned Paul to do the work of taking this gospel to the Gentiles in the same way Peter led the charge in taking it to the world of the Jews.

Paul says Peter, James, and John gave him the right hand of fellowship, which is another way of saying they accepted him and his message as a part of their covenantal community; he was one of them. This is important above all else because Peter, James, and John are called “pillars” of the church. This is a clear nod to the Jewish midrash which spoke of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as the pillars of the Jewish people. They were the leaders on which the family of God is built on. Paul indicated in the preceding paragraph that their right hand of fellowship was paramount to him, because if he did not receive it, he would have “run his race in vain.” If Paul did not have the blessing of the “Pillars,” he would have stopped his ministry right there.

This triumvirate was functioning as the head of the early church; these three men were the closest to Jesus in his ministry. They walked closer to Jesus than any others, were invited to places nobody else went (e.g., the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus praying in the garden, etc.), and were privy to rabbinical explanations that they were ultimately responsible to teach to the other disciples. In a Jewish world, they were set to lead the charge. Peter, of course, was head over the entire movement as Jesus’s right-hand man. James, as we know from church history and references in the book of Acts, was the leader of the church in Jerusalem (the Judeans from the south), while John would ultimately become the “Pastor to Asia” and be stationed in Asia to minister to the church there.

I find it fascinating to study how the early church functioned in the midst of disagreement. I believe the New Testament gives us ample evidence to suggest there was even a slight disagreement among the “Pillars.” James, as the leader of the church of Jerusalem, appears to have a belief that all people should be carrying the Law. It was at the Jerusalem Council where James leads the charge in figuring out which laws can be required of the Gentiles. And, of course, we are all familiar with the book of James and his pushback against where this gospel openness could lead. While I see absolutely no contradictions in their teachings, I can certainly feel the presence of James and his desire to make sure the church stays the course throughout the New Testament. It will be “men from James” who are sent to check in on the church. And it will be “false brothers” from Judea (the church in the south) who find it impossible to accept this gospel Paul is preaching.

** NOTE: Some will find it hard to accept that James “the brother of Jesus,” who writes the letter of James, is the same character who is a member of the three disciples who followed Jesus. While many assume the disciples James and John of “the three” are brothers, the sons of Zebedee, this is highly unlikely. It is far more likely that Jesus called Peter, James son of Alphaeus (who would be Jesus’s cousin; his “brother” in the original culture), and John son of Zebedee to be a part of the three. Rabbinically, you would expect nothing else in the leadership of the church other than the three disciples who walked closest to Jesus. The Peter, James, and John who followed Jesus have to be the Peter, James, and John who lead the church. While this is debated rigorously, I believe it is the only position that holds to the inspiration of the Text and an honest rendering of church history.

I find this study fascinating in that it illuminates the very human struggle in the midst of this new movement, the hard process of binding and loosing, and the commitment to value the voice and authority of the community as a voice God uses to guide and direct the steps of the individual. Whether it is James who is having to come to grips with the voice of the Jerusalem Council and trying to lead an entire church of Judeans who disagree with the stance, or Paul who would consider his entire ministry a vain, empty race unless he receives the right hand of fellowship, their commitment to each other should stand as an example to all of us.

GALATIANS: Paul's Gospel

Since we have looked at the context of the situation, which helps us understand the temptation for these Galatians to “turn to a different gospel,” we are now prepared to hear Paul shift his concern to explaining his gospel, where he got his gospel, and whether his gospel has the blessing of the apostles.

I say “his gospel” and not “the gospel,” because that is how Paul will talk about his mission and calling to the world of the Gentiles. In the evangelical world, we have come to know and speak of “the gospel” as a package of theological truths expressed in a particular way that articulates the salvation of mankind. We have previously discussed that the biblical world understood “gospel” to be the announcement of a new kingdom on the scene. While the abstract truth of the gospel might be something to articulate comprehensively, there would also be a lot of expressions of this abstract truth. “Gospel” would refer to any announcement of that kingdom and all of its implications. Paul’s case is that God has given him a unique announcement for a unique part of the world — a unique gospel. This gospel is going to need to be accepted by the apostles and the church at large in order for it to have any authority.

So Paul is going to build a case for the source, founding, and authority of his gospel. He is going to tell the story of how he received it, how he checked it, and how the leadership of the early church agreed that Paul’s gospel is in complete agreement with their understanding of what God is doing in His Kingdom through Jesus.

The first thing Paul wants to do is make clear that the gospel he preaches is not a gospel from a human source.

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

And this is very important and somewhat surprising, because as a Jew, Paul has one of the most impressive pedigrees around. As a student of Gamaliel, one of the most heralded sages of the first century, Paul has the most significant source of authority by who his rabbi was. Paul’s very presence in a room makes him one of the most sought out voices. However, this new gospel was not Gamaliel’s; no, Paul has left his former rabbi and has begun following a new one. This means he will need to undergo some serious training in order to be a teacher under a new yoke. Hear how he explains it:

For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

Paul’s point is this: When I had my life-changing experience with God, I did NOT meet with anybody; I went off and was “trained” by Jesus himself in Arabia and Damascus. And not only does Paul have to learn a new yoke from a new rabbi, but it will be three years before he consults any follower of Jesus.

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they praised God because of me.

After three years, Paul finally meets Peter (known as “Cephas” in the Greek) and James, who is the leader of the church in Jerusalem. You may remember the book of Acts and how the church, centered in Jerusalem, is having to wrestle with this new understanding of Peter’s experience and the acceptance of the Gentiles. It is Peter and James who are the leaders of this early church movement (and John, but more on this later). After three years of training, Paul goes to meet with the leadership of this church led by guys who followed Jesus around in the flesh — actual talmidim of Jesus himself. During this time, Paul is relatively unknown by the church, with the exception of a few rumors of his changed life.

The implication (especially when you see this in conjunction with the record of Acts) is that Paul takes his gospel and checks it with the church leadership. When they “praised God because of me [Paul],” the assumption is they heard his gospel and his story and were fine with his ministry.

But what will be the result of Paul’s continued ministry? Does this testimony and the Jerusalem council make everything smooth over that easily?

GALATIANS: No Other Gospel

Now that we have wrapped up our conversation about the narrative of God, I want to start diving into the letters of the New Testament. I will not try to present the letters in any sort of chronological order, as I feel like the debate is a lively one, and it doesn’t lend easy answers. Instead, I want to focus on hearing each letter in its context.

I would like to start with the letter to the Galatians for a few reasons. First, I personally believe Galatians is the earliest letter of Paul’s (even though I won’t be trying to present these chronologically). Second, I think the letter to the Galatians is the one that flows best out of the record of Acts. And third, I think understanding the context of Galatia and the argument we touched on surrounding Christianity in Asia and Asia Minor is essential to interpreting our New Testament correctly.

To review, we said back in our post about Barnabas and Paul in Pisidian Antioch that the Jewish world of Asia and Asia Minor was having to wrestle with a question found in the new world of the Diaspora: What do we do with the theosabes — the God-fearing Gentiles? We talked about how the city of Pisidian Antioch sat on the edge of the region of Galatia, and the region was dominated by the ultra-conservative worldview of Shammai. Galatia was a backwater, off-the-beaten-path kind of place where those Jews who wanted to maintain the purity of their Jewish faith could go and avoid the corruption of the Greco-Roman world. If the Gentiles wanted to worship the God of Israel there, the answer was easy — they can convert to Judaism.

But the arrival of the gospel changed everything in that world. All of a sudden there was a Jewish community insisting that God’s grace, salvation, and justification was for the Gentile just as much as it was for the Jew. This group of believers was arguing not only for a place at the fellowship table, but for full-fledged membership and adoption into God’s family.

In a region like Galatia, this was simply unacceptable. What this meant, of course, was that God-fearing Gentiles who followed Jesus were not given a place in the assembly, a seat at the table, or the hand of fellowship. They were excluded; unless they wanted to convert, they simply were not seen as a part of God’s family.

This led to a major temptation for the believers in Galatia. If they would simply convert to Judaism, they would be welcomed into the Jewish family and accepted at the synagogues. Not only this, but in the first century the Jewish people were exempt from the imperial demands of emperor worship through what historians refer to as “the Jewish Exception.” Based on an agreement instigated by Herod the Great, the Jewish people were the only people group excused from offering their worship to Caesar.

But what do you do when you are a Gentile and not included in the Jewish community? Not to bow your knee to Caesar was a capital offense. The reasons were many for why the theosabes would see it as easier and more beneficial simply to convert to Judaism.

Understanding this context is absolutely critical to understanding the letter to the Galatians. Look at how one of the opening paragraphs reads:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Paul says on no uncertain terms that the gospel of Christ is a gospel of inclusion. The whole message of “good news” to the people of Galatia is that in Christ, everyone is welcome at God’s table, and everyone belongs in God’s family. Paul insists that if they allow this message to be perverted, they are ruining the entire mission of God in Galatia. They must put the gospel on display despite the hardship and the persecution.

As we continue to look through the book of Galatians, we would do well to remind ourselves that, in Christ, there are no “those people.” We should remind ourselves that the gospel of Christ always has been, and always will be, a gospel of inclusion. This good news is an announcement that all people, through faith in Christ Jesus, have a seat at the table. There is no people group, geographical region, or religious establishment with a monopoly on faith.

To pervert this truth is to pervert the very mission of God.

** As we continue this study of Galatians, I would recommend The Holy Epistle to the Galatians by Thomas Lancaster. Lancaster does a great job drawing from some of the most recent scholarship to help us understand this letter correctly. While I don’t agree with the conclusions drawn in the last few chapters of his book, the contextual work surrounding the letter to the Galatians is fantastic.

the EPILOGUE

As we wrap up the book of Acts and begin to turn our attention toward the New Testament letters, it will be important to make a point about this meta-narrative of God as it’s recorded in the Scriptures. When we began to look at the book of Acts, I mentioned this was an "epilogue of an early church.” Let me explain what I meant by that.

In the beginning of this study, I said I teach my students that Genesis 1–11 serves as a kind of “PREFACE” to the narrative of God. The rest of Genesis (chapters 12–50) could be seen as the “INTRODUCTION” where God sets the stage for His great story. I always felt like this was important because we need to be able to talk about the meta-narrative of God in a coherent way so we can understand who God is and what He’s been up to in the world. If we can understand this story, as seen in the Text and told by the Author Himself, it will help us understand where we fit into the story and how we can step into the mission of God.

Because He’s still looking for partners to put the world back together.

And so I want to be able to teach the entirety of the Bible within a meta-narrative “package” that sees the story of God as a cohesive whole. It should have a beginning and a plot, a narrative arc of tragic and/or comedic redemption, as well as a conclusion that remains an open-ended invitation for God’s people to join the Story.

This is why I teach God’s story has a PREFACE and an INTRODUCTION. What we have been studying since then is the narrative itself. I believe this narrative is “A Tale of Two Kingdoms: Empire v. Shalom” — and the main plot and narrative arc is one of exodus and liberation, ultimately culminating in restoration. I believe the mystery of the incarnation was that Jesus came — the Divine wrapped in humanity — and showed us through his life and ministry what this narrative is like when it’s seen in flesh and blood. The story of Jesus, as seen in the gospels, is the climax of this great narrative God has been telling.

So if I were to pause, I would recap the narrative of God as follows:

God writes a PREFACE to help us reframe our understanding of the world. Who is God? Who is man? What is God doing in the world?

God then set the stage for His great story in an INTRODUCTION. He introduces us to the family He chooses to partner with and their descendants. They are a stubborn people, filled with fiery chutzpah, and a willingness to trust the story amidst many mistakes and questionable character. However, their ability to trust the story sets them apart from the other characters we’ve met thus far.

God then begins His great narrative of exodus. He starts with a literal exodus from Egypt and invites His people into a missional partnership to show the world what God is like (the very lesson learned in the PREFACE and modeled in the INTRODUCTION). We watch the characters struggle to learn this as a nation, we watch them wax and wane and eventually crumble to the temptation of Empire. They lose the plot of the story, and God disciplines them, reminding them what exodus looks like and what the plot of the story should be. Having learned some good lessons, the people of God try to rebuild a new Judaism and people, but as temptation creeps back in, there are multiple responses as to what the proper interaction with this temptation should be.

Into this vibrant and lively cultural debate dives the incarnated Christ at the climax of the narrative. God wraps Himself in flesh and the Author of the narrative jumps directly into the story. He shows us what it means to live a life of exodus, to trust the story in such a way that you are free to lay your life down on behalf of others. This pure model — this incarnated Text — brings us back full circle to the best moments of the INTRODUCTION, as Jesus becomes the perfect example of the kind of man Abram was on his best days. Jesus becomes the living expression of the complete, realized potential of humanity, made in the image of God.

This means the book of Acts becomes the EPILOGUE to the narrative. Having shown us what it looks like to live out the narrative of God correctly, Jesus leaves his followers with a special deposit — the realized indwelling of the Holy Spirit. While still not perfect, this “holy nation” is empowered (by the Holy Spirit) to do things the narrative hasn’t seen before. Jesus even mentioned these acts would be greater than his own (cf. John 14:12). The EPILOGUE shows it is possible for this narrative to find a comedic and restorative end, and God will in fact put the world back together through a partnership with His people.

To succinctly describe this narrative arc in literary terms of the Hebrew Scriptures, I would say this: After God invites, defines, tests, and fulfills the covenant relationship with His people in TORAH, we are invited to watch the continued evolution and breakdown of this covenantal relationship in the NEVI’IM (the Prophets). The story is supplemented with the KETUVIM (the Writings) and the Jews take this evolved Judaism and rebuild in the post-Babylonian era. As they try to figure out, as a community, how to respond appropriately, God joins the scene and incarnates the story in the GOSPELS. We see the fruit of this narrative played out in the book of Acts.

However, the story — even the EPILOGUE — is far from wrapped up with a tidy bow. A few things become startlingly clear:

The story is far from over. Full restoration has not been realized, only it’s potential. The rest of the story is yet to be written. How will God’s people respond?

The rest of the story (the sequel?) will certainly be full of conflict and drama. Now that we have realized the full potential of God’s mission turned loose, we are also realizing the implications of a story understood correctly. The book of Acts does a wonderful job showing us how difficult it will be to walk into the future chapters of this tale, where outsiders are welcome, a family is redefined by lots of “adopted children” and the scandal of grace is hard to contain.

In light of all this, we now have the ability to see the rest of the New Testament appropriately. The New Testament letters — the writings of Paul, Hebrews, James, Peter, John, and Jude — now find their appropriate place amongst the narrative of God. These writings are now seen as the application of this narrative to very specific and varying contexts. In a sense, the New Testament letters become inspired midrash for this new, realized mission/narrative of God.

I’m very careful to state INSPIRED midrash. I have taught this before and the claim that the letters are midrash sets many listeners off that I am taking their authority away. This couldn’t be further from the truth. I see the New Testament letters as completely breathed by God and as authoritative as they can be. My point is that we simply cannot interpret and apply these authoritative teachings correctly unless we see them within their appropriate place in relation to God’s great narrative.

This will help us understand why a writer like Paul seems so schizophrenic. In one letter, he tells women to “learn in quiet submission,” while in another letter he tells the readers to greet all the women he put in public ministry. Instead of trying to decide which prooftext we want to cherry pick in order to match our theology, we can instead read each correspondence within the context that it was intended. When Paul wrote to Corinth, Paul was helping the Corinthians apply the narrative of God to their context; when Paul wrote to Ephesus, he was helping the Ephesians apply the exact same narrative to their unique context.

The same goes for the book of Hebrews, the writings of Peter, and the letters of John — and even the great Revelation. Each correspondence has a specific intended audience, many times regional and geographical, and sometimes demographical, but always with a unique context. Each of these correspondences is attempting to apply the same narrative of God to that unique setting and should be read in that way.

As I see and understand the story of God, this will be essential in order to move forward through the New Testament. Hopefully, by this point in our current conversation, the following diagram makes sense:

In my opinion, one of the most frustrating mistakes we have made in evangelical theology is that we have placed our interpretive lenses on the parts of the Scriptures we find the easiest to understand. Since we don’t understand the ancient context of the Old Testament, we misinterpret its meaning. While we love the saving work of Jesus and his loving character, we don’t understand and we misinterpret his rabbinical teachings. What we think we understand (but ironically don’t) are the writings of the Apostle Paul. Using his Greek writing styles and his imperative prose, we prefer the ease of exegesis and application, all the while missing the contextual work that needs to be done for properly understanding its original application (which happens to be the inspired, God-breathed application).

In the words of Brian McLaren, “We have welcomed Jesus as our savior, but have made Paul our lord.”

When we have the order of Jesus and Paul right, it allows us to keep Christ where he should remain — as the center, the climax, and the truest revelation of God’s story.

...or a Prophet?

Before we wrap up the book of Acts, we need to finish another conversation we left hanging. You will probably want to refresh your memory by going back and reading about it. In that part of the story, we discussed Saul’s meeting of Jesus on the road to Damascus, where he was headed to continue his persecution of the early Christians. We asked the question of whether or not Saul’s story was best understood as a conversion or a repentance. Did Saul change teams and join something new, or did he revise his thinking and align his service to a proper understanding of what the King was doing in the world?

It will also be helpful to go back and read the story in Acts 9:

As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

But the question gets even better if we consider Saul’s own understanding of the incident in question. How did he see it? Did Saul understand that day as a conversion? Did he see it as a repentance? Is there something else entirely?

Fortunately, we have some help in that Paul mentions his testimony more than once. The way he talks about his experience may make all the difference in our properly understanding how to interpret that encounter.

Unfortunately, his testimony only seems to make things worse. It seems Saul has a horrible memory of the event and has embellished his story. The main testimony we will look at is found in Acts 26 as Paul shares his story with Agrippa:

“On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’

“Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’

“ ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’ ”

Apparently Paul can’t remember the details, and some of these may seem like minor details, but we have to consider whether they really are minor/harmless, whether Paul has a faulty memory, or whether he’s doing this on purpose. Remember, we aren’t dealing with a slouch in Paul; we are dealing with a highly trained Jew who is a former student of one of the greatest teachers of Judaism (Gamaliel). Let’s outline the details that have changed.

Paul seems to embellish the radiance of the light and the way it engulfed him and his companions.

Paul adds to the dialogue he hears from God. The phrase “It is hard for you to kick against the goads” is completely absent from the original story and seems to be an arbitrary addition by Paul.

Paul continues to add to God’s conversation by saying God told him to “stand on [his] feet” when that instruction was absent in the story.

If that wasn’t enough, Paul adds the entire conversation within his testimony about God rescuing him and sending him to his own people, bringing them from darkness to light, etc.

What’s going on here? Is Paul a liar, liar, pants on fire?

Our first clue might be the whole bit about the goads. For those who may not know, a goad is a cattle prod; to kick against the goads would be an expression of fighting against where God is trying to lead you. In Jewish thought, the idea of kicking against the goads is brought up commonly in the conversation surrounding the prophet Jonah. Jonah was the only prophet in the Tanakh not directly obedient to God’s call; he was the prophet who “kicked against the goads.”

And Jonah spent three days inside the belly of a fish. Fish have scales. And if you were inside a fish, you would experience blindness in a very unique way.

Saul was blind for three days, as well, and when it was done, scales fell from his eyes.

This idea might lead us to start looking closer at these details. Why the additions? Consider the calling of Ezekiel in Ezekiel 1 and 2:

Then there came a voice from above the vault over their heads as they stood with lowered wings. Above the vault over their heads was what looked like a throne of lapis lazuli, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him.

This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking.

He said to me, “Son of man, stand up on your feet and I will speak to you.” As he spoke, the Spirit came into me and raised me to my feet, and I heard him speaking to me.

He said: “Son of man, I am sending you to the Israelites, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me; they and their ancestors have been in revolt against me to this very day. The people to whom I am sending you are obstinate and stubborn. Say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says.’ And whether they listen or fail to listen—for they are a rebellious people—they will know that a prophet has been among them. And you, son of man, do not be afraid of them or their words. Do not be afraid, though briers and thorns are all around you and you live among scorpions. Do not be afraid of what they say or be terrified by them, though they are a rebellious people. You must speak my words to them, whether they listen or fail to listen, for they are rebellious. But you, son of man, listen to what I say to you. Do not rebel like that rebellious people; open your mouth and eat what I give you.”

It might feel like a stretch, but to have all of those varied phrases and “embellishments” pulled straight from the same passage in Ezekiel seems to be far too much of a coincidence. Furthermore, Jonah was sent on behalf of the Gentiles and Ezekiel was going to encounter the pushback of his own people.

You still might feel like that’s a stretch.

But then consider that Paul gave us another brief testimony in the opening of Galatians:

But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.

There is no stretch on this connection. Any Jew who heard the phrase “set me apart from my mother’s womb” would immediately think of the prophets. Consider the following passage from Jeremiah:

The word of the Lord came to me, saying, 

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, 

    before you were born I set you apart;

    I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

“Alas, Sovereign LORD,” I said, “I do not know how to speak; I am too young.”

But the LORD said to me, “Do not say, ‘I am too young.’ You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you,” declares the LORD.

Or this passage from Isaiah:

And now the LORD says— 

     he who formed me in the womb to be his servant  

to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself,

for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD 

    and my God has been my strength—

he says: 

“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant 

    to restore the tribes of Jacob 

    and bring back those of Israel I have kept. 

I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, 

    that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

I believe it becomes clear at this point how Paul understood his calling that day on the road to Damascus. He certainly didn’t see it as a conversion. I would argue he associated that day with something much different than even repentance (although I don't think he would deny that repentance was taking place).

Paul saw his experience as something akin to the calling of Jonah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Isaiah. Like Jonah was called to the Gentiles, so he would be called to bring repentance to the nations. As Ezekiel was called to confront the stubborn people of God, so was he. As Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Isaiah would announce light to a world of darkness, Paul would join the rank of prophets who were called by God to remind His people of their calling to be a kingdom of priests and a light to the Gentiles.

Paul saw that day as more than repentance and different than a conversion. Paul saw that day as a prophetic calling. And it might help us interpret the story correctly if we saw it that way, as well.

Looking Like Jesus

The rest of the book of Acts (and most of the New Testament, for that matter) will be the record of how the early church continues to spread this gospel of grace and inclusion throughout the world of the Gentiles. This doesn’t make the story any less Jewish, mind you. It will take another 80 years or so before we see a Gentile-dominated church (and what a mess that will be). Yes, the part of our Bible that we have come to know as the New Testament is the collection of correspondences between the apostles and the communities scattered throughout Asia and Asia Minor that are trying to bring this good news into every corner of the empire — and the struggles they have in the process.

But there are a couple more observations I would like to make before we close up the book of Acts. Both of them are about Paul. We will need to wrap up that discussion we had earlier about Paul’s conversion… or repentance… or whatever that was.

But it’s also interesting to note how Paul changes throughout his ministry. We mentioned earlier that his first convert seems to do more for Paul’s intentions than simply giving him an idea for a name change. Paul seems to be bent on the idea of getting to the top of Rome —  speaking to Caesar himself. We also mentioned that God continues to step in his way.

If we follow Paul closely in his missionary journeys, he has some major changes in either his strategy, his philosophy, or both. On the first journey, Paul meets his first convert and it appears to change his plans radically. He bounces throughout the region of Galatia and Iconia, sporadically jumping from one town to another. He doesn’t stay in any city for more than a couple weeks. While some might argue he “plants churches,” he does not start any real communities — what we would call “house churches” — and he certainly doesn’t belong to any fellowship of believers where he stays for any period of time.

After his first journey, there is no record of Paul making any disciples or starting any house churches.

His second missionary journey happens at a much slower pace. He stops in Corinth and stays for quite some time, starting a house church with Priscilla and Aquila. We are also told he had swung through Lystra again and called Timothy to be his talmid. Add Timothy to Priscilla and Aquila and we get the following count:

After his second journey, Paul has three disciples and has started and belonged to one house church.

Things continue to progress and Paul is now expanding his ministry on his third journey. Still working with his disciples, he is now sending them out and starting more intentional communities. But possibly even more important is this reference in Acts 19:

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

“John’s baptism,” they replied.

Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all.

After his third journey, Paul has helped plant multiple house churches and now has “about twelve” disciples.

Wait a minute, “about twelve”? What is Luke doing? Did the Holy Spirit have a hard time remembering the exact number when He inspired Luke to write it down? About twelve? What was it? Was it eleven? Twelve? Thirteen?

Apparently, what we’re supposed to hear is “about twelve” — but why?

Because Paul is starting to look more and more like Jesus. Luke isn’t trying to give us the exact count of the talmidim following Paul, he’s trying to tell us who Paul is becoming. My teacher told me he had a Jewish Rabbi notice that Luke deliberately makes his account mirror the life of Jesus. Consider the following:

Have you ever heard of a Rabbi who:

 - Recruited disciples who used to follow John the Baptist?

 - Tells his disciples he has to go to Jerusalem?

 - Is accused of speaking against the Temple?

 - Is convicted by a Roman governor?

Luke is trying to tell us Paul is looking more and more like Jesus every day.

And I would argue the driving idea is that Paul is spreading less empire and “planting less churches,” and making more disciples. And I don’t know if Paul even gets it himself. What I find so interesting is that Paul is so dead set on getting to Rome, but God keeps preventing him (according to his own words). The moment I’m told Paul makes “about twelve” disciples — the moment I’m told Paul is starting to make disciples the way Jesus made disciples — God shows up and says, “Now you can go to Rome.”

And I find myself back at my soapbox. I feel as though God is pretty serious about this disciple-making stuff. And it doesn’t seem like disciple-making is church planting. And it doesn’t seem like disciple-making is expanding Christendom. It looks as though disciple-making is done the way Jesus did it.

“Timothy, come. Follow me.”