Gal 4:8-20 - The gospel unchained

The last verse in Galatians referencing the gospel is 4:13 in the context of Paul transitioning from the Galatians' enslavement to their freedom:

8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods.⁹Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits? How can you want to be enslaved to them again?¹⁰You are observing special days, and months, and seasons, and years.¹¹I am afraid that my work for you may have been wasted.
12 Friends, I beg you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You have done me no wrong.¹³You know that it was because of a physical infirmity that I first announced the gospel to you;¹⁴though my condition put you to the test, you did not scorn or despise me, but welcomed me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.¹⁵What has become of the goodwill you felt? For I testify that, had it been possible, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me.¹⁶Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?¹⁷They make much of you, but for no good purpose; they want to exclude you, so that you may make much of them.¹⁸It is good to be made much of for a good purpose at all times, and not only when I am present with you.¹⁹My little children, for whom I am again in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you,²⁰I wish I were present with you now and could change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.

The word 'gospelled' is straightforwardly speaking about Paul's original preaching of the gospel message to the Galatians due to illness. The whole purpose of Paul writing this letter is to move the Galatians back to simple, obedient, Spirit-led faith in that message rather than a complex system of religious observance and practice being introduced to them. The perversion of the gospel message is the addition of observing the law to be considered part of Israel and to receive eternal life. This is not purely doing the 'right' thing in terms of sin, but also the proper religious observances including rituals of circumcision, Sabbath keeping, festivals, etc.

As far as concluding how Galatians defines the gospel, we can say that it largely assumes the Galatians know its message already. However, the implications have been distorted by others adding requirements to what Jesus has already achieved, the 'righteous' status as Abraham's children declared by God, and what the Spirit is at work doing in their lives.

Leave a comment. Please share below. Thanks for reading.

Gal 2:6-14 - Acting in line with the gospel

There are many Christians who live out of sync with the truth of the gospel and it was no different in Galatia in the 1st century. I have already stated in previous posts on Galatians that Jesus fulfilled the law and that the Galatians' problem had to do with living inconsistently with the logical implications of that fulfillment. The some of the details will come out later in Paul's letter, but for now, we'll look at Gal 2:6-14 (NRSV):

⁶And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me. ⁷On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised ⁸(for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles), ⁹and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. ¹⁰They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was^* eager to do. 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; ¹²for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. ¹³And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. ¹⁴But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’^*

There are two instances of the word 'gospel' (v7 [only once in Greek, but put twice in English for sake of clarity] + v14) and I contend that they are still talking about the same basic message about Jesus and what he has accomplished. Verse 7 doesn't reveal much about the gospel itself, but rather that Paul got it right and was not made to change anything. The second instance confirms what has been said thus far about the Galatian controversy, namely that the problem is not that they don't know the gospel, but that they are not living in light of the gospel (in line with the logic of what should naturally follow). The Greek word only occurs once in the entire New Testament so I should point that out. "Acting consistently" is ορτηοποδεο (Strongs 3716) with the following definitions: 1) to walk in a straight course 2) metaph. to act uprightly. Both options say exactly what we've established about following what has been taught concerning Jesus.

Thanks for reading and sharing on Facebook and Twitter!

Gal 2:1-5 - Paul's Gentile gospel

 Today's "gospel" text is Gal 2:1-5 (NRSV) which has 2 nouns:

2Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. ²I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain. ³But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. ⁴But because of false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us— ⁵we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you.

 Paul goes to Jerusalem because of a revelation (not of Jesus or to do with the gospel) and takes the time to explain what he preaches to Gentiles (non-Jews). "Preach" or "proclaim" in v2 is not "gospelling," but "to herald" as with news from a king or ruling authority with the implication that whatever is announced is to be obeyed). He is here seeking to confirm that the message of the resurrected Lord, Jesus, he has seen himself is the same message as they preach also having seen the resurrected Lord.
The fact that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised and that false believers were spying on Gentile freedom in Jesus the Messiah (Christ) has to do with the truth of the gospel. I have already posted on Galatians and the logic of the gospel, but I think it makes the most sense to say the implications of the gospel are the freedom of not following the law, including circumcision, because Jesus has fulfilled the law.  To say that living in freedom from certain restrictions of the Jewish law such as not having to be circumcised are the gospel itself doesn't make sense unless we say all other effects or implications are the gospel. We would basically have to say the entire Christian faith is the gospel itself. The distinction between implication/effect and the gospel itself will be shown in later posts. However, this text and the previous post I've linked to above demonstrate how inseparably linked the two are. If you distort the freedom we have you distort the gospel itself and if you distort the gospel itself you distort the freedom.

Thanks for reading! I have over 1,000 views on this blog after only a week or so!
If you like what you're reading, please 'share' on Google +, Twitter, and Facebook below.

Gal 1:18-24

Continuing the trend of the verb 'gospel' is Gal 1:18-24 (NRSV):

18 Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days; ¹⁹but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother. ²⁰In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie! ²¹Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia,²²and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; ²³they only heard it said, ‘The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.’ ²⁴And they glorified God because of me.

 Verse 23 is also translated "proclaiming the good news"(NET); "preaching the faith"(NIV and most other translations),;"preaching the very message"(Msg). In one sense, this is merely reiterating the same thing as the last post: Paul is 'gospelling' about Jesus. However, we should also note that in addition to Jesus being identified as God's son, he is identified as the Messiah/Christ, which the people are 'in'. What Paul tried to destroy was the announcement of Jesus as Messiah, Son of Man at the right hand of the Father, the righteous one, the Prophet promised by Moses, and Lord (Acts 7). Also, I'm sure I'll repeat myself many times, but the first thing Paul proclaimed after his conversion was Jesus as the Son of God; the Messiah (Acts 9). One whole chapter of Galatians and so far no hint of Justification, sin, or the cross, but there will be plenty of that to sort out in the coming chapters.

Gal 1:16 gospel (verb)

Here's a quick post on the use of 'gospel' from Gal 1:13-17 (NRSV):

13 You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. ¹⁴I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. ¹⁵But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased ¹⁶to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, ¹⁷nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.

 Literally, verse 16 says "...so that I might gospel him..." (it can be a verb as in this case and verse 11)  Paul is speaking about 'gospelling' God's son, aka Jesus. This is very similar to Friday's post, so I won't go into much detail except to point out that we see once again the gospel as a message about making Jesus himself known.

Gal 1:11 - 'Gospel' is a verb and a noun

In our English Bibles we find the word 'gospel' or sometimes 'good news', but in the original Greek there is a verb (euaggelizó) as well as the noun (euaggelion). How does the verb get translated? It is normally translated that someone 'proclaimed the good news' or something similar. Really, it ought to say 'gospelled', but that's not a common word. Sometimes the verb and the noun occur in the same place at the same time. This combination occurs five times: 1 Cor 9:18, 15:1; 2 Cor 11:7; Gal 1:11; Rev 14:6.

Today we'll look at Gal 1:11-12 (NRSV)

11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

"The gospel I preached" is literally "the gospel I gospelled." Now this text might not seem like much, but it makes some pretty bold claims that could be misconstrued as contradictory to other statements of Paul regarding the gospel. He states three negatives and adds a positive:

Not of human origin
Not received from anyone
Not taught it

Received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ

Now according to 1 Cor 15:1, Paul received the gospel and passed it on (Which we'll cover another time). The reason for the difference is that Paul is asserting the validity of his apostleship and the validity of the gospel they heard from him as being legitimate. He writes at length shortly thereafter about his conversion and how God revealed his son (Jesus) to him. Then he continues on about how he didn't confer with Peter and company till later and that they affirmed him and added nothing to his gospel.

What Paul is driving home about the gospel is that he personally saw Jesus the Messiah risen from the dead. The gospel hinges on the historic fact of the resurrection and Paul's conversion was a result of an encounter of the risen Lord. He knows the gospel isn't of human origin (made up stories), or receive it from anyone (go find out about it), or have someone explain it all to him because he understood the implications (learned) of his personal encounter (received directly) of Jesus on the Damascus road (real history).

These are all important facts about the gospel, but it is also important that Paul stresses agreement as to what the gospel is. He emphasizes his validity as apostle to preach the gospel and the agreement about what the gospel is because these are the problems he faces in correcting the Galatian church. They need to know that Paul is legit and that the people throwing them into confusion are false teachers. Paul leverages his encounter with Jesus and the solidarity of the gospel message to speak clarity into the situation, which I posted about the last couple of days.

I suppose I should point out how Paul is revealing that the gospel is a revelation of Jesus who has been raised from the dead and is the Messiah (Christ). These are also constant themes, but not the emphasis in this passage.

Leave a message and let me know what you learned or if there is something more to be said.
Also, share on +, Facebook, and twitter below! Thanks!

Galatians and gospel logic

Since I put up the page from my book on the gospel yesterday, which starts by looking at Paul's letter to the Galatians, I will start going through that book's use of the word 'gospel' first.

In the meantime, I mentioned in an earlier post that the number of people holding to a group 'C' view of the gospel (neither Justification by faith or Justice of the the Kingdom, but the saving story of Jesus himself). Well, I'm finding even more examples of this! Peter Enns' post alerted me to something David Williams wrote on gospel logic in Galatians. While he also touches on what I wrote in Group 'C' and the 3rd 'J' his main point is that Paul is not telling the Galatian church what the gospel is, but how they have misapplied it and misunderstood its logical effects in relation to ethnic Israel, the law, and circumcision.

The primary point Williams drives home is that their actions are denying the change the gospel brings regarding the rituals of the Law (Torah/Law of Moses) having lost their governing function over God's people.

This is the logic of the gospel:

If the Messiah was crucified, then the Torah is no longer binding for the Messiah’s people.

The Messiah was crucified (the gospel).

Therefore, the Torah is no longer binding for the Messiah’s people.

 But the Galatians' actions say they believe this:

 If the Messiah was crucified, then the Torah is no longer binding for the Messiah’s people.

It is not the case that the Torah is no longer binding for the Messiah’s people (hence, that is why we’re being circumcised).

Therefore, the Messiah was not crucified (perversion of the gospel).

The thrust of this argument from Paul can be found in 2:21b-3:1.

The more I read Galatians the more I see the interesting parallel to Romans, which has convinced me that Romans is also about Jew and Gentile being one people in the Messiah.

Any thoughts on this?

First page of my book on the gospel

I decided to write a book this summer, but found myself on graveyard shift and in an interview process for a new job. I got a lot of research and outlining done, but I only finished writing one page of the book itself! I'd really appreciate some feedback in the comments on this one.
I won't reveal the book or chapter title, but here's the first page:
--------------
-->

When the Apostle Paul travelled from place to place he proclaimed the gospel. Where there was a response he established a church. Where there were problems he stayed longer, returned, or wrote to them. One such church was having a serious problem. This was the problem of getting the gospel wrong. Paul addressed this problem by writing his letter to the Galatians. This was one of the first letters, if not the first letter, Paul wrote.

Think about that. This was one of the firstwritings of the New Testament and alreadythe understanding of the gospel was in jeopardy. If theycould get it wrong then certainly we can get it wrong. It is no wonder that this letter was kept, copied, and circulated, eventually being accepted into the Bible we have today. Here Paul writes, bringing attention to their confusion about the gospel:

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angelfrom heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!“ (Gal 1:6-9 NRSV)

There is a lot we can learn from this simple looking text. Paul is surprised because he clearly told them what the gospel is and explained it properly. The Galatian church turned to another gospel quickly and he had to remind them what it actually was. The problem was caused by some who were changing the gospel which brought confusion because it was different from what they heard from Paul. The confusion about what the gospel is comes from someone either adding to or subtracting from it.

Paul is so certain that the real gospel has been given he says someone who presents another gospel should be accursed. Anathema. Eternally condemned. Going to hell. This list potential 'someones' includes: himself; his companions; angels; anyone. Significantly, when he says that they turned toanother gospel Paul does not say that it was the gospel that they turned from. That is implied, but what he actually says is that they turned away from God himself; The God who called them to the gospel about Jesus in the grace of Jesus. The harsh words of letting those proclaiming 'another gospel' be condemned is a natural consequence when we understand it means they are leading people away from God altogether.

-------------

I'm concerned that it's a little boring or dry.

What do you think?