Abraham, My FriendThe Making of a Praying Man_53No CompromiseFrom time to time in our recounting of Abraham’s pilgrimage we have touched on a passage of scripture which has had a far-reaching consequence, and we have then followed the stream to its broader sweeps. The famous phrase; And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. (Gen 15:6 KJV) became one of the foundation truths of the New Testament. We did a major excursus at that point in our meditations. The conflict between the rival claims of Ishmael and Isaac also becomes a key New Testament truth, but one which is not usually quite so well known or appreciated.Paul’s letter to the churches in South Galatia is probably one of the earliest parts of the New Testament and was written long before the gospel accounts. This beginning of Paul’s ministry, and thus the New Testament writings themselves, was occasioned by an early attack on the fundamentals of Christian revelation. Paul and Barnabas had travelled through the cities of Pamphylia and Pisidia and ‘through much tribulation’ had seen God raise the testimony of Christ in cities such as Perga, Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe… and to the regions around them. (Acts 13:13-14:25) Usually they left one city for the next with a mob on their heels, and sometimes bruised and bleeding.The enemies of the gospel had been out in the open and confrontations were frequent. There is a little summary of the conflict in Pisidian Antioch which with only minor variations was played out in each city; But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. (Act 13:45 KJV) As the apostles persisted in their witness the opposition usually moved on to the next stage, again with only minor variations; And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region. But the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts. (Act 13:49-50 KJV) Paul and Barnabas letter risked their lives in retracing their steps as they encouraged the believers; And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. (Act 14:21-23 KJV)Paul and Barnabas returned to their home church in Syrian Antioch. It was while they were back in Antioch that the satanic strategy began to emerge. In South Galatia the attacks had all been external; their origin and purpose was plain. The satanic weapon was the attempt of Diaspora Jews to destroy the infant church by main force. Such persecution has often been the history of the Church, but the result is usually a purified and resolute Church. It was time to change strategy. This time the attack would be much more subtle. It would arise not from identifiable enemies but from those who seemed to be ‘fellow-travellers’. Even high profile apostles would be enlisted in an attempt to destroy the Church from within.In the providence and provision of God Paul was resident in Syrian Antioch when that church became the front line of the battle. We can trace the events with remarkable clarity through scattered references in the New Testament. It must be that the Spirit has determined to leave us a record of this conflict; it is of age-lasting significance. Following his Damascus Road and Straight Street experiences (Acts 9:3. 9:11) Paul was active in Damascus; But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: (Act 9:22-23 KJV) It seems that in between these two verses he then took a journey to the Nabatæan kingdom with its famous capital city of Petra; the rose red city half as old as time. This is most likely the meaning of Arabia in the context of Galatians 1:17. Subsequently Paul returned to Damascus and then made his first post-conversion visit to Jerusalem some three years after his meeting with the risen Christ and his receiving of the Spirit three days later.His presence at Jerusalem during this first visit was disruptive. I often smile at the juxtaposition of ideas in Luke’s phrases; And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him. Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus. Then had the churches rest throughout all Judæa and Galilee and Samaria... (Act 9:29-31a KJV) Paul then vanishes from our view for a dozen years, and doesn’t reappear until Barnabas travelled to Tarsus with the express purpose of finding him and involving him in the work in Syrian Antioch. (Acts 11:25,26) After some time there a prophetic news-bulletin causes Paul and Barnabas travel as representatives of the church in Syrian Antioch to carry relief to the brethren which dwelt in Judæa. (Acts 11:29 KJV). This was Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem since his conversion.The secret war had already commenced in Jerusalem. Paul recounts his experience using amazing language; This issue arose because of false brothers smuggled in, who came in secretly to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us. (Gal 2:4 HCSB) It is the language of an satanic strategy designed to destroy the church from within; war by infiltration. The attempt was beginning to subvert the very nature of the gospel by perversion; …but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. (Gal 1:7 KJV) If you cannot defeat your enemy find a way to control him. Judaism, Borg-like, would ‘assimilate’ Christianity by gathering it into its embrace and controlling it. The outward sign of the assimilation would be the ancient sign of Abraham’s covenant with God; circumcision.Paul and Barnabas had taken with them a Greek, named Titus. Titus was to be the test case. The infiltrators wanted him to be circumcised, but although their efforts were intense they failed; the church in Jerusalem refused to compel Titus’ circumcision. Not that this had been put to arbitration, Paul was immoveable on this issue; To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. (Gal 2:5 KJV) I wonder if we realise how much we owe, under God, to this man who was prepared, if necessary, to stand alone… that the truth of the gospel might continue. In fact, at the end of this visit James, Peter and John extended to Paul ‘the right hand of fellowship’ recognising ‘the grace that was given unto me’. Paul, Barnabas, and Titus left for Syrian Antioch, but this had been a mere skirmish, the real battle was ahead.No doubt, at the invitation of the party from Syrian Antioch Peter travelled north. This is a sad episode in Peter’s life, but he recovered from it magnificently. On his arrival Peter associated freely with the Gentiles. The verbs here all use the ‘imperfect’ tense; he was eating with the Gentiles (Gal 2:12a KJV) This was his pattern until a ‘delegation’ arrived from James. At first glance this may appear that they came on James’ behalf, but it may just be that they associated themselves with James and his sense of call to the Jews. Peter was afraid of them. What can this mean? What did he fear would happen? Did he fear James’ displeasure? Did he think he could avoid trouble by a subtle compromise? He changed his pattern; when they were come, he was withdrawing himself, and was separating himself, fearing…Gal 2:12b Fear had distorted his vision and crippled his walk. And others followed him; the other Jews…Barnabas also. The war was causing major casualties; Peter, the other Jews, Barnabas; it looked like a rout. The warriors are fleeing the field, the enemy is carrying everything before him, and one man is willing to stand his ground. What a debt we owe this man! Paul withstood Peter to the face, because he recognised Peter’s culpability and hypocrisy. He saw clearly that this could only lead to ‘Christian Apartheid’ and rejected even the possibility; there could only ever be One Church.But the war was still raging in other theatres. News reached Paul from the churches in South Galatia that others had followed in his footsteps with a systematic attempt to subvert the believers. Christianity was being assailed at its heart and at its borders; apostles and new converts were equally at risk. What was the real issue here? Acceptance with God; was it God’s gift or man’s achievement. Was Christ’s death alone sufficient basis for God’s acceptance or did we need to add some ‘do-it-yourself’ righteousness? Must the Christian achieve acceptance with God by the keeping of the Law, and therefore wear its sign; circumcision? Paul’s reaction to news from abroad was to write the letter to the churches of Galatia in which he rains hammer blow upon hammer blow in his determination to remove every doubt, with its withering culmination; Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (Gal 5:1-4 KJV) There can be no compromise. This is not a ‘Jewish’ variant of the Gospel; it is no gospel at all and those who say otherwise are under God’s anathema. Well, what does all this have to do with Ishmael and Isaac? Well, God’s word to Abraham on this issue becomes one of Paul’s hammer blows. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. (Gal 4:29-30 KJV) Paul makes a series of shocking contrasts between the acceptable and the non-acceptable. He says that Sarah and Hagar are allegories of two quite separate covenants; For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. (Gal 4:22-26 KJV)Let’s remind ourselves that Abraham’s covenant was older than that of Sinai; 430 years older according to Galatians 3:17. The Sinai covenant was, according to Paul ‘additional and temporary’. (Gal 3:19) Paul is making a very disturbing statement; he is saying that Sinai covenant is obsolete. The Sinai covenant he says produces not sons but slaves; This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. (Gal 4:24 NASB)So what part does the Sinai covenant with its priesthood and law contribute to the gospel, and what benefits does it procure for those who adhere to it? It gives nothing, says Paul, and it produces slaves. What place does it have then in our thinking about acceptance with God? Could anything be made more clear? Howbeit what saith the scripture? Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman. (Gal 4:30 ASV) The inheritance belongs to the Heir, and nothing can qualify us for any sharing in it, other than right relationship with the Heir. And right relationship with the Heir is not achieved by the keeping of a law, but the hearing of faith.
