"Foolish"!: A Game Show about Galatians 3 where the gospel is important but the points don't matter

 

 1.    Peter, who the Apostle Paul gets into a fight with in Galatians 2, will later refer to Paul as a  . . .
A.     dear brother with the wisdom of God who is often hard to understand.
B.     passionate apostle who can easily be tempted by anger.
C.     Christian who should switch to decaf and take a chill pill.
D.     None of the above

Answer: B In 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter writes: 15Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Peter both honors Paul and offers us a sober warning when reading him - identifying two ditches we want to avoid. On the one hand, he’s difficult and often writing in a context of debate using highly polemical language. It simply won’t do to paper over this reality with strong pronouncements of theology using certain Pauline text that often refuse any scholarly consensus precisely because they are dense and challenging. A great example is 3:19-20. On the other hand, we cannot ignore these texts, either. They were written thoughtfully and passionately and, lest we forget, about our inclusion into Christianity. Paul is our defender. Surely that fact alone means we should listen to him well. Peter is right – ignoring him or being cavalier with his writings is out of the question. 

2.    Paul’s first argument in chapter 3, which challenges the Circumcision Party’s argument that “the works of the law” are the path to righteousness, is . . .
A.    an incredibly dense argument covering the role of Abraham and Roman inheritance laws.
B.    the corporate and personal experience of the Holy Spirit
C.    in wishing that those of the Circumcision Party would “go the whole way and emasculate themselves”
D.    by repeatedly saying “unh unh” and “I’m rubber. You’re glue. Bounces off me and sticks on you.”





Answer: B. This is more than an incidental point. It should be remembered that the inclusion of Gentiles did not first occur from any reasoning from Scripture but rather from personal spiritual experiences in the life of Peter and Paul (see particularly Acts 10-15). In fact, Peter will have a vision which will challenge dietary restrictions imposed by the law coupled with the experience of meeting and preaching to the Gentile Cornelius. The Circumcision Party had the weight of Scripture on its side and Peter, based on the experience of Cornelius and his whole household receiving the Spirit, argued “So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”

3.    The Greek word sarx or “flesh” is an important word in the New Testament. In Galatians Paul uses the term . . .
A.    Always negatively to refer to “sinful nature”
B.    Neutrally to refer to skin or a human person as being mortal
C.    As a hybrid concept to describe both neutral and negative realities.
D.    Wait! He wasn’t kidding. These questions are hard. Um. I’m going to go with the color “green.” Final answer.





Answer: C. For Paul, sarx can refer to an inclination to do evil or carnal desires or behaviors that are opposed to the Spirit (not necessarily physical, see Galatians 6:19-20 where “acts of the flesh” are connected to “hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy.” Such desires are said to be antithetical to the role of the Spirit, Gal. 3:3. But it’s also true that the term can simply mean “human being” as in Galatians 1:16: 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being [σαρκὶ]. Paul will also use it to refer to “skin” or “the act of circumcision itself,” which, is not an inherently negative reality. Making it compulsory is. 

4.    In Galatians 3, Paul will argue that the Old Testament prefaces the gospel message through God’s dealings with Abraham who . . .
A.    God promised would bless everyone, including Gentiles.
B.    Trusted God’s promise
C.    Received God’s promise for his “seed” or offspring who was Jesus
D.    Was offered God’s promise by grace and not through following the law
E.    All of the above





Answer: E Paul is making all of these arguments using the chronology of the Biblical story (what often gets called “Salvation History” to point out that God made a promise to Abraham, before the law was ever given or circumcision mentioned, to make his family “into a great nation” and to “be a blessing” so that “all the peoples on earth will be blessed” (Genesis 12:2-3). Abraham needed only to “trust” God in this, and we must also, though, if you remember the story he repeatedly loses that trust, even in the same chapter where the promise occurs. Remarkably, this promise was offered graciously by God before Abraham had done anything. Paul also makes an interesting argument using the singular term offspring or seed saying that that prefigured Jesus (Cf. Genesis 22:18). Jesus himself will point to this gracious reality, Matthew 3:9). So Paul is saying that God’s promise to Abraham was a sort of proto-gospel which secures our inclusion and prefigures what happens through Jesus.
 

5.    In 3:15, Paul uses an argument from “everyday life” to show that God’s promise to Abraham was binding and could not be altered or replaced by the law. That topic from everyday life was . . .
A.    a blood oath ritual of friendship like a Facebook friend (it can’t be undone)
B.    a financial debt owed having lost a best
C.    an official legally binding document, like a last will and testament
D.    a drunken tattoo of Nero that you thought would look so cool but now are stuck with





Answer: C. Paul’s everyday argument refers to a “διαθήκη” which while can be translated as “covenant” refers to a variety of legally binding documents within the Roman Empire like a last will and testament. The argument, accordingly, is that human wills are official documents that cannot be altered or brushed aside when determining inheritance. The law, in other words, cannot replace that promise. So think about that. Your inheritance rest upon the gracious of God and the faithfulness of another from the very beginning. That’s the story, Paul says, the Bible wishes to tell. Salvation by grace through faith is not a New Testament story. It’s a biblical one. 

6.    True or False. Paul will argue that living by works of the law is a doomed path by quoting from the Old Testament, specifically the law.  
BONUS: How many Old Testament passages does Paul cite in Galatians 3? 5, 7, or 9 (5)





Answer: True. For example, to prove that living by the law is a doomed path, Paul quotes from the law itself, Deuteronomy 27:26: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law” (Gal. 3:10). Paul will also quote from the obscure book of Habakkuk and argue that the “righteous will live by faith” (Hab. 2:4). 

7.    True or False According to most New Testament scholars, the most important faith, according to Paul, is our “faith in Jesus Christ.”





Answer: False. While the NIV translates, 3:22 “But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.” However, most scholars argue that the passage should read “because of the faithfulness OF Jesus Christ.” They also point out that that’s Paul point in the next verse, “Now before faith came we were held in custody under the law . . .” in context clearly refers to salvation history in which Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, does away with the necessity of the law. 

8.    One of the metaphors that Paul uses for the law is the role of the paidagogos in 3:24. A paidagogos was a common role in the Roman world of . . .
A.    An overbearing parent
B.    A stern judge
C.    A protective chaperone
D.    An enormous bouncer at the coliseum for those who got a bit rowdy.
E.    None of the above





Answer: C. 24 Thus the law had become our paidagogos until Christ, so that we could be declared righteous by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a paidagogos. A παιδαγωγός was typically a slave…whose duty it was to conduct a boy or youth…to and from school and to superintend his conduct. Generally, he was not a ‘teacher’ or leader but looked after someone who was not of age. Perhaps, chaperone or even baby sitter is a proper equivalent. The point, inherent to the role, was that when the young man became of age, the π. was no longer needed.

9.    True or False Paul’s whole argument about the law is that the law was bad and simply corrupted people further. It served no useful purpose.





Answer: False It’s true that Paul will speak both positively and negatively about the law in Galatians 3 and he can be hard to pin down. He often loves both/and arguments which push things to their extremes. There is a lot of debate on this topic, more than we can talk about now. Perhaps an analogy might help. Paul says that the law was significant and important in naming and curtailing sin while at the same time serving only for a limited time and because it simply can’t create better behavior or make people free. It aimed to hold sin at bay “so as not to run loose” and therefore had a functionally positive purpose. If we remember recent pandemic legislation – stay-at-home orders, masks mandates, school and business closures, these rules were both necessary and difficult. And while they aimed to keep us safe no one imagined that they would be for all time or could create a good life. NO, we understood that the goal was to limit the spread of disease so that we might return to the life that existed beforehand. Covid rules didn’t create a context for “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” so to speak but that’s not what they were designed to do. They aimed to curtail the virus that harmed that.

10.    True or False Paul’s argument in Galatians 3:28 can essentially be summarized as “I don’t care if people are black or white. I treat everyone the same. I’m colorblind.”





Answer: False. I often hear Christians arguing that Paul was colorblind by quoting this verse. I don’t believe that Paul was promoting being colorblind, certainly not the way it is sometimes used. Paul was quite concerned about treating everyone respectfully, and often that meant not treating them exactly the same. A great example of this is 1 Corinthians 9:19-27. A couple of points. First, Paul did not surrender any sense of difference or culture after having been baptized into Christ. He didn’t surrender his “I’m a Jew card” and didn’t talk about his identity as a thing of the past, He acknowleged this identity, loved fellow Jews, and even used that identity to help him navigate legal troubles. And yet Paul also believed that certain circumstances called for giving one group special care or attention – like a hurting limb in need of support – whether the poor in Gal. 2:10, or Gentiles who are being forced to give up their own culture, Gal. 2:11-14. So Gal. 3:28 is not about erasing social, ethnic, or gender differences. What he wanted was for each person to be treated with the full amount of respect, dignity, and welcome as anyone else. To do this, however, might mean needing to subvert systems of sin and oppression which demonized certain cultures or roles. Take for example, “slaves” in Gen. 3:28. Slaves in antiquity were viewed as subhuman, degenerate, morally evil, even deserving of slavery. So too, foreigners, or sometimes women. And Paul’s point is that we are One in Jesus and that we must attend to that oneness by raising up and caring for those who have been or are being harmed – that’s why Galatians was written. Paul’s point might equally be that Galatians was written to highlight that Gentile lives matter. Not because Jewish ones don’t but because currently there is an imbalance of access and power which harms everyone and the oneness that we are to have together because of the gospel.

Just (Don't): How to be a sinner, fail at faith, and die free ~ Galatians 2:11-21

Our passage, Galatians 2:11-21, is one of the most nuanced, dense, and difficult passages in all of the New Testament. For a point of comparison, there is a book written by a New Testament scholar on vss. 15-18  that’s slightly over 300 pages long. And while I appreciate your faith in me to deal justly with the Scriptures I will confess to you that there is a lot of difficult material here and I felt overwhelmed by dealing adequately with it. I was sharing that problem with James Heyen who said, “Let me tell you what one of my mentors told me. ‘In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.’” So today I’m preaching with one eye open – that’s all I got. We won’t be able to talk about everything and trust me when I say that I don’t see perfectly – and no, I don’t think I’m king – but I can spy with my little eye three things that are worth pondering together and I welcome to hear what you think: (Don’t) Be sinner like Peter., Gal. 2:11-14; (Don’t) Have faith. Jesus has faith!, Gal. 2:15-18; (Don’t) Play dead., Gal. 2:19-21. [The parenthetical “don’t” is my sneaky way of capturing the Bible’s often wily way of presenting the both/and reality of important truths.]

(Don’t) Be a sinner like Peter., vss. 2:11-14

Peter was a Christian – a solid one, a writer of Scripture, picked by Jesus himself. He was also not immune to making mistakes or even outright wrong-doing. In fact Paul says, he stood “condemned.” One of Jesus’ best buddies, one of his inner circle – called out. Why? What had he done? We are told that he “drew back” and “separated himself” from non-Jewish believers “because he was afraid.” Notice that it doesn’t say he believed that “righteousness could be gained through the law” but that he acted in such a way that suggested he did which hurt people through anti-gospel behavior. He was bowing to peer pressure and behaving, Paul notes, like a “hypocrite.” A hypocrite is not someone who fails to practice those virtues that she preaches. It’s not necessarily a failure to do or say what one believes. Paul, using a sort of ironic hyperbole in vs. 15 will note that everyone is a sinner – everyone fails. That reality binds us all together. Jesus himself preached that forgetting our sinfulness makes us blind (Matt. 7:1-6). So a better understanding of the term, “hypocrite” comes from the world of theater and translates as “play-acting;” it involves active deception by pretending to do or believe something that you knowingly do not. Breaking fellowship with Gentile believers over Torah food restrictions wasn’t a simple sin on Peter’s part but an intentional act of fraudulence. His play-acting told others that they were “less than” in God’s kingdom. Feel that trauma for a moment – being overlooked, considered less-than, or ignored by a “Christian” leader and friend. Don’t be like that. Don’t do that to others. Don’t be a sinner like Peter. Such behavior must be condemned because it undermines the very center of the gospel. But I also invite you to feel another trauma for a moment – Peter’s – being called out for personally and hypocritically harming the faith of others. How does that feel? What does that make you want to do?
When you feel that trauma – BE a sinner like Peter. It’s incredibly significant to acknowledge that Peter, who has all the power and privilege, receives Paul’s very public correction. He doesn’t get mad, storm off, cancel Paul, or even defend himself; but rather, appears to listen and change. So the most significant means of identifying Peter as a mature believer, despite his hypocrisy, was his ability to receive correction. Friends, maturity reveals itself less by whether we sin or not and more by how we respond when we do (to listen, acknowledge, and change). Peter sinned, he was corrected, and did not take offense. When it comes to conversations about sin and personal responsibility, our level of offendability often reveals the level of our maturity. Are we capable of being a church like Peter? Are we able to have our hypocrisies questioned and repent? Will we slide into the easy response of offense at being called out for our sins or will we endure proper healing? Are we willing to be a Proverb 15:31 community: “Whoever heeds life-giving correction will be at home among the wise.” How do we know Peter is a sinner worth emulating? Well, he will later praise Paul as a wise and “dear brother” (2 Peter 3:16). Friends, be a sinner like Peter. 

 
 (Don’t) Have faith. Jesus has faith!, vss. 15-18

I want to begin this point with a warning to all the men in order to spare you any public correction. Nothing ticks my wife off more than when a man, no matter how innocently, speaks about having a baby, by saying, “We’re pregnant.” Yes, she’s aware of the male contribution but hardly thinks that constitutes a “we-ness” when it comes to a woman’s experience of making room in her body for a baby, carrying a baby in her body for 9 mos., feeding a baby with her body, enduring the weight gain, weird cravings, strange nesting behavior, and painful birth from her body. I’m telling you now, she will stop you and say publicly, “There is no ‘we.’” That’s sort-of what Paul is also saying here about justification and Jesus. There’s no “we-ness” when it comes to new birth. This uneven partnership, however, has been obscured by the difficulties of the Greek language. All of the places in our passage that speak about our justification by “faith in Jesus Christ” or “in Christ” could be and should be translated as “faith of Jesus Christ.” That doesn’t change our need for faith but certainly places the emphasis, the direct action, the end result of our justification squarely on the faith of Jesus himself and what he has done in order that the world might be saved. Is our participation necessary for salvation? Yes. Does God woo us with an ever-giving, uncoerced love that ask for a decision? Of course. Do we need to submit intimately and personally in order to experience new birth? Absolutely. But like pregnancy there is no “we.”
Our justification, which means God making right what has gone wrong (rescuing us from Satan, sin, and death), is fundamentally determined and ultimately won by the faith of Jesus himself. We experience that reality through our personal response of faith but the accent, the point of the gospel, is that Jesus has accomplished for us what we cannot do for ourselves and that includes our own faith. Through his faith Jesus has changed the fabric of reality and order of our world. The kingdom is breaking in regardless of your decision. And that also means that even when I can’t seem to muster faith, care about faith, or even act faithfully – Jesus did, Jesus is, Jesus will. No one will faithfully stand before Jesus in all his glory and say, “My decision saved me.” No, we will all faithfully declare, “Thanks be to God. Jesus is Lord.”

(Don’t) Play dead!, vss. 19-21

That emphasis upon Jesus gets further fleshed out for Paul in vss. 19-21 which involve us thinking about our death mystically, metaphorically, and morally.
First, there is a mystical tension at work. Paul says that our transformation is Jesus living through us – NOT saving us simply for when we die but freeing us in the present. Our transformation is a real yet mysterious uniting with the faith of the Son of the God. In fact, we are given his righteousness through his death. Let me offer a possible analogy from climbing. Mystically – Jesus is our lead climber. When climbing something really high, the lead climber is the one who goes first and takes all of the risk. They will at times even have nothing that will stop them if they fall. But the second climber who must follow the same path is in an entirely different context. He cannot fall – he’s on rope or on belay and can hang on the rope, when necessary. In the spiritual journey of faith, Jesus has already climbed what I am incapable of climbing and sometimes must even pull me up by the rope. I am not a strong enough climber to climb without falling and even when I do, Jesus who is above me and has me on rope keeps me secure. So “play dead” - a main work of discipleship (not the only work, of course) is the surrender of my own will and faith to Jesus who will transform me from the inside out. He has already ensured that I will make it to the end because his climb has guaranteed my climb. And that sounds like a cop-out but it’s one of the hardest things to do. Following the rules, no matter how well I follow them, will not get me up this mountain. And, it turns out, I don’t need them. Jesus has already climbed it and has me on belay. So you need to “play dead” to the idea that you are not your own transformation, that you are not the lead climber, that you can even fall. You’re not that powerful. It’s okay. You don’t have to be.
But I also believe that Paul is making a metaphorical point about death. My death is not merely a reference to a mystical union in which Jesus does for me what I cannot do for myself but a metaphor for following Jesus’ way which demands my death. I need to consciously give up (or die to) my will in the same way that Jesus gave up his own will to do the will of the Father. I must not merely "play dead" but choose to die, in other words, because I realize that the only truly way to live is to live as God intended, to live as Jesus did, which is not always the way I want to. I seek to “play dead” by setting aside my will because my will, my desires, my choices, often lead me to places where I actually don’t want to go or to behave in ways I don’t wish to be. So I must learn to die to my desire to be in charge, die to my hope to kill my enemies, die to my belief in my own self-righteousness. It’s a metaphor – always true even when not literal.
Third, we must “play dead” morally. It’s so easy to imagine the life of being a disciple to the life of being a law-abiding citizen – follow the rules, don’t lie, don’t steal, show respect, and then your life will be a success, God will bless you. And while I know that that’s not exactly what Paul means by the “law” or “works of the law” the premise holds. According to the law and its understanding of sin, Jesus was a sinner who ate with, touched, and connected with uncircumcised, unkosher, folk. And if that’s true – then, according to the law, Paul ironically asks, “Did Jesus promote sin?” His response Is literally, “No way!” And yet Paul also wants us to remember is that Jesus died condemned, as a criminal - not simply by Roman standards but Jewish ones as well. He will remind us, later in Galatians 3, what he hints at here about dying to the law. That, according to Deuteronomy 21:22-23, Jesus was under the curse of God because he was “put to death” and his “body was exposed on a pole.” According to the gospel story, we must recognize that a certain morality judged Jesus’ ministry as wicked, unbiblical and subsequently put him to death. We must “play dead,” in other words, to such morality and, in response, ask ourselves, “Is this the way of Jesus? Is this the path of suffering love, even if it breaks the law?” Friends, this is the only way to live – to be a sinner like Peter and take correction; to remember that Jesus’ faith saves us and not our own. This is how we join ourselves to one who “loved us and gave himself for us.” To lean into playing dead so that we can be free and allow Jesus to transform us in the present. Christ did not die for nothing. He is the center. Amen.

"Astonished": Notes on an Angry Apostle ~ Galatians 1:1-2:10

 

For Paul this letter is personal. And he is angry. In this opening section, beginning in vs. 1 and through the second half of chapter two, he skips his normal Thanksgiving and goes straight to a rebuke that’s challenging, and seemingly hard to apply. I want to be honest with you. Paul speaks harshly, at times. I might even argue too harshly. But that’s not meant to suggest that he’s wrong or that he has no reason to do so. No – because it’s people who are being harmed and not simply ideas that are at stake. I’ve found myself a few times in similar circumstances where I experienced a holy anger at a message that distorted the gospel and hurt people. In one instance, I was at a funeral for a woman who died from terrible cancer at the age of 56.  Her well-meaning pastor in the eulogy talked about how she was such a “good Christian” because she never doubted and never asked why. She was praised for suffering quietly without any complaint. I danced in my seat with agitation for what these people were hearing was not the gospel of grace and unconditional love from a God who rescued us but a presentation of “stiff-upper-lip Christianity” which stifles any expression of questions, pain, or grace. It places the weight of faith on what we do rather than on the one who frees us. One of my revelations as a pastor later in life has been that often good theology doesn’t do too much. But bad theology - bad theology destroys lives, wounds souls, kills. We should always be angry when people’s lives are at stake. What stands out to me in our passage this morning are Paul’s two broad, interlocking components: 1) protect the gospel for the sake of people; 2) defend yourself for the sake of the gospel.

1.    Protect the gospel for the sake of people.

It’s not your little “t” theologies, not your musical preferences, not your opinions. They’re important. They matter. But they don’t rise to the intensity of language and concern that Paul will take. On the one hand, in the Covenant, we have said that there is much that we can disagree on, hold differences with, and still maintain our unity, and our love. On the other hand, we must always remember that, according to Scripture, some things are worth fighting about and for. The gospel is one of those things. It’s our center, our hope, the very revelation of Jesus. To get that wrong isn’t meaningless. It harms others. But what are we protecting? According to Paul, what is the gospel and what should we protect it from?
The gospel – vss. 3-5 – 3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. A few notes:

It’s a joint “rescue operation” from God and Jesus. There is no mention of God’s judgment, God’s wrath, or even punishment; rather the gospel discussed rescues us from our sins and from this “evil age” – and this is God’s will, it’s what God wants. Both work in tandem.
Not from the future but from the “present” – that the gospel was to be an experience in the present and offer transformation now and not simply later and connects to a web of relationships in real time.
But we also learn that the gospel can be “perverted.” The word in Greek, metastrepho literally means to make something it’s opposite, vss. 6-9 – this anti-gospel was one in which followers of Jesus were required to be circumcised and keep the Jewish law in order to be made right with God. For Paul this perversion was wrong because it disturbed and enslaved people rather than freeing them. In this case, by relying upon their own effort and by requiring things that Jesus’ never did.
Paul will call his opponents “false believers” and say that they are promoting a “different gospel which is really no good news at all” (vss. 6-7) which is strong language – stronger than what I would ever wish to use but even more challenging is what made them so. In fact, there is a deep irony in what Paul is saying. It wasn’t because they were too welcoming but because they were too exclusionary adding extra requirements. It wasn’t because they were unbiblical, or in any way morally lax, but because they were not reading the Bible with Jesus at the center nor interested in widening the family to include new brothers and sisters (particularly who were gentile); they wanted to restrict access and lock people out. They wanted to add something more than Jesus and we still do that today. There must be no “Jesus and . . .” no matter how biblical or moral it is.
For Paul, the gospel must be the personal experience of freedom from but also freedom for (it is freedom from sin, oppression, fear, social, ethnic and sexual identities, as well as the law) but not because Judaism or the law was bad. It’s like getting braces on your teeth and then having those braces removed. Braces (the law) are challenging and can even hurt but are not the problem. The misalignment of your teeth is the actual problem, the braces were a temporary solution but now there’s a better one. This is important because it’s necessary to understand that freedom from sin and brokenness aims to free you “for” by transforming your life so that you can “serve one another humbly in love” (5:13). However, let’s be very clear. It's not about “freedom from the Old Testament.” Yes, the OT must now be interpreted through the lens of the gospel – what God alone has done for our salvation through Jesus Christ – but Paul will protect the gospel from his detractors by utilizing the Hebrew Bible, which was the only Bible at the time. So the Hebrew Bible, according to Paul, was inspired and authoritative for believers. The issue is interpretation, particularly with respect to the law. We are no longer covenantally required to obey the law and its demands but look to it and the whole of the OT primarily as wisdom and the promise redemption of what God did in Jesus Christ. This is where Paul can be so helpful. He’s going to show us how to read the Hebrew Bible in light of Jesus and (spoiler alert) – he’s not a literalist.
We’re going to keep coming back to this point and we will see that Paul’s letter is a reeducation of the “true gospel” in which Jesus is the center, with nothing added, the cross is the metaphor, freedom is the goal, and love is the evidence.

2.    Defend yourself for the sake of the gospel

 
The rival teachers that Paul is calling out apparently devised a strategy to win over the Galatian Christians through theological and Biblical arguments but also by attacking Paul personally. But here’s the point. Their personal attack didn’t merely malign Paul but challenged the truth of the gospel. They sought to undermine Paul by persuading them that he was a phony apostle. So Paul isn’t bragging for the sake of pride. His reputation links directly to the point he’s making. If you were a physician trying to get people to understand that wearing masks would stop a virus from spreading and others were challenging that perspective by maligning your medical degree. You, too, would seek to shore up your reputation precisely because mask-wearing saves lives. This section is highly contextual. It’s bound to a culture and perspective that doesn’t neatly fit our time or location. BUT it is fundamentally about, “Who do you trust and what are they saying?” And that is an incredibly relevant question for us. At a time when anyone can say anything with the authority of God himself on a platform that is more global than Paul could have ever imagined– this question is critical. So how does Paul defend himself and how might we borrow from him? We must be careful, however, that we don’t confuse any healthy criticism of our attitudes, actions, or beliefs, as the same thing that Paul is experiencing. One of the terrors of Biblical interpretation is when we rightly read the Scripture and apply it to the wrong context. So I am going to briefly reconstruct Paul’s defense of himself and ask for you to thoughtfully and carefully apply it to yourself. Bear in mind – that Paul cares because reputation, in this instance, has everything to do with the gospel and people. This will be made all the more plain next week when we see the first real showdown between Paul and an odd opponent, the Apostle Peter himself.

First, Paul tells the Galatians that he is and has always been a “doulos of God” – literally “a slave” and not a pleaser of people. Given our context one might say follower/ally/agent of Christ.” Whatever word we choose should highlight attention on loyalty to Jesus and our voluntary desire to follow his lead, do what he does, and assume that he’s in charge, without compulsion. Paul’s point is straightforward. One beholden of looking good to people is preoccupied with pleasing people, a follower or student of Christ is passionately committed to pleasing Christ. In other words, evidence for correctness is the freedom of Christlikeness.
Second, Paul speaks of a community – vs. 2 (which include gentiles like Titus) – Paul points out that he’s not acting solely on his own but has others to speak on his behalf.  Importantly, many of those, like Titus, are gentles from the community under discussion, who are being wounded. A good rule of thumb for engaging any discussion: Don’t speak on an issue or about others if you don’t have a community that includes the (dis)affected. Don’t talk about the Christianity and racism without including BIPOC people in the mix. Don’t talk about the Bible and homosexuality without including gay Christians in the discussion.  Don’t speak of loving your neighbor without a community that includes the powerless and put upon. Otherwise, it’s a discussion that offers only echoes of what the majority or powerful already believe.
Third, Paul seeks to tell an honest story of transformation that praises God. He will name his own weaknesses and sin. For example, he will admit to having been a people pleaser in the past (“if I were still trying to please people” (vs. 10). He will admit to savagely persecuting the church (vs. 13) but will also talk about a personal transformation that gives glory to God. Friends, do you want to defend the gospel? Then, listen to Paul, and do so with a surrendered, Spirit-filled life that demonstrates change because of Jesus and gives glory to God. All other arguments pale in comparison.
Finally, Paul will cautiously honor those with authority. This is a difficult dance and not one where Paul will always succeed. In fact, we will see that in our next passage – Paul will have to call out Peter – the top dog of all apostles for his behavior which places the gospel in jeopardy. He will acknowledge that he has been vetted to make sure that he was correct and will at least begrudgingly acknowledge that some are “pillars” but fundamentally understands that authority isn’t merely isn’t due to a title or role but is subject to the gospel itself. And when Peter fails to follow that Gospel and actually harms other believers, Paul will have no hesitation to call him out.
One last story of a gospel in jeopardy. When I was a professor two of my students got married. I was so excited to go to their wedding – I love weddings and like the Apostle Paul believe that they are one of clearest examples of the gospel and our relationship with Jesus. But in this instance, it turned out not to be so. During the wedding, the well-meaning pastor did something that to this day leaves me fired up. He celebrated communion and gave only the elements to the Bride and groom. We weren’t invited to partake. We weren’t invited to share. We were by all accounts excluded from a meal of love to which we were all invited and asked to watch. And I was astonished at the distortion – that we were being denied what was ours by grace. This table is for all: no reservation needed, no dress code required, no entrance denied, no bouncer employed. This is the gospel (we move to Communion).