In the second half of Galatians 3, Paul makes three arguments in his case that observance of the Old Testament Law (or Mosaic Law) is not required for justification. The first is the timing of the OT Law (vv. 15-18), the second is the purpose of the OT law (vv. 19-22), and the third is that the OT Law was temporary (vv. 23-25). I was planning to cover all three in this post, to get farther through the book for some of you who are reading Luther's commentary along with me (you're going too fast for me!:), but the great Reformer had too many good quotes on the first argument, and I wanted to add a few of my own thoughts. So I'll just cover the first one here. (But I'll try to post about the others soon, so no one gets too far ahead of me in the reading.)
Galatians 3:15-18 says, "Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as referring to many, but rather to one, 'And to your seed,' that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise."
Luther explains Paul's argument in a very clear and helpful way:
God did well in giving the promise so many years before the Law, that it may never be said that righteousness is granted through the Law and not through the promise. If God had meant for us to be justified by the Law, He would have given the Law four hundred and thirty years before the promise, at least He would have given the Law at the same time He gave the promise. But He never breathed a word about the Law until four hundred years after. The promise is therefore better than the Law. The Law does not cancel the promise, but faith in the promised Christ cancels the Law.
The Apostle is careful to mention the exact number of four hundred and thirty years. The wide divergence in the time between the promise and the Law helps to clinch Paul's argument that righteousness is not obtained by the Law. Let me illustrate. A man of great wealth adopts a strange lad for his son. Remember, he does not owe the lad anything. In due time he appoints the lad heir to his entire fortune. Several years later the old man asks the lad to do something for him. And the young lad does it. Can the lad then go around and say that he deserved the inheritance by his obedience to the old man's request ? How can anybody say that righteousness is obtained by obedience to the Law when the Law was given four hundred hundred and thirty years after God's promise of the blessing?
One thing is certain, Abraham was never justified by the Law, for the simple reason that the Law was not in his day. If the Law was non-existent how could Abraham obtain righteousness by the Law? Abraham had nothing else to go by but the promise. This promise he believed and that was counted unto him for righteousness. If the father obtained righteousness through faith, the children get it the same way.
Then Luther applies Paul's words to the doctrinal issues of his own day, in his own inimitable style...
We use the argument of time also. We say our sins were taken away by the death of Christ fifteen hundred years ago, long before there were any religious orders, canons, or rules of penance, merits, etc. What did people do about their sins before these new inventions were hatched up?
Even though Luther's brilliant style is inimitable, I'm going to try and imitate it anyway, with some similar questions about issues in our day. My intention is not to offend, or even to solve anything, but merely to provoke thought...
How did the church ever evangelize and edify people before we had worship accoutrements like sound design, lighting, and TV screens?
How did people get saved before the 19th century inventions of gospel invitations, altar calls, and "the sinner's prayer"?
How did people ever solve their problems prior to modern psychology and psychiatry?
What was the answer to depression before anti-depressants?
How was church leadership successful before they had business management books and seminars?
How did church planting and growth happen before demographic studies?
Was the Holy Spirit at work before the modern Charismatic movement?
How did Christians prosper before they had prosperity teaching?
How did the early church grow so furiously and "turn the world upside down" when they didn't even have any church buildings?
How did we ever get along without the Book of Church Order and other denominational trappings?
Were women ever blessed and happy before feminism?
Were men ever blessed and happy before football?
Could husbands and wives love each other when marriages were arranged?
How did our country function for several hundred years without a complete separation of church and state?
How were people baptized in God's eyes in the thousand years (at least) prior to the recovery (or beginning) of adult-only immersion in the 16th Century?
How did men become pastors before seminaries existed?
And finally... How did we ever even survive without blogs? :)
Monday, September 11, 2017
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
What Martin Luther got right, and one thing he didn't (in his commentary on Galatians 3:10-14)
Maybe you've heard someone say, "Martin Luther got one thing right, and everything else wrong." It's usually said tongue-in-cheek, of course, because it's an overstatement by any standard. But it's a shorthand, attention-getting way of reminding us that many Protestants who love Luther's teaching about justification by faith alone (the "one thing he got right") do not agree with many other things he believed.
When I read his comments on Galatians 3:10-14, my experience reminded me of that saying, because I really liked what he had to say about justification, but I didn't like most of the other things he had to say, because they were about a particular point of doctrine on which I disagree with him. Before we get to that one point, however, let's see what both the apostle Paul and the great Reformer "get right" when they tell us how we can "get right" with God...
Paul says in Galatians 3:10, "For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.'” And Luther comments:
Whoever seeks righteousness by works denies God and makes himself God. He is an Antichrist because he ascribes to his own works the omnipotent capability of conquering sin, death, devil, hell, and the wrath of God. An Antichrist lays claim to the honor of Christ. He is an idolater of himself. The law-righteous person is the worst kind of infidel. Those who intend to obtain righteousness by their own efforts do not say in so many words: "I am God; I am Christ." But it amounts to that. They usurp the divinity and office of Christ. The effect is the same as if they said, "I am Christ; I am a Savior. I save myself and others...." I cannot tell you in words how criminal it is to seek righteousness before God without faith in Christ, by the works of the Law. It is the abomination standing in the holy place. It deposes the Creator and deifies the creature.
Then Paul goes on to say, "That no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, 'The righteous man shall live by faith.' However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, 'He who practices them shall live by them'” (vv. 11-12). And Luther comments:
Paul undertakes to explain the difference between the righteousness of the Law and the righteousness of faith. The righteousness of the Law is the fulfillment of the Law according to the passage: "The man that doeth them shall live in them." The righteousness of faith is to believe the Gospel according to the passage: "The just shall live by faith." The Law is a statement of debit, the Gospel a statement of credit. By this distinction Paul explains why charity which is the commandment of the Law cannot justify, because the Law contributes nothing to our justification. Indeed, works do follow after faith, but faith is not therefore a meritorious work. Faith is a gift. The character and limitations of the Law must be rigidly maintained. When we believe in Christ we live by faith. When we believe in the Law we may be active enough but we have no life. The function of the Law is not to give life; the function of the Law is to kill. True, the Law says: "The man that doeth them shall live in them." But where is the person who can do "them," i.e., love God with all his heart, soul, and mind, and his neighbor as himself?
Paul's words climax at the cross, when he says in verses 13-14, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become 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 would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." And Luther captures the apostle's meaning well:
Paul does not say that Christ was made a curse for Himself. The accent is on the two words "for us." Christ is personally innocent. Personally, He did not deserve to be hanged for any crime of His own doing. But because Christ took the place of others who were sinners, He was hanged like any other transgressor. The Law of Moses leaves no loopholes. It says that a transgressor should be hanged. Who are the other sinners? We are. The sentence of death and everlasting damnation had long been pronounced over us. But Christ took all our sins and died for them on the Cross. "He was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." (Isaiah 53:12.)
Those are true and tremendous words from both the apostle and Reformer! But after that, Luther unfortunately veers away from Paul's intended meaning when he launches into a long discussion of the idea that Jesus actually became a sinner on the cross. In fact, he goes so far as to say it is good to refer to Christ as "a cursed sinner" because of what happened at Calvary. "Although this and similar passages may be properly explained by saying that Christ was made a sacrifice for the curse and for sin," Luther writes, "yet in my judgment it is better to leave these passages stand as they read: Christ was made sin itself; Christ was made the curse itself."
In Luther's defense, it seems that he is over-reacting to the "moral influence" theory of the atonement, which was prevalent in his day (and is trending in ours also). He says at one point, "In separating Christ from us sinners and holding Him up as a holy exemplar, errorists rob us of our best comfort." I do believe that Luther's teaching here is an over-reaction to that error, however, and it is also an example of his tendency to sometimes over-literalize the text, as he did when forming and defending his confusing "consubstantiation" view of the Lord's Supper. (He was known to shout "This is my body!" as if raising his voice and pounding the table somehow made Christ's meaning more literal.)
Luther's own comments in defense of his view reveal some of the problems with it. He quotes Isaiah saying "the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all," but fails to note that this terminology in the Old Testament meant that sin was legally imputed to the sacrifice, which was then treated as if it was guilty. The animal on the altar did not somehow become evil in itself, nor did Christ as the anti-type. He was regarded and treated as we deserved to be (bearing the punishment for our sins) so we could then be regarded and treated as he deserves to be (declared righteous before God). And just as we are legally declared righteous without actually being righteous in ourselves, so our Savior was forsaken and punished by God without actually becoming sinful in himself.
When Luther says, "By faith alone can we become righteous, for faith invests us with the sinlessness of Christ," he surely does not think that our sinlessness is ontological (meaning practically in our character and experience). Therefore it is inconsistent (with his doctrine of justification, in fact) for Luther to believe that Christ's sinfulness was ontological. In this regard I could also mention another passage that is often construed to teach the wrong idea, 2 Corinthians 5:21: "He made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." No Protestant theologian (including Luther) believes that we literally or ontologically become the righteousness of God; rather Paul means that his righteousness has been legally imputed or "reckoned" to us. Likewise, therefore, "he made him to be sin for us" should be understood in a similar way.
Consider for a moment a common illustration of what Christ did for us on the cross, which is a combination of the parable of the forgiving King in Matthew 18 and the fact that terms like redemption and ransom include the idea of a price being paid. In a court stands a man who through his own foolishness owes a huge amount of money he could never repay, and the Judge, moved only by love and compassion, pays the entire debt from his own considerable wealth. Notice in that illustration the Judge doesn't actually become evil, nor does the criminal actually become good (though gratitude will probably cause him to improve afterwards). But a legal and covenantal transaction has taken place in which the Judge has sacrificed so that the criminal can have a clean record. That's what the Scripture means when it says "The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all," "having become a curse for us," and "he made him to be sin for us." Those are figurative expressions describing a profound spiritual reality (much like "This is my body").
How does this deep theological discussion apply to our lives practically? (After all, these are my "personal devotions" that I'm blogging about...I'd better be getting something edifying out of them!:) Well, as much as I love to read Luther, and as right as he is about many things, it's helpful to be reminded that he can be wrong about other things, and that he (like anyone) should be read with discernment. Also, knowing that such a great man can be wrong gives me more patience with others who say things I don't agree with, and makes me realize that I can also be wrong (more than I'd like to admit).
When I read his comments on Galatians 3:10-14, my experience reminded me of that saying, because I really liked what he had to say about justification, but I didn't like most of the other things he had to say, because they were about a particular point of doctrine on which I disagree with him. Before we get to that one point, however, let's see what both the apostle Paul and the great Reformer "get right" when they tell us how we can "get right" with God...
Paul says in Galatians 3:10, "For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.'” And Luther comments:
Whoever seeks righteousness by works denies God and makes himself God. He is an Antichrist because he ascribes to his own works the omnipotent capability of conquering sin, death, devil, hell, and the wrath of God. An Antichrist lays claim to the honor of Christ. He is an idolater of himself. The law-righteous person is the worst kind of infidel. Those who intend to obtain righteousness by their own efforts do not say in so many words: "I am God; I am Christ." But it amounts to that. They usurp the divinity and office of Christ. The effect is the same as if they said, "I am Christ; I am a Savior. I save myself and others...." I cannot tell you in words how criminal it is to seek righteousness before God without faith in Christ, by the works of the Law. It is the abomination standing in the holy place. It deposes the Creator and deifies the creature.
Then Paul goes on to say, "That no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, 'The righteous man shall live by faith.' However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, 'He who practices them shall live by them'” (vv. 11-12). And Luther comments:
Paul undertakes to explain the difference between the righteousness of the Law and the righteousness of faith. The righteousness of the Law is the fulfillment of the Law according to the passage: "The man that doeth them shall live in them." The righteousness of faith is to believe the Gospel according to the passage: "The just shall live by faith." The Law is a statement of debit, the Gospel a statement of credit. By this distinction Paul explains why charity which is the commandment of the Law cannot justify, because the Law contributes nothing to our justification. Indeed, works do follow after faith, but faith is not therefore a meritorious work. Faith is a gift. The character and limitations of the Law must be rigidly maintained. When we believe in Christ we live by faith. When we believe in the Law we may be active enough but we have no life. The function of the Law is not to give life; the function of the Law is to kill. True, the Law says: "The man that doeth them shall live in them." But where is the person who can do "them," i.e., love God with all his heart, soul, and mind, and his neighbor as himself?
Paul's words climax at the cross, when he says in verses 13-14, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become 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 would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." And Luther captures the apostle's meaning well:
Paul does not say that Christ was made a curse for Himself. The accent is on the two words "for us." Christ is personally innocent. Personally, He did not deserve to be hanged for any crime of His own doing. But because Christ took the place of others who were sinners, He was hanged like any other transgressor. The Law of Moses leaves no loopholes. It says that a transgressor should be hanged. Who are the other sinners? We are. The sentence of death and everlasting damnation had long been pronounced over us. But Christ took all our sins and died for them on the Cross. "He was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." (Isaiah 53:12.)
Those are true and tremendous words from both the apostle and Reformer! But after that, Luther unfortunately veers away from Paul's intended meaning when he launches into a long discussion of the idea that Jesus actually became a sinner on the cross. In fact, he goes so far as to say it is good to refer to Christ as "a cursed sinner" because of what happened at Calvary. "Although this and similar passages may be properly explained by saying that Christ was made a sacrifice for the curse and for sin," Luther writes, "yet in my judgment it is better to leave these passages stand as they read: Christ was made sin itself; Christ was made the curse itself."
In Luther's defense, it seems that he is over-reacting to the "moral influence" theory of the atonement, which was prevalent in his day (and is trending in ours also). He says at one point, "In separating Christ from us sinners and holding Him up as a holy exemplar, errorists rob us of our best comfort." I do believe that Luther's teaching here is an over-reaction to that error, however, and it is also an example of his tendency to sometimes over-literalize the text, as he did when forming and defending his confusing "consubstantiation" view of the Lord's Supper. (He was known to shout "This is my body!" as if raising his voice and pounding the table somehow made Christ's meaning more literal.)
Luther's own comments in defense of his view reveal some of the problems with it. He quotes Isaiah saying "the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all," but fails to note that this terminology in the Old Testament meant that sin was legally imputed to the sacrifice, which was then treated as if it was guilty. The animal on the altar did not somehow become evil in itself, nor did Christ as the anti-type. He was regarded and treated as we deserved to be (bearing the punishment for our sins) so we could then be regarded and treated as he deserves to be (declared righteous before God). And just as we are legally declared righteous without actually being righteous in ourselves, so our Savior was forsaken and punished by God without actually becoming sinful in himself.
When Luther says, "By faith alone can we become righteous, for faith invests us with the sinlessness of Christ," he surely does not think that our sinlessness is ontological (meaning practically in our character and experience). Therefore it is inconsistent (with his doctrine of justification, in fact) for Luther to believe that Christ's sinfulness was ontological. In this regard I could also mention another passage that is often construed to teach the wrong idea, 2 Corinthians 5:21: "He made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." No Protestant theologian (including Luther) believes that we literally or ontologically become the righteousness of God; rather Paul means that his righteousness has been legally imputed or "reckoned" to us. Likewise, therefore, "he made him to be sin for us" should be understood in a similar way.
Consider for a moment a common illustration of what Christ did for us on the cross, which is a combination of the parable of the forgiving King in Matthew 18 and the fact that terms like redemption and ransom include the idea of a price being paid. In a court stands a man who through his own foolishness owes a huge amount of money he could never repay, and the Judge, moved only by love and compassion, pays the entire debt from his own considerable wealth. Notice in that illustration the Judge doesn't actually become evil, nor does the criminal actually become good (though gratitude will probably cause him to improve afterwards). But a legal and covenantal transaction has taken place in which the Judge has sacrificed so that the criminal can have a clean record. That's what the Scripture means when it says "The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all," "having become a curse for us," and "he made him to be sin for us." Those are figurative expressions describing a profound spiritual reality (much like "This is my body").
How does this deep theological discussion apply to our lives practically? (After all, these are my "personal devotions" that I'm blogging about...I'd better be getting something edifying out of them!:) Well, as much as I love to read Luther, and as right as he is about many things, it's helpful to be reminded that he can be wrong about other things, and that he (like anyone) should be read with discernment. Also, knowing that such a great man can be wrong gives me more patience with others who say things I don't agree with, and makes me realize that I can also be wrong (more than I'd like to admit).
Sunday, August 27, 2017
Blessed for Doing Nothing (Martin Luther on Galatians 3:1-9)
As Paul continues his defense of justification by faith alone in the book of Galatians, and Luther continues his commentary on it, they make their case based on two powerful illustrations.
The first one is the experience that the Galatian believers had when they first received the Holy Spirit, along with the miraculous signs that accompanied His work in their lives. Paul says in verses 1-5, "You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you...? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?... So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?" Apparently what happened to the Galatians when they received the Spirit was very similar to the experience of Cornelius's household, which is recorded in Acts 10:44-48.
Luther mentions the connection when he is paraphrasing Paul's message to the Galatians:
In your own case, you have not only learned the Law by heart, you have labored with all your might to perform it. You most of all should have received the Holy Ghost by the Law, if that were possible. You cannot show me that this ever happened. But as soon as the Gospel came your way, you received the Holy Ghost by the simple hearing of faith, before you ever had a chance to do a single good deed." Luke verifies this statement of Paul in the Book of Acts: "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word." (Acts 10:44.) "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning." (Acts 11:15.)
How was it with Cornelius? Cornelius and his friends whom he had invited over to his house, do nothing but sit and listen. Peter is doing the talking. They just sit and do nothing. The Law is far removed from their thoughts. They burn no sacrifices. They are not at all interested in circumcision. All they do is to sit and listen to Peter. Suddenly the Holy Ghost enters their hearts. His presence is unmistakable, "for they spoke with tongues and magnified God."
Not only did the Galatians (and the first Gentile believers before them) receive the Holy Spirit while they were doing nothing to contribute to that great blessing, but Paul goes on to give a second example, which is Abraham, the father of all the faithful. He says in verses 6-9, "Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'All the nations will be blessed in you.' So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer."
I have often noticed and remarked on the fact that when Abraham was justified (declared righteous before God), he was doing nothing, and he did nothing to receive that greatest of all blessings. God simply told him to look at the stars and then promised to make his descendants that numerous, etc. "Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness" (Gen. 15:6). Abraham didn't do anything good; he didn't even say a prayer; he was simply and passively trusting in the promises of God. Of course he did good things later, like being willing to sacrifice Isaac, which proved his faith to be genuine and confirmed his justification. But when he first received it, he was "doing nothing."
There are a number of practical implications for us from these examples, but before I mention some others, I want to let the great Reformer speak to the most important one, which is how we can be assured of our justification, adoption, and future glorification in heaven...
We must learn that forgiveness of sins, Christ, and the Holy Ghost, are freely granted unto us at the preaching of faith, in spite of our sinfulness. We are not to waste time thinking how unworthy we are of the blessings of God. We are to know that it pleased God freely to give us His unspeakable gifts. If He offers His gifts free of charge, why not take them? Why worry about our lack of worthiness? Why not accept gifts with joy and thanksgiving?
What did Jesus say to Martha when she was very "careful and troubled about many things" and could hardly stand to see her sister Mary sitting at the feet of Jesus, just listening? "Martha, Martha," Jesus said, "thou art careful and troubled about many things: but one thing is needful; and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her." A person becomes a Christian not by working, but by hearing. The first step to being a Christian is to hear the Gospel. When a person has accepted the Gospel, let him first give thanks unto God with a glad heart, and then let him get busy on the good works to strive for, works that really please God, and not man-made and self-chosen works.
Learn to understand the constitution of your Christian righteousness. Faith is weak, but it means enough to God that He will not lay sin to our charge. He will not punish nor condemn us for it. He will forgive our sins as though they amount to nothing at all. He will do it not because we are worthy of such mercy. He will do it for Jesus' sake in whom we believe.
We comfort the afflicted sinner in this manner: Brother, you can never be perfect in this life, but you can be holy. He will say: "How can I be holy when I feel my sins?" I answer: You feel sin? That is a good sign. To realize that one is ill is a step, and a very necessary step, toward recovery. "But how will I get rid of my sin?" he will ask. I answer: See the heavenly Physician, Christ, who heals the broken-hearted.
A Christian is beloved of God and a sinner. How can these two contradictions be harmonized: I am a sinner and deserve God's wrath and punishment, and yet the Father loves me? Christ alone can harmonize these contradictions. He is the Mediator.
That is by far the most important application of this passage to our lives, but I thought of a few others that I will add here, as food for thought...
1) The fact that justification and the gift of the Holy Spirit were bestowed on people who were "doing nothing" supports the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation. Just like Jonah was brought to the end of himself and cried out "Salvation is of the Lord!" (Jonah 2:9), so we must realize that we make no contribution to ours--rather it is all of grace. Even faith itself is not meritorious in any sense, but is part of the free gift that salvation is repeatedly said to be (John 6:65, Eph. 2:8-9, Phil. 1:29). In fact, it seems that in Paul's writings especially, justification by faith and not by works is a kind of shorthand for "you didn't do anything to earn it, or even initiate it."
2) This also sheds light on the role of our decisions and responses in conversion. Often people think that God responds to an act of our will when he saves us (we say "accept Jesus in your heart" or "make a decision for Christ"), or that "the sinner's prayer" or similar physical responses (walking an aisle, getting baptized, etc.) somehow cause God to grant us forgiveness. But someone who truly believes has already been saved by God before they make sincere confession or repentance or any other commitment to Christ. It is good to encourage people to confess Christ as Lord, be baptized, join a church, etc...those responses to God's grace are in the Bible. But we must always make sure they don't think they are somehow earning God's favor or otherwise cutting a deal with him. (For more about this, see my posts about evangelism here and here.)
3) Finally, the Galatians must have received the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit spontaneously and unexpectedly, while they were "doing nothing," because the point of the passage doesn't make sense any other way. That calls into question a lot of the so-called miraculous experiences that are claimed today, because people often have to be taught or otherwise prepared to receive them. Take speaking in tongues, for example, since that was probably a part of the Galatians' Holy Spirit experience: In most cases today, that gift doesn't just come upon people as they are listening to the gospel proclaimed--they have to be coached, watch others do it, or at least hear about it before they start practicing it. Not to mention the many other issues like the biblical gift being real human languages, the historical purpose of the sign to usher in the New Covenant age of the Gentiles, and the absence of the required interpretation in much of its practice today.
More on that some other time perhaps. But for now, join me in thanking God that his grace is so great and free that we can actually be blessed for doing nothing!
The first one is the experience that the Galatian believers had when they first received the Holy Spirit, along with the miraculous signs that accompanied His work in their lives. Paul says in verses 1-5, "You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you...? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?... So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?" Apparently what happened to the Galatians when they received the Spirit was very similar to the experience of Cornelius's household, which is recorded in Acts 10:44-48.
Luther mentions the connection when he is paraphrasing Paul's message to the Galatians:
In your own case, you have not only learned the Law by heart, you have labored with all your might to perform it. You most of all should have received the Holy Ghost by the Law, if that were possible. You cannot show me that this ever happened. But as soon as the Gospel came your way, you received the Holy Ghost by the simple hearing of faith, before you ever had a chance to do a single good deed." Luke verifies this statement of Paul in the Book of Acts: "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word." (Acts 10:44.) "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning." (Acts 11:15.)
How was it with Cornelius? Cornelius and his friends whom he had invited over to his house, do nothing but sit and listen. Peter is doing the talking. They just sit and do nothing. The Law is far removed from their thoughts. They burn no sacrifices. They are not at all interested in circumcision. All they do is to sit and listen to Peter. Suddenly the Holy Ghost enters their hearts. His presence is unmistakable, "for they spoke with tongues and magnified God."
Not only did the Galatians (and the first Gentile believers before them) receive the Holy Spirit while they were doing nothing to contribute to that great blessing, but Paul goes on to give a second example, which is Abraham, the father of all the faithful. He says in verses 6-9, "Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'All the nations will be blessed in you.' So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer."
I have often noticed and remarked on the fact that when Abraham was justified (declared righteous before God), he was doing nothing, and he did nothing to receive that greatest of all blessings. God simply told him to look at the stars and then promised to make his descendants that numerous, etc. "Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness" (Gen. 15:6). Abraham didn't do anything good; he didn't even say a prayer; he was simply and passively trusting in the promises of God. Of course he did good things later, like being willing to sacrifice Isaac, which proved his faith to be genuine and confirmed his justification. But when he first received it, he was "doing nothing."
There are a number of practical implications for us from these examples, but before I mention some others, I want to let the great Reformer speak to the most important one, which is how we can be assured of our justification, adoption, and future glorification in heaven...
We must learn that forgiveness of sins, Christ, and the Holy Ghost, are freely granted unto us at the preaching of faith, in spite of our sinfulness. We are not to waste time thinking how unworthy we are of the blessings of God. We are to know that it pleased God freely to give us His unspeakable gifts. If He offers His gifts free of charge, why not take them? Why worry about our lack of worthiness? Why not accept gifts with joy and thanksgiving?
What did Jesus say to Martha when she was very "careful and troubled about many things" and could hardly stand to see her sister Mary sitting at the feet of Jesus, just listening? "Martha, Martha," Jesus said, "thou art careful and troubled about many things: but one thing is needful; and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her." A person becomes a Christian not by working, but by hearing. The first step to being a Christian is to hear the Gospel. When a person has accepted the Gospel, let him first give thanks unto God with a glad heart, and then let him get busy on the good works to strive for, works that really please God, and not man-made and self-chosen works.
Learn to understand the constitution of your Christian righteousness. Faith is weak, but it means enough to God that He will not lay sin to our charge. He will not punish nor condemn us for it. He will forgive our sins as though they amount to nothing at all. He will do it not because we are worthy of such mercy. He will do it for Jesus' sake in whom we believe.
We comfort the afflicted sinner in this manner: Brother, you can never be perfect in this life, but you can be holy. He will say: "How can I be holy when I feel my sins?" I answer: You feel sin? That is a good sign. To realize that one is ill is a step, and a very necessary step, toward recovery. "But how will I get rid of my sin?" he will ask. I answer: See the heavenly Physician, Christ, who heals the broken-hearted.
A Christian is beloved of God and a sinner. How can these two contradictions be harmonized: I am a sinner and deserve God's wrath and punishment, and yet the Father loves me? Christ alone can harmonize these contradictions. He is the Mediator.
That is by far the most important application of this passage to our lives, but I thought of a few others that I will add here, as food for thought...
1) The fact that justification and the gift of the Holy Spirit were bestowed on people who were "doing nothing" supports the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation. Just like Jonah was brought to the end of himself and cried out "Salvation is of the Lord!" (Jonah 2:9), so we must realize that we make no contribution to ours--rather it is all of grace. Even faith itself is not meritorious in any sense, but is part of the free gift that salvation is repeatedly said to be (John 6:65, Eph. 2:8-9, Phil. 1:29). In fact, it seems that in Paul's writings especially, justification by faith and not by works is a kind of shorthand for "you didn't do anything to earn it, or even initiate it."
2) This also sheds light on the role of our decisions and responses in conversion. Often people think that God responds to an act of our will when he saves us (we say "accept Jesus in your heart" or "make a decision for Christ"), or that "the sinner's prayer" or similar physical responses (walking an aisle, getting baptized, etc.) somehow cause God to grant us forgiveness. But someone who truly believes has already been saved by God before they make sincere confession or repentance or any other commitment to Christ. It is good to encourage people to confess Christ as Lord, be baptized, join a church, etc...those responses to God's grace are in the Bible. But we must always make sure they don't think they are somehow earning God's favor or otherwise cutting a deal with him. (For more about this, see my posts about evangelism here and here.)
3) Finally, the Galatians must have received the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit spontaneously and unexpectedly, while they were "doing nothing," because the point of the passage doesn't make sense any other way. That calls into question a lot of the so-called miraculous experiences that are claimed today, because people often have to be taught or otherwise prepared to receive them. Take speaking in tongues, for example, since that was probably a part of the Galatians' Holy Spirit experience: In most cases today, that gift doesn't just come upon people as they are listening to the gospel proclaimed--they have to be coached, watch others do it, or at least hear about it before they start practicing it. Not to mention the many other issues like the biblical gift being real human languages, the historical purpose of the sign to usher in the New Covenant age of the Gentiles, and the absence of the required interpretation in much of its practice today.
More on that some other time perhaps. But for now, join me in thanking God that his grace is so great and free that we can actually be blessed for doing nothing!
Monday, August 21, 2017
"I've got good news and bad news..." (Luther's commentary on Galatians 2:20-21)
In a wonderful and creative way, Paul summarizes his doctrine of justification by faith alone in a positive way in verse 20, and then in the (often overlooked) next verse he warns us sternly about the consequences of neglecting or perverting the free grace of Christ. Luther's comments on the passage are almost as powerful as the passage itself.
The good news
Paul writes, "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me."
Luther sums up the basic meaning of the verse with his usual personal, practical, and pastoral concern:
Paul explains what constitutes true Christian righteousness. True Christian righteousness is the righteousness of Christ who lives in us. We must look away from our own person. Christ and my conscience must become one, so that I can see nothing else but Christ crucified and raised from the dead for me. If I keep on looking at myself, I am gone. If we lose sight of Christ and begin to consider our past, we simply go to pieces. We must turn our eyes to the brazen serpent, Christ crucified, and believe with all our heart that He is our righteousness and our life. For Christ, on whom our eyes are fixed, in whom we live, who lives in us, is Lord over Law, sin, death, and all evil....
Since Christ is now living in me, He abolishes the Law, condemns sin, and destroys death in me. These foes vanish in His presence. Christ abiding in me drives out every evil. This union with Christ delivers me from the demands of the Law, and separates me from my sinful self. As long as I abide in Christ, nothing can hurt me. Christ domiciling in me, the old Adam has to stay outside and remain subject to the Law. Think what grace, righteousness, life, peace, and salvation there is in me, thanks to that inseparable conjunction between Christ and me through faith!
When I got to the last part of the verse in Luther's commentary, I knew he would probably wax eloquent on the wonderful words there about Christ's love and sacrifice. I looked forward to seeing how he would "speak in thunderbolts," as Spurgeon said about him. But little did I know that Luther himself would describe Paul's words in that way...
The words, "The Son of God who loved me, and gave Himself for me," are so many thunderclaps and lightning bolts of protest from heaven against the righteousness of the Law. The wickedness, error, darkness, ignorance in my mind and my will were so great, that it was quite impossible for me to be saved by any other means than by the inestimable price of Christ's death.
And then Luther throws out a few of his own thunderbolts when he comments on the words "for me"...
Who is this "me"? I, wretched and damnable sinner, dearly beloved of the Son of God. If I could by work or merit love the Son of God and come to Him, why should He have sacrificed Himself for me?....Read the words "me" and "for me" with great emphasis. Print this "me" with capital letters in your heart, and do not ever doubt that you belong to the number of those who are meant by this "me." Christ did not only love Peter and Paul. The same love He felt for them He feels for us. If we cannot deny that we are sinners, we cannot deny that Christ died for our sins.
The bad news
The passage doesn't end there, however, as Paul goes on to say in verse 21, "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” Here is an implicit warning that becomes much more explicit later in the book (3:4, 4:11, 5:2-4): if we add anything to faith in Christ alone, or trust in anything else in addition to Him, we will not be saved. (And remember, he's talking to very religious people who call themselves Christians.)
On that topic, Luther has a few more thunderbolts to hit us with...
We despise the grace of God when we observe the Law for the purpose of being justified. The Law is good, holy, and profitable, but it does not justify. To keep the Law in order to be justified means to reject grace, to deny Christ, to despise His sacrifice, and to be lost.
If my salvation was so difficult to accomplish that it necessitated the death of Christ, then all my works, all the righteousness of the Law, are good for nothing. How can I buy for a penny what cost a million dollars? The Law is a penny's worth when you compare it with Christ. Should I be so stupid as to reject the righteousness of Christ which cost me nothing, and slave like a fool to achieve the righteousness of the Law?
The good news
Paul writes, "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me."
Luther sums up the basic meaning of the verse with his usual personal, practical, and pastoral concern:
Paul explains what constitutes true Christian righteousness. True Christian righteousness is the righteousness of Christ who lives in us. We must look away from our own person. Christ and my conscience must become one, so that I can see nothing else but Christ crucified and raised from the dead for me. If I keep on looking at myself, I am gone. If we lose sight of Christ and begin to consider our past, we simply go to pieces. We must turn our eyes to the brazen serpent, Christ crucified, and believe with all our heart that He is our righteousness and our life. For Christ, on whom our eyes are fixed, in whom we live, who lives in us, is Lord over Law, sin, death, and all evil....
Since Christ is now living in me, He abolishes the Law, condemns sin, and destroys death in me. These foes vanish in His presence. Christ abiding in me drives out every evil. This union with Christ delivers me from the demands of the Law, and separates me from my sinful self. As long as I abide in Christ, nothing can hurt me. Christ domiciling in me, the old Adam has to stay outside and remain subject to the Law. Think what grace, righteousness, life, peace, and salvation there is in me, thanks to that inseparable conjunction between Christ and me through faith!
When I got to the last part of the verse in Luther's commentary, I knew he would probably wax eloquent on the wonderful words there about Christ's love and sacrifice. I looked forward to seeing how he would "speak in thunderbolts," as Spurgeon said about him. But little did I know that Luther himself would describe Paul's words in that way...
The words, "The Son of God who loved me, and gave Himself for me," are so many thunderclaps and lightning bolts of protest from heaven against the righteousness of the Law. The wickedness, error, darkness, ignorance in my mind and my will were so great, that it was quite impossible for me to be saved by any other means than by the inestimable price of Christ's death.
And then Luther throws out a few of his own thunderbolts when he comments on the words "for me"...
Who is this "me"? I, wretched and damnable sinner, dearly beloved of the Son of God. If I could by work or merit love the Son of God and come to Him, why should He have sacrificed Himself for me?....Read the words "me" and "for me" with great emphasis. Print this "me" with capital letters in your heart, and do not ever doubt that you belong to the number of those who are meant by this "me." Christ did not only love Peter and Paul. The same love He felt for them He feels for us. If we cannot deny that we are sinners, we cannot deny that Christ died for our sins.
The bad news
The passage doesn't end there, however, as Paul goes on to say in verse 21, "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” Here is an implicit warning that becomes much more explicit later in the book (3:4, 4:11, 5:2-4): if we add anything to faith in Christ alone, or trust in anything else in addition to Him, we will not be saved. (And remember, he's talking to very religious people who call themselves Christians.)
On that topic, Luther has a few more thunderbolts to hit us with...
We despise the grace of God when we observe the Law for the purpose of being justified. The Law is good, holy, and profitable, but it does not justify. To keep the Law in order to be justified means to reject grace, to deny Christ, to despise His sacrifice, and to be lost.
If my salvation was so difficult to accomplish that it necessitated the death of Christ, then all my works, all the righteousness of the Law, are good for nothing. How can I buy for a penny what cost a million dollars? The Law is a penny's worth when you compare it with Christ. Should I be so stupid as to reject the righteousness of Christ which cost me nothing, and slave like a fool to achieve the righteousness of the Law?
Saturday, August 19, 2017
The biggest problem for Catholics (and many Protestants too) (Martin Luther on Galatians 2:16-19)
I'll make less comments myself in this post, and mostly let Luther speak, because this was a "mountain top" passage for him in his fight against the error of his day (which sadly continues down to the present). And I must allow him to speak not only generally to the false teaching of justification by faith and works, but also to the specific religious system that was teaching it. And unfortunately this still needs to be said in our current age, because the Roman Catholic Church condemned the Pauline and Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone at the Council of Trent in the 16th Century, and has never changed its position since then.
In his commentary on Galatians Luther had no choice but to apply Paul's teaching to the Catholic Church, because it was dominating the religious and cultural landscape of his day, and because it had recently condemned him as a heretic, placing his life in serious danger. But as you read the quotes, notice how he also applies the truth of the passage in a way that all souls, whether Catholic or Protestant, ancient or modern, can benefit from it. In our personal lives we all tend to make the mistakes that have been made institutionally, like missing the distinction between faith and works, confusing justification and sanctification, and allowing our sins and failures to steal our joy or immobilize us when we should be walking in the freedom and power of God's grace.
So let's listen to some of the verbal "thunderbolts" of the great Reformer on the topic that many say he understood better than any other (justification by faith alone). In this first quote he answers interesting questions like "Were there no true believers in the Medieval church?" and "Why did it fall into such disrepair?" These comments are on verse 16, "For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified"...
The papists do not believe this. They say, "A person who performs this good deed or that, deserves the forgiveness of his sins. A person who joins this or that holy order, has the promise of everlasting life." To me it is a miracle that the Church, so long surrounded surrounded by vicious sects, has been able to survive at all. God must have been able to call a few who in their failure to discover any good in themselves to cite against the wrath and judgment of God, simply took to the suffering and death of Christ, and were saved by this simple faith. Nevertheless God has punished the contempt of the Gospel and of Christ on the part of the papists, by turning them over to a reprobate state of mind in which they reject the Gospel, and receive with gusto the abominable rules, ordinances, and traditions of men in preference to the Word of God, until they went so far as to forbid marriage. God punished them justly, because they blasphemed the only Son of God.
Soon after Luther gets more personal and universal in his application:
The conscience knows how impossible it is for a person to fulfill the Law. Why, the Law makes trouble even for those who have the Holy Spirit. What will not the Law do in the case of the wicked who do not even have the Holy Spirit? The Law requires perfect obedience. It condemns all do not accomplish the will of God. But show me a person who is able to render perfect obedience. The Law cannot justify. It can only condemn according to the passage: "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."
And then he combines his theological criticism of Catholicism with his pastoral concerns for the needs of people, and provides this extended discussion that includes a practical example of how comfort is given to someone facing death (which applies to all of us, of course)...
By the grace of God we know that we are justified through faith in Christ alone. We do not mingle law and grace, faith and works. We keep them far apart. Let every true Christian mark the distinction between law and grace, and mark it well.
We must not drag good works into the article of justification as the monks do who maintain that not only good works, but also the punishment which evildoers suffer for their wicked deeds, deserve everlasting life. When a criminal is brought to the place of execution, the monks try to comfort him in this manner: "You want to die willingly and patiently, and then you will merit remission of your sins and eternal life." What cruelty is this, that a wretched thief, murderer, robber should be so miserably misguided in his extreme distress, that at the very point of death he should be denied the sweet promises of Christ, and directed to hope for pardon of his sins in the willingness and patience with which he is about to suffer death for his crimes? The monks are showing him the paved way to hell.
These hypocrites do not know the first thing about grace, the Gospel, or Christ. They retain the appearance and the name of the Gospel and of Christ for a decoy only. In their confessional writings faith or the merit of Christ are never mentioned. In their writings they play up the merits of man, as can readily be seen from the following form of absolution used among the monks.
"God forgive thee, brother. The merit of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the blessed Saint Mary, always a virgin, and of all the saints; the merit of thy order, the strictness of thy religion, the humility of thy profession, the contrition of thy heart, the good works thou hast done and shalt do for the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, be available unto thee for the remission of thy sins, the increase of thy worth and grace, and the reward of everlasting life. Amen."
True, the merit of Christ is mentioned in this formula of absolution. But if you look closer you will notice that Christ's merit is belittled, while monkish merits are aggrandized. They confess Christ with their lips, and at the same time deny His power to save. I myself was at one time entangled in this error. I thought Christ was a judge and had to be pacified by a strict adherence to the rules of my order. But now I give thanks unto God, the Father of all mercies, who has called me out of darkness into the light of His glorious Gospel, and has granted unto me the saving knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord.
We conclude with Paul, that we are justified by faith in Christ, without the Law. Once a person has been justified by Christ, he will not be unproductive of good, but as a good tree he will bring forth good fruit. A believer has the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit will not permit a person to remain idle, but will put him to work and stir him up to the love of God, to patient suffering in affliction, to prayer, thanksgiving, to the habit of charity towards all men.
Notice Luther's emphasis in the last paragraph on the importance of good works in the life of the Christian, and even their role in proving the genuineness of faith. (As Luther was known to say, "Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is never alone.") This and the many other similar references in his Galatians commentary put the lie to the idea that he had too little concern for obedience to the law of God. No, he just wanted our good works to be put in their proper place, as an effect of our justification rather than a cause for it.
In his commentary on Galatians Luther had no choice but to apply Paul's teaching to the Catholic Church, because it was dominating the religious and cultural landscape of his day, and because it had recently condemned him as a heretic, placing his life in serious danger. But as you read the quotes, notice how he also applies the truth of the passage in a way that all souls, whether Catholic or Protestant, ancient or modern, can benefit from it. In our personal lives we all tend to make the mistakes that have been made institutionally, like missing the distinction between faith and works, confusing justification and sanctification, and allowing our sins and failures to steal our joy or immobilize us when we should be walking in the freedom and power of God's grace.
So let's listen to some of the verbal "thunderbolts" of the great Reformer on the topic that many say he understood better than any other (justification by faith alone). In this first quote he answers interesting questions like "Were there no true believers in the Medieval church?" and "Why did it fall into such disrepair?" These comments are on verse 16, "For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified"...
The papists do not believe this. They say, "A person who performs this good deed or that, deserves the forgiveness of his sins. A person who joins this or that holy order, has the promise of everlasting life." To me it is a miracle that the Church, so long surrounded surrounded by vicious sects, has been able to survive at all. God must have been able to call a few who in their failure to discover any good in themselves to cite against the wrath and judgment of God, simply took to the suffering and death of Christ, and were saved by this simple faith. Nevertheless God has punished the contempt of the Gospel and of Christ on the part of the papists, by turning them over to a reprobate state of mind in which they reject the Gospel, and receive with gusto the abominable rules, ordinances, and traditions of men in preference to the Word of God, until they went so far as to forbid marriage. God punished them justly, because they blasphemed the only Son of God.
Soon after Luther gets more personal and universal in his application:
The conscience knows how impossible it is for a person to fulfill the Law. Why, the Law makes trouble even for those who have the Holy Spirit. What will not the Law do in the case of the wicked who do not even have the Holy Spirit? The Law requires perfect obedience. It condemns all do not accomplish the will of God. But show me a person who is able to render perfect obedience. The Law cannot justify. It can only condemn according to the passage: "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."
And then he combines his theological criticism of Catholicism with his pastoral concerns for the needs of people, and provides this extended discussion that includes a practical example of how comfort is given to someone facing death (which applies to all of us, of course)...
By the grace of God we know that we are justified through faith in Christ alone. We do not mingle law and grace, faith and works. We keep them far apart. Let every true Christian mark the distinction between law and grace, and mark it well.
We must not drag good works into the article of justification as the monks do who maintain that not only good works, but also the punishment which evildoers suffer for their wicked deeds, deserve everlasting life. When a criminal is brought to the place of execution, the monks try to comfort him in this manner: "You want to die willingly and patiently, and then you will merit remission of your sins and eternal life." What cruelty is this, that a wretched thief, murderer, robber should be so miserably misguided in his extreme distress, that at the very point of death he should be denied the sweet promises of Christ, and directed to hope for pardon of his sins in the willingness and patience with which he is about to suffer death for his crimes? The monks are showing him the paved way to hell.
These hypocrites do not know the first thing about grace, the Gospel, or Christ. They retain the appearance and the name of the Gospel and of Christ for a decoy only. In their confessional writings faith or the merit of Christ are never mentioned. In their writings they play up the merits of man, as can readily be seen from the following form of absolution used among the monks.
"God forgive thee, brother. The merit of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the blessed Saint Mary, always a virgin, and of all the saints; the merit of thy order, the strictness of thy religion, the humility of thy profession, the contrition of thy heart, the good works thou hast done and shalt do for the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, be available unto thee for the remission of thy sins, the increase of thy worth and grace, and the reward of everlasting life. Amen."
True, the merit of Christ is mentioned in this formula of absolution. But if you look closer you will notice that Christ's merit is belittled, while monkish merits are aggrandized. They confess Christ with their lips, and at the same time deny His power to save. I myself was at one time entangled in this error. I thought Christ was a judge and had to be pacified by a strict adherence to the rules of my order. But now I give thanks unto God, the Father of all mercies, who has called me out of darkness into the light of His glorious Gospel, and has granted unto me the saving knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord.
We conclude with Paul, that we are justified by faith in Christ, without the Law. Once a person has been justified by Christ, he will not be unproductive of good, but as a good tree he will bring forth good fruit. A believer has the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit will not permit a person to remain idle, but will put him to work and stir him up to the love of God, to patient suffering in affliction, to prayer, thanksgiving, to the habit of charity towards all men.
Notice Luther's emphasis in the last paragraph on the importance of good works in the life of the Christian, and even their role in proving the genuineness of faith. (As Luther was known to say, "Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is never alone.") This and the many other similar references in his Galatians commentary put the lie to the idea that he had too little concern for obedience to the law of God. No, he just wanted our good works to be put in their proper place, as an effect of our justification rather than a cause for it.
Saturday, August 12, 2017
Paul rebukes Peter (and us) (Luther's commentary on Galatians 2:11-15)
In my reading of Galatians and Martin Luther's commentary on it, I've come to the famous passage where the apostle Paul rebukes the apostle Peter. This passage complements the one I talked about in my last post, because that one was about the importance of reputation and this one is about someone whose reputation was too important to him. It also sheds light on the overall theme of the book and provides some helpful insight into the nature of true faith and conversion.
You might have heard Peter referred to as "the disciple with the foot-shaped mouth" because of how he was always saying ill-advised things in an impulsive manner and often had to be rebuked by Christ. Well, here he gets in trouble for doing something else with his mouth, or rather what he was not doing with it. "For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision" (v. 12). Luther explains why Paul had to rebuke him for this:
To live as a Jew is nothing bad. To eat or not to eat pork, what difference does it make? But to play the Jew, and for conscience' sake to abstain from certain meats, is a denial of Christ. When Paul saw that Peter's attitude tended to this, he withstood Peter and said to him: "You know that the observance of the law is not needed unto righteousness. You know that we are justified by faith in Christ. You know that we may eat all kinds of meats. Yet by your example you obligate the Gentiles to forsake Christ, and to return to the Law. You give them reason to think that faith is not sufficient unto salvation." Peter did not say so, but his example said quite plainly that the observance of the Law must be added to faith in Christ, if men are to be saved. From Peter's example the Gentiles could not help but draw the conclusion that the Law was necessary unto salvation. If this error had been permitted to pass unchallenged, Christ would have lost out altogether. The controversy involved the preservation of pure doctrine. In such a controversy Paul did not mind if anybody took offense.
Like I talked about in my last post, Paul didn't care about his reputation unless the ministry of the gospel was at stake. But Peter, on the other hand, cared too much about his reputation. That was clearly the source of this problem. He didn't want the influential Jews to think badly of him, even though he knew it was okay to eat those foods with the Gentiles, and knew he should be standing up for their liberty in Christ.
Fear of man is one of the most subtle but prevalent sins we commit, and it can be really dangerous to the souls of others (as it was with Peter) and to our own souls as well. At the time of my reading and writing about this, I saw two illustrations of this problem in my own life. The first was that I heard about someone who thinks very badly of me, and though I knew they misunderstood many things, it still bothered me way too much. It should be enough to know that God understands and is pleased with me, but my heart places too much stock in others' opinions.
The second illustration was considerably lighter, but still enlightening: I had a dream that the famous quarterback Tom Brady was hanging out with me one day (I have no idea why--I'm not really a fan of his), and I realized after I woke up how happy and proud I'd been that a famous person would be my friend, and how I'd wanted everyone to see that he was. The amount of satisfaction I was taking from this in the dream could not have been pleasing to a God who is "no respecter of persons," and tells us not to be either. So even though it was just a dream, I confessed the idolatry in my heart to the Lord, and asked him to transform it so that my happiness would come from knowing Him and not from the esteem of man.
The way this relates to the overall theme of Galatians (and why Paul goes to to explain it in the next passage), is that a characteristic of true faith is not relying on anything other than Christ for our salvation. And a big part of the faith journey for God's people is that He is faithful to discipline us by taking away the other things that we might rely on (like our reputation, for example). Notice how Luther's description of true conversion contains that element of "coming to the end of yourself":
Having been humbled by the Law, and having been brought to a right estimate of himself, a man will repent. He finds out that he is so depraved, that no strength, no works, no merits of his own will ever deliver him from his guilt. He will then understand the meaning of Paul's words: "I am sold under sin"; and "they are all under sin." At this state a person begins to lament: "Who is going to help me?" In due time comes the Word of the Gospel, and says: "Son, thy sins are forgiven thee. Believe in Jesus Christ who was crucified for your sins. Remember, your sins have been imposed upon Christ." In this way are we delivered from sin. In this way are we justified and made heirs of everlasting life.
I am actually growing more and more thankful that by God's grace (and loving discipline) in my own life, I can no longer rely in any way on things like having a solid reputation or the esteem of others, being a "good guy," serving the Lord in full-time ministry, or even being a successful husband and father. In ways I have never experienced before, Jesus Christ is now becoming my only hope, my only righteousness, and my only audience.
How about you? Is reputation too important to you, that if it would go away, so would your assurance of God's love? Or is it financial security, or relationships, or your church involvement, or a particular doctrinal understanding that makes you think, "If anyone is a Christian, it must be me, because..." Do you find yourself frustrated with others for their sins and weaknesses, because deep in your heart you think you are somehow better than they are? Do you find it hard to forgive and show grace, because you think your sins are not really as bad as theirs?
If any of that might be true of you, as it is of me, I encourage you to read Galatians 2:16-21 (and Luther's commentary on it) sometime in the next few days, and then take a look at my next blog post about it (comments welcomed!).
You might have heard Peter referred to as "the disciple with the foot-shaped mouth" because of how he was always saying ill-advised things in an impulsive manner and often had to be rebuked by Christ. Well, here he gets in trouble for doing something else with his mouth, or rather what he was not doing with it. "For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision" (v. 12). Luther explains why Paul had to rebuke him for this:
To live as a Jew is nothing bad. To eat or not to eat pork, what difference does it make? But to play the Jew, and for conscience' sake to abstain from certain meats, is a denial of Christ. When Paul saw that Peter's attitude tended to this, he withstood Peter and said to him: "You know that the observance of the law is not needed unto righteousness. You know that we are justified by faith in Christ. You know that we may eat all kinds of meats. Yet by your example you obligate the Gentiles to forsake Christ, and to return to the Law. You give them reason to think that faith is not sufficient unto salvation." Peter did not say so, but his example said quite plainly that the observance of the Law must be added to faith in Christ, if men are to be saved. From Peter's example the Gentiles could not help but draw the conclusion that the Law was necessary unto salvation. If this error had been permitted to pass unchallenged, Christ would have lost out altogether. The controversy involved the preservation of pure doctrine. In such a controversy Paul did not mind if anybody took offense.
Like I talked about in my last post, Paul didn't care about his reputation unless the ministry of the gospel was at stake. But Peter, on the other hand, cared too much about his reputation. That was clearly the source of this problem. He didn't want the influential Jews to think badly of him, even though he knew it was okay to eat those foods with the Gentiles, and knew he should be standing up for their liberty in Christ.
Fear of man is one of the most subtle but prevalent sins we commit, and it can be really dangerous to the souls of others (as it was with Peter) and to our own souls as well. At the time of my reading and writing about this, I saw two illustrations of this problem in my own life. The first was that I heard about someone who thinks very badly of me, and though I knew they misunderstood many things, it still bothered me way too much. It should be enough to know that God understands and is pleased with me, but my heart places too much stock in others' opinions.
The second illustration was considerably lighter, but still enlightening: I had a dream that the famous quarterback Tom Brady was hanging out with me one day (I have no idea why--I'm not really a fan of his), and I realized after I woke up how happy and proud I'd been that a famous person would be my friend, and how I'd wanted everyone to see that he was. The amount of satisfaction I was taking from this in the dream could not have been pleasing to a God who is "no respecter of persons," and tells us not to be either. So even though it was just a dream, I confessed the idolatry in my heart to the Lord, and asked him to transform it so that my happiness would come from knowing Him and not from the esteem of man.
The way this relates to the overall theme of Galatians (and why Paul goes to to explain it in the next passage), is that a characteristic of true faith is not relying on anything other than Christ for our salvation. And a big part of the faith journey for God's people is that He is faithful to discipline us by taking away the other things that we might rely on (like our reputation, for example). Notice how Luther's description of true conversion contains that element of "coming to the end of yourself":
Having been humbled by the Law, and having been brought to a right estimate of himself, a man will repent. He finds out that he is so depraved, that no strength, no works, no merits of his own will ever deliver him from his guilt. He will then understand the meaning of Paul's words: "I am sold under sin"; and "they are all under sin." At this state a person begins to lament: "Who is going to help me?" In due time comes the Word of the Gospel, and says: "Son, thy sins are forgiven thee. Believe in Jesus Christ who was crucified for your sins. Remember, your sins have been imposed upon Christ." In this way are we delivered from sin. In this way are we justified and made heirs of everlasting life.
I am actually growing more and more thankful that by God's grace (and loving discipline) in my own life, I can no longer rely in any way on things like having a solid reputation or the esteem of others, being a "good guy," serving the Lord in full-time ministry, or even being a successful husband and father. In ways I have never experienced before, Jesus Christ is now becoming my only hope, my only righteousness, and my only audience.
How about you? Is reputation too important to you, that if it would go away, so would your assurance of God's love? Or is it financial security, or relationships, or your church involvement, or a particular doctrinal understanding that makes you think, "If anyone is a Christian, it must be me, because..." Do you find yourself frustrated with others for their sins and weaknesses, because deep in your heart you think you are somehow better than they are? Do you find it hard to forgive and show grace, because you think your sins are not really as bad as theirs?
If any of that might be true of you, as it is of me, I encourage you to read Galatians 2:16-21 (and Luther's commentary on it) sometime in the next few days, and then take a look at my next blog post about it (comments welcomed!).
Friday, August 4, 2017
How important is your reputation? (Luther's comments on Galatians 2:1-10)
The issue of reputation in Scripture can be a little confusing... Ecclesiastes 7:1 says "a good name is better than a good ointment" and 1 Timothy 3 says church leaders "must be above reproach" (v. 2) and "must have a good reputation with those outside the church" (v. 7) But Jesus Christ "made himself of no reputation" (Phil. 2:7), was "despised and rejected by men" (Isa. 53:3), and taught us that our union with him means that we will inevitably experience the same things (Matt. 5:11, John 15:18).
So how should we navigate this matter? Well, the apostle Paul gives us some insight in Galatians 2:1-10, and the great Reformer Martin Luther supplies some more in his commentary on the book.
Paul has been defending his apostolic authority (and more importantly the gospel he preached) since the middle of chapter 1 (see my last blog post), and he continues in these verses with a special emphasis on the issue of reputation.
Reputation is overrated
As usual, Paul seems uncomfortable defending his own reputation, and he even seems reluctant to talk about the reputation of others. He is obviously only doing it because he has to, as evidenced by his wording about the other apostles: "those who seemed influential" (vv. 2 and 6), "who seemed to be pillars" (v. 9), and "what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality" (v. 6).
Luther explains well Paul's ambivalence toward how much respect one has from others:
What could Paul say to that [the fact that he had less reputation than the other apostles]? He answered: "What they say has no bearing on the argument. If the apostles were angels from heaven, that would not impress me. We are not now discussing the excellency of the apostles. We are talking about the Word of God now, and the truth of the Gospel. That Gospel is more excellent than all apostles."
Least we attach too much importance to the person, God leaves with important persons offenses and sins, sometimes astounding shortcomings, to show us that there is a lot of difference between any person and God. David was a good king. But when the people began to think too well of him, down he fell into horrible sins, adultery and murder. Peter, excellent apostle that he was, denied Christ. Such examples of which the Scriptures are full, ought to warn us not to repose our trust in men.
We all have our sins and weaknesses, and when they're exposed some people will make us seem even worse in their thoughts and words. (Within the same Psalm David often expresses regret for his own sins and also complains of unjust judgments and slanders against him...Psalm 94 is a good example.) That makes our reputations quite precarious. Like shifting sands, one's character might be esteemed highly at one moment and reviled the next, often by the same people. I've had people tell me I shouldn't be a pastor because of sins that I've committed in my past, and I've had others tell me I'm better equipped now because of them. (I have no desire to be a pastor anytime soon, if ever, but it illustrates my point about the subjective nature of reputation.)
Any pursuit of universal acceptance and esteem is truly futile...even the most highly respected Christian leaders all have numerous detractors who think they're not qualified for this or that reason, or label them as false teachers. A brief online search of any of their names will reveal as much.
Reputation is a means to an end
Paul knew how subjective and situational reputation is, so he didn't place much stock in it. He even told the Corinthians, "With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court...the one who examines me is the Lord" (1 Cor. 4:3-4). But he addressed the issue when he believed that he had to, because the ministry of the gospel was at stake. This is illustrated in some of Luther's comments on the text:
The opinion that obedience to the Law was mandatory unto salvation was gaining ground. Paul meant to remedy this evil. By this conference he hoped to establish the identity of his Gospel with that of the other apostles, to stop the talk of his opponents that he had been running around in vain.
Paul refused to circumcise Titus for the reason that the false apostles wanted to compel him to circumcise Titus. Paul refused to accede to their demands. If they had asked it on the plea of brotherly love, Paul would not have denied them. But because they demanded it on the ground that it was necessary for salvation, Paul defied them.
Some secular writers put Paul's boasting down as carnal pride. But Paul had no personal interest in his boasting. It was with him a matter of faith and doctrine. The controversy was not about the glory of Paul, but the glory of God, the Word of God, the true worship of God, true religion, and the righteousness of faith.
So our conclusion should be similar to the one we reached regarding the previous passage in Galatians... our reputation should not be built up or defended for its own sake, but only for the purpose of being able to better minister the gospel to others. That's the reason it's important for all believers to seek the best reputation possible--"so that the Word of God will not be dishonored," as Paul says in another context (Titus 2:5).
Don't be overly concerned about your own reputation, and don't be too impressed with that of others. Walk with God, seek to do the right thing before him, and if a situation arises where the gospel is being hindered by what people are thinking or saying about you, then address it if you have to. But always remember that "God shows no partiality," as Paul says in verse 6. We are all undeserving sinners with an audience of one, so we should "make it our aim to please him" (2 Cor. 5:9).
So how should we navigate this matter? Well, the apostle Paul gives us some insight in Galatians 2:1-10, and the great Reformer Martin Luther supplies some more in his commentary on the book.
Paul has been defending his apostolic authority (and more importantly the gospel he preached) since the middle of chapter 1 (see my last blog post), and he continues in these verses with a special emphasis on the issue of reputation.
Reputation is overrated
As usual, Paul seems uncomfortable defending his own reputation, and he even seems reluctant to talk about the reputation of others. He is obviously only doing it because he has to, as evidenced by his wording about the other apostles: "those who seemed influential" (vv. 2 and 6), "who seemed to be pillars" (v. 9), and "what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality" (v. 6).
Luther explains well Paul's ambivalence toward how much respect one has from others:
What could Paul say to that [the fact that he had less reputation than the other apostles]? He answered: "What they say has no bearing on the argument. If the apostles were angels from heaven, that would not impress me. We are not now discussing the excellency of the apostles. We are talking about the Word of God now, and the truth of the Gospel. That Gospel is more excellent than all apostles."
Least we attach too much importance to the person, God leaves with important persons offenses and sins, sometimes astounding shortcomings, to show us that there is a lot of difference between any person and God. David was a good king. But when the people began to think too well of him, down he fell into horrible sins, adultery and murder. Peter, excellent apostle that he was, denied Christ. Such examples of which the Scriptures are full, ought to warn us not to repose our trust in men.
We all have our sins and weaknesses, and when they're exposed some people will make us seem even worse in their thoughts and words. (Within the same Psalm David often expresses regret for his own sins and also complains of unjust judgments and slanders against him...Psalm 94 is a good example.) That makes our reputations quite precarious. Like shifting sands, one's character might be esteemed highly at one moment and reviled the next, often by the same people. I've had people tell me I shouldn't be a pastor because of sins that I've committed in my past, and I've had others tell me I'm better equipped now because of them. (I have no desire to be a pastor anytime soon, if ever, but it illustrates my point about the subjective nature of reputation.)
Any pursuit of universal acceptance and esteem is truly futile...even the most highly respected Christian leaders all have numerous detractors who think they're not qualified for this or that reason, or label them as false teachers. A brief online search of any of their names will reveal as much.
Reputation is a means to an end
Paul knew how subjective and situational reputation is, so he didn't place much stock in it. He even told the Corinthians, "With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court...the one who examines me is the Lord" (1 Cor. 4:3-4). But he addressed the issue when he believed that he had to, because the ministry of the gospel was at stake. This is illustrated in some of Luther's comments on the text:
The opinion that obedience to the Law was mandatory unto salvation was gaining ground. Paul meant to remedy this evil. By this conference he hoped to establish the identity of his Gospel with that of the other apostles, to stop the talk of his opponents that he had been running around in vain.
Paul refused to circumcise Titus for the reason that the false apostles wanted to compel him to circumcise Titus. Paul refused to accede to their demands. If they had asked it on the plea of brotherly love, Paul would not have denied them. But because they demanded it on the ground that it was necessary for salvation, Paul defied them.
Some secular writers put Paul's boasting down as carnal pride. But Paul had no personal interest in his boasting. It was with him a matter of faith and doctrine. The controversy was not about the glory of Paul, but the glory of God, the Word of God, the true worship of God, true religion, and the righteousness of faith.
So our conclusion should be similar to the one we reached regarding the previous passage in Galatians... our reputation should not be built up or defended for its own sake, but only for the purpose of being able to better minister the gospel to others. That's the reason it's important for all believers to seek the best reputation possible--"so that the Word of God will not be dishonored," as Paul says in another context (Titus 2:5).
Don't be overly concerned about your own reputation, and don't be too impressed with that of others. Walk with God, seek to do the right thing before him, and if a situation arises where the gospel is being hindered by what people are thinking or saying about you, then address it if you have to. But always remember that "God shows no partiality," as Paul says in verse 6. We are all undeserving sinners with an audience of one, so we should "make it our aim to please him" (2 Cor. 5:9).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
,+by+John+Singer+Sargent.jpg)
