Category: Sermons

Atonement — Meaning, Necessity, The Final, Life Without

 

Lev. 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’

Hebrews 10:11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being [d]sanctified.

The Meaning of Atonement

Since we are going to be looking at the matter of atonement this morning we will be well served to have a functional definition of atonement so that every time you hear that word you will know what we are speaking of.

Theologian Leon Morris tell us that;

Atonement means ‘a making of one.’ and points to a process of bringing those who are estranged into a unity… Its use in theology is to denote the work of Christ in dealing with the problem posed by the sin of man, and in bringing sinners into right relation with God.”

Theologian Paul Jewett adds,

“Etymologically the word atonement signifies a harmonious relationship of that which brings about such a relationship, i.e. – a reconciliation. Atonement is principally used of of the reconciliation between God and man effected by the work of the Cross.”

Both of these passages that were read this morning refer to the great religious fact of Atonement. The passages that speak of atonement or some aspect of atonement are ubiquitous in Scriptue.

In the idea of Atonement we find the great central truths of the Christian faith, but not only the Christian faith as we shall learn, but all the great central truth of all religions. Indeed, one of the burdens of the sermon this morning is to not only to understand the meaning and necessity of the Atonement but also to understand that atonement as a general category is an inescapable category wherein all men, regardless of their religious status, require and so seek out.

The text in Leviticus 17 reminds us that it was God Himself who required the sacrificial system wherein the Priests busied themselves in the work in bringing sacrifices for the purposes of Atonement. The text from Hebrews teaches that all that was prefigured in the OT work of the Priestly caste was fulfilled perfectly by Jesus the Christ.
When we consider the atonement we would do well to start with by looking at the necessity of the atonement. The atonement presupposes the central tenets of our undoubted catholic Christian faith. The necessity of the atonement implies

A Holy Creator God
A violation of the Creator Holy God’s Holy Law by man now the sinner laden w/ objective guilt
A resultant fractured relationship that means a Holy God’s just wrath is upon man the sinner
God’s requirement by way of blood penalty that must be paid in order for man to be restored
This penalty paid must propitiate and reconcile God while expiating sin, so redeeming sinners
God’s provision in Himself as the God/Man paying the penalty as substitute that man could not pay
With the result that Man the sinner is brought back into right relation with God

And in that brief outline lies the essence of the Gospel and a lifetime of preaching. This is how important and monumental the issue of Atonement is. So important is the subject that I have tried to read one substantial book every year during the last 4 decades on the Atonement or some aspect of it. Without a sound understanding of the Atonement there exists only a Christianity that is no Christianity.

With that in mind we come to the passages and note a few matters regarding atonement.

I.) The Necessity of Atonement

In the texts we have had read for us this morning we learn that Atonement is the great central fact of the Christian faith. Leviticus 17:11 teaches us that God required Atonement of His people. Indeed, the whole sacrificial system of the OT pivots on the necessity of atonement.

But the necessity of the Atonement has a far longer history than Israel’s sacrificial system. The necessity of atonement goes way back to the garden after the fall. It is hinted at already with the fact that our first parents were covered after their garden sin with the skins of slain animals. Atonement is even more clearly with the account of Cain & Abel. God looked with favor upon the offering brought by Abel but with disfavor upon the offering brought by Cain.

Why was Abel’s offering – ‘fat portions from some of the firstborn flock’ – acceptable while Cain’s offering of some of the fruits of the soil not acceptable? Could it be that Cain offered a bloodless sacrifice apart from faith while Abel offered God a better blood sacrifice combined with faith as it was.

This is what Hebrews 11:4 hints at;

4 By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous,

So we see the necessity of atonement.

The atonement is necessary if we are have audience with God… if we are to be friends with God. And because of the atonement is necessary the OT is splashed and covered with blood that could only point in the direction of an atonement that the OT could only anticipate.

The word of the atonement in the OT is Kipper. We hear it in the Jewish celebration of Yom Kipper. It literally means to cover. The word is used to describe the effect of the OT sacrifices at the consecration of the High Priest and the altar and the annual sacrifices especially on the Day of atonement.

Atonement is necessary as covering because by the atonement the sins of the people were covered so that God did not see them. This was pictured in the OT by the fact that on the Day of Atonement the High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies into the presence of God and would sprinkle the blood of that atoning sacrifice upon the Mercy Seat of the ark of the covenant where within was the law of God which condemned the people as sinners. By this act the blood was covering the law’s just accusation against the sin of the people and so God’s just wrath was turned away and so God was pleased to continue with His people.

So we see it all there in this required sacrificial system that required blood atonement. This is why Scripture teaches that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

However, the Scripture also consistently teaches that all this was only promissory and anticipatory of a greater future atonement. Indeed we find that very idea expressed a few verses earlier in the chapter that was read this morning;

Hebrews 10: 1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

All that blood. All that time and treasure. All that expertise in animal slaughtering could not possibly take away sins. And it was never intended to. It was intended to be a daily reminder that another substitute bloody death was coming who would take away sin for good.

And so we look at that final Atonement;

II.) The Final Atonement

The passage in Hebrews read this morning says explicitly that all that was done in the old and worse covenant by way of sacrifice “could never take away sins.”

The author of Hebrews here highlights the work of the OT High Priest and priests and contrasts that work with the redemptive work of Christ. Note how complete the contrast is in this text

 

Vs. 11 Vs. 12

Day after Day But
every Priest This Priest
stands sat down
he offers when [he] had offered
again and again for all time
the same sacrifices one sacrifice
which can never for sins
take away sins

The text teaches here that Christ then was the fulfillment of both the responsibilities of the great High Priest inasmuch as he offered up the sacrifice. The text teaches here that Christ also then was the fulfillment of those sacrifices as the sacrifice that He offered up as the Great High Priest was Himself as the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

But unlike the High Priest of the OT he did up offer up Himself as Atonement for His own sins. He offered Himself as God’s atonement for the sins of His people. Unlike the High Priest of the OT once this self atonement was completed – this one sacrifice for sins – His work was complete and He sits down at the right hand of God.

Keep in mind that this is other contrasts

In the OT the sanctuary furniture included table, lamp, altar of incense, and the ark… but one thing it did not include was a chair. Yet when this High Priest completes His work He sits down simply because there is no longer any necessary atonement sacrifices to be accomplished.

A couple implications here:

1.) This is why we can have no tuck with well intentioned and friendly Roman Catholics. I have good friends who want to be and are friendly with Roman Catholics. As such they are on good terms with them. However, they are not doing any friendly favors to Romanists by not telling them that their ongoing attendance to the Mass where Christ is once again sacrificed for sin as atonement is nothing but gross idolatry. There can be no reconciliation with Rome as long as Christ once for all sacrifice is denied by the Mass and we are offering the Roman Catholic rank and file no friendship if we do not at least occasionally bring that up to those of them who are our friends.

2.) Some of you here need to satisfied with this complete atonement. God is saying to you in the words of the song “Just come in;”

What do I see you draggin’ up here, is that for your atoning?

Some of you can’t believe that God’s grace is that gracious. Some of you can’t believe that God’s atonement is final. Some of you can’t believe that Christ has sat down. As such you can’t believe that your sins really are forgiven. As such you keep draggin’ before him your obedience so as to somehow be additions to Christ’s atonement.

Brother … Sister … you don’t have to keep living with your ongoing sin and guilt. Confess your sins and believe that God is faithful and just to forgive your sins. Brother … Sister … keep before you that God is satisfied with the atonement He provided for you. You don’t have to augment His atonement with your atonements.

Quit beating yourself. Christ has taken your beating for you. Quit thinking that you are accepted by your performance. You’re not, nor ever could be. You are accepted on the basis of the performance of Jesus Christ as your obedience and atonement. Some of us need to really believe that we are loved by God for the sake of Christ.

So there it is. Christ is our atonement. God’s just wrath is turned from us and our sin removed from us so that all we know now is God’s fatherly love and favor. We are those who have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Our sin is covered and we are clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Because of this atonement God is reconciled to us and we are reconciled to God. Because of this atonement the ransom price was paid not with silver or gold but with the precious blood of Jesus Christ – a lamb without spot or blemish and so we are redeemed.

III.) Life Without Christ’s Atonement

Now, what of those who have not closed with Christ and so come under his atonement? Have they escaped all this theology. Are they living life apart from the category of atonement.

We would say 1000 times NO and this truth needs to be heralded.

The non-believe in Christ still lives with the necessity of atonement and still spends their life seeking to come up with some other atonement besides the atonement that we have spoken of here briefly this morning.

Modern man is riddled with guilt and being riddled with guilt and refusing the atonement found in Christ he is forever seeking to provide self-atonement for himself. Indeed, the man apart from Christ busies himself all his life seeking an atonement that will cover the guilt he can not escape. People outside of Christ are dangerous for this reason.

They are dangerous because there are only so many options to look to for atonement when the atonement that is found in Christ is rejected.

Sinful and guilty Man outside of Christ can only find relief from his guilt and sin in an atonement that comes from either

1.) His paying for his own penalty (Masochism)
2.) His looking to pass on his sin and guilt to another so as to find atonement (Sadism)

These are the options for those outside of Christ who do not have Christ as their atonement. The need for atonement does not go away and so it is either the pursuit of Masochistic self atonement – the constant punishing of the self, or it is the sadistic activity on making others your atonement.

Let us make this clear;

Man apart from Christ is guilty.
He will not have Christ has his atonement
He still must do something with his sin and guilt
He still must have atonement
That atonement will be found in masochism or sadism
So, atonement is an inescapable category. It is never a matter of atonement. It is always a matter rather of which atonement will be sought out.

For our purposes I have drawn definitions of Masochism and Sadism form Websters Dictionary.

Masochism per Webster is – a taste for suffering

And I am insisting that modern man who has not fled to Christ and His suffering atonement will seek out his atonement with a taste for self inflicted suffering.

Now as it touches this Masochistic atonement modern man is like all that went before. I remember when I first read about the traveling flagellants. In medieval Europe they would travel from city to city carrying whips and flailing themselves on their backs.

The Flagellants were religious followers who would whip themselves, believing that by punishing themselves they would invite God to show mercy toward them. The Flagellants would arrive in a town and head straight for the church, where bells would ring to announce to the townsfolk that they had arrived. Having recited their liturgies the Brethren would move to an open space and form a circle, stripping to the waist and then walking around the circle until called to stop by the Master. They would then fall to the ground, adopting a crucifix position, or holding three fingers in the air (perjurors) or lying face down (adulterers). Having been thrashed by the Master, the Brethren would stand and begin to flagellate themselves. After some period of this self-torture, the Flagellants would throw themselves to the ground once more, and the process would begin again.

Each whip consisted of a stick with three knotted thongs hanging from the end. Two pieces of needle-sharp metal were run through the centre of the knots from both sides, forming a cross, the end of which extended beyond the knots for the length of a grain of wheat or less. Using these whips they beat and whipped their bare skin until their bodies were bruised and swollen and blood rained down, spattering the walls nearby. I have seen, when they whipped themselves, how sometimes those bits of metal penetrated the skin so deeply that it took more than two attempts to pull them out.–

Heinrich von Herford (c. 1300-1370), Chronicon Henrici de Hervordia

Much of the medieval system of forgiveness was all about masochistic behavior in one form or another

Modern man outside of Christ and without His atonement disguises this better but you can be sure that those without Christ are inflicting suffering among themselves in an attempt to provide a self-atonement. All people who are not Christians are either masochists or sadists or both. They are determined and govern by masochistic/sadistic impulses.

RJR agreed w/ us here writing;

“E.J. Warner, has written a very telling book, again from a totally non-Christian perspective, titled The Urge to Mass Destruction. This masochistic impulse is ultimately suicidal, because man, feeling his guilt and his sin, feels the need for punishment and the penalty of death, and so his activities become suicidal progressively, and the more deeply guilty a culture becomes and the more it departs from God, the more suicidal it will become until it is governed by what Warner called the urge to mass destruction, and Warner, writing approximately ten years ago, said that this urge to mass destruction was taking over the politics of modern man so that our modern politics is the politics of the urge to mass destruction. These men are all talking about atonement, about the desperate, the crying need for atonement in the heart of man, and it’s a sad fact that the pulpit doesn’t recognize that everything we deal with every day is wrapped up in this mad desire for self-atonement, for atonement without Christ.”

Lift your eyes and look around. What else can account for the odd behavior that we a currently seeing except for the mad pursuit to find a masochistic self-atonement? What else is all this piercing and tattooing … what else is all this gender dysphoria that pursues drugs and surgeries… What else is all these various addictions to various substances except the attempt to self-atone. The weight of sin and guilt is known. They will not have Christ atone for them and so they look to provide their own suffering and atonement.

With this realization how can there not be a place in our hearts that just weeps for these people? How can we look on this self-cruelty that seeks to provide a self-atonement and not have compassion and pity? How can we not long for them to know the only one who can so atone for them that they will be done with their own attempts at self atonement.

And now I’m fixin’ to meddle. What else can it be besides an urge to provide self-atonement that finds much of the leadership in the Evangelical/Reformed world that insists that the White Christian should be satisfied with being replaced in his own land thus suffering as hewers of wood and drawers of water? What else can it be but trying to pay for a false guilt that even were the accusations true (and they’re not) should be entrusted to having been paid for by Christ in His atonement. No… instead, so the narrative goes, we White Christians are to pay for the putative sins of our Fathers by taking upon ourselves a masochistic self-atonement.

No…. I will not play this game. My sins have been atoned for and I owe nothing to those who know not the atonement of Jesus Christ and so are trying to provide for their own self-atonement by sadistically foisting off their sin of envy upon me and my people.

And what of the attempt to self-atone that is Sadism which is defined in a delight in cruelty towards others?

There are those who, not accepting the atonement of Christ will instead of seeking masochistically to pay for their sins will instead sadistically seek to foist their sin upon others thus arriving at self-atonement?

Here we find the race pimps and race hustlers as I already mentioned. Here we find the Narcissist (and unsurprisingly we find Narcissism is growing by leaps and bounds in our culture) seeking to make everything the fault of someone else. Most of us have known them. They never take responsibility for anything… even if the same thing happens over and over again. They are forever pointing fingers at somebody else and are forever coming up with justifications for their behavior. Forever trying to find atonement by inflicting cruelty on others.

To all this masochism and sadism in our culture we have but one answer. That answer is the atonement of Jesus Christ who is the only way who is sufficient to provide atonement so as to save us from our own self-atoning efforts. It is Christ as our atonement who turned away the Father’s just wrath against sin. It is Jesus as our atonement who took away our sins. It is Jesus the Christ who reconciled God to us and us to God. It is the Lord Christ as our great High Priest who provided redemption.

Let us practice being satisfied with His atonement.

Elder’s Rule … Laity Submits

Acts 20:38 — Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

I Corinthians 16:15 I urge you, brethren—you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints— 16 that you also submit to such, and to everyone who works and labors with us.

I Thessalonians 5:12And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 In love, hold them in highest regard because of their work. Live in peace with one another.

I Timothy 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.

Hebrews 13:7 Remember those who [a]rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct….

17.) Obey those who [e]rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

The function and role of an elder is well summarized by Alexander Strauch in his book Biblical Eldership:

“Elders lead the church [1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1–2], teach and preach the Word [1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:9], protect the church from false teachers [Acts 20:17, 28–31], exhort and admonish the saints in sound doctrine [1 Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 3:13–17; Titus 1:9], visit the sick and pray [James 5:14; Acts 6:4], and judge doctrinal issues [Acts 15:6]. In biblical terminology, elders shepherd, oversee, lead, and care for the local church” (16).

Obvious truths we have learned from the Scripture we have cited;

1.) There exists and has always existed a God ordained hierarchy not only in the home where husbands are to rule their wives and children, and not only in the civil realm where Magistrates are to rule the citizenry, but also in the Church where the Elders are to rule the laity.

2.) This truth in turn reminds us when discussing all of this of the necessity to understand Jurisdictionalism. There are these sphere of jurisdiction that God has appointed and in those spheres of jurisdiction God has named different authorities. These jurisdictions are important to keep in mind since the respective authorities in the differing jurisdiction must seek to honor the distinct jurisdictions.

For example, as an Elder, I do not have the authority to come into your home and rule your home unless for some reason you have grossly abdicated your legitimate authority by no longer ruling your home “in the Lord.” At that time the Elders will come to you, point out the appropriate Scripture that someone is walking contrary to, and then will ask you to repent. This is the kind of action that we see the Apostle Paul call for in I Corinthians 5;

 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even [a]named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are [b]puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord [c]Jesus.

Here St. Paul is taking up his authority as an Elder to correct both an individual in the Corinthian congregation but also the Church as a whole.  St. Paul later in II Timothy gives Timothy the Elder to do this very same kind of work:

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,

Now obviously this kind of authority, like all authority can be abused. The maxim, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” does not find any exceptions among those who are Elders in Christ’s church. So, when we insist, with Scripture that the role of the Elder is to engage, when necessary, in reproof and correction of the flock Elders should understand that power can go to their head. This is why, we have a plurality of Elders so that no one Elder is holding all the authority.

So we see here that one area in which an Elder rules in the Church and one area therefore upon which the laity are obliged to submit (Hebrews 13:17) is when it comes to the area of morals and doctrine. The Elders are to be the gatekeepers for the proper thinking (Doctrine) and proper morals (Behavior) as among God’s people. This is why St. Paul told the Church in Corinth to excommunicate the man who was sleeping with his step-mother. It is why Scripture repeatedly calls Elders to guard what was committed to their trust (I Timothy 6:20-21).

The Church is the Bride of Christ and it is the role of the Elders to protect the purity of the Bride.

Now, of course Elder’s fail and given this high and holy calling they can’t help but be hypocrites since they themselves can never reach the standard that is placed upon all God’s people for holiness of living and thinking. Yet, despite that reality Elders are called to rule and the laity is called to submit.

Now, what we have seen so far?

1.) We have seen a wee bit what Elders are called to do in their role as God’s appointed leader of the Church.

2.) We have noted that the role of the laity is to submit when their Elders are ruling them as “in the Lord.” Now, if an Elder comes to you to speak on some matter of course the initial route is not likely going to be instant ultimatums but rather the course is going to be one of reasoned conversation. The exception to that is if someone here would be doing something extreme like sleeping with their stepmother or advancing Radical Two Kingdom theology among the saints.

3.) We began to look at the notion of jurisdictional spheres and tried to emphasize that the authority of an Elder rests in the jurisdictional sphere of the Church just as the role of the Father/Husband rests in the jurisdictional sphere of the home.

Let’s talk about that one just a wee bit more.

The jurisdictional spheres as found in the Scripture means there are boundaries for authority. Jesus Christ is the only one who has all authority. Any authority here whether exercised by husband, Elder, or Magistrate is authority that exists in a very circumscribed sphere.

So a Magistrate cannot enter the Church and based on his authority as a magistrate violate the jurisdiction of the Church by presuming to rule in the affairs of the church unless the Church has grossly abdicated its legitimate authority by no longer ruling the Church as “in the Lord.” In the same way Elders in the Church cannot enter the civil sphere of the Magistrate and on the basis of his authority as an Elder violate the jurisdiction of the Magistrate by presuming to rule in the affairs of the civil order unless the Magistrate has grossly abdicated its legitimate authority by no longer ruling the civil order as “in the Lord.”

So, we have these spheres of jurisdictions and we have proper authorities ruling in each jurisdictional sphere. Conceptually this is not difficult to understand. Practically, if the God ordained rulers of each sphere rule as “in the Lord,” there is not going to be a problem in honoring those jurisdictions or the authorities therein. However, when one sphere gets out of whack that makes matters often very difficult.

For example when one jurisdiction ceases ruling as “in the Lord” then eventually authorities from another jurisdiction are going to have to interpose into that errant jurisdiction and set matters right. This is called the doctrine of interposition.

But let us not get to far afield from where we are at this morning. We will talk, I think, more about interposition in a later sermon. Right now let’s concentrate on the fact that the Church is a jurisdictional sphere of authority where God has placed a structure of hierarchy so as to have a ruler and ruled ecclesiastical order.

We have seen that Elders in the Church have ruling authority. This is indisputable from the Scripture that we have looked at. However, we pause to note again this stated hierarchy because it is in some sense disputed in some circles. Among the Anabaptist movement today one will learn that there is a leveling when it comes to the roles of leaders. In the Anabaptist movement (Mennonites, Amish, Brethren,) there is the principle that there is no such thing as interposition of human authority since the New Covenant. This means that the role of Elder in those Christian communities are going to be more egalitarian.

As such Anabaptist churches and Christians have a view of ecclesiastical authority that is going to be very different from the view of ecclesiastical authority as found among Roman Catholics who go to the opposite extreme. If the Anabaptist have a tendency to level all hierarchical structure in the Church, Rome and ecclesiastical models like Rome tend to absolutize ecclesiastical authority in the Church so that Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and Popes are seen as being vested with uber-authority that is not to be questioned.

The Reformed understanding of the role of Elders as a rulers was that of a ministerial role and not a magisterial role such is found in Rome. The Reformed understanding of the role of Elders as a rulers was that of the Shepherd of the flock who is a sheep himself with real authority  and not as just some kind of life coach such as might be found among the Anabaptists.

And because the Elder has real authority to lead, to lead by serving, and to rule the flock is called upon to submit as they are “ruled in the Lord.” We’ve seen that in the Scripture this morning. We also see it in our Confessions;

“All men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with the Church, maintaining the unity of the Church;3 submitting themselves to the doctrine and discipline thereof; bowing their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ;4

Belgic Confession Article 28

Now let us talk a wee bit more about what Elder authority looks like and how does it apply?

And for the answer to that we have only to reference our own Heidelberg Catechism as it faithfully teaches Scripture.

Keys

Question 82: Are they also to be admitted to this supper, who, by confession and life, declare themselves unbelieving and ungodly?

Answer: No; for by this, the covenant of God would be profaned and His wrath kindled against the whole congregation;10 therefore it is the duty of the Christian church, according to the appointment of Christ and His apostles, to exclude such persons 11 by the keys of the kingdom of heaven till they show amendment of life.

Question 83: What are the keys of the kingdom of heaven?1

Answer: The preaching of the holy gospel, and Christian discipline,2 or excommunication out of the Christian church;3 by these two, the kingdom of heaven is opened to believers and shut against unbelievers.

We learn here that by sound preaching the Elders exercise their authority. This would mean that every Lord’s Day upon your attendance at Morning, and Evening service as well as Sunday School  you are at that point practicing a submission to the Elder’s authority by sitting under the preaching of the Gospel.

As to Christian discipline, the word discipline in the Greek is paidea and it means to instruct or correct. Elders have the responsibility to instruct and correct the flock. This can happen as easily as in a casual conversation and it can happen as officially in official Church discipline. Most often it should happen in casual conversation. The more drama that is injected into the context of Christian discipline the less likely there will be a satisfactory result.

Question 85: How is the kingdom of heaven shut and opened by Christian discipline?

Answer: Thus: when according to the command of Christ,8 those, who under the name of Christians, maintain doctrines or practices inconsistent therewith,9 and will not, after having been often brotherly admonished, renounce their errors and wicked course of life, are complained of to the church or to those10 who are thereunto appointed by the church;11 and if they despise their admonition, are by them forbidden the use of the sacraments;12 whereby they are excluded from the Christian church and by God Himself from the kingdom of Christ; and when they promise and show real amendment, are again received as members of Christ and His church.13

Q. 85 here demonstrates again that the Elder is to rule and one means of ruling is to admonish (to lead, to have charge over) and the rule of is to be submitted to by the flock because a lack of submission means excommunication.

Now, having noted all this lets be realistic about Elder’s ruling and the flock submitting in today’s Church. I’ve been at this long enough now to know how this works in real life. When there is something that needs correction I go to the person in question and they blow me off. For example there have been numerous times over my 35 years in the ministry that I would challenge people about a tender subject and they would essentially tell me to mind my own business. If the matter is serious enough such as someone sleeping with their stepmother what happens is that somewhere along the path to excommunication they just up and leave and join the church down the block who doesn’t care about where they were because the other church is just happy for the new meat in the seat. Because, that is true the authority of the Elder in today’s church is largely irrelevant in the every day life of the Church.

And yet not irrelevant to God. Elders should take up their authority even if they know it will have little impact because in doing so they are being faithful to God even if there is little or no submission on the part of the laity and even if there is little or no fruit as a consequence of seeking to exercise Godly authority.

Finally, all that being said, as an Elder, I recognize how hard it must be for the flock to submit to Elders today given the character and lack of wisdom that we as clergy and Elders demonstrate today.

All of this is a matter we should be diligently in prayer about. The Church in the West is a mess and only God can deliver us now.

The good news is that in His time He will certainly do that. God will, in His time once again raise up good men to be Elders who wield authority with humility, yet with boldness. God will, in His time once again raise up laity who will see that their safety and well being lies in submitting to godly Elders. God will, in His time, renew, reform, and revitalize His Son’s bride so that she is once again without spot and without blemish.

May it happen in the lifetime of some of us in attendance today.

I Cor. 15:58 — New Years 2023

“Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.”
I Corinthians 15:58

“Let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. ”  Galatians 6:9

As we come to vs. 58 we see one of St. Paul’s famous “therefore” statements. When we run across these “therefore” statements (and Paul does this frequently in his writing) we must work to remind ourselves of the connectivity between what is about to be said and what has just been said.

And so, briefly, Paul has just argued that Christians can be confident of the coming Resurrection. Christian can be certain of their final triumph and this because Jesus Christ has triumphed. Their resurrection from the death of sin to the life of righteousness is a pledge of your participation in Christ’s resurrection from the grave. Paul says now, in light of all this reality

THEREFORE …

Therefore—because you are sure of the victory—be steadfast,” 

Therefore.–Because all this is so–because there is a life hereafter that we know we will share in–let this life here be worthy of that life to come that we are now participating in by being in Christ.

It should say something to us about Christianity that a chapter which leads us step by step by a irresistible logic  and arresting eloquence into the teaching of the Resurrection and immortality leads to the invoking of a “therefore” that throws all of us back upon the most plain and practical of duty. It should teach us that Christianity knows nothing where teaching is all abstraction and theory with no mention of Casuistry. Any Christianity that severs the life line between the life which is to come from the life that now is should come with signs stapled to it saying “there be dragons here.”

Notice also, before we get to the meat of the matter how St. Paul starts here. He addresses these Corinthians as “beloved.” This word is derivative of the Greek Word Agape. It is the tenderest and most resilient of all type of loves possible. I only bring this out to note how gentle Paul could be. If there ever was a Church that was populated by sundry and various rapscallions it was the Church in Corinth. Why, it was almost as bad as the modern Western Church. And yet, St. Paul calls these vexatious Christians… “Beloved.”

It would do well for all of us to pray that God might give us this kind of love for those in the Church who are troublesome, vexing, irritating, and downright distasteful. Paul was not being hypocritical here. He calls the Corinthians “Beloved” precisely because he loved them. May the triune God enlarge our  own hearts so that we both genuinely love all the saints and so that we realize it is we ourselves who really are the worst of all rapscallions.

It really is a matter of discernment here on our parts. Calvin said that God has given the minister two voices. One voice to drive off the wolves and one voice to gather the lambs. We have seen, on repeated occasions where St. Paul has used his “drive off the wolves” voice. Here we see his “gather the lambs” voice.

So the inspired Apostle writes,

Therefore — that is — “Seeing that you ought not to despair, but to share in this confidence of triumph.” —

Be Ye Steadfast.

The idea here is they were to be firmly fixed in your own conviction

Paul will say something similar in Colossians 1:23 where he writes that the Colossians are

not (to be) move(d) from the hope held out in the gospel.

And the singular mind of God speaks again as John says in 2John 9

9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

The duty that St. Paul enjoins upon the Corinthians in light of the Doctrine given them in chapter 15 is to “be ye steadfast.”

steadfast
ἑδραῖοι (hedraioi)
Strong’s 1476 — Sitting, seated; steadfast, firm, fixed. From a derivative of hezomai; sedentary, i.e. immovable.

St. Paul is calling for the recipients of his letter to not easily change.

Steadfast people are people who are implacable and because of that they are single minded. Steadfast people will not be moved. If the immovable that  comes next has to do with not being moved by others, steadfast would refer to not turning aside ourselves.

St. Paul is telling them to be laser-focused… single minded… hell bent for leather in the Christian life.

St. Paul understood that this Christian virtue of steadfastness was necessary for the Christian life. He had enough experience with those who had been the opposite of steadfast. Let’s call the opposite of being Mr. steadfast “Mr. Change with every wind of doctrine.”

If you remember St. Paul had to deal with men in his ministry who had abandoned him. There was Demas. There was Alexander the Coppersmith. There was, to his mind at least, even John Mark. To the contrary, St. Paul himself was the epitome of the steadfastness for which he is calling for. Perhaps no Christian throughout the annals of time was more steadfast than St. Paul.

For decades now steadfastness has been comparatively easy for a Christian but the time is  coming and now is wherein we are going to discover how difficult and at the same time how necessary this steadfastness  is. I suspect that the times are upon us when the Christian life is going to require a good deal of grit. Steadfastness is one component of the grit that is going to be required.

And remember, the steadfastness that is being called for is derivative of the confidence that we have that the victory as seen in the doctrine of the Resurrection which St. Paul had so thoroughly discussed. Our steadfastness is the byproduct of our certainty that we share in Christ’s victory. St. Paul, in order to anchor their steadfastness, points to the sinless Man – to the fulfilled idea of Christ. His argument previously, which all could understand, is summed up in the words, “Ye are Christ’s, and Christ is risen.” Your resurrection from the death of sin to the life of righteousness is a pledge of your participation in Christ’s resurrection from the grave therefore, because all that is true, be steadfast.

Well, fellow Christian, will your resolve right now again, that you won’t back down and that you will stand your ground? Will you resolve to be steadfast in light of the victory we have in Christ?

Being steadfast is not one of those particularly glamourous virtues. It just means remaining certain in our Christian convictions in a long direction. It means not being fickle or indecisive.

In a post-modern age this kind of steadfastness can be hated even as among our own midst. I had a Christian minister friend once who told me he how he was chided once by his leadership because in the pulpit he came across as “too certain about the matters of Faith” The complaint in essence was that he was too steadfast. What a strange world we inhabit when ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ are chided for being too steadfast regarding our undoubted catholic Christian faith.

Well, in 2023 let us resolve to continue to be steadfast.

Let us push on here because we are also called here to be

 

Unmoveable. By others (Ephesians 4:14). Abounding in the work of the Lord. Doing diligently and ungrudgingly the work of your lives, which is his work. That your labour is not in vain. The thought of the verse is the same as that of Galatians 6:9, “And let us not be weary in well doing; for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.”   4. A fourth point to be observed is the wisdom with which St. Paul holds himself aloof from speculative fancies, he does not, like Plato, appeal to the doctrine of “reminiscence” (anamnesis), or of unfulfilled ideas. He does not, like Kant, build any argument on man’s failure to obey “the categorical imperative” of duty.

steadfast
ἑδραῖοι (hedraioi)
Adjective – Nominative Masculine Plural
Strong’s 1476: Sitting, seated; steadfast, firm, fixed. From a derivative of hezomai; sedentary, i.e. immovable.

St. Paul is calling for the recipients of his letter to not be easily changed.

Steadfast people are people who are implacable and because of that they are single minded. Steadfast people will not be moved. If the immovable that is comes next has to do with not being moved by others, so steadfast would refer to not turning aside ourselves.

St. Paul understood that this Christian virtue of steadfastness was necessary for the Christian life. He had enough experience with those who had been the opposite of steadfast. If you remember St. Paul had to deal with men in his ministry who had abandoned him. There was Demas. There was Alexander the Coppersmith. There was, to his mind at least, even John Mark. To the contrary, St. Paul himself was the epitome of the steadfastness for which he is calling for. Perhaps no Christian throughout the annals of time were more steadfast than St. Paul.

For decades now steadfastness has been comparatively easy for a Christian but the time is  coming and now is wherein we are going to discover how difficult and at the same time how necessary this steadfastness  is. I suspect that the times are upon us when the Christian life is going to require a good deal of grit. Steadfastness is one component of the grit that is going to be required.

And remember, the steadfastness that is being called for is derivative of the confidence that we have that the victory as seen in the doctrine of the Resurrection which St. Paul had so thoroughly discussed. Our steadfastness is the byproduct of our certainty that we share in Christ’s victory. St. Paul, in order to anchor their steadfastness, points to the sinless Man – to the fulfilled idea of Christ. His argument, which all could understand, is summed up in the words, “Ye are Christ’s, and Christ is risen.” Your resurrection from the death of sin to the life of righteousness is a pledge of your participation in Christ’s resurrection from the grave therefore, because all that is true, be steadfast.

Well, fellow Christian, will your resolve right now again, that you won’t back down and that you will hold your ground? Will you resolve to be steadfast in light of the victory we have in Christ?

St. Paul also calls them to be immovable

[and] immovable.
ἀμετακίνητοι (ametakinētoi)
 Strong’s 277 — Immovable, firm. Immovable.

If the call to be steadfast was in reference to one’s self, this call to be immovable is likely in reference to not allowing one’s self to be moved off the dime of truth by others. So steadfastness is self directed and immovable is directed to the negative influence of others.

What is expressed here between the two then is the idea of Christian perseverance in general, under the figure of standing firm.  The Greek word here presents the perseverance more precisely as unseduceableness being in opposition to the possible seductions through the deniers of the resurrection.

Here St. Paul is calling the Corinthians, when it comes to the matters of what we know we believe and why we believe it to be pig-headed. If the call here is to be unseduceable it is because there are so many out there who are seeking to seduce. It was the case in the 1st century, and it remains the case now that it is huge marketplace of ideas. These different ideas — like the denial of the resurrection — look so shiny but St. Paul calls them to be immovable.

We are to be steadfast and unmovable on the doctrines of the Christian faith, one of which is the reality of the resurrection. We would of course note there are others such as the Deity of Jesus Christ, the idea of substitutionary atonement, the centrality of covenant, the importance of the visible Church as Institution where one can receive the means of grace. Currently cutting edge doctrines of the Christian faith that we must be steadfast and unmovable on is the idea that grace does not destroy nature but that grace renews nature and the exhaustive Sovereignty of Jesus Christ over every area of life.

So what has St. Paul said here? He has said we Christians are to be the stability of our times. We are to be steadfast and unmovable. Cinder blocks of truth that are not going to budge.

Now, if we are to be those cinderblocks of truth that are steadfast and unmovable then we need to be consumed with a desire to know the truth and upon knowing it, not to be moved from it.

Paul is not quite yet done. The man is always completely thorough in his arguments. He now gives the “do this” side that compliments his do not be moved side. He writes these Corinthians to be;

“always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.” I Corinthians 15:58

Always
πάντοτε (pantote)
Adverb
Strong’s 3842: Always, at all times, ever. From pas and hote; every when, i.e. At all times.

Note here that we are to be always abounding in the work of the Lord. The call is not to be always abounding in the work of the Lord when we are in the grace realm while always abounding in the work of Natural Law when we are in the common realm. No, we are, as Christians, to be always and at all times to be abounding in the work of the Lord. There are not some areas we walk in where we are not to be abounding in that area in the work of the Lord.

excel
περισσεύοντες (perisseuontes)
Strong’s 4052; From perissos; to superabound, be in excess, be superfluous; also to cause to superabound or excel.

Now the question might be raised … “What is the work of the Lord in which we are to be abounding?

And our catechism answers that question;

Question 91: But what are good works?

Answer: Only those which proceed from a true faith,5 are performed according to the law of God,6 and to His glory;7 and not such as are founded on our imaginations or the institutions of men.8

One more observation;

Knowing your labor is not in vain.

Why does the Apostle write this? It is really quite simple. He writes this because that is what he is fighting against. He is fighting against a people who might be concluding that their labor unto Christ is in vain since it has been argued that the resurrection was past. No, Paul says, your labor is not in vain. You good works will follow you. You will hear the “well done thou good and faithful servant.”

There is a temptation always in this life to say “What’s the worth.” Vanity of vanity all is vanity.” Paul steps up to the mic here and says, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, “You labor is not in vain.” As Francis Schaffer used to say… “No little people. No little places.”

Here we are tucked in Chartucky Michigan or in other like places. It might be easily to conclude that our labor is in vain. But of course it is not. We must not let the enemy discourage us. We must not let our own diminutive statures convince us that our labors are in vain. God has told us our labors are not in vain therefore we know that to be the truth.

Because all this is true, therefore, let us take these for our New Years Resolutions for 2023

1.) I will be steadfast
2.) I will be immovable
3.) I will be always abounding in the work of the Lord
4.) I will remind myself at every turn that my Labor is not in vain

 

 

 

Galatians 2:1-10; Paul, Titus & The Issue of Circumcision

Galatians 2 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up [a]by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), 5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God [b]shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, [c]Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.

This morning we are considering this first half of Galatians 2. Next week we will finish the chapter and will then roll into the advent season with four sermons consistent with that theme.

There are matters here that we need to absorb in our 21st century context.

You will recall that the the book of Galatians is in many ways the book of Romans with the difference that the book of Romans Paul is dealing with the same issues in a much more systematic fashion whereas in Galatians St. Paul is dealing with the same issues as in a triage situation. There is a danger of the central doctrines of the Gospel being abandoned due to subterfuge and deception. Enemies as termites are in the Church in Galatia seeking to eat away the foundation and so recast the new and better covenant in the image of the old and worse covenant. There is an attempt to re-imagine the faith once delivered forever unto the saints. There is an attempt put people into a intolerable bondage and all this as in the name and under the authority of Jesus the Christ.

In this book Paul uses some of his roughest language in order to defend the Gospel which he sees at being at immediate risk. He asks the Galatians “Who has cast a spell (bewitched you).” He says of his enemies that given their hyper concerns for circumcision as an absolute ceremonial law necessity for salvation he wishes that they would just go the whole way and emasculate themselves. He says that if anyone should preach another Gospel than the one he is preaching let them be eternally cursed/damned.

Certainly not very nice.

This startling language reminds us that there is a time and a place for everything under the sun, including defiant, militant, and shocking language. It reminds us of Calvin’s quote;

“The pastor ought to have two voices: one, for gathering the sheep; and another, for warding off and driving away wolves and thieves. The Scripture supplies him with the means of doing both.”

Now we live in a epoch in the history of the Church where frankly there is a need for the unrelenting usage of the voice required for driving off the wolves as by the clergy. As sheep you need to realize that when your shepherd throws rhetorical left hooks and uppercuts it is in the interest of protecting you. This is what St. Paul does in the book of Galatians because the Gospel is at stake.

Before wading in the matter at hand consider St. Paul here. Here is a man’s man. Perhaps one of the greatest heroes who has ever walked the planet. The man was a genius – one of those original thinkers who comes around every two or three generations. On top of that he was implacable and un-moving. He took all the outrageous slings and arrows of a determined enemy and did not budge. He considered not the opinion of man unless that opinion was consistent with the Word of God. He was beaten down… hounded relentlessly, scarred, shipwrecked, and stoned. According to Scripture he was not much to look at. Some scholars think he was a physically unimposing specimen and not very eloquent of speech. Yet, Scripture breathes with the man’s heroic humility. He was self-effacing and only for the sake of the Church would he speak of his accomplishments.

Parents …. if you want a hero for your sons, consider putting the Apostle Paul in their pantheon of heroes.

When we come to chapter 2 the battle has already underway.

There are 4 issues that St. Paul addresses here. Some of these 4 will overlap somewhat but we will look at them as 4 issue all the same because there are some slight nuances that are subtle enough to consider in their own right.

Paul time stamps the events with the mentioning of his going to Jerusalem again 14 years later with Barnabas taking Titus along with them. There is some debate among the scholars (as there always is on almost anything) as to exactly when and what the 14 years is later. We won’t get into the weeds of that debate and will just offer that a strong though not complete consensus believes that Paul is speaking of here the famous Jerusalem council mentioned in Acts 15. The reason that it is believed that the Jerusalem council that is being referred to here is because there is a good deal of overlap between Acts 15 and the issues that are swirling here in Galatians 2. Then there is the fact that you have some of the same players mentioned in Acts 2 that we find central to Acts 15.

In vs. 2 when Paul says that he went “and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain,” the meaning here is not that Paul was fearful that he might have been in error but rather the concern that the other Apostles, though perhaps agreeing in principle with him, might have gone soft due to the politics of the situation seeking to try to keep the peace with the Judaizing party that had crept into the Church. We learn from Acts 15 that Paul learned that he was not running in vain and the Church leadership of Peter and James was with him on the matter of grace alone.
Here then we bump up against the first issue in this section.

I.) Issue #1 – The Matter of Titus (vs. 2-3)

They brought Titus with them to Jerusalem because he was a living incarnation of the issue at hand. Titus was a Greek and so uncircumcised and yet this Titus had expressed faith in Christ and was counted as among the Redeemed.

The issue at hand though was … “Is this to be allowed.”

Circumcision had been a sign of the old covenant but the old covenant had passed and a new and better covenant had been issued in by the Lord Christ. Circumcision was a blood right exercised upon the source of life. However, with the coming of Christ all blood rights had ended with the shedding of His blood and by His being cut off that which was typological in the OT was fulfilled in Christ. Christ was THE source of life which in his death had been cut off as the fulfillment of all the lesser cuttings at the source of life prefigured in the OT cutting of circumcision.

By demanding that circumcision be continued – that Titus be circumcised – the enemies of the Gospel wanted to return to the OT shadows. In point of fact the Judaizing- Pharisee party wanted to return to a Talmudism that found salvation being grounded in works. By this demonic desire to return to a Talmudic faith the enemy would have overturned the Gospel of free grace.

Understand that had they been successful in this attack on the centrality of Christ alone they would have overthrown Baptism and God’s sovereign grace and so salvation would have been redefined. The Judaizers said “be circumcised, keep the ceremonial law, and then you can come to Christ.”

This is what Titus’s presence was all about. If a Gentile Christian like Titus present in the very heart of the Hebrew Church in an Convocation led by Hebrew Christians was not compelled to be circumcised, then the principle was established and no Gentile would be forced to be circumcised.

Understand that the kerfuffle here was about the fact that Gentiles were coming in without being circumcised. They were pulling their hair out over this. All this angst over Gentiles coming into the covenant and yet not a peep in the NT about these same people being told that their children were no longer members of the covenant which is what we are being asked to believe if the Baptists are right about excluding children.

Anyway … this is the issue surrounding Titus’s presence. Titus was a symbol of the conflict. Is the Gospel Christ alone or is the Gospel in concert with the Judaizing impulse?

This is an issue we as Theonomist must keep before us. We desire to honor the Law and we should but we learn here in Galatians that it is possible to go to far. It is possible to go so overboard with the law that we find ourselves wasting away again in Judaizing-ville. We need to ask ourselves careful questions about the applicability of the law lest we fall into this Galatians error. We need to develop principles to teach us where and when the general equity of the law continues and when the law has been eclipsed in the new and better covenant.

Well, we know how the issue with Titus turned out @ the Jerusalem council.

10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus [b]Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”

Salvation would be by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

This moves us to the next issue here in Galatians 2

II.) Issue #2 – The Problem of Subversion – vs. 4

4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage)

Clearly, St. Paul is dealing with the problem of 5th columnists in their midst. In the early Church existed poseurs whose work was not to build the church up but to tear it down. In today’s language we would refer to these types that Paul mention as FBI plants or “controlled opposition.”

Paul calls them “false brethren” which means they were not brethren at all. Neither were they simply misguided. They had an agenda. They were epistemologically self-conscious about what they were seeking to achieve. They were trying to kill the church.

Before we continue down this path let me briefly mention that here we find one more example in Scripture wherein there is support for the truth of and reality of conspiracy theory. Paul is speaking of a conspiracy here. Listen to the language here. “False brethren.” “Secretly brought in.” “Came in by stealth.” “To spy out our liberty.” “That they might bring us into bondage.” St. Paul could guest host for Alex Jones and the Info Wars.

I only bring this up because so many in the Church today want to dismiss conspiracy theory as one legitimate tool in which to understand reality. If St. Paul could, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, identify a Conspiracy then I can say that the Bible teaches explicitly that men act in a conspiratorial manner in order to advance an predetermined agenda contrary to what it looks like on the surface.

The conspiracy unto subversion here was to overthrow the liberty from the ceremonial law that Christians have in Jesus Christ. Once we are in Christ we are delivered from the ceremonial law.

We would add that we likewise have been saved from the accusatory power of the law. The law can no longer condemn those in Christ Jesus. The Gospel is that though we are great sinners we have been delivered from the law of sin and of death. The law now points us to Christ as the one who has stood in our place and took upon Himself the just accusation that fell upon His people. The law now points us to Christ as the one who has paid for all of our sins, rebellions, and guilt. We walk in that kind of liberty.

Oh blessed liberty that we have in Jesus Christ. To not only be forgiven of that which I hate most about myself but also to be reckoned with the obedience of Jesus Christ is sweet liberty indeed.

The false brethren wanted to steal all that way and put upon all believers again a yoke of bondage that would make them miserable their whole lives and they were doing it by means of the most subtle of subversion.

This is the way fifth columnists usually roll when they bring their rank heresy into the Church. They are subtle. They sprinkle their heresy in all the nicest phrases. They dress it up to look pleasing and to sound reasonable. This is what in our time R2K has done. This is what Federal Vision has done. This is what the New Perspective on Paul has done. This is what Dispensationalism has done. These fifth columnists always sound fair but when one gets close enough they always smell foul.

If the early Church closest to the death of Christ had to deal with this it should be no surprise that the Church in every generation will have to deal with fifth columnists acting conspiratorially with the intent of re-fashioning the Church.

Note, before we move on that this subtlety is a always a matter of a worldview shift. Whatever direction there heresy is attempting to run, it can not run in that direction apart from significant worldview shifts. This is why we bang so hard here on knowing what you believe and why you believe it and what you don’t believe and why you don’t believe it. You need to have that ever growing ability to sniff out the fifth columnists conspiratorialists.

This brings us to issue #3

III.) Issue #3 – The Territorial Arrangement (vs. 7-8)


7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),

Here we see that the work is divided. It was not that Paul couldn’t evangelize Jews or that Peter couldn’t evangelize Gentiles, it was merely a matter where the emphasis of their ministry would be.

Now were Peter and Paul living today they would be accused of “racism” because of this arrangement. “How dare you divide people up according to their race/ethnicity?”

Don’t you two know that “Jew” and “Gentile” are a social construct?

We will speak more to this point next week but notice that while there is a respect of both people groups there is no agenda communicated here for there to be some kind of required assimilation between the two so that the distinctions of “Jew” and “Gentile” would disappear in a kind of pork sausage matzo ball soup.

Indeed, even upon conversion we know that often Jew and Gentiles did not worship together. Sure, there were times they would but there was no requirement to that end. There was nothing immature about a congregation that was a uniquely Gentile congregation nor about a congregation that was a uniquely Jewish congregation.

Hear Theologian John Frame on this matter;

“Scripture, as I read it, does not require societies, or even churches, to be integrated racially. Jews and Gentiles were brought together by God’s grace into one body. They were expected to love one another and to accept one another as brothers in the faith. But the Jewish Christians continued to maintain a distinct culture, and house churches were not required to include members of both groups.”

John Frame,
“Racism, Sexism, Marxism”

Jew and Gentiles were one spiritual body in Christ. Peter would minister among the Jews and Paul among the Gentiles and their respective church plants would all be one in Christ but the existence of the oneness in that Spiritual body in Christ did not require an assimilation that would result in the disappearance of both Jew and Gentile. John Calvin (Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3)

“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”

And here we see that order. Paul would go to the Gentiles and Peter would go to the Jews. Territorial issues are resolved and the unity of Christ is kept intact.

I need to keep my powder dry for next week on this subject but the abject idiocy and recklessness of the putative “White-Hat” churches is maddening beyond speech. It can only be explained by God sending a delusion upon them to blind them lest they see with their eyes, turn, and be saved.

IV.) Issue #4 – The Agreed Upon Requirement

10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.

We need to speak on this so as to demonstrate that the OT law was still in force even though it is clearly noted in this text that the ceremonial law has been eclipsed.

The law throughout Scripture had required just this.

(Ex. 23:10-11; 30:15; Lv. 19:10, Dt. 15:7-11)

The prophets required this.

(Je. 22:16, Dn. 4:27, Am. 2:6-7)

It is found in the words of Jesus

(Mt. 7:12, Lk. 6:36, 38; John 13:29

The law continues to have its impact. Here we see that there is attention paid to these commandments of God.

When you combine this with the law that was placed upon the Gentile converts in Acts 15

(that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual[j] immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.)

You see that the law had abiding validity. The law answers the question that is being answered here, “How shall we then live.” The law, in its third use, is a guide to life and applies to every area of life. The Law is Holy, Righteous and Good, when used lawfully. The Law is where we find our delight both day and night. There is no dialectic between law and grace such as the R2K cognitively challenged want to posit when used lawfully. The law is the means of God that He has ordained whereby grace restores nature in the believer who is saved by a grace alone that in the finished work of Christ, God’s ordained law was honored – that law that taught; “that the without the shedding of blood there could be no remission of sin.”

So, on this issue we see that there that, in the words of Jonathan Edwards, “the Law and Gospel doth sweetly comply.”

Conclusion;

Re-cap

Therefore having looked at the 4 issues covered in Galatians 2:1-10 let us resolved to move in terms of a proper understanding of these issues.

Galatians 2:11-21

11 Now when [d]Peter had come to Antioch, I [e]withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing [f]those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, [g]why do you compel Gentiles to live as [h]Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not [i]justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

17 “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; 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 for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died [j]in vain.”

I.) The Case Behind Paul’s Rebuke of Peter

It has become the cause celebre recently to use this passage to prove that in the new covenant God designed that Christians should no longer have a concern to honor the ethnic identity which God assigned to them. The reasoning goes that in the new covenant since the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile has been broken down (Eph. 2:14) therefore all considerations of how we belong to a nation or a people as among Christians is no longer a matter of consideration. This passage in Galatians is brought forward in order to prove this cockeyed theory.

So, we ask what is Galatians 2:1-11 all about if it is not about the errant suggestion, so popular as among the modern Gnostics in the Church, that ethnicity was abolished in the cross so that it no longer is to be a consideration among Christians.

Now, before we tease this out let us say as effusively as we can that the Scripture’s clearly teach that in Christ all believers have a spiritual bond that is not to be disregarded. Indeed, that truth forms the heart of Paul’s rebuke here in Galatians 2. Clearly, the Scripture teaches that if we lift anything, including our belonging to our family or people group, above our allegiance to Christ we are guilty of some kind of idolatry. This is why Christ teaches that;

Anyone who loves his father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me;

(Matt. 10:27)

Our highest love then is set on Christ. He is the treasure that is to be gained at the loss of everything else if necessary.

However, Christ does not teach that in order to love him we must disorder our natural loves. He only insists that our natural loves do not rise above our love and allegiance to Him as our summum bonum.

Indeed, Christ demonstrates the necessity for the fifth commandment to be honored when He teaches as against the very same opposition that St. Paul faces in Galatians 2;

“But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— Mt. 15:5

Here Jesus is clearly teaching the importance to honor family.

Paul reinforces this teaching of Jesus when he writes to Timothy;

“But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

I Timothy 5:8 

So, as we come to Paul here in Galatians 2 we understand that Scripture has taught that our family/our people group is important and is to honored but not as above Christ.

And here we find the nub of the matter in Galatians 2. The Judiazers had lifted their ethnic identity above the Gospel of Jesus Christ, so much that they were insisting that if one wanted to be a Christ follower one had to first become a Judaizer. In other words Paul resists Peter here because it was the Judaizers who were insisting that Gentiles had to cease being Gentiles and become amalgamated so as to be cultural Jews.

The Judaizing sin was to insist that all the world had to be a Talmudic Jew to be a disciple of Christ.

In Galatians, Paul was the one in favor of the Church being comprised of Jew and Gentile but with the truth that these two could come together for worship and fellowship. The Judaizers and Peter were arguing that in order to be justified one had to become a socio-cultural Jew and keep the same Talmudic dietary laws. Paul, on the other hand, was reasoning that one could remain an ethnocultural Gentile and still be Christian. The Judaizers and Peter were the ones trying to force an integrated uniformitarian Church and Paul resisted them to their face and insisted that one could have a Gentile diet and be justified … Gentiles could be segregated and have their own Church. (see also Acts 15).

Peter is practicing an unbiblical favoritism because he is communicating to the Gentiles that they have to reject the new covenant in favor of the Talmudic interpreted old covenant. Paul resists Peter to his face not because Peter withdrew from table fellowship with the Gentiles but rather because by refusing table fellowship with the Gentiles Peter was favoring a talmudic interpreted old covenant over the new and better covenant. Peter was denying the Gospel in favor or Talmudism.

Now why do we conclude that the issue for Paul in Galatians 2:11f was not his desire for an amalgamationist Gospel but rather the issue for Paul was standing against Judaizing impulses? In other words, we are saying that this whole mess in Antioch that required rebuking Peter was not about the desire to eliminate Jewish and Gentile real ethnic distinctions but rather it was about going after the Talmudic/Judaizing attempt to redefine the Gospel as a different Gospel.

Keep in mind that among the Judaizers there were man made restrictions and stipulations when it came to table habits. These had been handed down from generation to generation by the Judaizing Rabbis who were seeking add to God’s Word. For example the Rabbis had set up a rule where meat consumed by Jews had to be processed in a definite way when purchased by a Gentile vendor. Another example had to do with washing the hands before eating — a washing not for ordinary hygienic reasons but for fear lest the hands be contaminated by contact with a Gentile (Mt. 15:1ff, Mk. 7:1ff).

So, the threat to the Gospel here in Galatians 2 is not the threat of upholding the everywhere taught in Scripture idea that there are distinct nations that remains. No, the threat to the Gospel that finds Paul so vehement about is the threat that the free grace of the Gospel was going to be changed out for a Talmudic Judaizing Gospel.

No one less than the greatest Theologian in the post Bible canon era, St. Augustine, could offer here;

“Difference of race or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains embedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected, and they even proposed living in accord with the racial differences between Jews and Greeks as a wholesome rule.”

St. Augustine on Galatians 3:28

So, away with this cultural Colonialism that keeps rearing its head in the cultural Marxist Church today. Away with this notion that Bono sang of when he envisioned “one day all colors bleeding into one.” If Jesus, right at this very moment, can remain a descendant of Judah and David then the Gospel does not include the stripping off of our creational identities.

And just in case in needs to be said, away with the idea that Christianity forbids us from having table fellowship and friendships with fellow Christians of different tribes, tongues, and nations who share a like precious faith.

Summing up this point let us observe that if we were to posit that instead of Gentile table partners the case had been that the table partners in Antioch had been Jews who were not Judaizers, and so non-observant, the complaints of those Judaizers coming from James would have been the same.

The issue here is not eating with Gentiles
The issue here is non-Talmudic lifestyles

Now, we need a sermon on Ephesians 2 in order to cement this but that will have to wait for another time.

Before moving on to the next point let us make an observation here brought up by vs. 14;

II) The Character of Paul’s Rebuke of Peter

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, [g]why do you compel Gentiles to live as [h]Jews?

Paul’s rebuke of Peter reminds us that nobody in the Church has a status that allows them to be counted as untouchable. If someone is in terrible error then they need to have, out of even love for them,  their ears boxed. Nobody gets a pass when it comes to error of this magnitude. Not even Peter … not even the Pope of Moscow, not even the R2K Escondido lads and not even those — whoever they may be — accounted today to be pillars in the Church. I hope that if I ever am in error of this magnitude someone would love me enough to metaphorically box my ears.

Note the manner Paul rebukes Peter. It is right out in the open before God and man. There is no passive aggressive campaign to undercut Peter. There is no gossip behind Peter’s back. Paul grabs the Mic, and says what he has to say and then drops the mic. There is no more to be said.

Peter’s sin was public and thus so was Paul’s rebuke. It needs to be said here that this provides a template for us when people write or speak publicly. If they are putting themselves out there publicly then it is proper to respond in public — especially when the issue is of great magnitude.

III.) The Content of Paul’s Rebuke of Peter

15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not [i]justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

The context here points in the direction that what we have said so far is exactly the case. You see my friends the issue here is not the idea that the new covenant requires ethnic and cultural assimilation. The issue here is the character of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

This is the connection between verses15-16 and what went previously. What is being argued here is this;

If a Jew who, having turned to Christ, has learned that strict and exacting obedience to legal requirements — human and divine — will not bring him into the Kingdom, tries, nevertheless, to impose such legalism upon the sinner Gentiles, his effort to place this burden upon them has no excuse.

If we were to paraphrase the verses above into a language that might make more sense to us we would offer;

“Though we are by birth, race and descent Jews who are a highly privileged people, and not nekulturny sinners of Gentile descent, yet, when we learned that our works done in obedience to the law –both divine and human — could never be adequate to make us righteous in God’s sight, and that this standing could be attained only by trusting in Jesus Christ, even we, who in self esteem were always looking down on the Gentile goyim, began to se that before God we were not any better than they. Hence, even we embraced Christ by a living faith, in order that by means of the exercise of faith we might receive as a free gift, that standing of being ‘not guilty, but righteous’ in God’s sight. It was by faith in Christ and His merits, and definitely not by our obedience to the law, that we received this blessing of being righteous, for by works done in obedience to law — human or divine — no weak earthly, perishable human, whose works never reach the goal of perfection, will ever be able to attain to the standing of righteousness before God.”

If this is an accurate free hand rendering of vs. 15-16 we see the abject silliness in seeking to make Galatians 2 prove that the new covenant demands ethnic assimilationism. A thousand times “NO.” Galatians 2 is about the attempt of the Judaizers to deny Justification by faith alone.

The verb “to justify” used here in the passive voice of the Greek verb — hence to be justified — occurs here for the first time in St. Paul’s epistles and is used three times to boot in these two vs.

So, we should ask what is Galatians 2 teaching about “to be justified.” As we examine this keep in mind that the word “justified” has different senses. The context has to be examined.

In Galatians 2:15-16 the three passive verbs of dikaios are used in the typical forensic/judicial sense. In this context justification is best defined as that free and gracious act of the Father, whereby on the alone basis of Christ’s accomplished mediatorial cross work, the Father declares the sinner as meeting all the requirements of His just Law and so is legally just in God’s court — and the latter accepts this by faith. Whereas prior the sinner was — subjectively speaking — judicially under condemnation, now He is justified.

This reminds us that our standing with God is based upon God’s judicial declaration wherein He accepts the blood atoning work of Jesus Christ as our substitute. Justification screams that we are righteous by works but not our work. We are righteous by the works of Jesus Christ. Therefore our works as a consideration are (thank God) not part of the equation. Christ fully meets the demands of God’s law — both the demands for perfect obedience and the demand that past accrued guilt — both natural and actual — be paid with the price of blood.

Conclusion

Briefly, since we are over time now, we want to articulate here something so obvious that it might be missed the way that a fish misses the importance of the water all around him — and that because the water is just so much part of his environment that he can’t see it.

The obvious thing we need to say is that the kind of Judaizing-Talmudism which brought this whole conflict on, hates with a mad passion Biblical Christianity. It is the case here in Galatians 2. It is the case in Acts 15. Judaizing-Talmudism remains in opposition to Biblical Christianity. We would do well to keep that in mind.

Let us continue to pray that God in Christ might grant redemption to the Judaizers-Talmudists as well as the useful idiots in the Church who continue to do their bidding.