Yet for all of Paul’s hard words, Galatians is fundamentally a letter of grace. It is a bitter and often painful grace, but it is grace, nonetheless. Even though the Galatians are in very real danger of committing apostasy, from the very beginning the apostle is declaring that the well of God’s grace has not run dry. This is why the apostle extends his usual greeting into giving the Galatians a brief reminder of what exactly the gospel of Jesus Christ is.

Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—and all the brothers who are with me,
To the churches of Galatia:
Grace to you and peacefrom God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,who gave himself for our sinsto deliver us from the present evil age,according to the will of our God and Father,to whom be the glory forever and ever.Amen.
Galatians 1:1-5 ESV
When preparing for a new series through a book of the Bible, I always give a great deal of thought to what I am titling the series because I want the title to act as a concise snapshot of what the main theme of the book is. Paul’s epistle to the Galatians proved surprisingly difficult in this matter, since nailing down the overall theme can be a challenge. Of course, there is no shortage of ideas. If Galatians is primarily a polemic against legalism, then we could call the series “Not by Works of the Law,” “Captive Under the Law,” or even “The Curse of the Law.” But if Galatians is foremost a defense of justification by faith alone, then we could call it “Justified by Faith” or simply “Through Faith Alone.” But maybe Paul’s broader goal is to defend the true gospel, which would make the title “No Other Gospel” quite fitting.
Yet the most pervasive theme from the first verse to the last is Jesus Christ. Indeed, it is in the person of Christ that each of the other prominent themes of Galatians are rooted. We are set free from the curse of the law only through Christ becoming a curse in our place. The beauty of our being justified in God’s sight through faith alone is made possible only in Christ. And this good news is rightly called the gospel of Christ. Indeed, the great concern of Paul throughout this letter, which explains his intense and often harsh tone, is that the Galatians were in danger of being severed from Christ (5:4). thus, I propose a simple title for capturing the heartbeat of Paul’s letter to the Galatians: “Christ Alone.”
From Paul to the Galatians: Verses 1–2
As is typically the case with ancient letters, this one begins by identifying the author: Paul. This is, of course, the Apostle Paul, who was formerly called Saul and who actively persecuted the church until Christ called him to Himself. Although we do not know for certain when this letter was written, most scholars argue that it is the earliest of Paul’s letters, likely penned before the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. R. C. Sproul remarks that his mentor John Gerstner described Paul’s personality and character with an acrostic of his name:
P stood for “polluted” because Paul understood that he was the chief of sinners, and the A referred to his “office” as an Apostle. But the most striking significance to me was that Dr. Gerstner said the U in Paul’s name stood for “uncompromising” and the L stood for “loving.” (Galatians, 2)
It is here in Galatians that we find those final two characteristics meeting together. Paul’s deep love for the Galatians leads him to an uncompromising stance on the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Paul then immediately refers to himself as an apostle. Although the word apostle simply means one who is sent, he uses it here to refer to an ecclesiastical office that belonged only to those who received a direct revelation of Jesus Christ. Since it is probable that Paul’s authority as an apostle was being called into question by the influencers, he follows his claim to apostleship with the statement: “not from men nor through man but through Jesus Christ…”
By saying “not from men,” Paul is emphasizing that the source of his apostleship did not come from any human authority but directly from God. “Nor through man” is to say that there was no intermediary. Christ Himself set Paul apart to be an apostle. Again, this is what distinguished the apostles from ministers today. The only authoritative offices, elders and deacons, are both appointed and affirmed by the church and can also be removed from office by the church.
Paul’s apostolic authority came instead “through Jesus Christ and God the Father.” Obviously, it was Jesus Himself who appeared to Paul, but just as Jesus said that whoever has seen Him has seen the Father, the apostle rightly understood his call through Christ to also be a call from the Father. Furthermore, in answer to those who would deny the divinity of Christ, notice the intimate union in Paul’s mind between Christ and the Father, as well as the distance he places between Christ and ordinary men. Of course, we joyfully affirm that Jesus became truly man, but crucially, He was not merely a man. He is the God-man, truly human but also truly divine.
“who raised him from the dead” John Brown gives a wonderful answer for why Paul included this phrase:
This was a truth ever present to the apostle’s mind in its pre-eminent importance; and consequently he was always ready to give it utterance. It is not unlikely that, in mentioning it here, he meant to suggest the idea,–that as an apostle called by the Savior raised from the dead by the power of the Father, he was certainly not inferior to those who had been called by him in his suffering state. For it does not seem to have been one of the circumstances of which the false teachers in different churches availed themselves, in endeavouring to lessen Paul’s authority, that he had not, like the other apostles, been the companion of Jesus Christ while on earth. (Galatians, 22)
Although verse 1 is more than enough to establish the authority of Paul as an apostle of the risen Christ, he also adds “and all the brothers with me.” This probably refers to those ministering alongside Paul, although it could also be the general believers of which city Paul was writing from. Either way, since this is only letter where Paul cites another group of believers as giving their explicit affirmation of Paul’s words, we can assume that Paul was doing so very intentionally. Indeed, this seems to be simply one more authentication of Paul’s authority. Perhaps the implication to the Galatians is: if the testimony of the Father and the about me is not sufficient, then just know that all the brothers who are with me agree with everything I am about to write. In other words, “Paul is no lone ranger, a renegade working in isolation from the rest of the early church. The gospel he preaches and the gospel the Galatians first believed is the same gospel preached by Paul’s cohorts and many others” (Wilson, Galatians, 21-22).
“to the churches of Galatia” Here we learn the recipients of this letter. Unlike most of Paul’s epistles, this one was not directed to a particular city but to a region. There are two possibilities about which Galatians Paul was writing to. If he was speaking of Galatia in an ethnic sense, then he would have been writing to the Celtic people in northern part of the providence of Galatia. If he was speaking of Galatia in a geographic or political sense, then it is likely that he was addressing area of Antioch, Lystra, Derbe, and Iconium, which are cities where he preached the gospel in Acts 13-14. The absence of personal names often seems to indicate familiarity in Paul’s writings, so I would assume the latter to be the more likely option.
Regarding the word churches, DeSilva gives us this caution:
The translation “congregations” is preferred here to “churches” given the connotations of the latter in English as established places for worship. The Greek ἐκκλεσία refers to an assembly of people without reference to a building or place, which is more in keeping with early Christian identity and practice. (3)
Read More
Related Posts:

In surveying their eschatological vision of culture and the resulting imperative for Christians to be diligent in the cultural labors out of a sense of calling in light of God’s future work of recreation, Kuyper and Schilder impel Christians towards similar ends. Further, their respective differences, owing to divergences in their understanding of God’s purposes in creation, can help strengthen the others’ view by adding a counter-stress against where they each descend into problematic conclusions.

Abstract
Abraham Kuyper’s theology of culture is gaining interest in the English-speaking world, especially among those outside the Dutch Reformed tradition. Historic debates in the Dutch Reformed tradition over Kuyper’s hallmark doctrine of common grace often seem parochial or irrelevant to contemporary engagement with his thought. Revisiting one figure in those debates, this essay argues that Klaas Schilder, one of Kuyper’s most vocal critics, offers an important counterbalance to problematic features of Kuyper’s theology. While the divide between Kuyper and Schilder has historically been severe, consideration of their similarities regarding their eschatological vision of Christian cultural creation offers a way to harmonize their differences.

“Kuyperians were pluralists before pluralism was cool,” writes James K. A. Smith.1 Indeed, neo-Calvinists in the tradition of Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920) display a marked fondness for stressing the possibility and imperative of shared cultural labor between Christians and non-Christians in society.2 Christians can work alongside non-Christians to create God-glorifying artifacts of culture, such as art or music, as well as less tangible elements of culture, such as share values, language, philosophic systems, or social and political institutions. While Smith certainly appreciates such contributions of the Kuyperian tradition, his critique aims at correcting what he perceives to be far too great an interest in the commonness which Christians share with the rest of society, at the expense of neglecting their distinctiveness. Neo-Calvinists have lost a sense of Christianity’s prophetic cultural witness, he argues. Or, to put it in more Kuyperian terms: neo-Calvinists have neglected the ecclesial contours of the antithesis between Christ’s work of redemption and humanity’s rebellion in sin. More specifically, they have failed to live out the active ministry of the institutional church of shaping communities in the distinctiveness of Christian liturgical life, which in turn is to serve as a leavening force in society for civic virtue.3
To rekindle the force of the Kuyperian antithesis, Smith has shown interest in the lesser known influence of Dutch theologian Klaas Schilder (1890–1952). Schilder, a strident critic of Kuyper and his legacy, provides what Smith sees as an element lacking in many contemporary neo-Calvinist theologies of social and cultural life. This is namely a “dispositional deflection” away from public life steeped in non-Christian principles, while at the same time providing a call to remain faithfully present within society, for its good and for Christ’s glory.4 Smith is not alone in recognizing the value of the greater emphasis Schilder puts on what neo-Calvinists call the antithesis, the epistemic and existential divide between regenerate Christians and the unregenerate, especially concerning social and cultural cooperation. A growing group of Kuyperians have begun to look to Schilder in an effort to strengthen their Kuyperian heritage.5
This willingness of those sympathetic to Kuyper’s theology of culture and common life to reach across what has been a bitter divide in the Dutch neo-Calvinist tradition represents a promising new chapter in the conversation. Schilder rejected Kuyper’s foundational doctrine of common grace with great skepticism, and any effort to harmonize their thoughts must begin elsewhere. This essay proposes to put Kuyper and Schilder in conversation yet again, seeking to find some constructive unity in their varied understandings of culture, the antithesis, and common life shared between Christians and non-Christians. Whereas much of this discussion has historically focused on areas of disagreement, little serious effort has been given to those areas where Schilder and Kuyper’s theology bear similarities and can in fact work well together. The way to do this, this study proposes, is to begin where these similarities are the strongest.
For various reasons, Kuyper and Schilder disagree about much regarding creation, divine providence, and doctrines which serve to construct a “protology,” that is, a doctrine of the axiomatic beginning of all things. However, their eschatological vision for culture and human life does possess some crucial harmony. This study will therefore begin at the end, so to speak, examining both Kuyper and Schilder’s eschatological visions of culture, in order to discern how Christians in the present ought to understand their cultural task in light of the future. To frame this proposal, this study will survey the nature of the divide between Kuyper and Schilder on culture and common grace, before turning to their respective eschatological visions for culture to begin to work of synthesizing their views.
The Nature of the Divide
Beginning with the end of all things is a fitting endeavor in the study of Schilder’s theology of culture. “All threads of life and revelation,” he says, “lead in the end to heaven.”6 Though his thoughts on the cultural life of the eschaton certainly diverge from Kuyper’s, they do find significant common ground here as well. Schilder’s main conflict with Kuyper concerns instead the beginning of history. Kuyper is famous for his expansion of the doctrine of common grace in Reformed thought as the basis for his theology of cultural life. For Kuyper, God’s design for his creation is for humanity, his vice-regents, to develop the hidden potential sown into the created order as seeds awaiting germination.7 Cultural life, that is, the fruit of human labor as they interact together with God’s created order, is but one element of this latency.8 Humanity is charged with the task of creation’s development in Genesis 1:26–28 as part of God’s command to both fill the earth and to subdue it. The fall and the entrance of sin into the life of humanity, however, raises the question of how such a task and humanity’s capacity to fulfill it is affected by so deep a rift in God’s design for things. For Kuyper, God’s common grace accounts for the existential reality that humanity has indeed been able to develop creation’s latent potentials, sometimes for better though often for worse. Common grace, therefore, serves as Kuyper’s account for how cultural life remains possible, and reveals that God’s design for his creation has not been aborted, but continues to unfold and advance in this life prior to its consummation in the eschaton.9
Schilder, writing a generation after Kuyper, rejected Kuyper’s accounting for human cultural life in common grace, partly because of what he saw as problems inherent in Kuyper’s doctrine of divine providence. While both Kuyper and Schilder adamantly embraced a supralapsarian vision of God’s eternal decrees, the nature of Schilder’s critique highlights the supralapsarian tendency to frame the situation in more absolute terms.10 For Schilder, it cannot be the case that what allows both sinful humanity and the redeemed to both seemingly develop culture can be called grace.11 In reality, what Kuyper calls “grace” is simply the prolonging of judgment that will ultimately result in grace for the elect but condemnation for the reprobate, justified by reprobate humanity’s sinfulness manifest and magnified by their cultural labors.12 What accounts for present cultural life is a common “tempering” of God’s judgment against sin, so that his equal plans of both grace and wrath might come to completion in history.13
Despite such a dire prognosis, Schilder does retain a fundamentally positive view towards human cultural life, going so far as to call cultural abstention on the part of Christians a sin against God’s creational calling.14 For Schilder, cultural life is one area of responsibility for humanity under God’s covenant of works, which God entered into with the whole human race via Adam in paradise. This covenant bears actual expectations for faithfulness, namely to live out the fullness of the imago dei for which God created humanity and to the development of creation’s latencies in cultural life—covenant expectations which remain in force for all humanity even today.15
One Culture or Two?
One can begin to see in the above outline of Schilder’s thought the emergence of his emphasis on the antithesis. For Schilder, to properly speak of culture in its present reality is to speak only in connection with its ultimate telos. The problem of the fall is that it detaches human cultural striving from its proper integration with right orientation of cultural life, which hinges on right worship of God.16 The hope of the work of Christ is that regeneration restores the possibility of properly integrated cultural labor, that is work which sees “every part in its proper place in the whole”—even if this is only provisionally possible this side of the eschaton.17 The recognition this brings is that according to Schilder’s thought the vast majority of cultural development throughout history is debilitated by sin, even if cultural life as such remains inherently good according to God’s designs.
Read More

Wolves revile those who challenge them. They use pious words to cloak their malice and then blame their agitation on their victims. When called to account, false teachers may leave the scene of their crimes fully convinced of their own faithfulness and the justness of their cause. But a wolf’s true nature is revealed in the carnage he leaves behind, in the tears and scars of the sheep upon whom he’s preyed.

The Bible commands Christians, “Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account” (Heb. 13:17, NIV). But God’s Word also tells of times when we shouldn’t trust and submit to leaders. What are the circumstances when honoring God means disobeying, fleeing, or even calling out those who minister in his name?
Paul warned the Ephesians elders of wolves who would come and not spare God’s flock (Acts 20:29). The apostle borrows the image of the wolf directly from Jesus (John 10:12; Matt. 7:15). As patterns of abuse come to light in the church, we urgently need this biblical warning that shows us the difference between a godly shepherd and one who preys upon the sheep.
False teaching—preaching “a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6–7)—is a primary way a wolf reveals his true nature, but what are some other ways to tell a true shepherd from a wolf in sheep’s clothing?
Anatomy of a Wolf
Identifying wolves is difficult because the marks of a dangerous soul seldom manifest in physical appearance. Even more, false teachers are people made in God’s image. A wolf shows his humanity in his seemingly healthy relationships. His personal charisma and the genuine good his ministry accomplishes can further hide his true nature from others, and even from the wolf himself.
But the Bible teaches us that a wolf’s ignorance of his own identity does not excuse his behavior. False prophets may come in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15), but there are clear signs that reveal wolves for who they really are.
1. Wolves emphasize gifting over character.
When the biblical authors write about the qualifications for church leadership, they emphasize moral graces over ministerial gifts. The apostles repeatedly insist that elders be “above reproach.” They pit the self-control, gentleness, and humility that should characterize true pastoral ministry against the harshness, disrespect of civil authorities, and abuse of church authority that characterizes wolves (Titus 1; 1 Tim. 3; 2 Pet. 2). 
At the final judgment, there will be some who stubbornly insist upon the sincerity of their Christian life but whom Christ will declare that he never knew (Matt. 7:21–23). As proof of their faith, these false teachers will appeal to the mighty works they’ve done in the Lord’s name, including prophecy and even exorcisms!
Read More
Related Posts: