3 Things You Should Know about Galatians
If righteousness could be obtained through the law, then Christ died for nothing (Gal. 2:21). Righteousness could never come through human obedience since God demands perfect obedience, and a curse impinges on all who fail to do everything God commands (Gal. 3:10). The curse is only removed through the death of Jesus who took the curse for us when He was hung on a tree (Gal. 3:13). Galatians, then, stands out as the first letter that declares that believers are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone.
1. Galatians Defends Paul’s Gospel as Being from Christ
Some readers may not know that Paul’s Apostolic legitimacy was attacked by opponents in Galatia. They claimed that Paul was not truly an Apostle. After all, he wasn’t a follower of Jesus during His earthly ministry. Furthermore, they asserted that Paul’s gospel contradicted the gospel taught in Jerusalem by Peter, John, and James. In other words, the agitators said that Paul’s gospel was dependent on the Jerusalem Apostles, but there’s more: they also accused Paul of distorting the gospel taught by the Apostles in Jerusalem.
In the first two chapters, therefore, Paul defends the legitimacy of his gospel. He emphasizes that the gospel he proclaimed was revealed to him supernaturally on the road to Damascus by Jesus Christ Himself. Paul’s gospel can’t be ascribed to his own thinking but was given to him independently by Jesus. But that’s not all—when Paul traveled to Jerusalem fourteen years later, the Apostles Peter, James, and John ratified Paul’s gospel. They acknowledged that Paul’s gospel was the true gospel, the same gospel that they preached. In fact, Paul even reproved Peter when the latter compromised the gospel in Antioch (Gal. 2:11–14). In the first two chapters of Galatians, then, Paul shows that he received his gospel directly from Jesus and that he did not distort the message taught by the Jerusalem Apostles. They all taught the same gospel.
2. Galatians Teaches That We Are Justified through Faith, Not by Works
Galatians is the first letter in which Paul trumpets the truth that believers are justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. His opponents insisted that one must keep the law and be circumcised to obtain salvation (Gal. 5:2–4; 6:12–13; see also Gen. 17:9–14; Acts 15:1–5). What these adversaries did not understand was that the new covenant had dawned with the death and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Believers were no longer under the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant, including circumcision.
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
5 Myths about How We Got the Bible
Written by Peter J. Gurry and John D. Meade |
Tuesday, March 7, 2023
The Bible has such a rich history because so many have given their energy, their ingenuity, and even their lives so that we have it today. When we peel away the fabrications, we find a story that inspires Christians to read it, to love it, and to live it. One thing the Bible’s history teaches us never to do is take it for granted.History’s Most Important Book
When it comes to books, none is more famous than the Bible. It’s the most sold, most translated, and arguably the most influential book in history. As a result, it occupies a vaulted place in our shared cultural conscience. When American presidents want to raise their rhetoric or filmmakers want to add gravitas, they reach for a biblical reference. Even today, as the Bible’s cultural authority waxes in the West, everyone knows something about the Bible.
As with anything of historical importance, the Bible has accumulated its share of mythical distortions in the popular mind. Many of these swirl around its origins. Maybe this is because the Bible’s origins span such a long time or because our culture is primed to distrust authority. Whatever the cause, these are five myths found both inside and outside the church about the history of history’s most important book.
Myth #1: The books were chosen by a church council.
This first myth may originate as far back as the 17th century, but it took hold of contemporary minds when it became a plot point in The Da Vinci Code. Whether it takes the form of the Council of Nicaea voting on the books in 325 AD or emperor Constantine himself hand-picking them, the common thread in this myth is that the Bible was finally settled by a one-time act of fiat. While it makes for a tidy explanation, there is no historical warrant for it. There was no vote on the canon at Nicaea, and Constantine never decreed what books belonged in the Bible.
What did happen, in brief, is that Christians relied heavily on Jewish precedent for the Old Testament and apostolic authority for the New Testament. If a book was used by the Jews or came with apostolic authority, it was accepted. In both cases, a large core of books was accepted widely and early with debates lingering for other books at the edges. For the Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jewish writers, and the New Testament itself suggest a core canon of Pentateuch, Prophets, Psalms, and Proverbs by the end of the first century. Books like Esther and Ecclesiastes took a bit longer to be recognized. For the New Testament, the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters (including Hebrews), and most of the so-called Catholic Epistles (James through Jude) were fairly settled by the end of the third century with the shorter Catholic Letters (2 Peter, 2–3 John, and Jude) and Revelation taking longer. Other books like The Shepherd were eventually rejected, despite their popularity, as being written too late to have an apostle’s authority attached. By the fourth century, with Athanasius, we find a canon list that looks very similar to the modern Protestant Bible.
What was not fully decided in this period, at least in the Western church, was the question of the Apocryphal (or Deuterocanonical) books. The issue with these would not be resolved until the Reformation when the Reformers followed Jerome in rejecting them because they were never part of the Jewish canon, and the Roman Catholic church accepting them on the basis of their long use by Christians. Those decisions are still reflected today in the difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic Bibles.
Myth #2: The original text is lost.
If it took centuries for the canon to settle, the time it took to copy the Bible was even longer. Today, many think this long period was so haphazard and uncontrolled that we no longer know what the biblical authors said. The Dilbert cartoon creator Scott Adams summed up his understanding, saying that “among the document experts, no one has a clue what the original books of the Bible said. The first copies no longer exist.”
Read More
Related Posts: -
Practical Counsel for Pastors Who Are Beginning to Discern the Times
Count the cost. Don’t be naive. You could have a mass exodus of close friends leaving the church. The church could split. You could get fired. Any number of things could happen, so it is best to be prepared for anything. Prepare your own soul. Meditate on Matthew 5:11–12 and the book of 1 Peter. Pray that God will strengthen you to “suffer for doing good” (1 Pet. 3:17). Read memoirs and biographies of your Christian heroes who courageously endured great trials. Acknowledge your own errors. If you’ve changed your view on something (or many things), acknowledge them publicly. Don’t be afraid of saying, “I used to think X, but now I’ve come to believe Y. Let me show you from Scripture how I came to this conclusion.”
Over the past ten years or so, pastors have navigated some of the most morally complicated and emotionally turbulent ministry environments they’ve ever experienced. The world has changed around us in unprecedented ways that we’ve only just begun to comprehend.
One of the most helpful explanations of these cultural changes is the “Three Worlds of Evangelicalism” rubric proposed by Aaron Renn. His core observation, which began as an essay and later developed into a book, is that American society has grown increasingly hostile towards Christianity. Christianity was once regarded as a positive good for society by Christians and non-Christians alike. Renn calls this “positive world.” As the new millennia approached, that perception softened as Christianity was demoted in favor of a pluralistic “marketplace of ideas.” Renn calls this “neutral world.” But from around 2015 onward, our society’s view of Christianity has turned decidedly dark. Renn calls this “negative world.”
This simple formulation has great explanatory power to comprehend the immense ministry pressure modern pastors face, many of whom were trained in “neutral world” ministry tools that have become obsolete in the “negative world” we now occupy. This is not some abstract sociological phenomenon for professors to discuss in the faculty lounge. Nor is this merely an online phenomenon where keyboard warriors spar on social media about controversies that will blow over when a new controversy erupts. It’s much more practical and personal than that.
Whether we want to accept it or not, the “negative world” of 2024 is not the same as the “neutral world” of 2004. Every pastor must unflinchingly reckon with this new reality, though many will not be inclined to do so. Why?
The Challenge
Busy pastors have little time or interest in keeping up with the latest cultural trends or evangelical gossip. That’s what “discernment bloggers” spend all their time worrying about. But ordinary pastors I know don’t care about that stuff. It seems petty and immature. They want to preach the Bible, share the gospel, and disciple their people.
Besides, cultural discernment seems best left to the niche specialists who pay more attention to social trends than everyone else. Most pastors don’t have the time or energy to figure out how to “understand the times” like the men of Issachar (1 Chron. 12:32). It can be tedious trying to pay attention to who’s saying what, what they are saying, what they are refusing to say, and who they are associated with.
Many pastors are beginning to awaken to the cold, hard realities of the negative world. Bad ideas travel at lightning speed through the Christian subculture faster than pastors can keep up. Influential Christian thinkers are no longer seminary professors or experienced ministry practitioners. Now, the most influential Christian thought leaders often have zero theological or biblical training. Instead, they have an iPhone and charisma. Their ideas trickle down from social media channels to your small groups and Sunday school classes. The most pressing doctrinal issues of our day are framed more by influencers than those who have dedicated their lives to rigorous theological study. Ordinary people in our churches read their social media posts, listen to their podcasts, and watch their TikToks. Allie Beth Stuckey, a 32-year-old Christian influencer and social media star, probably has as much influence over the minds of Christian women as their pastors.
Observant pastors try to maintain a bird’s eye view of their congregations. They notice certain trends that play out in the lives of their people, such as those who demanded masks and jabs during COVID, who supported #blacklivesmatter by turning their profile pictures into black squares on Facebook, and an alarming number of kids in the youth group claiming to be gay or trans.
As a pastor begins to realize that something has radically shifted in our culture, it hits him hard. This is his “men of Issachar” moment, where the sober fact dawns that his ministry world has been turned upside down. The state of the world is much darker than he’d realized before, and he can no longer afford to pretend otherwise.
I’ve been through this and heard similar testimonies from more pastors than I can count. One pastor said, “As the world got crazier, my thinking got clearer.” He realized that naiveté was a luxury he could not afford. God called him to “shepherd the flock of God,” and their souls were at stake. He could not allow himself to be naïve, turning a blind eye towards the evil as it encroached upon his people. He was becoming more sober-minded, choosing to courageously face unpleasant ministry realities.
He is now a pastor who, after recognizing the “negative world, realizes he is leading a church that still thinks it is in the “neutral world.” He needs to make some changes to prepare for what lies ahead. So what should he do?
Counting the Cost
First, he realizes that if he talks about the truth of reality as he sees it and with the urgency the moment requires, his congregants could become angry, panic, and revolt. If he tells them what he really thinks, they may push back and send him packing. But if he says nothing, their errors will go uncorrected, and they’ll be left increasingly vulnerable to whatever heresy some 19-year-old kid with a YouTube account happens to be saying.
As pastors awaken to the evils that have taken hold of our society, I’ve noticed some of them becoming more vocal online. Plain-spoken boldness is a muscle they’ve not exercised in the past, but they’re hitting the weights now. As they express unpopular opinions, with the perceived requisite of great care and nuance, they are like kids at the pool checking the water by dipping their toes. The same happens in churches. Little by little, they get bolder in the pulpit, inching dangerously close to the line of controversy without crossing it.
There is a legitimate fear these pastors experience. I get it. They don’t want to be seen as unhinged provocateurs recklessly stirring up controversy. These pastors are trapped in broadly evangelical churches with anxious people who have a low threshold for conflict. The functional liberalism of some portion of the congregation is a conditioned response to the neutral world tools that formed them, such as gospel centrism, winsome third-wayism, faithful presence passivity, and punch-right-coddle-leftism. All these ministry strategies were effective at drawing left-leaning urban millennials, the most coveted demographic of the neutral world church planting boom. But now, these same left-of-center millennials are the pastor’s biggest liability. If a pastor, waking up to the importance of biblical fidelity in a negative world, crosses the line, they’ll sabotage him.
Some of the left-leaning urban millennials he reached a decade ago with neutral world tools have now become key donors, ministry leaders, and elders. Some of them are now in the prime of their careers, comfortably cocooned in their middle-class lives. He’s afraid of losing them. He wants to courageously lead and protect them, disciple them towards greater faithfulness, and equip them for the dark days ahead. But they are reluctant to change. Some of them now occupy the most visible positions of influence in the church. Anxious people crave familiarity and routine. They like their neutral world church mirage and don’t want any red-pilled pastor leading them out of it.
But these congregants don’t realize that the neutral world is gone. The negative world is here. And from how things are going, we’re headed for a clown world circus show in the years ahead.
Read More
Related Posts: -
The Single’s Tug of War
Sermons on marriage abound, but finding sermons on singleness requires a treasure hunt. Messages on biblical manhood and womanhood often give applications in the context of and preparation for marriage yet neglect the daily realities of striving toward Christlikeness as a single. Marriage is implied as a “when,” not an “if.” Not understanding why they are not married and hoping to help them down the aisle, well-meaning church members quickly bring a single person’s attention to the new guy or girl who walks in the door and asks if they find them attractive. But guess what? Nowhere in Scripture does God promise marriage to every believer. He promised the Marriage Supper of the Lamb when Christ will gather His bride, the church, to Himself (Rev. 19:7-10).
Single believers are caught in the middle of a game of tug of war.
On one side, Team Culture pulls and yells, “Forget marriage, at least for a little while! You do not need a spouse; go pursue your dreams and be your best self!”
The opposing Team Church yanks back, “No, getting married should be your #1 priority! Come visit the meat market…I mean the singles ministry and check out all the available options!”
Who wants to volunteer to be the flag on that rope?
Unfortunately, many single believers experience these constant pressures from the voices talking in their ears every day. In the last year, I realized that I myself have been stuck on the rope as a ministry project allowed me to study, research, and challenge my own thinking on singleness and marriage. So, what exactly is each side saying?
The Culture
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of unmarried Americans has steadily increased since the 1950s (source). A 2022 Pew Research Center study revealed that 30% of U.S. adults are not married, living with a partner, or in a committed relationship (source). In addition, 34% of women and 63% of men in the young adult population are single.
Why these continually growing percentages? Here’s two significant contributing factors:
The culture tells singles they do not need marriage. Instead, culture contends that it provides plenty of easy ways for singles to fulfill their “needs.” Living with a partner has become a socially acceptable norm. Sexual interactions can happen with any individual at any time no matter how long people have known each other. A quick Internet search opens a world of porn and graphic movies to fulfill sexual fantasies from home. A single can have “fun” without commitment.
The culture tells them they as an individual are enough. A single does not need anyone else, but is self-sufficient.. They need to value and love themselves unconditionally. Singles have the freedom to do whatever they want with their lives and should take advantage of it. What they think matters and deserves a platform. It is all about image and climbing the ladder of success and popularity.
Girls, especially, are being fed these messages right now. Last winter, Miley Cyrus’ record-breaking song “Flowers” played three times in one Spotify ad break, telling girls they could love themselves better than a guy ever could. Since it’s not 1937, the upcoming Disney live-action Snow White won’t feature a girl saved by the prince, but instead “dreaming of the leader she knows she can be…if she’s fearless, brave, and true” (source).
Read More
Related Posts: