Gospel Unity
Notes
Transcript
Text Intro.
We concluded our exposition of chapter one last week. Paul was on the defensive because of the accusations of the false teachers that we can refer to as Judaizers. The Judaizers called both Paul’s authority (apostleship) and message (the gospel) into question. They claimed to have an authority and message that was superior to Paul’s, and this was part of their tactic to take over the Galatian churches. To discredit Paul was to take over the churches. And, not long after Paul’s efforts to establish churches in this region by preaching the gospel, spending time with the people and training up leaders, many of the people began to buy into the teaching of the Judaizers. Things began to unravel, and in Paul’s heartache over this, he responded by writing this letter. So chapter one was a defense of his apostleship and message to the Galatian churches. But in this defense, he conveyed a concern for them.... that the gospel was their standard. Not man or man’s ideas, so he made clear that they should be:
moved by the gospel
rooted in the gospel
transformed by the gospel
But as we move into chapter 2, Paul continues to deal with the accusations of the false teachers, but it’s important to know that this wasn’t Paul’s fragile ego motivating him to defend his authority and message. He had a concern for the people to whom he was called to minister. The gospel is to result in something among God’s people that transcends all differences and misunderstandings and hardships and disappointments. And what Paul describes in the first half of chapter 2 illustrates this particular effect of the gospel well.
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
Introduction
Inclusivity has become a buzz word in popular culture today. What is meant by inclusivity is straight forward enough. It is equal access and opportunity for everyone. What we do about a lack of inclusivity? That’s not so straight forward. Part of the challenge with inclusivity now is rightly identifying it and the reasons for its lack. Nver-the-less, there are plenty of suggestions for how to achieve and maintain inclusivity.
The Kellog School of Management of Northwester University published an article on their ebsite on Jan. 4, 2019 entitled: How to Make Inclusivity More Than Just a Buzzword.
After noting that part of inclusivity is for places of business to value diversity, the author says this:
...even those that succeed in establishing diverse organizations can fall short when it comes to inclusion. After all, having employees with a wide array of backgrounds does not ensure that everyone feels equally welcome and valued.
Now to help ensure the workplace is inclusive, these are some of the article’s suggestions:
Learn Your Blind Spots: Implicit bias is universal. In other words, being bias towards those who are a certain race, a certain gender, and who possess certain qualities and interests is fundamental to who we are.
Now of course, a statement like that is anything but unifying. It is debated and debated. But, perhaps the idea that people are fundamentally bias, that is, possess inclinations to favor some people over others because they match our preferences is true, at least on some level.
Being aware of this, it is suggested, is a key in being more inclusive. It may help, but I suggest it does not and will never solve the problem.
It makes sense that people want equal opportunity and access. It makes sense that people want to feel like they belong. It makes sense that people desire unity. But what needs to be understood is that on what we rely upon to achieve these things will make all the difference between success and failure. We have a problem with people being different that we are. We do. These kinds of differences can evoke fear or aggression or disdain.
We have trouble getting along.... Respecting one another.... working together.... tolerating one another. And I suggest that underneath all of this is the sinfulness of people. Sin explains why we’re like that and why we treat each other this way. And if human sinfulness is the explanation then the remedy is straight forwards enough. The gospel.
Some suggest that if we mutually commit to inclusivity on the basis of what we can see in people. Ignoring race, gender, familiar qualities etc., we will gain ground on abolishing bias. But we don’t ignore those things.
You see, our problem is that
FCF: Sometimes rely on the wrong mutual commitments for our unity.
It seems to me, the church can be much like the world, as far as its standard for unity is concerned.
Personality
Political Views
Met expectations (don’t disappoint me)
And of course there are other criteria we look to, but the problem with all of these is:
they are fragile and not dependable
they provide a hallow and false unity
And Paul’s experience in Jerusalem, particularly with the apostles who were in Jerusalem, illustrates the unifying affect the gospel must have on God’s people. How we handle differences, how much we value unity and how serious maintaining the purity of the gospel is.
So, what I’m suggesting today, in light of this text is that
Only a mutual commitment to the gospel can unify us.
Only a mutual commitment to the gospel can unify us.
Again, not similar personalities, political views or even satisfying each other’s expectations (which is impossible to do all the time), but a mutual commitment to the gospel.
AQ: What will a mutual commitment to the gospel lead us to do with respect to our unity?
Pursue It (1-2)
Pursue It (1-2)
Paul lets us know that 14 years had passed at which point he went to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus. 14 years after what? Some debate on this, but it seems likely that it was 14 years after his conversion on the Damascus road.
But more important than this is why he went to Jerusalem and what he did while there.
Why did Paul go to Jerusalem?
I went up because of a revelation.
Paul used this same term, revelation, in 1:12 to describe the encounter he had with the risen Christ on the Damascus road.
So what’s important here is that Paul was prompted to go to Jerusalem as a result of God’s intervention into his life. One commentator notes how the Amplified Bible renders this verse:
I went because it was specifically and divinely revealed to me that I should go.
While it’s interesting and really amazing that God interacts with Paul in this way, there’s another reason to take note of this. Remember that there were people who had infiltrated the Galatian churches and were leading people astray. And one aspect of their tactics was to seek to discredit Paul. And when he learned that his name was being dragged through the mud, what did he do? Before we get to that, what do we do what something like that happens.
I’m not about to make the point that we should be indifferent or cavalier about our reputations, but our reactions to such treatment must be yielded to the leading and authority of God. Paul could have sought after these individuals and confronted them. He wasn’t the kind of guy who would hesitate to confront people, we’ll see that next week when we consider his confrontation of the Apostle Peter.
He went to Jerusalem, not on a mission to stop the slander or to launch his own smear campaign, but in obedience to God’s command.
What did Paul do in Jerusalem?
set before them.... the gospel. Set before means to declare or advocate for the gospel. There is a certain defensive bent here. We all know defensive people (maybe some of us are defensive). Defensive people feel the need to defend themselves against criticism or misunderstanding. Paul was defensive, but not of himself. He went to defend the gospel. Now, it’s not that the gospel needs defending, but out of his desire to obey God and fulfill his ministry and a heart for people to hear and understand the gospel, he declared it in Jerusalem. Perhaps there were some in Jerusalem, who had heard what happened to Paul and how he was now preaching, but who also wanted to discredit him in Jerusalem. Paul went to Jerusalem to declare the gospel. This was a fundamental objective to all his travel and efforts. He had a gospel-centric ministry.
But Paul did something else in Jerusalem. Notice another phrase in v. 2: privately before those who seemed influential.
those who seemed influential, were the apostles mentioned later in this text (v. 9), Peter, James & John.
Paul initiated this conference. He was not summoned by these 3 Apostles… he arranged to meet with them.
The reason he met with them was to address and attempt to resolve the trouble regarding what the false teachers were spreading around about him. Paul saw a potential division on the horizon for the church, and he wanted to do all he could to prevent that from happening. Peter, James and John were probably hearing these rumors and accusations about Paul, and Paul was there on his own accord to make sure they were all on the same page.
And this was a private meeting between him and the 3 other apostles. He did not proclaim his case in the public square in Jerusalem. He did not ridicule those who were slandering him. His mission did not center on himself, but on the gospel, and he wanted to do all he could to maintain a healthy relationship with all those who were serving the cause of the gospel as well.
The way Paul handled this is crucial for us now. He expressed this idea in his epistle to the Romans:
So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.
This is what a mutual commitment to the gospel will produce. We all want peace and mutual upbuilding, but we need to be sure that the criteria we say is necessary to have it and the methods we employ to attain it needs to be informed by the Gospel for it to be real and lasting.
This is not to suggest that there is never a cause to speak out publically about matters that cannot be compromised. Jesus certainly did this in his ministry.... so did Paul. But again, a commitment to the gospel is key in all of this, and a mutual commitment is key when it comes to our unity.
And notice what the end of v. 2 says: to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. I suggest that Paul is expressing a concern for the churches and new converts that he had ministered to. He know that a major division in the church would be devastating to the churches. He wanted to do all he could to maintain unity so that all his efforts with people and planting churches would be protected from harm. But again, Peter, James, John, Paul and any other follower of Christ, though they had different ministries, they were committed to the same gospel. This was the key to their ministry, and church, it is the key to ours.
Only a mutual commitment to the gospel can unify us.
And in light of this, what else will we do with respect to unity?
Defend It (3-5)
Defend It (3-5)
We know from verse one, Paul had Barnabas and Titus with him.
Some of what we know about Titus
Titus may have been from Syrian Antioch, and probably lived there when he began to work with Paul. In Galatians 2:1, Paul describes that he went to Jerusalem with Barnabas and took Titus (συμπαραλαβὼν καὶ Τίτον, symparalabōn kai Titon). Paul, Barnabas, and Titus likely departed from Antioch, Paul and Barnabas’ primary base (Acts 11:22; 13:1). Galatians 2:3 describes Titus as “being Greek” (Ἓλλην ὤν, Hellēn ōn). The term used for “Greek” can mean either a true Greek, or a non-Jewish individual.
So being non-Jewish, he was not circumcised. But as far as the Judaizers were concerned, if one was not circumcised, they were not acceptable to God. But this idea contradicted the gospel.
Notice in v. 4, these false brothers attempted to interrupt Paul’s ministry and lead him and his partners in ministry astray.
To be clear these false brothers were insisting on Titus’ circumcision.
Now, notice how Paul describes their response to the false teachers’ efforts in v. 5: we did not yield in submission even for a moment. Why is Paul so adamant here? I don’t think many of us are surprised that Paul did not cave, but why was he so careful to assure the Galatian churches that he didn’t give in even a little.
Paul believed that to give an inch was to allow for the corruption of the gospel. And when we give an inch with regard to the purity of the gospel, we jeopardize our unity. The only unity that is real and lasting and is able to withstand all the diversity and the flawed realities of one another is gospel-centered unity. But if we have a corrupted gospel, we have no unity, so we need to be ready to defend our unity. The gospel is under attack, and we therefore can conclude that our unity is under attack.
Notice Paul’s description of the Judaizers in v. 4
Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery—
Timothy George, in his commentary on this verse points out that these descriptions: false, secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom… are all terms that derive from political and military espionage, and applied these terms what the conflict that was going on in the church.
There was a war in play, and in the sights of the enemy was the purity of the gospel and the unity of the church.
Church, because the gospel is worth defending, our unity is worth defending. We cannot give an inch on the gospel. So much is at stake.
But keep in mind, false teachers are not obvious
not what they seem to be. They were claiming to be servants of God, but they were contradicting the gospel
Their agenda is secret. They won’t be obvious. They will claim to have our best interest in mind. They will be very convincing.
But again, our assumptions about our unity can often be disconnected from the gospel.... perhaps without realizing it. This bring us to the final point. When it comes to a mutual commitment to the gospel being necessary for us to be unified, we need to understand the gospel to be a purifying agent in or unity.
What do I mean?
Purify It (6-10)
Purify It (6-10)
In verse 6, Paul again refers to those who seemed to be influential, which again is a reference to the 3 apostles mentioned in verse 9.
Now, he notes that they, being the other apostles, added nothing to him. On its surface, it may appear that Paul is saying something like, I don’t sweat these guys. I’m as much an apostle as they are. But that’s not what’s going on here. What Paul is doing here is just making clear to the Galatians that the Apostles in Jerusalem were acknowledged by most as leaders. It was a way of conveying his respect for them.
Again, Paul’s aim here is mutual respect and unity for the sake of the people of God and his mission of proclaiming the gospel
And them moving into verses 7-8, Paul makes the point that the same grace that the Jerusalem Apostles had been given by God to do their ministry was the same grace Paul was given to do his. They had different missions (Peter to the Jews and Paul to the gentiles), but the same grace was required to do both.
The accusation the Judaizers were making against Paul, was that he was a Johnny-come-lately apostle. In other words, he was claiming to be something he was not, and just riding the coat tails of the other apostles. So Paul does not deny the differences between him and the other Apostles. The others walked with Jesus, and were eye witnesses to his ministry. Paul did not have that experience, but Paul’s encounter with Jesus on the Damascus road was a real as the disciples’ experience with Him while He was with them on earth. In light of this, Paul says, they added nothing to me (v. 6).
So ultimately Peter, James and John recognized that the same grace they were given to be apostles was also given to Paul, and as a result they gave him the right hand of fellowship. (9)
Now, what enabled Paul and the Jerusalem apostles work work through the quagmire of the Judaizers’ accusations against Paul and the rumors and misinformation and confusion? To what did Paul appeal to get this all straight with these leaders? Their shared reception of the grace of God. The message that they both preached to others. Their mutual commitment to the gospel.
The gospel was poured out on this mess and it became clear again. The situation was purified.
Here’s an implication for us:
It’s possible for our unity to be challenged. And again, often our unity seems and feels so fragile because we’re relying on the wrong things to unify us.
If, for example, we rely on not ever hurting or disappointing one another to be unified, then we will not remain unified. We’ll end up like behaving like the world. You failed me. You hurt me. You didn’t come through for me. I can’t believe you did that to me. I can’t have a relationship with you. The church did something. The church failed to do something. I’m hurt and disappointed. I’m gone. But instead, this is what we need to do. Dave is my brother in Christ. We’re friends, We’re partners in the gospel. But because I am sinful, I did something or failed to do something that hurt Dave. Now of course, there is a right way to handle our disagreements between one another, but why would we even bother with all of that? because of a mutual commitment to the gospel. So Dave, will pour the gospel on the situation. He won’t give up on being unified to me because of this unfortunate exchange, because that is not what ultimately unifies us. It’s our mutual commitment to the Gospel. So forgiveness, repentance, reconciliation, humility… all of the things that are necessary for healthy relationships to flourish will be there in a context where the gospel is central.
The gospel must be central. When there’s a mutual commitment to it, there is an unshakable unity.
And so what all the apostles agreed on was their responsibility in the gospel ministry to minister to the poor. Unity, that is built upon the gospel. This makes sense. All of us were spiritually bankrupt, and the gospel says that Jesus came to save such people. He gave His people the riches of His grace by dying in their place on the cross. He took on the consequences of our spiritual poverty and he gave us His wealth of grace and mercy. Now, as His people, we have wealth beyond measure to give to the world.
Only a mutual commitment to the gospel can unify us.
Only a mutual commitment to the gospel can unify us.
Conclusion
We can’t stay unified if what we rely on for unity is anything other than the gospel of Jesus. Because
Hardships will come
Disagreements will happen
Disappointments will occur
Even rumors, slander and backstabbing (like Paul experienced) isn’t out of the question.
Our political views and personalities and expectations of one another cannot withstand these challenges to our unity, but the gospel can and does.