Galatians 2:1-10 Only One Gospel
Early
last Saturday the Greek Orthodox Church and the Anglican Churches in Nablus were
firebombed. Later that day, four masked gunmen doused the main doors of the Roman
Catholic and Greek Catholic churches in Nablus with lighter fluid, then set them
afire also. They then opened fire on the buildings, striking both with bullets.
On the same day in Gaza City, militants opened fire from a car at a Greek Orthodox
church. Explosive devices were also set off at the church, causing minor damage.
And last Sunday at the Austrian-funded SOS Hospital in the Somali capital, Mogadishu,
Sister Leonella Sgorbati and a bodyguard were shot dead when gunmen entered the
hospital and opened fire.
The attack came a day after an Islamist leader
had urged Muslims to take revenge on the pope for comments he made last week that
linked Islam and violence. What had sparked these violent attacks? During a speech
made in Germany, at Regensburg university where he used to teach, Pope Benedict
16th quoted from an obscure book recounting a conversation between
the 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and an educated
Persian on the truths of Christianity and Islam.
"He said, I quote,
'Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things
only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he
preached.' . . . Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature
of the soul.
'God,' the emperor said, 'is not pleased by blood -- and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.'" The pontiff went on to condemn violent jihad, or "holy war" insisting that those who engage in violence cease to be true believers. Ironically, his lengthy and academic speech was primarily aimed at criticising the growing secularization of the West. He only devoted three paragraphs to the subject of ‘holy war’. Later, the Vatican insisted the pope had only intended to encourage debate. Subsequently, the pope expressed regret at the offence some Muslims had taken at his words.
Most secular journalists this week seem to have been critical of the Pope for
his speech. They describe it in terms of a PR disaster. Most Christian leaders,
however, such as the Archbishop of Canterbury and the former Archbishop, Lord
Carey, have backed the Pope. Speaking to the BBC, Rowan Williams said the controversy
illustrated the very point the Pope was making. “There are elements in Islam that
can be used to justify violence, just as there are in Christianity and Judaism.”
What ever your view, the fact remains, with 24:7 media, the internet, blogs and
email statements made by leaders, secular and religious, made in one place, can
become world-wide in the matter of minutes. What we say can and will have profound
consequences for believers, sceptics and opponents.
Certainly the core teaching of Islam, Judaism and Christianity are totally incompatible.
They cannot all be right. The Talmud, the New Testament and the Koran contradict
one another on essential issues. Either Jesus is the Son of God or just one of
the prophets or an impostor. Either his words are authoritative or those of Moses
or Mohammed are. For those who believe Jesus is the only way, the truth and the
life, and that no one comes to the Father except through him, the question is
- how can we best help other people come to that realisation? Will the Pope’s
speech, will this sermon, will your conversations this week lead people out of
darkness into the light? Or will it raise barriers, inflame tempers and incite
fanaticism? Will those of other faiths be drawn to Jesus by what we say or be
repelled? How we address the essential differences between religions is a vital
question. Should we draw attention to the failings of other faiths or should focus
on Jesus? On his uniqueness, his claims and teaching? And when it is best to use
words and when do actions speak louder?
In our study of the letter to
the Galatians we have already observed the growing tension between the dominant
religion of the day - Judaism and the small but growing number of communities
who had begun to recognise Jesus as Saviour and Lord. While they remained essentially
Jewish in beliefs and practices they were tolerated as a Messianic sect within
Judaism.
Followers of the Way worshipped in the Temple in Jerusalem. They met in the synagogues
and in their homes for prayer and Scripture reading. But as more and more Gentiles
began to join these communities, and were not forced to undergo circumcision or
keep the Law of Moses, the gap widened and the controversy grew. And so some
Pharisees from Jerusalem arrived in Galatia, in the young churches Paul had planted,
claiming to represent the Apostles, and had thrown the young Christians into confusion
by demanding circumcision. The controversy led to a tense meeting in Jerusalem
between Paul and Barnabas and the other Apostles. What became known as the Council
of Jerusalem is recorded in Acts 15. You may like to have the passage open as
we also look at Galatians 2.
“Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: “Unless
you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”
2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with
them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to
go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.” (Acts
15:1-2)
Not only were lives at stake, but more importantly, the future of the church was in peril. In our passage from Galatians 2, we not only see how Paul and Barnabas handled the issue, we discover three principles, three steps, we too can use to handle disagreements. And if we get this right, we may not only avoid unnecessary martyrdom, we might also, by God’s grace, lead others into a life changing relationship with God through Jesus.
1. The Private Consultation
“Fourteen
years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus
along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and set before them
the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those
who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain.”
(Galatians 2:1-2)
When
the deputation arrived in Jerusalem, they met privately with the church leaders.
This was not because Paul was unsure either of his message or his ministry. His
conduct on the way to the conference indicates that he had no doubts (Acts 15:3).
What he was concerned about was the future of the Gospel among the Gentiles,
because this was his specific ministry from Christ. If the other Apostles had
sided with the Judaizers, or tried to compromise, then the very gospel itself
would have been in jeopardy. Paul and Barnabas shared how the Holy Spirit had
performed the same signs and wonders among the Gentiles as they had witnessed
in Jerusalem at Pentecost.
They were specific signs of the birth of the church
to verify that Gentiles as well as Jews who believed in Jesus had also received
the Holy Spirit. What was the result of this private consultation?
The Apostles and elders recognised the genuineness of Paul's Gospel. What do we
learn from this? Where there is disagreement - we should first try and handle
it privately.
We should confront a brother or sister over a sin or a dispute
privately first. We should seek to be reconciled privately.
Why? Because
disputes between Christians have the potential to harm the church, destroy our
credibility and undermine our witness. If we can be reconciled the issues need
never go further, never become public. Jesus said “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his
fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother
over.” (Matthew 18:15). It is the same reason God forbids Christians taking fellow
believers to court. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 6,
“If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? … I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers! 7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?” (1 Corinthians 6:1, 5-7)
This
is why Paul and Barnabas begin with a private consultation with Peter, James and
the other Apostles in Jerusalem. There was mutual submission and accountability.
Sometimes we avoid conferring with others because we fear that problems or arguments
may develop. Instead, we should openly discuss our plans and actions with friends,
counselors, and advisers.
Good communication helps everyone understand
the situation better. Furthermore, it reduces gossip and builds unity in the church.
But on this occasion, this private meeting was only the beginning.
2. The Painful Confrontation
“Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 (This matter arose) because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.” (Galatians 2:3-5)
In Acts 15:4 we read that after Paul had “reported everything God had done through them” verse 5 goes on to say, “Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.” (Acts 15:5)
We
are not told how the ‘believers’ who belonged to the ‘party of the Pharisees’
managed to join what was initially a private meeting. But Paul uses very strong
language to describe their strategy and behaviour. He refers to them as “false brothers” who had “infiltrated” our ranks to
“spy” on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us “slaves”. The wording indicates some subversive action ("infiltrated,"
"spy"); these people somehow sneaked in or they were planted or smuggled
into the Christians' ranks.
The Pharisees would have been most interested
in observing what was going on in the church, because it was a threat to their
authority. The synagogues were hemorrhaging members who were defecting to this
new sect. Those still committed to that system decided to "spy on" (kataskopesai)
the new believers in Christ in order to determine the best way to make slaves
of them under their religious system.
Circumcision, with its inherent permanent significance became the defining criteria.
Who are the "false brothers" and "spies" in the church today?
The role is filled by modern Pharisees who introduce rules, policies, and extra
steps that they claim are necessary for salvation or full participation in the
Christian life.
Motivated by a desire for control over others or for holding a superior status,
they
promote man-made agendas and values above those of the Scriptures. With being
more concerned about doing things right than doing the right things. In my first
few years at CC I was constantly being told that we had broken this Anglican rule
or that regulation. It seems hard to believe now but it was only a few years ago
that the Church Council debated whether it was necessary for clergy to wear robes
or clerical collars, or whether we had to use the prescribed liturgies of the
Church of England, or whether we need permission before we can purchase, move
or remove a particular piece of furniture.
For the Church in Jerusalem,
it seems that Titus, who was a Gentile, became a "test case" at this
point. It is possible that Paul and Barnabas took him with them to Jerusalem deliberately
to make this point. He was a Gentile Christian who had never been circumcised.
Now, if the Judaizers were right in insisting that unless you are circumcised
you cannot be saved (Acts 15:1), then Titus was not a Christian. But if he had
the same testimony as they and the same Holy Spirit, how could they deny the genuineness
of his conversion? Paul would have none of this nonsense. “We
did not give in to them for a moment” he writes, “so that the truth of the gospel
might remain with you.” (Galatians 2:5).
Paul was not afraid of controversy,
or of confrontation, for the sake of the gospel and neither must we. Paul
was not afraid to confront the issue because the gospel was at stake. Paul's concern
was "the truth of the Gospel" (Gal 2:5,14), not the "peace of the
church." Truth leads to unity, not the other way round. "Peace at any
price" was not on Paul's agenda and it must not be on ours. Adding to the
gospel is as dangerous as taking away from it. This is why we saw in Galatians
1, Paul pronounces a curse on anyone (human being, apostle or even an angel) who
preaches another message other than the free, unmerited, grace of God, found in
Jesus Christ who died on the cross to take away our sins. It is a serious thing
to tamper with the Gospel.
The Private Consultation. The Painful Confrontation.
3. The Public Confirmation
“As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be 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 Jews. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.” (Galatians 2:6-10)
The Judaizers had hoped to get the leaders of the Jerusalem church to disagree with Paul. Paul was not impressed either by the persons or the positions of the church leaders. He respected them, of course. Otherwise he would not have consulted with them privately. But he did not fear them or seek to win their influence. All he wanted them to do was recognize
"the grace of God" at work in his life and ministry (Gal 2:9), and this
they did. Thankfully, James, the leader of the church, summarised the decision
of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:13-21. As Jewish as he was, he made it clear
that the Gentile did not have to become Jews in order to become Christians. Jews
and Gentiles are saved the same way through faith in Jesus Christ. The Council
recognized publicly that God had set apart Paul to take the gospel to the Gentiles.
Peter had been called to take the gospel to the Jews. There was unity in one Gospel
for both Jews and to Gentiles. There would be one church, one faith, one hope
because there was only one gospel. The Jerusalem Conference began with the grave
possibility of division and dissension. We could have seen the emergence of a
Jewish Church and a Gentile one. But it ended with cooperation and agreement.
We too need to recognize that God calls people to different ministries in different
places; yet we proclaim the same Gospel and seek to build the one church.
That is why mission partners working among Muslims probably distanced themselves
from the Pope’s message while those working among Jews probably endorsed it. This
does not make one right and the other wrong. The message is unchanging. But our
methods and approaches should adapt to our audience. On another occasion, Paul
wrote,
“To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became
like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those
under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not
having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law),
so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak,
to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means
I might save some.” (1 Corinthians 9:20-22)