Churches as trojan horses

"They zealously court you, but for no good; yes, they want to exclude you, that you may be zealous for them. But it is good to be zealous in a good thing always" - Galatians 4:17-18

Whilst Christians are commanded to deal with individual cases with charity, nonetheless, it is impossible when it passes by your nostrils not to think that you're smelling the spirit of the world and to recognise it as such. Treating others with kindness and grace may yet co-exist with an unavoidable suspicion that something is very wrong, and that we'd be wise to a) keep a sensible distance and b) ourselves operate otherwise.

In the above verses from Galatians, Paul was speaking about false brethren: the "Judaizers", who sought to recruit the Galatian churches to their false gospel of justification through Christ plus obedience to Old Covenant laws. Nonetheless, it refers to a matter seen throughout the Christian world today. A matter rarely mentioned, unless I have been looking the wrong way.

The Judaizers presented themselves as being zealous for God's truth, and for God's standards. They, after all, preached laws that God himself had given, and which were good things. Was not being enthusiastic for those things a good? Who could question it? An apostle of Jesus Christ not only could, but had to, and did, not only question but refute it. The Judaizers' "zeal for God's truth" was a trojan, cloaking their own naked ambition. Such was their zeal for their real cause - their own pre-eminency - that they would quite happily exclude the Galatians from the blessings of the gospel of grace - which had brought those Galatians life, knowledge of Christ, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and incorporation into the people of God and the promise of an eternal inheritance - in order to achieve it. That's quite some zeal: and a very evil zeal.

Christian brother or sister, is it only people preaching rank heresy who possess that same zeal and who are animated by the same lust for pre-eminence, for man's praise and fame amongst those of their chosen domain? Do you not think you often caught a strong whiff of the same odour in many sound Christian institutions, conferences, colleges, ministries, websites, blogs/podcasts and the like? Many attempts to build one's own personal brand, and zealous entering into all kinds of pointless and empty controversies in order to further not the glory of Christ, but the development of someone's brand/institution/reputation?

It is good to be zealous for Jesus Christ, his honour and glory, and his priorities - spreading the gospel to the lost, building up his sheep in the local church, glorifying his name through good works in the home and community, and eagerly awaiting his return. But he forbids us to attempt to serve two masters (one reason for which is that since it's impossible, you'll only deceive yourself and others in the attempt). And he forbids us to seek any of his glory for ourselves. In Christian ministry, "the way up is down", and those who seek the true and eternal glory must be willing to be the servant of all: genuinely willing, not just willing to be praised by other men for their 'umble service.

Show no interest in your personal brand, because the one who will sit on the throne and judge the nations (judge you) on the last day, has no interest in it except insofar as he is disgusted with your displays of the flesh. Show no interest in the prestige of your institution, because if it gets too much of it it may become a rival to his purposes and need destroying in order to advance those purposes. Show no interest in a "wider ministry" that means neglecting the flesh-and-blood sinners who inhabit the place where God's providence has placed you. Leave aside your reputation except insofar as it will aid the preaching of the gospel if you are known to live in the light (and then with great care because of the danger of self-deception).

How many churches and other ministries are ultimately trojan horses whose real aim is to win fame, praise and boost the ego of their founders and followers? How many have little to do with encouraging the weak and stumbling sheep in Christ, and much more to do with building a personal empire? The last day will tell us. I shudder to think, because I can't help noticing that familiar smell. As a son of the first Adam myself, I know it well. May I die with Christ more each day, so that the only life I seek is that of his resurrection.

Galatians, circumcision and infant baptism again

I want to further elaborate on what I said last week about Galatians, circumcision and infant baptism. Consider these near-closing verses of the book:

15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. 16 And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. 17 From now on let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus. (6:15-17, ESV)

The evangelical paedobaptist insists that the "sign and seal" of the New Covenant is baptism. As a Reformed Baptist, I assert to the contrary, that it is conversion and the receiving of the Holy Spirit - that circumcision has been fulfilled in heart circumcision and sealing with the Spirit not in another outward sign.

I judge that the whole tenor and direction of Galatians has been to make this insistence. I find it incomprehensible, from a paedobaptist assumption, that Paul could have omitted in the entire argument to explain the role that baptism allegedly has as the New Covenant equivalent of circumcision, when the whole problem in Galatia was Judaisers wrongly insisting that Christians need to be circumcised. But I think Paul actually spells out what he believes quite clearly. There are no outward marks that have significance for delimiting who is a true Christian or not (and here I'm particularly contradicting Douglas Wilson et al's "Federal Vision" theology which especially insists on Trinitarian baptism as the delimiter of those who should be considered Christians, in the same way that wedding rings mark those who are married). What counts, as the mark of the New Covenant, I read in verse 15, is the new creation - that you have become a new person. i.e. reality, fulfillment.

These people, Paul calls the "Israel of God" - i.e. the true Israel, the Israel that really counts. A paedobaptist can point out that Paul does not explicitly say, "of course, I am hereby excluding believers' infants, where they are not yet actually a new creation by conversion." But such a statement would be redundant - Paul has just said that being a new creation is what counts to get you into the authentic Israel. He no more needs to explain that this is also required of infants than he needs to explain that it is required of Gentiles, slaves or circus clowns.

I find verse 17 even more telling. In it Paul is saying, "Well, if you are going to absolutely insist on some outward mark to prove your Christianity - then I have it here: I am persecuted and beaten". (That Paul is speaking in context about marks of persecution, not about "stigmata" or some other mark is made clear by the context - see 5:11 and 6:12). The Judaisers gloried in their circumcision as the bodily mark showing their covenant status; Paul said that no outward mark mattered, only the cross of Christ (6:14) and we should glory only in that - but if you must have one, it is persecution for the gospel's sake which proves that we belong to Christ.

Again, Paul does not add "and of course, it is not baptism that is the covenant marker!" But why would he need to? Once he's told us what the marker is not, and what it is then what more explanation is needed? Why should he be forced to explicitly address debates that had not arisen in his day?

In my opinion, these kind of considerations are conclusive once you allow Paul to speak for himself, instead of trying to read him against the backdrop of paedobaptism as an assumed theological system.

New Testament Circumcision

It took me a while, compared to some other issues, to decide that the New Testament definitely takes a Baptist position (as opposed to a paedo-baptist position). This was because many/most of the old books (by the Reformers, Puritans and other historic Protestant Evangelicals) who had been my guides and teachers were written by paedobaptists. The other problem was that I did not know many convinced Baptists.

One of the major factors in convincing me was study of the New Testament passages which directly and intentionally address the relationship between Old and New covenants, and their ordinances. I came to believe that a good deal of the theology specifically supporting paedobaptism is constructed out of special pleading which read out of other passages on different issues. Why was the theology not being built out of these passages which are on the very relevant topic, I wondered?

Enough history. I'm teaching Galatians 5 this week at Bible college, God-willing, and it contains an example passage (verse 5-6). (There are several in Galatians):

5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

One question which I think every evangelical paedobaptist should be troubled by from Galatians is to Paul's complete silence on the belief that, supposedly, baptism is the New Covenant replacement for circumcision. Circumcision was the sign of being one of God's covenant people before Christ came, and baptism is afterwards, so they say. This has a kernel of truth in it, of course; nobody is denying that Jewish males were circumcised and that Christians are baptised. But when faced with the Judaising heresy in Galatia and the sight of many Christians at least considering being circumcised for their justification, would not the simple observation that circumcision is unnecessary because we are now baptised have gone a terribly long way? Seems like a killer argument to me - and yet Paul never seems to even approach it. The belief that "the sign was changed, the significance remained the same" I cannot recognise as one that Paul held. That's why he never thought of this argument; it was not actually consistent with his beliefs. Circumcision and baptism have overlapping, but essentially different - not the same - significance.

If you look at those verses above, then if you read them with paedobaptist glasses on you may see nothing to challenge you - we all agree that circumcision is not significant in Christ, and that we by the Spirit wait in faith. So what? But I believe that verses like this are very significant if you instead take of the glasses and try to read the verses from a more neutral point of view - not asking whether you can assimilate such words into your system, but which system of thought would be naturally more likely to produce such verses. Paul in these verses, I believe, is expressing consistently with a Baptist point of view that the Holy Spirit who works by faith, hope and love in an individual is the essential sign of the New Covenant. In other words, that the New Covenant is an era of fulfilment in reality - not just in the coming of Christ, but in the membership of God's people and in what fundamental, essential realities characterise them. We do not have to wait until heaven for the true people of God to be only those who love Jesus, even whilst fully conceding that "false brethren" will worm their way into churches. Today - not just in the future - all the merely outward (being a Jew, being circumcised, etc.) is of no value, because now that Christ, the reality has come, the external scaffolding that existed before his coming is taken down.

Again I concede that a convinced paedobaptist can give an explanation of these verses that does not imply any of this. But that's not my point or argument here. My point is to ask which reading of these verses is more consistent with the direction and contours of the letter as a whole, and all its various statements on the significance of circumcision and the relationships between the covenants. It was asking those questions about Galatians and the rest of the New Testament that were major factors in my becoming a convinced Baptist.

Here's a quote from the "Preacher's Study Papers" by Grace Baptist Mission (intended for preachers in the third world) making the same point:

In these verses Paul does not put baptism as the New Testament equivalent of the Old Testament circumcision ceremony It is not biblically correct to say we must now baptise the babies of Christians because the Old Testament Jews circumcised their babies. According to Paul the New Testament equivalent to the Old Testament sign of circumcision (to show a person to be one of God's people) is the possession of spiritual faith, hope and love. That is one reason why Baptists baptise only believers who by their faith show that they are God's New Testament people.

A curse for us

"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 tree.'"

Galatians 3:13 is one of the Bible's clearest short statements of penal substitution, and thus of the authentic gospel (which it is Paul's purpose to defend, Galatians 1:6-9). (Penal substitution has been discussed here most recently here, here, here).

What is taught us in this verse?

1. We were exposed to the curse of the law: we were under it, and stood in need of redemption from it. (Note that Paul is writing to uncircumcised Gentile Christians here - this is not just Jews who were under it. This observation has implications for various other theological ideas floating around).
2. Christ is the one who has brought us out from under this curse. He redeemed us.
3. He did this by himself taking the curse upon himself. He hung on a tree: he was cursed.

That's penal substitution. Penal substitution means two ideas: there was a punishment due (a penalty), and that somebody else other than the offender suffered it (substitution).

Many theologians have toiled long and hard to make this an obscure, difficult or controversial question. Regrettably, some solidly evangelical men have also fallen into the trap set for them of talking of penal substitution as a "model", implying that it is a human reconstruction, one possibly viewpoint amongst many. But it is not a difficult one, nor one alternative on a menu. It is a simple statement of what Christ did, from which all the other benefits and achievements of Calvary flow out: it is the foundation that undergirds everything else that can be said. (e.g. Calvary is the great victory over the powers of evil, "Christus Victor", precisely because by a substitutionary atonement, Christ has robbed those powers of their hold over man - sin being forgiven, God no longer needs to punish man, or leave him to be a slave to his sinful nature; the possibility of new birth and a new life and new society is opened up, and hell is raided for its inhabitants, etc.).

According to Paul, this is the gospel, and no other alternatives are allowed; indeed, they are all damnable - Galatians 1:6-9. It's there in words of very few syllables.

Peter at Antioch again

Earlier this week I posted some thoughts from studying Galatians 2:11-24, when Peter came to Antioch and Paul opposed him in public.

As I've reflected on this passage further, I'd like to ask.... what exactly does it mean?

On one level I know what it means. It tells us what happened when Peter came to Antioch, of course.

The question is, though, why is Paul telling us about this? In other words, what exactly is the passage's function within the whole letter? How does it advance the case that Paul is making?

Paul's case, as outlined in 1:6-9, is simply this: that there is only one gospel, and it is the gospel that Paul preached - not the gospel of the "Judaisers".

Any kind of "mirror-reading" of chapters 1 and 2 will make clear that the Judaisers were trying to persuade the Galatians that there was a gap between Paul and Peter's apostleship and their gospel - with Paul on the losing end. Paul was some kind of subordinate, and had mangled the message somewhere in transmission when bringing it (allegedly) from Jerusalem.

Within this context, how exactly does Galatians 2:11-24 function? Here the mirror-reading is more difficult I think. Were the Judaisers spreading a false report of Peter's trip to Antioch that Paul wanted to correct? Or is Paul simply continuing to demonstrate that he was not inferior to Peter, shown by the fact he had once even publicly rebuked him? Were the Judaisers making Peter seem infallible in everything he did (perhaps Peter also had begun to separate from Gentiles in Jerusalem too, and the Judaisers were using this report?), and was Paul's purpose to correct this untruth? Is Paul's purpose simply, like in 2:1-10, to show that his gospel had been publicly vindicated with Peter present?

Or is it a combination of these things, or some others too? The answer to this question seems impossible to be dogmatic about. God has not revealed the answer to this question. So how does this then affect how we preach it? For a lot of the preaching, it makes no difference - we'll have to spend a good deal of time explaining what happened and what it meant, and how it fits in the overall scheme is not affected by this so much. But it still makes some difference - we have to give some account of the purpose of the passage if people are meant to understand the book as a whole and not just individual verses her and there.

Any thoughts? My (I hoped educated) best guess is that Paul is, for the best of motives, having to expose to the Galatians that Peter is not all that the Judaisers have made him out to be. It is a historical argument, refuting the idea that Peter was the super-apostle whose teachings (though these actually totally agreed with Paul's, as 2:1-10 established - and necessarily so, as my understanding is that the apostles were inspired and infallible in all their teaching) and practices were the guide to judge the others by. He's demonstrating that the Judaisers' reconstruction simply doesn't work when tested by what had really gone on down the years.

Sobering lessons from when Peter came to Antioch (Galatians 2:11-21)

When Peter came to Antioch, he ate with Gentile Christians: in violation of the ceremonial laws of Moses. But Peter knew that the ceremonial laws were no longer binding; Christ had purified all things. Peter himself had had this made graphically clear to him in his vision before the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10). The middle wall of partition had been pulled down once and for all through the Messiah who died for the sins not of Israel alone, but of all the world.

Later on, though, when certain men came representing James (whether officially or purportedly is not significant: if Peter could err in this matter, so could James), he stopped. Why? The Bible says "fear" (Galatians 2:12). From that moment on, Peter became a hypocrite. He preached a law-free gospel that places all men everywhere on an equal footing: Jew and Gentile alike sinners before God, and able to be justified by God's grace through faith alone; able to fellowship together at the Lord's Supper in the same way. He preached that righteousness does not come from the law, but is a free gift to all in Christ. Yet whilst he preached this, he started again to rebuild the distinctions between Jew and Gentile by separating himself from his non-Jewish brothers, refusing to treat them as equals and enjoy fellowship with them on that basis. He ate with them at the Lord's Supper: but not at the ordinary meals of every day! His gospel which he never stopped to preach, and his practice became two contradictory messages.

I think this passage has wide-ranging applications today. Here are just a few lessons from consideration of what Peter did:

• Good men, even the best and most used, can make catastrophic mistakes. As Isaiah 2:22 in the KJV memorably says, "Cease ye from man".
  
• Even the best men can be defeated by that most miserable of motives : the fear of man. As the same verse reminds us, that is man, "whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?" And though our lives are but a shadow and a mist - this monster, the fear of man, stalks us all at all times, and we scarcely realise how much "danger money" we hand over to pay off its demands day by day. If this happens to apostles - how much more to us? "The fear of man brings a snare: but whoever puts his trust in the Lord shall be safe." - Proverbs 29:25.
• The behaviour of great leaders is not to be our guide: Scripture and truth are. Great leaders can and do lead great numbers of people astray! The powerful example of Peter led even Barnabas astray (Galatians 2:12). This is Barnabas, an early leader in the Antioch church which led the way in treating Gentiles as full equals of Jews (Acts 11:19-20). Barnabas, who had been a pioneer leader alongside Paul in the first organised missions to the Gentiles, preaching the law-free gospel openly and widely (Acts 13:1ff). Just because Spurgeon, Stott, Lloyd-Jones, Whitefield, Packer, Hodge, Masters, MacArthur, Piper, Carey, Carson, Olyott, or whoever your particular present favourite is did it or does it, so what? We must take responsibility for our own countless blunders, and they for theirs. Hero-worship is not a Christian virtue.
• The errors of great men and even apostles do not fall short of practices which can totally deny the heart of the gospel. Peter continued to preach the gospel flawlessly, as a Spirit-guided apostle of Christ. He declared justification by faith alone. But in his practice, as Galatians 2:14-16, he was effectively declaring justification by Jewish works. There was only ever one man whose practice was without error, and that is why we are called Christians are not Petronians or Paulicians! How tragic: and one more reason to cling closer to Christ, not putting our trust even in the best of Christian leaders. I think some of the men I named above deny the gospel in practice in the manner that Peter did. How can some of them remain in denominations whose official leadership does not teach the evangelical gospel, and where the denomination as a whole has no clear position on whether the evangelical gospel is true or not, or compulsory or not, or whether we can instead substitute it for liberalism or Roman Catholicism? I believe that they would resign immediately if their churches appointed flamboyant and unrepentant bank-robbers, homosexuals or murderers at the top of the leadership: yet if the top of the leadership is not evangelical, that is apparently OK? Is this because they believe outward morality is more important than the gospel? Surely not... but it is the error of Peter. These men teach justification by faith alone; but in practice tolerate all kinds of other justifications.
  
• In making his blunder, Peter actually went backwards. He had once eaten with Gentiles; even for many years. Even the best men and leaders can backslide. What Peter once knew very clearly, he apparently then suppressed and/or forgot. Our past attainment is no guarantee of future faithfulness: even for apostles! May God have mercy on us all!

It's worth noting that some years later in 2 Peter 3:15 that Peter affectionately calls Paul - who publicly rebuked him for his error - "our beloved brother". Proverbs 27:5-6 - “Open rebuke is better than secret love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” Proverbs 9:8 - "Do not reprover a scorner, in case he hates you: rebuke a wise man, and he will love you." Peter received the rebuke, repented, and loved Paul for recovering him. Lessons for us in there too!

Galatians 2 and the Jerusalem Council

I am presently teaching Galatians at Bible college. Galatians is a book of great significance in working out a Biblical, covenantal theology, and a theology of the true gospel and its place in church life.

It is also a very important letter for piecing together a chronology of the New Testament, and of the life of Paul. But that is not an easy task. There are lots of different data points which it is non-trivial to bring together. To give a simple example, in Galatians 2:1, Paul says "Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem". Fourteen years later than what? Perhaps, fourteen years later than the visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Galatians 1:18. Or, perhaps fourteen years later than his conversion, which he dated the Galatians 1:18 visit as being three years later than. I have in my lap at present a commentary which on page 44 states the latter, then on page 50 states the former without seeming to be aware of the self-contradiction!

One of the difficult questions is whether Galatians 2:1-10 is an account of the same "Jerusalem council" as in Acts 15. On the face of it, this seems quite likely:

• It is a meeting in Jerusalem,
• occasioned by a controversy over the role of the law of Moses in salvation,
• and in particular circumcision
  
• involving Paul, Barnabas, Peter and James,
• which gave a decisive verdict in favour of a circumcision-free, law-free gospel.
  

But in my opinion deeper reflection leads to the conclusion that it is not the same meeting:

• The Galatians 2 meeting appears to have been private and unofficial between a few apostles, whereas the Acts 15 one was fairly public and official involving many more leaders of the church.
  
• The Jerusalem council laid down some guidelines that Gentiles should not indulge in particular acts that would inflame Jewish sensitivities; whereas in Galatians Paul only reports an exhortation to help the poor - which the Jerusalem council's letter does not mention. (There are various other apparent dissimilarities which are arguments from silence and are therefore weak, but in this case we have the council's letter in totality, so this argument from silence is significant). Likewise, the Judaisers might have been expected to use the council's prohibitions against these inflammations of Jewish sensibilities, distorting them to make them into absolute laws for all Gentile Christians for all times - but Paul never tackles this argument, which suggests it was not being made.
  
• One border-line is-it-an-argument-from-silence difference: in Galatians Paul states that he went to Jerusalem because of a revelation, whereas in Acts 15 the church in Antioch determined after discussion to send him. (I could conceive that both could be true). But if Galatians 2 is in fact reporting events of Paul's Jerusalem visit in Acts 11:27-30, this fits in well: the trigger then was a revelation through the prophet Agabus, and that Acts visit was a visit in part for poor relief, which in Galatians 2:10 Paul reports as being a matter on his heart at that time.
  
• In Galatians, Paul makes no explicit mention of any official pronouncement on the question. This is again an argument from silence, but I'd assert a significant one. Why would he only speak of private agreement, when after the Jerusalem council an official letter was written that should have settled the matter once and for all? Such an argument would be weighty and powerful - final, indeed. If the Jerusalem council had taken place by the time Paul wrote Galatians, it is strange that he speaks of it only in such a guarded, round-about way when its verdict was so helpful to his case. The Judaisers were clearly saying "the Jerusalem apostles agree with us, not Paul" - why would Paul fail to appeal to their public pronouncement to the contrary, and only testify of a private agreement?

My conclusion: The meeting reported in Galatians 2 is a separate meeting which pre-dates the Jerusalem council.