Perspectives

Brothers and sisters, I give an example from daily life: once a person’s will has been ratified, no one adds to it or annuls it. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring; it does not say, “And to offsprings,” as of many, but it says, “And to your offspring,” that is, to one person, who is Christ. My point is this: the law, which came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance comes from the law, it no longer comes from the promise, but God granted it to Abraham through the promise.
Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made, and it was ordained through angels by a mediator. Now a mediator involves more than one party, but God is one.
Is the law then opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law. But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through the faith of Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be reckoned as righteous by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise (Gal. 3:11-29).

Logic and argument in the first Century world does not always accord with what we might consider a reasoned argument. Paul pulls on the singular ‘offspring’, and as per English the word could be singular or ‘seed’ as in referring to many actual individual seeds. Even if we say that the logic seems a little thin we remember that for Paul it is the radical inbreaking of a new era that means he can now put (for him) the definitive reading on the promise. The promise was to Abraham and to his one seed – Jesus. The argument is beyond the use of the singular word, it is the self-evident reality that the many ‘seeds’ of Abraham did not bring in the promised era.

The law then is added later, but Paul presents it as temporary, coming 430 years after the promise, and only in place until Christ came… and only for the Jews (note again the ‘we’ word: ‘our disciplinarian’). The law is not opposed to the promises of God, because it is not an alternative – salvation by Jesus or salvation by law would never have been something that Paul would have considered! And at one level, the law as law, simply makes plain that the Jews too are imprisoned under sin. The singular use of the word ‘sin’ indicates that Paul sees it as a power, not as the collection of all the bad things we have done.

And at the end of this section we have the ‘in Christ there is neither… nor’ central statement (Gal. 3:28). The NRSV updated edition adds a little bit ‘no longer’, but the addition is following the thrust. It is all about the coming of a new era, thus I think the ‘no longer’ is justified. Everything before is placed in a temporary setting, the law having distinguished Jew from Gentile – then. But in Christ the law has gone (covenant is fulfilled) so the the old divides of ‘Jew and Greek’ do not work; the division of ‘slave and free’ is also deeply significant, for the culture within the Graeco-Roman world was all about maintaining class culture. Meals were highly structured, with who sat where, and how one reciprocated being vital. Given that the ekklesia gathered around the meal that class structure disappeared. (Consider the meal in Corinth where Paul said ‘I can give you no credit’ for what you are doing for they were perpetuating the rich / poor divide, thus it was no longer the Lord’s table they were gathering around but the table of culture; the instruction in James concerning a rich person coming in and being given the best seat, the seat being at the meal table; Jesus instruction not to invvite those who can reciprocate.)

The in / out divide has gone that religion created – and always creates; the political outworking of the very undergirding of Imperial culture was ended; and the careful change of grammar from ‘or’ to ‘male and female’ indicates a major eschatological element. The quote is from Genesis – how it was in the beginning. Here is the eschatological frame for in the age to come there will be no more marriage. There will be no more that the only covenantal relationship will be in marriage, we will be one, all of us. Sex will disappear but the level of intimacy and knowing one another will be what marriage presses in for. Male and female will not mark us out.

The closing verse then sums it up:

if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise

Not if you are Jewish you are a descendant, but if, and therefore only if one is in Christ, for the inheritance does not come through the law (something temporary that never produced the promised blessings of Abraham to the world, and never could).

As Paul lays out his case one can understand why he was willing to oppose people to their face. The coming of Christ has ended something, has ended division, so eat together, and do not make anyone into a ‘less than’ person.

The ekklesia that I maintain was not about how many people can we get in here through the door so that our numbers grow (maybe important if the view is ‘they need a ticket to be secure’, but more often simply to confirm how great we are!) but was about the total transformation of the oikoumene, the nicely ordered world that was simply part of the system that imprisoned people (sin). The ekklesia had to model a new way of being, that was a sign that the old era was no longer dictating the future. Theology and social outworking went together; heaven and incarnation were necessary for ‘glory’ to come, and if the glory of God was to fill the whole earth, maybe we can understand the ‘bolshiness’ of Paul.

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly exhibited as crucified! The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? Did you experience so much for nothing?—if it really was for nothing. Well then, does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the law or by your believing what you heard?
Just as Abraham “believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” so, you see, those who believe are the descendants of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would reckon as righteous the gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the gentiles shall be blessed in you.” For this reason, those who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed.
For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law.” Now it is evident that no one is reckoned as righteous before God by the law, for “the one who is righteous will live by faith.” But the law does not rest on faith; on the contrary, “Whoever does the works of the law will live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith (Gal. 3:1-14).

Paul is coming to the end of his ‘I confronted this person… I went to Jerusalem… so that you might be free…’ Now he turns his focus directly to his hearers. ‘You are stupid for even listening to these people who are calling for you to submit to the Jewish law’. He suggests they have been subject to witchcraft (control, manipulation etc.) and goes on to point out the path that these Judaizers have set before them will far from be a blessing but a curse.

---

A couple of notes: the miracles being done among them is not past tense but present tense. It is not referring to when Paul was with them, but that they had an ongoing charismatic experience.

The works of the law are not the typical understanding that we do good works and so will be saved (as per Martin Luther who lived with intense guilt and then discovered that Paul said we were justified by faith and his guilt was relieved). That understanding leads to a contrast between law (Jewish faith) and grace (Christian). The contrast though, in Paul, is not that of law and grace but it is of eras. Pre-Christ ‘salvation’ was also by grace (covenant), and those who were saved by grace were marked out by being ‘led by the law’, the law being the guiding path for them. One could tell who was of the ‘chosen people’ by their Torah observance. They did not obey the law to be accepted, but because they were accepted (covenantal grace) they followed the law. In Paul those who are the children of God were those who were led by the Spirit. Jewish faith (then and now) was not a faith of works in order to be accepted, but the works of the law were simply the markers that set them apart as those who were accepted by grace. The contrast was not law and grace, but law and Spirit. It is a contrast due to eras.

Both the Jewish faith and the Christian faith were based on grace. This does not mean there were not Jews who twisted the faith and in effect their acceptance was (in their minds / hearts) based on doing what was right, in obedience to the law. In the same way (then and now) there are those of the Christian faith who reduce their faith to ‘doing what is right’ and never embracing acceptance.

The works of the law are understood to be observance of the food laws, observance of the Sabbath and circumcision. Here in Galatians there is certainly a spill over to a legalism, but the argument that was being presented to these Gentile believers was along the lines of – your faith takes you so far; Christian faith is not non-Jewish, so to be truly descendants of Abraham you have to embrace the faith he had and so you have to submit to the Jewish law.

There are of course implications in this with regard to an embrace of grace, and an implication for what the Gospel means for Jews as well as what it means for Gentiles. The law in this era has nothing to do with acceptance before God (‘salvation’ if we want to use that term). If one (a Jew) wishes to abide by it it cannot be used to elevate them to a higher level, and cannot be used as a proof that they are ‘chosen’. Faith (in Jesus) is the only criterion, and faith without any law element; if faith is embraced then that person (Jew or Gentile) is descended from Abraham. Paul himself, a Jew who believed in Jesus, did not insist on others keeping the law and clearly based his personal life on a law-free expression.

All of this emphasis is from someone who had an impeccable background as a Jew. The change of era, something truly apocalyptic had taken place in the coming of Jesus. Nothing was the same again.

If these Gentile believers were to go back and seek as Gentiles to live under a former era something would kick in at a very significant level. It would no longer be adopting acceptance through grace but expressing the outworking by obedience to the law, it would mean they were to be judged by their obedience to every part of the law (and not simply the three markers above of ‘the works of the law’)! The shift was because of the change of era.

---

In verses 10-14 we come to the cross, and there is a very strong Jewish element to the cross. Take the law out of the context of covenant and then any reliance on the law is doomed to failure, and in reality historic Israel had indeed failed. The sign of it was the exile (to Babylon) and the ongoing bondage / exile to Greek powers and subsequently to Roman oppression. They were no longer a free people for the sake of the nations, but had become but one of the nations (confessing we have no king but Caesar); they too were under the condemnation alongside all other nations, locked up under the power of sin. This can be summarised as Israel is under ‘the curse of the law’, they were no longer the head but now the tail. They were suffering everything that Deuteronomy said they would suffer should they become disobedient.

Jesus, therefore died in Israel’s place, he became a curse for us (Paul often using ‘us’ when he is identifying himself among Israel, and ‘you’ when he is drawing out the contrast of the ‘Gentiles’).

He seems to set it out in three steps. First for ‘us’ Jesus became a curse, and it is clearly for ‘Israel’ for it is not some general curse but it is the curse of the law:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us

This was one of the reasons the cross was a ‘stumbling block for Jews’. How could someone cursed be the Messiah? To claim that would be nothing less than a blasphemy – little wonder Paul was blind for three days. Three days… that was the journey time he needed to go from cross to resurrection, the resurrection being God’s affirmation that Jesus was marked as the son of God by power (Rom. 1:4). ‘Son of God’ not being a term denoting divinity but being a term associated with humanity and in particular with Israel. If Israel was to be the nation that brings light to the world, but had descended into darkness, into bondage there was no hope for the world. Hence Jesus dies as a Jew, born under the law, to deliver Israel. He becomes Israel, so that Israel might be redeemed (and redefined, not as all in Abraham are Israel, but all in Jesus are descendants of Abraham).

The second element then comes in to view:

in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the gentiles

God chooses Abraham / Israel for the Gentiles, the purpose was so that the blessing of Abraham would be present throughout the world (hence ‘salvation’ is not to be thought of in a narrow way of a ‘ticket out of here’ but of being set apart for the world; to be a doorway from heaven to earth. Israel as we have suggested are now far from that, hence the need of the cross (more will follow in Chapter 4). Now that Jesus has become the curse and that God has vindicated him the blessing of Abraham can be released. What was locked up, the original promise can be again set in motion, and that setting in motion is defined for Paul in the summarising phrase:

so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

And now Paul uses ‘we’ because the ‘we’ is everyone, Jew or Gentile. In this era there is only one ‘we’. (Later as we will read ‘neither Jew nor Greek’.) In this new era (and Paul began the letter with freedom from the powers of this present evil age / era) Jesus is the doorway in, the door for Jew and for Gentile.

If we drop the question related to ‘who then is saved’ in the sense of ‘I have my ticket so am saved’ and understand salvation is ‘salvation from powers’ and ‘salvation to purpose’; if we put Jesus at the centre and then accept that there is only one people in the new era, hence they must eat together (please remember this Peter… and Barnabas) we will understand Paul’s fire. The new era is here. There are loose ends for the old era is still around us; but in this letter he is not looking to tie up loose ends he is calling for a break with any and all aspects of the former era. The loose ends do not clarify the central element: live by the Spirit, and all who do are descendants of Abraham.

Only ‘new creation’ now counts for anything (Gal. 6:14).

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood self-condemned, for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the gentiles to live like Jews?”
We ourselves are Jews by birth and not gentile sinners, yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through the faith of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing (Gal. 2:10-20).

Now we have some fun verses. Followers of Jesus, first Century believers having a good old dust up. The guy that can certainly be viewed as the central character from the original 12, and the central character beyond the 12 who has shaped our faith more than probably anyone else. They don’t agree! Surely on some of these issues Jesus could have put down some clear guidelines for them, it was pretty obvious the whole Jew / Gentile issue would come into play very soon, and before the Fall of Jerusalem that Jesus spoke so accurately into. He, as Risen Lord, had spent days teaching on the kingdom of God, so I can only presume he taught in such a way that did not mean they would forever avoid difficulties, disputes and disagreements. Unity of agreement seems to me to be overrated.

So in simple terms Peter is willing to eat with Gentiles (and eating of course was much more than satisfying hunger but demonstrating their oneness together) until some people come down from Jerusalem claiming to represent the Jerusalem view. Peter conforms, and then shock, even Mr Bridge builder Barnabas pulls back. Paul saw all this behaviour as hypocrisy – of presenting something that was an ‘act’ that was not true. Paul then is armed and confronts Peter publicly (oh to be a fly on the wall!).

Peter knows that there was to be no division, so what on earth caused him (and Barnabas!) to pull back? Fear is mentioned, people pleasing I am sure was involved, but I think there must have also been a convincing argument, and I consider it had to be a ‘missiological’ argument.

Building bridges, not offending, even compromise for the sake of the Gospel is all part of missiological principles, so here is my plausible suggestion:

The argument went.

If you eat with Gentiles, and show no respect for the law you will make our task in Judea all-but impossible. How will we tell this to our law abiding people who have found faith in Jesus as Messiah. They will be offended as your behaviour in eating with the Gentiles presents our faith as something in opposition to our historic faith, the faith of Abraham. Some of them might even lose their new found faith in Jesus. The offence to those who have found faith will be enormous and when we come to share our faith in Jesus with our fellow-Jews we will have no entrance there; they will immediately reject everything we have to say. Peter, this will get out, so pull back now, FOR THE SAKE OF THE GOOD NEWS.

Missiological!

And here is Paul on his mission throughout the empire. ‘You are grafted into the historic people of God, and grafted in without needing to conform to the law’. Two missiological principles; two clashing arguments.

I love Paul’s approach – he does not reflect that they sat down to discuss how the two opposing views might work out… he simply wades in with ‘you are in the wrong and I am calling it out’. I like the approach but cannot claim that it gives me the right to do that. But for Paul it was the freedom of the Gospel that gave him his strength. Maybe his approach did cause some issues in the home land of Jerusalem (and we can read in Acts of how nervous they were when he showed up back there!) but the coming of Jesus, for Paul, meant the whole world was now re-ordered and this had implications for Gentiles – and for Jews. Jews, as chosen were no longer the centre, but Jesus as chosen was the centre. They both had to realign themselves around him, and that meant freedom was the watchword and the two peoples had to learn how not to offend one another (a big theme in Romans) but he insisted that in the big world there could be no calling for Gentiles to conform to Jewish practices (works of the law) and no pulling back of Jews because of viewing Gentiles as unclean.

There is so much in this conflict that could be explored, but at least again we see that ‘freedom’ and togetherness based on freedom was the guiding principle. Not offending those who were hiding behind religion certainly was not an option that Paul entertained.

The latter verses in the section above could still be the continuation of what Paul said to Peter as it is hard to work out where the ‘I said to Cephas’ ends. That section also involves some strange, convoluting language and arguments – strange at least to us in the way that we approach logic. In particular when he says,

But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor.

He is referring to if he should build / implement again the law (what Peter had done out of intimidation) then he would be a transgressor. Given that transgression was measured by the law this indeed sounds strange; but if we realise that for Paul the coming of Jesus changed everything we can make some sense of it. The future in the coming of Jesus caused the past to be re-calibrated, the future was not to be understood from the past. For some theologians the shift was so remarkable that they suggested that Paul was so impacted when he found Jesus that he discovered the ‘solution’ and from there worked back as to what the ‘problem’ was. The problem was not ‘guilt’ (as per Martin Luther) and Jesus took his guilt away. He found the solution but as he was already ‘righteous according to the law’ the problem had to lie elsewhere. There has to be a great element of truth in that in that he worked from the future and then looked backward to assess everything else, including his former life and the whole chosenness of Israel and the giving of the law. The coming of Jesus caused a disruption to everything. We might well wish to read the Old Testament as pointing forward, but at a very real level we read the New Testament and it points back, re-calibrates what is prior, and even nullifies some of it (‘I died to the law’ for example).

Life now for Paul was the life of Jesus. Nothing else counted. If Peter, Barnabas and others have responded to Jesus, then they can no longer act of out any previous grid; should they do so they would be living an act (hypocrisy), and if pushed I guess he would have to say they had become transgressors!

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. But because of false brothers and sisters secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us— we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you. And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognised the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the gentiles and they to the circumcised. They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do (Gal. 2:1-10).

Paul met the Lord on his way to Damascus, not in the place where one might expect. It corresponds with the major point in Stephens’s speech in Acts 7 of how God showed up historically elsewhere. He is to be found but not always where we expect. He seems to make a great point in levelling things out – after 14 years. Not a short period of time. There he met with those were supposedly acknowledged leaders, not exactly a great strap line for the line up to the next world changing conference. (Come on now, surely you love this obnoxious not-so-gentleman that we call Paul. He does seem to have a way of cutting through religion and other such barriers.)

Here though we get a little nuance… ‘to make sure I was not running in vain’. He had never mentioned this aspect until this point. Underneath all the ‘no-one gave me this gospel’ presentation he is submissive. He is over-the-top strong as he wants to shock these readers (actually hearers) about their easy compliance and over-yieldeness to those who have come among them, and having done that balances out what they have been hearing.

The two he brings with him is illustrative also of how he is navigating this situation. Barnabas, the bridge builder, the one who sees the best in every situation, Mr. non-judgement (a #9????). Useful to have in any tricky situation, particularly useful for Paul who maybe just could go off on one. And Titus! A Gentile. The issue being over the gospel to the Gentiles, and Paul’s refusal to have converts submit to the law, and in particular the ‘works of the law’ marked by circumcision, food laws and Sabbath-observance. Titus was present. No discussion without it being personal. It can be so easy to make decisions about people, situations (right / wrong) but meet the person; talk and listen to the ‘other’. I have been challenged when I have sat with people who are different to me, such an experience has been the beginning of a change for me, a change even of my previous held beliefs.

Bridge building, listening, and presenting a human face to a tricky situation. It might not resolve every situation but it will certainly be a huge element in making space for the Holy Spirit. (I have much to learn.)

Another aspect that comes through is Paul’s sight of those he has a responsibility for – those false people came in to spy on their freedom (so it was NOT hidden) but he refused to give way for the sake of the Gentile converts.

They found a way of endorsing one another. Not of conforming each other to the other, but of agreement. Apostleship to a people group. In every generation, every situation there is the need for a new apostleship, the outworking of the ETERNAL gospel into a temporal or cultural setting. I might not understand what someone is doing into their setting (and in our world we have to also think beyond ethnic people groups, but into the very spheres of society) but they will have to be bold for the eternal gospel to enter, and they will have to do so without simply copying elsewhere. There are new expressions of the one gospel always… and a huge unifying part: ‘do not forget the poor’.

For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin, for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. But when the one who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the gentiles, I did not confer with any human, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterward I returned to Damascus.
Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days, but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother. In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie! Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; they only heard it said, “The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God because of me (Gal. 1:11-24)..

The gospel Paul was bringing to the Imperial world was straight from heaven, so a pretty bold claim there; with a reference to his past life and how he excelled in Judaism to a level ‘beyond many among my people of the same age’. All of this led him not to go to Jerusalem at that early stage. (Later he will say he submitted what he had received, but he avoids that aspect here. He is still establishing his ‘independence’ from human influence and authority while insisting his total ‘dependence’ on heaven.) The conflict in Galatians is surrounding the need for the believers there (Gentiles) to fully submit to the Jewish law – he is all-but saying what to do these people who want to impose that even know about all this, for he (Paul) was previously the authority on all this, and given that he met with Cephas (Peter: maybe Paul is a little cheeky using his Jewish name here?) and with James, he is setting the scene for the conflict that he had with Peter when he acted in a hypocritical way after being intimidated by those who came from James (Gal. 2:11-14).

Tradition of his ancestors – he had been zealously committed to protecting on God’s behalf what he perceived God had given. Tradition, this is the God given way, can be so difficult to navigate. Paul is defending the ‘tradition that was given to him’ (to quote from another letter), and is incredibly forthright in condemning should even an angel from heaven come with a different message, with the implication of a message dependent on a previous tradition! Here in these verses he is setting the scene as to why he cannot defend what he used to defend, indeed to defend it he would become a sinner (as opposed to his previous understanding that in defending those traditions he was ‘righteous according to the law).

The coming of Jesus does not tweak what was understood previously, it turns everything on its head. It is not as if we start with what we had (call it the OT for simplicity’s sake) and then draw a straight line forward and go ‘see, now here comes Jesus, it all makes sense’. Rather the past is understood from the future. This understanding continues in the NT approach – a new creation has come so now we figure out from the future the world around us. This is why, though I am very conservative about eschatology I am also very cautious. We don’t get there from here, but there shapes our thinking here.

A difficult set of verses (difficult for me at least!)

In the passage above there is a little tough area for the likes of me (I am referring to the ‘predestination‘ bit). Set apart from before birth. Very reminiscent of Jeremiah (1:4). So what do I say about this, other than I would write those parts very differently(!!)?

1. If this is close to suggesting something along the lines of traditional ‘predestination’, these verses make it applicable to Paul, not necessarily to you and me.
2. It is not a reference to salvation but to calling. This is very key in all of Scripture. We tend to make everything about ‘in / out’, ‘get your ticket to be on the bus of salvation’, ‘eternal destiny’ etc., but calling and purpose seems to me the centre. To suggest (OT-wise) Jews are saved and Gentiles are damned seems to miss it, rather than Israel was uniquely chosen to be an access point for heaven to earth.
3. Any calling was not automatic, for Paul said when the time of calling was made manifest he ‘was not disobedient to the heavenly vision’ (Acts 26:19); the grace of God was not in vain when it was applied to him (1 Cor. 15:10). Nothing seemed to be predetermined and irresistible.
4. If applicable to all of us, we can only make it apply to our calling / purpose in life. Paul’s was to proclaim Jesus among the Gentiles. We are all set apart for the reason for which we are born (indeed sin is to miss the reason for which we are born); that is innate within us. There is only one ‘me’ (as Oscar Wilde said ‘be yourself, all the others are taken’).

If we pull Scriptures like this out and simply connect them to others we can end up with a strong ‘predestination’ line. However, for me, the weight of Scripture is to hold firm to human responsibility and the possibility of ‘being disobedient’ to who we are (God’s calling if you like). Predestination is to for Martin to be the Martin that is in the image of Christ… the one true human, so it is for me to yield to the work of the Spirit in such a way that I increasingly become who I truly am.

If you disagree with the above, of course you might have been predestined to do so… or maybe I am predestined to be an awkward customer (predetermined to be that specific number on the Enneagram where one just is awkward! And of course, Paul was definitely the same number… and only one more (humble this time) definite element is that I know almost nothing about the Enneagram).

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!
Am I now seeking human approval or God’s approval? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ (Gal. 1:6-10).

The style of the letter is blunt and there are no ‘normal’ niceties up front. There is no ‘so good to see you, I simply want to bring up something…’ Not much to add to what Paul has to say – different gospel, pervert the gospel, let even an angel be cursed if they should bring something different to what brought, and I tell you all that as a servant of God. So your point, Paul, is?!!!!!

The language is remarkably strong. I am challenged by what might qualify as a ‘different gospel’. A while back a couple met Gayle and I for coffee and they explained their approach. Offer English as a second language, a few weeks in share the ‘gospel’ if they do not respond or show some serious interest, it would then be time to move on to someone else as they were obviously not good ‘soil’. Given also that the couple were strongly Calvinist in theology maybe it was God’s fault that they were bad soil?

At the end of our time the question came – would you work with us and support us. The answer was a one word answer and the shorter of the two possible words. Are they presenting a different gospel? Certainly their approach we could not put the word ‘good news’ to it. I think we maybe all have a ‘sub-‘ / not complete gospel, but there has to come a point when the gospel we hold on to and present is so ‘sub-‘ that it is different. And when it is way off maybe the ‘God’ we claim to serve might be a different god to the one that is ‘God’.

In the context of the letter in front of us different has to be measured by how much freedom or bondage is brought. We are likely to move toward error when the result is any level of burdens placed on someone… as has been said before:

The offence of the Gospel is not an offence of who is excluded, but the offence is an offence of who is included.

The door of entry is wide open. The narrow gate was the one that Jesus presented to Jews, those who really thought that favour with God was exclusively theirs. That’s just not how it works,

Paul an apostle—sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—and all the brothers and sisters with me,
To the churches of Galatia:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen (Gal. 1:1-5).

Paul an apostle – I maintain that Paul does not use the term ‘apostle’ as a title: ‘Apostle Paul’ or as we often say ‘the apostle Paul’, but he simply says Paul an apostle. If it is used as a title there is an inherent hierarchy. I have a title so am ‘above’ you. As a description of ministry / calling the submission is first from Paul to the Lord. As an apostle he has to be accountable for that calling, he has something to live up to. If an apostle there has to be signs that indicate the calling.

After the common greeting of ‘grace and peace’ he then presents a (the?) central effect of the cross. It is for our ‘sins’ so that we might be free from this present evil age. Maybe he emphasises this in the Galatian situation, but I suspect this is central to Paul regardless of the situation. The problem is that our sins – (summary: our corporate failure to be human) means that there are powers that dominate and we end up captive to those powers. It is certainly a theme throughout the letter: Jesus comes at the ‘fullness of times‘ when the powers are at their extreme, both expressed as ‘heavenly’ powers and their influence and the ‘earthly’ power of the all-but one world government of Rome that shaped culture. (The tower of Babel / Babylon as type of imperial rule was never absolute, being an unfinished but substantial process. All the ‘antiChrist’ language fits into the context of the ‘fullness of times’.)

‘Forgiveness of sins’, ‘justified’, ‘redeemed’ could all be used to describe what results from the cross but Paul chooses to major on the deliverance from the powers. He uses it as he addresses the Galatians as the issue that he confronts is of a people who are being pulled back to servitude. Coming into obedience to the law he indicates will simply put them on a path that will bring a separation from Christ and a submission yet again to the elemental spirits / elements (ta stoicheia).

I think that for Paul this ‘freedom’ is more than a ‘theological’ truth, more than something positional. That is very clear in how he introduces himself. If we were to read the opening words without realising there is some nuancing that has to take place we would have to assume Paul was all-but saying: ‘stuff anyone human, regardless of who they are, I am totally independent and my apostleship is direct, so I have no plan to submit to anyone!’

We know as we go on to read that this bolshiness is not quite as strong as that, but freedom in Christ has to mean that we must be able to say ‘no’ at a human level, for I consider if we lose that there will soon come a point where we will not be able to give a wholehearted ‘yes’ to God.

But it is far more than freedom to say ‘no’ to someone. It is freedom from the powers that are shaping this ‘present evil age’. Powers that tell us to conform, to fit in. Powers that shape culture, economics, national identities and the like. Our passport does not define us – citizenship in heaven is what defines, and God has always had a global concern.

The Gospel is much more than put your hand up, pray this prayer and look now you have received a ticket to the cloudy place by and by. It is freedom from powers NOW. That is the door we enter through, the journey is life-long discovering what that means. Sanctification is not about some spotlessness but about a process where I can be observed to be free.

---

An aside: a while back as cryto-currency was beginning to hit the headlines I said that there is a new currency that will come, crypto as we have it is not it but is a sign that it is coming. This is gaining speed with the likelihood of the majority of nations developing digital, and centrally-controlled, currency. Many are raising (right) concerns over this. Will it be the mark of the beast? Yes indeed it will. Same mark as we have had for millennia! There is a growing convergence, a desire to get to a great ‘fullness of times’. How do we respond? First, without fear but with faith, and second operating on a different economy. The kingdom economy is ‘give and receive’; not ‘buy and sell’. So many opportunities are coming our way to work out what it means to be free from the powers of this evil age… and seems to me we have just shy of 20 years to work some of this out. What a wonderful journey ahead.

I have always liked the Galatians letter. Paul in a storming mood gets down to it, sends of his letter without any niceties, with a ‘listen to me, I am going to straighten all this out’. I like that for some reason, but I also like if for a few other reasons. It is short, it is not so involved as the much fuller version of ‘his gospel’ that we find in Romans; it is an early letter and it has conflict. So I thought (and hope I stick with it) I would simply make a few comments on the letter.

One of the issues surrounding the date is whether it comes before the council in Jerusalem in Acts 15 (AD50). He refers to a visit to Jerusalem (2:1) and of conflict with Peter (2:15-14… perhaps where he cheekily refers to Peter as Cephas). Did all this predate Jerusalem or come after? I think it came before and would date Galatians as very early 48/49AD. Peter’s behaviour being confronted by Paul prior to the letter that went out to the churches from Jerusalem. This adds to Paul’s depth of convictions to confront Peter before there had been a council to sort out those issues (though I personally think Acts 15 was a compromise that did not go far enough – all encouraging to us, where God takes a step back with a ‘you work it out’. Maybe all of this (date / who are the Galatians) is incidental but I like the idea that they were working things out as they went along.

---

An obvious theme in the letter is that of freedom / slavery.

• Set us free from this present evil age 1:4.
• Spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus 1:4.
• Scripture has imprisoned all things 3:22.
• Now before faith came we were imprisoned (under the law!) 3:23.
• No better than those who are enslaved 4:1.
• We were enslaved to the elemental principles (ta stoicheia) 4:3.
• You were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods 4:8.
• [Now] you turn back to the weak and beggarly elemental principles (ta stoicheia)… to be enslaved by them 4:9.
• Children of an enslaved woman or of a free woman 4:22.
• She is in slavery 4:25.
• She is free 4:26.
• Child of the enslaved woman… child of the free woman 4:30.
• For freedom Christ has set us free… do not submit to a yoke of slavery 5:1.
• You were called to freedom 5:13.
• Become enslaved to one another 5:13.

To that we could of course add words such as gospel, justified and grace; and also specific texts such as the ‘In Christ there is neither…’, or that only ‘new creation’ counts.

Paul is heavily biased toward freedom, indeed his first description of what happened as a result of the cross is that we are ‘set free… from this present evil age’. Freedom wins the day!

He navigates a line between ‘submit to no-one… do not give up your freedom’ and meeting with those in Jerusalem, submitting his revelation to them lest he run in vain; he also comes very close to describing the law in negative terms, seemingly indicating that the law (for Israel) and the gods of the nations were in the same category (ta stoicheia: elemental principles / spirits; that which orders and structures / shapes a society, hence it certainly spills over into the demonic spirit world; I suggest it includes the demonic that shapes society, culture etc. and is perhaps a summarising word for everything that shapes and holds a culture / nation back from finding maturity and freedom). He comes close but avoids that direct 1:1 relationship. He is close, but the law came from God… but he certainly seems to suggest that when approached as law performs the same result, it cannot deliver the freedom that is in Christ.

OK… enough for now.