According to the Truth of the Gospel

Galatians 2:5-18

Introduction:

We spoke a couple of weeks ago regarding the pattern of false teaching called “legalism.” Legalism can seem fairly nebulous and ill-defined, but in fact, as we determined earlier, it can be identified as “any pattern of teaching that seeks to modify the means of salvation or sanctification to be accomplished by works instead of or in addition to Grace.”

In other words, if I teach that a person is either to be saved by works of the flesh, and outward compliance to rules, instead of or in addition to Jesus’ fully completed work at the Cross, then I am guilty of Legalism. If I teach that one is to be made holy (sanctified) through good works instead of or in addition to the Holy Spirit’s perfect and continuing work, then I am guilty of Legalism.

The Legalizers desire to coerce others to conform to their own legalistic values, and further claim that those who do not conform to them are also rejected by God. God says that is not how we are saved…and not how we serve. Let’s move on to see Paul’s final comments on this subject.

The Meeting With all the Other Apostles:

⁶ But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

⁷ But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

⁸ (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

⁹ And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

¹⁰ Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

Remember that Paul had preached for three years before he met any of the earlier apostles (Peter and James), and when he did it was a very brief meeting, and only served to confirm in his own mind and theirs that he had indeed been chosen by and taught by Jesus Christ, personally, and was a full-fledged apostle. It was fourteen years later that Paul finally met all the rest of the apostles along with the Church at Jerusalem.

So, when Paul finally did get together with the whole group of apostles and elders of the Church at Jerusalem, they neither added to his message, nor changed any of it. Once they saw that the same Holy Spirit was at work in Paul as had been in Peter, they recognized full fellowship: partnership in the work of the Gospel.

What is Fellowship?

Perhaps it is not the main point here, but I think it is appropriate to point out that “giving the right hand of fellowship” does not simply mean they “shook hands”, nor, of course, does it mean they sat down to have doughnuts and coffee, while chatting about fishing, or golf, as it seems to mean in many churches today.

“Fellowship” means partnership—it means “having in common”. It means doing something—accomplishing something—in unity with another person. That is one of the reasons we are warned to not have fellowship with the “unfruitful works of darkness.” We are to have no partnership with evil. So, “…gave us the right hand of fellowship…” means that they recognized Paul and Barnabas as full-fledged apostles, and partners in the work of world evangelism. The Church has a job to do—one job, and one only—Evangelism. Peter and Paul and all the other Apostles and Elders knew that and embraced the job. Do you know it? Do you embrace it daily as the job we were left here to do? Give that some thought…. We are either in that same fellowship of the Gospel, or we are on the sidelines, watching.

The Conflict with Peter and the Jewish Believers

Paul still had to make it clear that his apostleship was fully equal to that of any of the other apostles…in fact, Paul later got in a conflict with Peter—and Peter was wrong. That was not Paul’s point, here: he simply is pointing out that Peter, too, was fallible; and that when Paul reproached him in his fault, he was approachable because Paul was a representative of Christ.

¹¹ But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

¹² For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Peter had come to Antioch. A Gentile church was there: Paul and Barnabas had planted that church, and had treated the believers there as equal brothers in Christ—which they were. Peter joined them and he ate with the Gentiles as was correct. But inwardly, he must have felt that he was on shaky ground, because when other Jews showed up, who were intent on keeping themselves separate from heathens (that is what “Gentile” means) he quit eating with the Gentiles and ate with the Jews who were separate. Bear in mind that Peter had been quite freely eating with the Gentiles, regardless of how he may have felt about it. Remember too, back in Acts 10, Jesus had spoken fairly sternly to Peter about “calling unclean that which the Lord has made clean”. This is nothing new for Peter, but old patterns are difficult to break. (Which, of course, is a good reason for us to be patient with one another, forbearing one another in Love.)

¹³ And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

The other Jewish believers who had been there at Antioch were swayed by Peter’s example, and joined him at the separatists’ table. Even Barnabas gave in and separated himself. Notice that Paul uses the word “dissembled”: dissembling means pretending. They were pretending that they were somehow superior, because of Judaism. This is really an easy trap to fall into. (“I’m really a better person today than before I attended church. Therefore, I should hold myself separate from these heathens around me, even if they are really new Christians and they just don’t act like me. Let them clean themselves up, and then I‘ll fellowship with them. Sadly, there are churches that relate this way, not just individuals.)

So, how should we respond?

According to the Truth of the Gospel

¹⁴ But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Paul got up and walked over, in the presence and hearing of all, and confronted Peter. He said that Peter was demonstrating by his actions that unless the Gentiles became Jewish proselytes, they were not really part of the Body of Christ…they were “second-class believers”.

He made public the fact that Peter had been freely eating with the Gentile believers up until now. (Yow!) He pointed out that since Peter had been eating with the Gentiles, he had no right to suggest that they were now beneath him, and that they should become Jews, in order to enjoy fellowship with Jewish believers. And Peter accepted the rebuke as being from God! That was a pretty rough situation, emotionally, I’ll bet. Perhaps the tenderness of Christ was evident enough in Paul that Peter, rather than being hurt or offended, was relieved to have been stopped from making a really costly error. I suspect that is the case, in fact, because, it really was the Lord Jesus correcting him, through Paul. We see later in Peter’s writing that he saw Paul’s writings as being scripture…so he recognized Paul as an apostle and spokesman for God. (By the way, that is what a prophet is: a “spokesman for God”—a mouthpiece for God’s Word.)

Peter may not have thought through the implications of his actions. I am sure that Barnabas had not considered the possible implications, as he was always a good-hearted brother, but I have no idea about the rest of the Jews who were there: they were evidently believers, as they “came from James”, but James (Acts 15) is the one who said the Gentile believers were completely justified by faith, and full brothers in Christ…so, at the very least, they too, had not thought through what they were doing. Perhaps it was just a reflexive response, and they were simply reverting to how they had behaved toward Gentiles in the past. Paul does not address this: he only points out that there was a brief conflict between himself and Peter, and that Peter had been the one to repent.

Paul was not telling this to discredit Peter, but to point out that Peter held no special authority, and was quite fallible, and that when he was rebuked by Paul he took it as from a messenger of God, not as from an upstart “Junior Apostle” of some sort. This is Paul’s final evidence of his own apostolic position and authority. He was not claiming to be something special, but rather giving the necessary evidence that he was indeed an apostle, “not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father”.

So, What’s the Problem With Legalism, Again?

Paul continues his argument, pointing out that the Jewish believers, who had all the advantage of the Law, by which they knew the holiness of God, still could not fulfill the Law by complete obedience, and, as believers, they knew that no man could be justified by works:

¹⁵ We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

¹⁶ Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

¹⁷ But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

Paul seems to differentiate between the behavior of the believer, here, and the holiness of his God. In context, I think he is cautioning against a believer continuing in sin, but I think the deeper meaning is that the savior is not contaminated by the sin of those he saves, any more than a lifeguard is thought to be drunk, because he saves the life of a drunken swimmer.

Think back: the people and animals aboard the Ark that Noah built were all saved…not because they were good…but because they were in the Ark, and, if they did wrong while they were there… (I don’t know… maybe they squabbled over some minor issue while cooped up together for over a year, say?) did that make God wrong, who saved them? Nope. Jesus is not contaminated by sinners. He saves them, he cleanses them, and they still get dirty, because they are saved sinners. But He, himself, is still utterly Holy, and untouched by the sin of those he saves.

The problem is that our sin affects others as well as ourselves. Peter’s sin could have caused the false teachings of the legalizers to be strengthened and corroborated, which would have strengthened the hand of Satan, there in Antioch, had it not been corrected immediately.

My sin can cause other believers to stumble as well. (Give that some thought: how might your “small” sins, perhaps your language or your behavior, affect others in a “big” way?) We may leave a small obstruction in a walkway, but it can cause a terrible fall to someone who trips over it. A spilled handful of B-Bs on a stair-step, for example, could cause catastrophic damage to the person who steps on them.

The Jewish believers in this particular case, including Peter, Paul and Barnabas seem to be of good character and good intentions, but their error could have split the church, right there in its infancy. Proverbs 18:19 says “a brother offended is harder to be won over than a walled city, and his contentions are like castle bars.” They could have caused a permanent rift, there. In the intervening years, since then, many such rifts have happened.

¹⁸ For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

Paul’s final comment is that if he goes back to Judaism for any cause, then he demonstrates that, for all the time he seemed to exercise freedom from the Mosaic Law, he was really just a lawbreaker…a transgressor. But, the fact is; when a person is in Christ, they are no longer under the Law, period. Paul is about to expound on that theme.

Conclusion:

We need to avoid the trap of legalism, so as not to cause ourselves or others to fail to embrace God’s Grace, but we are also to guard against permissiveness in our own lives. Paul and Peter were not sinning at all by eating with the Gentile believers: they were doing right. But if a person who claims to be a believer is flagrantly sinning, we are to go to that person and correct them just as Paul corrected Peter…we are not being judgmental by doing so. We are protecting ourselves and the rest of the Body of Christ. These Gentile believers were not in sin—they simply were not Jews. They lived in ignorance of the Law that once condemned them, and probably were not even fully aware of exactly how they had been freed from that condemnation.

We will talk more about that the next time we meet, and see exactly what happened at the Cross.

September 27, 2014September 28, 2014

Paul’s Testimony–and Ours

The Testimony of a Believer

Introduction:

Frequently we talk about “giving a testimony”; sometimes we only mean telling about something we have seen. In a courtroom environment, that is pretty much all they want—they do not want your opinion, or what you have heard, unless there is some special reason that your opinion is relevant. A professional expert in a given field, for example, may be called to give an expert opinion on a critical point of forensic evidence. But an eyewitness is still one of the most vital testimonies available in a courtroom, whether for prosecution or defense.

John said (1^st John 1:3) “That which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us…” He and the other apostles had borne witness to the experiences they had personally had with Jesus both during his earthly ministry, and through his death, burial and resurrection, and afterward, when they saw him face to face, and touched him, in the physical flesh. The purpose of their testimony was to pave the way for our faith.

We give testimony for the same purpose sometimes—to lead someone else to similar faith. Or, other times, just to encourage other believers. Other times just because we are compelled to tell someone what God has done, and we glorify God in the telling.

Paul’s Testimony—the Source

Paul’s testimony is different than that of the other apostles, in that he did not walk with Jesus during His earthly ministry. He never met him during that time. In fact, he refers to himself as “one born out of due time”, because he had not shared in the experiences of the other eleven apostles. What he did share is the fact that he was hand-picked by Jesus, just as were the eleven.

The problem he faces as he addresses the Galatian believers is that the Judaizers have questioned whether he was a “genuine” apostle. They have called his credentials into question. So Paul feels compelled to offer his testimony as corroboration of Luke’s account in Acts 9, and the oral report circulated immediately after his conversion. He urges them to consider what his motives are, and what the source of his inspiration is. He says:

¹⁰ For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

¹¹ But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

Paul knows, and admits up front, that the message he has brought (and is bringing) is not popular. It is not from humans, thus not humanist (we have that problem today even more prominently); not in agreement with the World, so not popular with worldly people (again, a prevalent problem today.) It is not from man…it is from God. He does not have to persuade God of the truth of his message—he is sent to persuade men, but is not sent to please them. If he were seeking to please humans, he would not be working for God.

So it makes perfect sense that the message we also preach has to be the one God gave, whether anyone approves of it or not. Jesus made this point during his earthly ministry: He said “if I were of the World the World would love its own. But I am not of the World, therefore the World hates me.” We need to be aware that we are in enemy territory: the enemy knows we are here, and will try to either render us ineffective or destroy us. Our only real safety is in doing what God sent us to do. Then we have his approval and backing, and even if we die in the service of God, we already have eternal life, so there is no real loss. And there is great reward.

¹² For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but (rather) by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul states clearly that he did not get the Gospel “second-hand”. He had not heard it from the other apostles, but from Jesus himself. Even the other believers who encouraged him were not his source of the Gospel he preached. He got it from the ultimate source: God himself. This is in sharp contrast to my own experience:

My Testimony:

I had been an atheist, but I was told the gospel by other students (among other sources) at the high school I attended; how Jesus, God’s only begotten Son, had died as full payment for my sins, and was buried, and was resurrected; and that all God was asking me to do was to believe it.

As a result, I eventually believed the Gospel, and was saved my last year in high school. I went off to college, in Astoria, and found a very good church, later that year, in a little community near there, on the Oregon coast.

After one year of strong teaching, there, from Paul Hatt, the pastor of Lewis and Clark Bible Church, I developed enough of a spiritual hunger that I really wanted to go to Bible School …so I did: I quit college and attended a small Bible school in Michigan.

Ever since I graduated from that school in 1976, I have taught adult Bible classes in every church I have been attached to. I have seen God’s hand at work in my life all of that time, through good times and bad.

But the point is that all my initial training came through other believers. I have been actively studying the Bible for over 40 years, but have never seen Jesus face-to-face. But Jesus met with Paul face-to-face, and prepared him for the work to which he also called him: apostleship. That was Paul’s particular calling.

Paul’s Testimony (continued)—the “Before Christ” Years

¹³ For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

¹⁴ And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

In the Old English, the word “conversation” did not have anything to do with a dialogue, but with a lifestyle: it could more accurately be translated, in today’s English, as “way of life”. Paul is reminding the readers of his “way of life” prior to conversion: He reminds them that he had been thoroughly committed to Judaism, more than the people who are now leading them astray. He had persecuted the church, physically, not just tried to subvert it. He had sought to arrest the believers and drag them back to face trial in Jerusalem, not just twist the truth and confuse the new believers, as these false teachers were doing.

Also, he had advanced further in the ranks of Judaism than these adversaries, and above many others as well. His training had been at the feet of Gamaliel, a famous teacher of that time, and he himself had been a zealot for God, from his own perspective: he was wrong, but exceedingly zealous. In truth, he had really been zealous for the traditions of the Fathers—the Talmud; rather than the Torah.

This is an important point: today, too, one can be zealous for the traditions of Man over the Word of God. I have occasionally been criticized for failing to follow some particular tradition of man, but when I questioned the accusers as to what scriptural concept I was failing to apply, they had no answer. It turned out I was (in their opinion, at least) “not doing things the Baptist way”. Well…sorry. I don’t even know where the “Baptist Way” book can be found. I do know where the Jesus’ Way” book is…and that is the message to which I am committed.

Are you more committed to Christ than you are to Western Traditions of Christendom? Or is it the traditions you really love? In the church you attend, are you more committed to what God actually says than you are to the “Church Constitution and Bylaws”, for instance? I have seen an example where the leaders of an assembly became sharply aware that their constitution was in clear contradiction to the Word of God. When so confronted, they made a conscious choice to adhere to their constitution instead of repenting and following God’s Word. Their senior pastor, a committed believer, promptly gave notice, and left them to their own devices. He was committed to God’s Word. They were not. Quite honestly, I am not sure whether I have ever seen a copy of this church’s Constitution and Bylaws. I am pretty sure we have them, but this church has always been committed to the Word of God to the extent that the “constitution and bylaws” are somewhat redundant. We already have God’s instruction, and we believe it.

What traditions do we follow? Having communion on the third Sunday? Nothing wrong with that…or, as far as I know, any of the other traditions we embrace. There is nothing wrong with Tradition, such as it is, but when traditions clearly violate Scripture, we need to change course. It would seem a good idea to examine one’s values and principles, now and then, to see whether they are rooted in Scripture, or just in tradition.

Paul was thoroughly trained in the traditions of Judaism, as well as the written Word of God (Old Testament), but after he met Jesus, it was revealed to him that (a) his understanding of God’s written Word was lacking, and that (b) the traditions for which he was so zealous were even more lacking. So he clung to God’s Word, and let go of the traditions.

Paul’s Testimony (continued)—Salvation

¹⁵ But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,

Notice that Paul clearly states that God had chosen him for the job he was doing from before his birth. This is in keeping with the call of Jeremiah, to whom God said “…before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations (plural).” (Jeremiah 1:5) Now, does that say that God pre-ordains all believers to the work He desires them to do? I don’t know. I do know that He calls every believer to committed service. You might be a boilermaker or a homemaker, or a shoe salesman…but if you belong to Jesus, then you are working for Him, and you need to begin every day with the conscious realization that you work for Him, Paul never lost sight of that fact. I wish I could say the same about myself, but I too frequently get distracted and forget who the Boss really is.

What if, the first thing when I woke up every morning, I greeted my Master, and then went about the routine of preparing for work, school, church, chores, etc.? What if, instead of finally getting around to remembering who it is I belong to, (or, worse yet, waiting ‘til Sunday to be reminded by another believer) I instead became conscious every moment that I am an ambassador for Christ, hand-picked by Him, to do a job that only I can do: represent Him, the King, in the circles of people I know and with whom I work, travel, eat, play and worship? Do you think it might make a difference in how I respond to the trials and joys of life?

Paul was conscious of all of this, and knew the job he was called to do. Do you know what you are called to do? Do you at least know the underlying assignment that belongs to every believer? We all have the same “job”, but not necessarily the same “task” within the overall job. You need to know the overall job, first: then God can reveal your task to you.

Paul’s Testimony (continued)—The Result

¹⁶ To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:¹⁷ … but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Notice that it does not say, to “reveal His Son to me”, but “in me.” God wants to build the reality of the risen Christ into each of our lives so that the world can see Jesus in us. Paul had a specific assignment. Perhaps you and I do, as well. But it always begins with this: as a believer, (as we have already noted) you are an ambassador for Christ. The way God wants to use his ambassadors is that they are to be a living object-lesson of Christ, for the lost world to see. Give that some thought: Jesus was not just a one-dimensional teacher who just taught good news. He also presented the “bad news” of judgment, and the reality of Hell. He also suffered, and sweated, and was rejected, and abused…and died. God wants the whole reality of Christ in you. Not everyone is martyred for their faith…and I am deeply grateful for that. But we are all called to abandon self and allow God to reveal Christ in us.

Once Paul had his assignment, notice he didn’t mess around trying to “pray about it” or any other procrastinating trick that we tend to do. He had already been praying—and blinded—when Ananias came and God restored his sight. When the Lord Jesus also revealed his assignment, he “immediately conferred not with flesh and blood”. It was not up to other humans to tell him what God had already told him. It was up to Paul to obey. He says, “…Immediately, I conferred not with flesh and blood…but I went up to Arabia, and then returned to Damascus…”

**What About Our Testimony?**

Now, I am not going to suggest that every believer’s testimony will be as dynamic and dramatic as that of any of the apostles. But I do think we can see some examples from which we can learn:

Paul told who he was, and what his condition was before he knew Jesus…there was no wallowing in “what a rotten sinner I was”…just the simple facts: well-trained, but wrong-headed, and completely lost.
Paul told how God chose him and revealed himself to Paul. (in another passage we see that it was on the road to Damascus, and quite a spectacular event…but here Paul simply says that Jesus chose him to do a particular work, and that
Paul responded in faith and obedience.
Paul included what God had been doing in his life since then, to some extent, but still within his original goal; that of assuring the Galatian believers of his apostleship, so that he could teach them how to walk with Christ.

We obviously have a slightly different experience, as a rule. But we can include some of the same points:

We can tell, briefly, and un-dramatically where we were before we were saved.
We can tell how we were saved, including if possible, the central truths of the Gospel.
We can tell what the results have been…what is God doing in my life today? How does he reveal himself in daily life?

I remember, years ago, seeing a poster that posed the question: “If Christianity suddenly was made illegal, would there be enough evidence to convict me?” I think our personal testimony needs to be subjected to a similar question: “If my testimony is the only evidence my hearers had, do they have enough information to receive Christ themselves? Do they even have enough to conclude that I am a born-again child of God?”

My testimony, then, has to include the facts of the Gospel, at some level. It also has to include the fact that all God asks us to do to be saved is to place our trust in His finished work at the Cross. It has to include the facts that:

I was lost, but
I received the good news (and spell it out), and
I believed it, and
I am saved.

It should also include at least a little glimpse of how that truth changed my perspective, and my behavior: nothing dramatic—just factual. For example, “I now have the security of knowing what the future holds for me and for my family, because we have Jesus’ personal promise on it. I have his guidance and his personal indwelling by the Holy Spirit. God is using me to lead others to Peace with Him.” (etc.)

Conclusion:

So: a few minutes ago, when I briefly recited my testimony of salvation, it was 190 words—and took me less than one minute to read it aloud—but it included all the things we just mentioned.

A testimony can be very short, and light on details, or it can be a blow-by-blow account of individual conversations and experiences that led us to Christ. Our circumstances will dictate just how detailed we need to be. But the point of giving our testimony has to remain in focus—it is to shift the listener’s attention away from us and fasten it upon the person of Christ.

Paul’s testimony accomplishes just that: as we continue to study the book of Galatians, we will see that Paul is not at all concerned with impressing us about himself, but about Jesus Christ. He will go on to explain how we can learn to walk with Jesus as a real, day-by-day experience.

Think about your own testimony: If you had to give your testimony in two minutes of relatively slow, clear, simple speech, could you do it? Could you leave your listeners (at least in a bare-bones fashion) with enough to know how to be saved?

Would they be convinced from your testimony that you were a real Christian? And… would it seem to be a good thing? Much of the result of a testimony is dependent upon delivery. A great dinner, thrown suddenly in the face of the hungriest person, will still come as an attack, not an opportunity to eat.

Give these things some thought, and see if you can prepare a testimony that includes all the needful things, but is still short and to the point. You never know when you will need to use it.

The Lord bless us all as we seek to serve Him.

September 13, 2014September 28, 2014

God’s Curse on Preachers of a false Gospel

Amazing Folly and an Awful Curse

Introduction:

One of the things we can see, early in the preaching ministry of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:42-45, 50; Acts 14:4, 5, 19; Acts 15:1, 2, 5-11; etc.) is that the unbelieving Jews were violently opposed to the preaching of Grace, especially since it was associated with the person of Jesus Christ. They felt quite sensitive, nationally, regarding Jesus. They were keenly aware that as a nation they had given him over to the Romans, to be crucified. But even the Jews who claimed to believe the Gospel were pretty insistent that the Gentiles had to effectively become Jews to be saved—undergo circumcision, and keep the Law.

Today, we might be inclined to think that this was specifically a Jewish problem, because, after all, why would a Gentile, to whom the Law was never given, try to make everyone keep it? But the fact is: the problem of legalism is universal among humans. We all want to believe that we can please God in our flesh—that we can clean up our lives and devise our own means of approaching God; and that He, on His part, will be ever so grateful that we humans have deigned to give Him our attention. Doesn’t something sound wrong about that?

Doesn’t that sound, in fact, quite backward? If God is really the sovereign master of all things, doesn’t it follow that HE, not we, should determine the “rules”, so to speak? When you go into a human courtroom, do you tell them how it is to be run, or do they tell you? When you hire on with human employers, do you tell them how their business is to be conducted, or do they tell you your job? Pretty silly questions, are they not? And yet, for some reason, we humans think we ought to be able to make up our own “truths” concerning God, and that He should then toe the line and be whatever we imagine Him (or her?) to be. Cain thought he could make the rules, too, even though he knew what God had decreed. King Saul kept fudging the truth, and twisting the words of God, to justify himself. This is the “default value” for the entire human race. We think we are in charge, and will, at the very least, “rewrite the script” so that we can seem righteous.

The fact is, God does tell us how things really stand between us and Him: and it isn’t a good story. That is the “bad news”, in fact, that makes the Gospel “Good News”. He says, “…all have sinned, and come short of the Glory of God” Romans 3:23 (That’s bad news!). He also says, “The wages of Sin is Death…” (More bad news!) Fortunately, He further says, “…but the gift of God is Eternal Life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 6:23) That is the bad news and the Good news, and both are pretty clear:

We are all condemned to die, because of sin, and
Eternal life is only available as a gift from God, through Jesus Christ…period.

That is simple enough for anyone to understand and for any of us to share. And that is the message these folks had already heard and believed.

Amazing Folly

⁶ I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

⁷ Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

The folks to whom Paul was directing this letter (remember, it is to us, too!) had all originally heard and understood and believed that Gospel message; that is why he calls them “brethren”, in verse eleven and other places. He clearly states (later on) that they had received the Lord by faith—that they had been saved by the Grace of God. And his question comes straight from his heart: “Why on earth would you toss aside a precious gift like that and try to build your own salvation?” He says, “I marvel that you are so soon removed from Him that called you unto the Grace of Christ, unto another Gospel!”

Paul could have been referring to the fact that he himself had called them via the True Gospel of Grace, but I tend to think he is referring to God, possibly in the person of the Holy Spirit. He told the church in Ephesus that there is only “one hope of our calling” (Ephesians 4:4)—so I think that if the hope of the calling is the same for all believers, then the caller has to be the same for all believers, as well. Romans 8:29, 30 states clearly that every believer is called by God. If God called you to Himself, to receive eternal life by Grace, though faith, then to turn your face in any other direction is to “turn away from Him who called you”. Paul was shocked to hear that they had already fallen prey to the legalizers who had followed him and Barnabas around, trying to dilute or supplant the message of Grace. (There is a God-given purpose for the Law: we will see later what that purpose is: but it cannot save. Only grace can save!)

Paul points out right away that there is really only one “good news” that is from God. The people preaching “Grace plus Law”, or “Law instead of Grace”, or whatever combination they came up with, were not really bringing a “different gospel”—they were subverting the faith of believers who had been on a right pathway, and perverting the Gospel of Grace so that it was no longer good news at all.

So what happened? How could anyone toss aside a great offer like that?

As it turns out, the idea that “I can (and/or must) do something to please God in order to be saved” appeals to our sin nature. We like the idea that we can control our destiny. People write poetry about it. (“Invictus”, by William Henley, is a prime example, where the writer grimly boasts “I am the master of my fate –I am the captain of my soul!” In reality, nothing could be further from the truth! But we want to believe it. This is nothing new.

Consider Genesis 3:7-10

We saw in the Garden that the very first response of Adam and his wife, when they discovered that they had become sinners, was to attempt to cover their own sin with the works of their own hands. (Remember the fig leaves?) They saw that they were naked (awareness of guilt), and they sewed together fig leaves to make aprons with which to cover their nakedness. On a horizontal, strictly human level, as they saw each other, they may have felt that the effort was quite successful…perhaps they even congratulated themselves that their new outfits were “…quite stylish…definitely an improvement over plain skin, don’t you think?.”

But what happened when God showed up? Remember, they “heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the Garden in the cool of the day” (by the way, as we discovered earlier, that was the pre-incarnate Jesus, in person)…and what was their response? They ran and hid. Why?

They themselves answered that question: “We were afraid, because…we were naked.” The human works accomplished nothing at all, when God was in the picture…they were still naked in His sight…and they knew it. By the way, God is always “in the picture!” We are never hidden from His sight. The only covering we can ever have is the one He provided, at the Cross. When we sing the Hymn, “The Solid Rock”, we say “When Christ shall come with trumpet sound, O may I then in Him be found, dressed in His righteousness alone, faultless to stand before the throne!” We need to be clothed by Him. Adam and Eve believed God, and He clothed them in the skin of the first blood sacrifice, looking forward to the Cross, still 4000 years in the future.

God warned the believers at Laodicea (Revelation 3) that they were poor and wretched and naked. They were believers…but had become accustomed to clothing themselves in their own, home-grown, self-justifying self-righteousness. And Jesus was warning them that they were just as naked as if they weren’t saved at all. It is even possible that some of the “members” there were not believers. But the warning was to a church, not a city council. We have to assume that the majority of the people he was warning were simply backslidden Christians.

God is Very Serious about the Gospel

What does Paul say about these folks who want to “re-write the Gospel” to make it read, “Well, yes, sin is pretty bad, all right; so you need to do a lot of good works to make God accept you.”? Or those who say, “Well, yes, Jesus died for your sins all right, but if you expect Him to keep you, you’ll have to do enough good works to earn your keep.”? Here is what He says:

⁸ But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

⁹ As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Accursed!

This is a pretty strong statement. Let’s think through what he is saying, and consider why He says it. We have already determined that Paul was speaking to the believers in the province of Galatia. Actually, as we read through the missionary journeys of Paul, we can see that Paul probably led a lot of these people to Christ—his second missionary journey led through their area, at least, and some of the towns he preached in were definitely in that area.

He knew they started off with the pure Gospel, because he himself had personally delivered it to them. The Gospel he preached was the good news that:

Jesus Christ died as full payment for their sins, and that
He was buried, and that
He rose again the third day, and that
All God was asking them to do was to believe His word regarding that full payment, and trust in Him for salvation.

So, how can someone be deceived, and drawn away from such a clear message? Why would someone find legalism attractive at any level?

The Legalizers

The fact is, we are the willing victims of our own sin, and we are willingly deceived:

by our own deceitful hearts (Jeremiah 17:9),
by the Evil World in which we live, (1^st John 2:15-17) and
by Satan himself, the original Deceiver. (Revelation 20:7, 8, 10)

We are not able to save ourselves, nor can we even bring a clean sacrifice to a Holy God. Everything we touch is contaminated by our sin. But we don’t like to admit that; not even quietly, to ourselves…especially not to anyone else.

So when someone comes along and says that we have to do something special for God, in order to be saved, we jump to believe it. It makes sense to us. Everything has a price, after all! But we do not realize the unfathomable riches of God’s Grace, and the fact that the price we offer, no matter how dear, is a laughable pittance, contaminated by sin at best, and an mortal insult to One who gave His only begotten Son for us.

Consider how you would feel, had your son or daughter willingly sacrificed his or her life to save someone else from death, and that person later offered you money: not as a gift of thanks, but to “pay for” the life of your child. What value could you settle on as being a “right price?” (Give that one some thought!) To a good parent, there is no amount, as a payment, that would be satisfactory, when their life had been given as a gift. It is an insult to even consider such a thing. It cheapens the gift, and despises the giver. Would you ever be able to forgive a person who tried such a thing?

As a matter of fact, God does offer forgiveness even for that sin…but he does not take kindly to folks who deliberately lead others astray, and thus keep them from receiving his Grace. He sees it pretty much the same as we would. People whose children have died from drug abuse do not think kindly of drug dealers, do they? And God has seen every single one of the human race who are precious to Him, dead because of Sin. He has given his own life to save them, and here is someone trying to turn people away from His Grace? What would your reaction be?

The fact is that God has placed a curse on anyone who ispersuading people to:

Deny their sin (saying that Jesus died needlessly, in his/her particular case)
Replace Grace with Works (thus offering a payment for His gift), or
Adulterate Grace with Works (thus denying that the gift of Christ was enough).

He minces no words, here! If you teach some other Gospel (one of those three listed options) then you are in deep trouble with God. God makes the rules! No one has the right to change them. Also, don’t get the idea that the “rules changed”, in moving from the Old Testament to the New:

No one has ever been saved by works. Abraham believed God and God counted it to him as righteousness. Adam believed God, and God clothed him in the skin of a blood sacrifice.
No one has ever been kept by works. Ezekiel says that if you depend on your own righteousness, then the day you sin, all your righteousness will be rendered void, and you will die for your sin. (Ezekiel 33:13)
The only thing different is how people are to express their faith. The Old Testament believers looked forward to a coming sacrifice they only vaguely understood. They offered the required blood sacrifice for sin, believing that God would honor His Word. We look back with a completed revelation, to a sacrifice we still only vaguely understand. We believe that God will honor His Word, and we, too, trust in Jesus’ blood at the Cross.
Both groups—Old and New— are utterly dependent upon the Grace of God. Both are saved by that Grace…through Faith.

God says if it is byGrace, then it is not by works—and if it is by works, then it is not by Grace. The two are mutually exclusive. (Romans 11:6) The only good works that God asks of us are as a result of having already received His priceless gift. The gift was not to be earned by works, neither is it kept by works. It is all by Grace. We only serve out of Love and thanksgiving.

Conclusion:

We saw earlier that whenever a person preaches against Grace, and supplants it with Law; that person, whether they know it or not, is working with Satan to prevent the salvation of lost people, and to prevent the effective service of believers who have already trusted in God’s grace.

Can you see why God would feel strongly about the practice of mixing Law with Grace for either Salvation or Sanctification? It cannot result in either Salvation for the unbeliever or Holiness for the believer. In both cases, it results in slavery to outward demands of legalism, and in the unbeliever’s case, it results in eternal loss in the lake of fire. What a horrible thing to do to other people!

So, how can we apply this idea? The most obvious thing is that when someone comes to my door telling me that I need to approach God differently than what it says right here, I will know that they are under a curse. I will not believe them, nor “study with them”, or anything else they want me to do. They are under a curse, and all I can offer them is the Mercy of God through the Cross.

We also need to be wary of “human wisdom” that suggests a “sure-fire plan” by which we can make ourselves acceptable before God. There is no such thing. God’s plan is very simple, and (possibly) boring: We are to trust God for salvation, through Jesus’ finished work at the Cross. We are then to trust him daily for the Holy Spirit’s guidance as we study His written Word, and learn obedience. No magic, here, folks…the song “trust and obey” pretty well says it all.

In my own life, if I catch myself thinking that the things I am doing are somehow “making me OK with God”, then I can back off and remind myself that the Blood of Jesus is the ONLY thing that can make me acceptable in His sight.

Finally, if I find myself judging other believers because they “aren’t living up to my standards”, I can be reminded that they, too, are under the Blood, and that God is able to make them stand. They are serving Him, not me.

May the Lord help us to recognize Law and Grace, and keep the two concepts separate. Amen!

August 31, 2014September 28, 2014

Introduction to the Galatian Epistle

An Introduction to the Galatian Epistle

Introduction:

The letter to the Galatians is dated around 60 AD, and was possibly written from Rome (according to the Greek end-note text which may or may not actually be part of the Scripture). There seems to be a good deal of disagreement amongst scholars about where Paul was when he wrote this epistle. Some say Corinth, some Ephesus, and some Antioch. In a way, I really don’t think it matters where he was: the recipients knew it was from Paul, and they undoubtedly knew where he was at the time. One thing special about this epistle is that he personally wrote it, as opposed to having another person act as his scribe, which was his usual practice. (We will see the evidence for that in the last chapter.)

Another thing unusual about this epistle is that it was to several churches as a group; it was not addressed to a single church and then to be passed around. The recipients were the believers across the region of Galatia, a portion of what we now call Asia Minor. They were distinguished not only by where they lived but from whence their ancestors had come. (Schofield points out that they were relatively recent immigrants from Gaul.) Also, it was a political domain; a region determined by the Roman Empire, to which all the Mediterranean area belonged. So: unlike some of the epistles which were to one church in a particular city, this was to all the churches in the region, or province, of Galatia.

Paul had heard that these believers had been targeted by false teachers who were rapidly convincing them that unless they kept the Mosaic Law, they could not be saved. This doctrine actually had begun almost immediately; as soon as the true doctrine of Grace had been preached, the legalizers were right behind it, trying to negate the work of Grace. We saw that in the Book of Acts, but people are still doing this today. Perhaps such people think they are doing something for God, but the results are terrible. The tendency of the human heart is to desire to believe that “I can save myself!” or at least, that “I can do something to earn God’s favor”. And the result is that we invariably replace Grace with works. Why? Because Grace is specifically “un-earned favor”—unmerited favor: if it is earned, it is no longer Grace: the two concepts are mutually exclusive.

Consider, too, that false teachers, whether they know it or not, are partnering with the Enemy, in trying to prevent the salvation of souls. Some may genuinely think they are helping the cause of God, but Paul makes it clear that they are definitely not helping, but rather thwarting God’s plan.

One of our deacons was present when his (then) employer (a now-deceased member of this church) graciously attempted to share the Grace of God through Christ with a client (just what Galatians teaches). The client was quite wealthy, and a member of a religious sect that favors legalism over grace. When offered God’s Grace, the client answered “I don’t need that!” He pointed to a beautiful church building in the distance: “Do you see that church? I built it! My name is on it! I don’t need a savior: my position with God is secured by my works!” He was completely serious in what he was saying. It is especially sad to hear such a thing, as that man has since died, and met his maker: Did he meet his savior, or his judge? I suppose that it is possible that he had changed his mind before he died, but my guess would be that he had not. From human perspective, he may have seemed a good man: but from God’s perspective he was a lost and guilty sinner, trying to bribe the Judge. (How does that work out in our courts?)

So the temptation of legalism is not really that it adds to Grace, but that it supplants it. There are always some who hedge a little, and maintain, “Well, we are saved by Grace, but we are kept (and sanctified) by works!” This doctrine still sets aside God’s Grace, in that the Holy Spirit, indwelling the believer, is the only one who makes us holy before God (that’s sanctification), and the one who keeps us, actually sealing us in Christ until He, himself, comes to retrieve us.

The simple fact remains that if at any point my salvation or my sanctification is dependent upon my works, then ultimately both are entirely dependent upon my works, as the works are unquestionably the “weak link” in that chain.

These are the two errors Paul was writing to correct, but he had other things to teach the churches, as well. He revealed things, here, about his personal testimony that we do not find elsewhere. He let us know how he himself received the Gospel. He gave the believers instructions as to how to walk with God.

Galatians Chapter 1, verses 1-5

¹ Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

Paul clearly states his credentials in the opening verse, and then goes on to substantiate them later on. To begin with, he says that he is an apostle. The word “apostle” means “sent one”…a person sent as an ambassador, a representative, and a messenger. So he is sent by someone and is representing someone…not even necessarily the same one. An ambassador is usually appointed, not elected, so that ambassador may be representing a nation, none of whose citizens ever personally approved his appointment, or possibly even have heard of him. (Who is the United States ambassador to Peru right now? Or to France? The fact is, they are representing your government, but you don’t know who they are, let alone having elected them, chosen them or sent them.)

But Paul said that he is not an apostle of men…not representing any humans, as an ambassador. He also says that he is not sent by man. No human sent him. He says that he was sent by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him (Jesus) from the dead. He is an ambassador of Christ. He has stated his credentials—he is divinely chosen, divinely appointed, and divinely sent. He will tell us more later on.

² And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:

Paul continues his formal greeting in the same general format he always uses (“Paul [and whoever else] to [whomever is receiving the letter]”). This was a pretty standard salutation in letter-writing at that time, though it may seem odd to us. We have other examples of letters in the Bible, written at about the same time and in similar location, and they all follow a similar style.

Paul has already listed himself as the speaker, and now he lumps the rest of the people with him into one group greeting the recipients: “all the brethren which are with me”. We don’t know the names of the brethren who were with Paul at that time. Paul was not being personal here; he was being polite. But who is the letter to? This epistle is slightly unusual as it is clearly directed to all the churches in a general area, rather than a single church. We will also notice that in the closing, in chapter six; rather than passing along greetings to individuals as he frequently did, it is entirely impersonal, beyond the fact that he addresses them all as his “brethren”, thus recognizing that they are born-again individuals.

It may or may not be important to remember that the churches were each autonomous…self-supporting and self governing: he did not address himself to the “Abbot of Galatia”, or the “Archbishop of Galatia”, but to the Churches, plural. There was no central authority over a group of churches. Jesus is the head of the Church, period! And the Church universal is made up of all the believers from all the local assemblies in history.

Furthermore, we discover in other passages that when he gave the assignment to Timothy and Titus to “build up” the churches and “set things in order”, he said to “ordain elders (plural) in every church (singular)”. So all the churches to which Paul was writing had multiple leaders, and he did not address this letter to any of them. He addressed it to the churches: the assembled believers. The elders and deacons were simply part of those churches. There was no special hierarchy whereby the leaders got special attention from apostles. To put it bluntly; if you are a born-again believer, today, then this letter is to YOU. Take it personally!

Grace and Peace

³ Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

Even though, in every case, the people he was writing to were already believers, Paul always listed these blessings in this same order… in every case it is Grace, then Peace. That is the order in which we receive those two. In Salvation, we receive God’s Grace (which was extended to us in the person of Christ) through faith, and, as a result, we are permanently at peace with God. (Romans 5:1, Ephesians 2:8, 9) This is a positional truth: Once you have placed your faith in him for salvation, the Grace of God is permanently and unconditionally applied to your life, and you have Peace with God, forever. Believe it!

As believers, we place our trust in Christ daily for wisdom, guidance and sustenance…or we don’t. He sustains us daily by His Grace, and we have the peace of God…or we don’t: the choice, daily, moment by moment, is our own. (Philippians 4:6-9) Those two are intertwined, but the order is always “Grace then Faith, resulting in Peace”. In the believer’s daily life, they are always conditional upon continuing faith and obedience. The Peace of God is Conditional.

We will soon focus on the second aspect of Grace, but it may be good to remember at this point that, while the Law came through Moses (John 1:17), Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. And Peace always follows Grace. So how would the recipients of the Law have found Peace? They could only find Peace through Grace, even in the time of Moses. Noah, roughly 1500 years before Moses, found Grace in the eyes of God. That is where his peace came from. The Law had not been given…but Grace had preceded the Law. And it has been the only path to God ever since the Fall of Man.

Adam lived long before either Noah or Moses was born: long before the giving of the Mosaic Law. The only Law he had known was the one command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (“In the day that thou eat it, thou shalt surely die.”) He broke that one command, and plunged himself and all his progeny into ruin. Spiritually, he died on the spot. God says in Revelation 13:8 that the preparation had already been made for the salvation of the Human Race: Jesus is the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the Earth…not from the Fall of Man. So how was Adam saved?

Genesis 3:7-20 God responded to the Sin of the human race with the Curse—it affected the snake, proper (no more legs, no more nice food; permanent enmity between snakes and people…as a rule) it affected Satan the “Old Serpent” in a way a little harder to see, but you will notice that the Promise of the “Seed of Woman”, coming to crush the Serpent’s head, is not directed to the offspring of the snake, but to the Serpent, proper. (“He will crush YOUR head!”) It affected the woman, causing pain in childbirth AND an ongoing struggle between the woman and the man…the “desire” mentioned here is not an affectionate or a passionate desire, but a desire to control…and it has had a permanent affect on history. The Curse affected the Ground, for Adam’s sake; it would no longer easily bear fruit for the human race. And, finally, it affected Adam along with the whole creation; death had come, and all things were now destined to die.

Adam could have just collapsed in the glare of God’s wrath, and died without hope…but he saw hope in the wording of the Curse, and he believed God. He named his wife “Eve” (mother of all the living) because he believed in the Coming Savior—the Seed of Woman! That is faith! In fact, it was specifically saving faith. God recognized it and covered their sins with a blood sacrifice. He killed animals in place of the humans, and clothed them with the skins of the dead sacrifice.

Abel understood the family history correctly, and he brought a blood sacrifice. So have all the believers in history. Those of the Old Testament were all looking forward to a coming Savior, ultimately looking forward to the Cross, though probably (mostly) they did not really understand what was to come. We believers in the New Testament era are looking back to the Cross, and our blood sacrifice, like theirs, is the Person of Christ. My opinion is that we probably don’t completely understand what happened at the Cross, either—but we believe God, and trust in the shed Blood of the Savior. He extended His Grace through the Cross—and that is the only way He has ever done it. We humans have always been saved by Grace, through Faith, plus nothing.

So what about Jesus’ death at the Cross?

What really did happen there? What was accomplished? What was the intent?

⁴ Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

We know that He died for our sins, and we frequently act as though it was just to save us from the eternal consequences of our sins…but here he says that he died for us that he might deliver us from this present evil world (or age)…and that this, in fact, is the will of God, our Heavenly Father. If that is so, then in order to fulfill God’s will in our lives we should see the grip of this World loosening its hold upon us; and our lives more and more reflecting the Person of Christ.

If all Jesus has managed to do in your life is to save you from Hell, then God’s Will is not being carried out in your life. I’m not being critical…this is what God says about the crucifixion.

Have you been born again? If so, are you also being delivered from the grip of the World on your life, your thoughts, and your morals? There are three aspects of salvation:

The first aspect, we already mentioned…we have been saved (past tense) from the eternal penalty of sin. God will never again seek to administer judgment for our sins, as His justice was fully poured out at the Cross.
The second aspect doesn’t get talked about as much, but it is just as real, and here, remember, he clearly states that it is the will of God, who has already saved us and made us his children: He wants us to be saved (present tense) from the power of sin in our lives—to be delivered from the present effect of Satan, the World, and our old sin natures. That is why we need constant direction from the Holy Spirit, constant feeding on God’s Word, and constant shepherding by Christ himself.
The third is the one we are all looking forward to: He will eventually (future tense) save us from the presence of sin, so that we are no longer tormented, and will finally live in the full reality of the holiness that he has placed upon us.

Conclusion:

I can see all three tenses of salvation listed in John 5:24 “Whoever hears my words and believes in Him who sent me has (present tense) eternal life, and shall not (future tense) come into condemnation, but has crossed over (past tense…perfect tense, specifically) from death into life.” (Perfect tense implies a completed action at a past point in time, having permanent results for the future.)

If I have believed in Jesus’ shed blood as full payment for my sin, then I have eternally been saved from the penalty of sin. I have crossed over from death into life. The result for my future is that I will never be condemned by God. Please notice carefully that there are no “qualifiers” listed here: nothing that says “unless, or except”, or anything of the kind. I have eternal life, and God expects me to be living as one resurrected from the dead. He says this “is the will of God and our Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen”

⁵ To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

You know, given the facts he has just alluded to, and which we have discussed a little more directly, it seems impossible that anyone would not want to give Glory to God for the things he has done. He has poured out his Grace, unearned, and undeserved, upon us. Though we continually rebel against His Grace and His righteousness, He continues to Keep us, and cleanse us, and use us for His Glory. We can either honor Him with our lives, day by day, or fail to do so.

Keep that in mind when you sing hymns of Praise…He is worthy of every bit we can offer, and far, far more. (Amen!)

Father, change our lives into the likeness of Christ and cause us to live for your Glory. Amen!

July 4, 2014September 21, 2015

Have we Circumvented the Cross?

Circumventing the Cross

I re-read an old novel a few weeks ago, one that is widely known and appreciated, in which the heroine goes to a tiny Appalachian community (setting in 1912), and is mentored by a Quaker missionary, who has tirelessly worked to gain the confidence of the people, and to bring the love of God into their homes and hearts. (All sounds good so far, right?)

The two women and the various others in the story demonstrate the grace and love of God in their lives, and gradually people are won over, hearts soften, people desire to learn literacy, begin to read their Bibles, and God’s character miraculously begins to show up in people’s lives. That all sounds great, too, right? And it really does…except that, after I had finished the book, and actually began to think about it, I realized there was something missing. The writer had preached the love and grace of God, and had seen transformed lives, and visions of Heaven, even, all without a single mention of Christ! There was no blood sacrifice—nothing offensive about this Gospel, because it left out the Cross, and left out Jesus Christ, entirely. Even the vision of Heaven was without Christ—just a bunch of happy people wandering around playing with babies.

A Bloodless Sacrifice for Sins

You recall the story of Cain and Abel. Most people may primarily remember that Cain killed Abel, which is true, of course. But they forget the root cause: Abel had correctly approached God with a blood-sacrifice for sin, as had been demonstrated in Genesis 3, but Cain had brought a bloodless sacrifice—a worship offering, perhaps, but one that ignored the fact of sin. The sin issue has to be addressed, one way or another, before worship and interaction with a Holy God can begin. God rejected Cain’s offering quite gently, reasoning with him that he (Cain) knew what was required, and that if he did what was right, He (God) would certainly receive him (Cain) as well; there was no respect of persons here.

Cain rejected the plan of God, and, in anger, went and murdered Abel.

Why would he reject God’s plan? Apparently he did not want to confess that he needed a savior. He did not want to bring a blood sacrifice, confessing his own sin…he apparently thought he should be able to address God as an equal. (We are most certainly not God’s equals. We are not the creator; we are the created beings, and sinners, besides.)

But taking it a step further; what if he simply confessed his sin, and threw himself on God’s mercy and Grace, but still brought a bloodless sacrifice? Would that be OK?

No! The Holiness of God must be satisfied, or fellowship can never occur. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me.” What do you think he was talking about? By acting like Him? By seeing him as a great teacher, and trying to obey his teaching, and follow his lifestyle? Or by admitting that only His blood can save, and that I, personally, need a savior, or I cannot be saved?

Why do we reject the Cross?

Today people reject the cross for a variety of reasons, but all can be traced to two fundamental reasons: They consider it offensive, one way or another, or they consider it utter foolishness, and will not consider the possibility that God’s Wisdom is so far beyond theirs that it seems to be foolishness, simply because they can’t begin to understand it.

They either think it offensive: (a) that a Holy God should require a blood sacrifice for sin (such a heathen-sounding thing!) or (b) that He should consider them a sinner, and that everything they do is tainted by their sin.

Interesting that those are the two grounds for rejecting the Gospel, today— those are also the reasons that were mentioned in 1^st Corinthians 1:23. Paul said “We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block (an offense) and unto the Greeks foolishness”. But he went on to say that Christ is the Power of God, and the Wisdom of God. In another passage (Romans 1:16), referring specifically to the Gospel of Christ, Paul stated that “I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto Salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” The Power of God! The Gospel is Christ, in a nutshell. And he is the only way given for us to be saved (“…neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:12) Has it ever occurred to you that when the book of Romans states that the Gospel of Christ is the Power of God to save those who believe, it is stating an “exclusive” truth? There is no other thing in the scriptures, described as being the “power of God” to save believers; Just the Gospel. There is no other way given by which we may approach God; Just Christ. And yet, as a race, we continue to reject God’s only plan of salvation. There is no “Plan B”. This is it, folks! If you are not specifically preaching the Cross, you are not telling people how to be saved. If you are not specifically dependent upon the Cross, yourself, then You are not saved. There is no other way.

What about the religions (or preachers) that ignore the cross?

When a religion (or preacher) circumvents the Cross, regardless of how nicely they teach the rest of the scripture, what must we conclude? Surely such nice people must have a right standing with God, mustn’t they? Surely if I follow their teachings, I will also have a right standing with God…right? All those nice, pious, gentle, pleasant people can’t be wrong, can they?

Then what about sin? How do they deal with sin?

What do we do with Sin?

There are only three ways that human religions deal with the issue of Sin:

Deny that it exists at all. Nothing is intrinsically good or bad.
Admit that it exists, but deny that it ultimately matters… God is too loving and kind to condemn anyone. Just do your best to live right, and God will accept you.
Admit that it exists, and that it matters (God hates sin!) and demand that the sinner do many good works to expiate all the bad works (penance, alms, service). God will accept you if you do enough good to overbalance all the bad.

Any of those three will result in the eternal loss of the adherent. Your faith will not save you if the object of your faith cannot save you. It matters who you trust and what you believe. If you trust in a crook, you lose your money; if you place your faith in a false God, or a false religion, or a false creed, or false principle, you lose your soul…you are eternally separated from God, in eternal punishment.

Truth is not dependent upon what people believe.

Truth is a fact, regardless of what anyone thinks:

Either God is Holy, or He is not.
Either He created all things, or He did not.
Either Man is a sinner, or he is not.
Either sin requires a blood-sacrifice for forgiveness, or it does not. (Doesn’t that sound primitive and gory? Surely we have progressed beyond such savagery… Doesn’t that argument sound familiar? “Ye shall not surely die…” Satan can sound pretty persuasive!) It doesn’t matter what I think about it—it either is true or it isn’t.

There is no middle ground. These are black-and-white issues. Truth does not depend upon public opinion. God addresses each of these questions numerous times in the Bible.

He clearly states, numerous times, that He is Holy. He cannot abide Sin.
He gives a fairly detailed account of the creation, with many later references to that historical fact, all pointing to the fact that He is the Creator, and has full authority over His creation.
He gives a detailed account of how man fell into sin, and many references to that historical fact, all agreeing that Man is a fallen creature, lost, apart from God’s Grace.
He demonstrated the blood sacrifice in Genesis chapter 3, accepted a blood sacrifice (and rejected a non-blood sacrifice) in Genesis 4, demanded a specific blood sacrifice in Exodus 12, and ultimately declared Jesus Christ to be the fulfillment of all the Old Testament sacrifices, in John 1:29, and many other New Testament references. He concludes (Hebrews 9:22) that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”…and that only the blood of Christ can achieve the satisfaction of the Holiness of God. (1^st John 2:2, cp. John 1:29)

Now: you can believe whatever you want to about these things. Only you can choose. But if you reject these truths, no one else can take the blame, either. You are fully responsible for your own choice.

Assuming that you have chosen to believe God, and have placed your trust in the shed Blood of Jesus Christ as full payment for your sins, then you have become a child of God, by the new birth. You are responsible to Him, personally. He has assigned you the job of being His ambassador to the lost world. You have been given a message to deliver. Two questions, then, remain:

Do you know what that message is?
Are you willing to deliver it?

Both are a yes-or-no issue, but we recognize that even if our answer is “yes” to both, there are degrees of practical competence involved. How well do I know the message? How willing am I to deliver it? There is always room for growth. We grow stronger with study and practice.

What is the Gospel? 1^st Corinthians 15:3, 4 states the portions of the message that must be there:

The death of Christ for our sins
His burial (demonstrating that he was really dead, ) and
His resurrection, demonstrating that he really is the savior.

If we leave out this message, or selected parts of it, then we are not delivering the message, period. When one claims to be “Preaching the Gospel”, but is circumventing the cross, they are NOT preaching the Gospel, and may be inviting people to avoid eternal life.

The whole message of salvation is wrapped up in the preaching of the Cross.

Paul’s message:

At Athens, though Paul had been preaching Christ faithfully in the Synagogue and in the marketplace, when he was called upon to speak publicly, he gave a “slick” sermon that has appealed to human reasoning down through the ages, ever since. It was NOT effective then, nor has it been effective when people have emulated it to any degree, since then. People do not come to Christ because of reasoning—they come to Christ because they believe the Gospel; they choose to place their trust in the Blood of Christ. The door to the truth is the will, not the intellect.

Paul left Athens immediately after delivering that sermon (no church was established there), and went to Corinth with a new resolve to “know nothing but Christ and Him Crucified”. He was resolved to “…preach the Gospel; not with wisdom of words, lest the preaching of the Cross be made of none effect.” Has it occurred to you that we can “muddy the water” by our meddling with the truth, adding our arguments, our persuasion, etc.?

Paul delivered the message he was given. We need to do the same. Preach the cross of Christ. Do not make the Gospel more palatable by excluding the part people don’t want to hear. That is the part they desperately need.

What would the Passover be without the Passover lamb? Just a skimpy meal? The real Passover saved the believers because of the scarcely dry blood of that lamb, on the lintel and the two doorposts. The Cross, even 1500 years before Christ, was the salvation God prescribed. Do we like that? Not really, perhaps, but it is the simple truth. We cannot save ourselves, and God only offers one way whereby He, himself, can save us.

We either believe it, and are saved, or reject it and are lost. It’s a black-and-white choice.

And, as His emissaries, we either echo that message, offering that salvation to others; or we dampen and water down the message, and condemn our listeners. Again, it is a clear choice.

When we deliver a “comfortable” message, only preaching the goodness and grace of a loving God (which we all want to hear), then we ignore the holiness and judgment of a righteous God, and thus circumvent the Cross. The result is eternal loss. We have made people comfortable in their lost state, and convinced them that there is no need for a savior. Remember that John 3:16 states that “how” God loved the world was that he gave his only begotten son. (“…God so loved, that he gave…” The means of loving was the giving of Christ) Yes, we preach the love and grace of God—but we preach the Cross as the means of receiving that Love and Grace.

In Galatians 2:21, Paul said, regarding this very matter, “I do not frustrate the Grace of God, for, if righteousness come by the Law, then Christ is dead in vain.” If you can approach God just by “being good”, then Jesus died for nothing…he wasted his life, and his death was pointless.

If you preach a message that circumvents the cross, then you declare that Jesus died for nothing; that his death was pointless. And if a church approaches God in that way, it is a false church, and leading its people to Hell. Sounds harsh…but it is the simple truth.

We don’t want to be accused of any such thing. We preach the Cross, and encourage our listeners to place their trust in the blood of Jesus as full payment for their sins. If you desire to be the ambassador God has called you to be, then learn the message, and start learning to deliver it.

God help us all to be the Men and Women of God that he has called us to be.