Abraham, my Friend 53

Essentials

From 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 Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him for righteousness. (Gen. 15:6 ASV)

…became one of the foundation truths of the New Testament. We did a major excursus at that point in our meditations. Here is another. 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.

‘Cross culture’ conflict

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 of 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 at 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 contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul. (Acts 13:45 NKJV)

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 being spread throughout all the region. But the Jews stirred up the devout and prominent women and the chief men of the city, raised up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region. (Acts 13:49–50 NKJV)

Paul and Barnabas later risked their lives in retracing their steps as they encouraged the believers:

And when they had preached the gospel to that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.” So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed. (Acts 14:21–23 NKJV)

The history of the conflict

Paul and Barnabas returned to their home church in Syrian Antioch. It was while they were back in Antioch that the Enemy’s more insidious strategy began to emerge. In South Galatia the attacks had all been external; their origin and purpose were plain. The initial satanic weapon had been 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 subversive. 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 all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who dwelt in Damascus, proving that this Jesus is the Christ.
¶Now after many days were past, the Jews plotted to kill him. (Acts 9:22–23 NKJV)

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 spoke boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus and disputed against the Hellenists, but they attempted to kill him. When the brethren found out, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him out to Tarsus.

Then the churches throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and were edified. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, they were multiplied. (Acts 9:29–31 NKJV)

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 to travel as representatives of the church in Syrian Antioch to carry relief to the brethren dwelling in Judea (Acts 11:29 NKJV). 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:

And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage)… (Gal. 2:4 NKJV)

Secretly, stealth, spy out; it is the language of a 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 perverting it:

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. (Gal. 1:6–7 NKJV)

Assimilation Strategy

If you cannot defeat your enemy, find a way to control him. Judaism, Borg-like (non-StarTrekers will have to look it up!), 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 to Jerusalem 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’ to be circumcised. Not that this had been put to arbitration — Paul was immovable on this issue:

…to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. (Gal. 2:5 NKJV)

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.

The front line moves to Syrian Antioch

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 (a continuous action in the past).

For before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles… (Gal. 2:12a NKJV)

He was eating with the Gentiles. This was his pattern until an apparent ‘delegation’ arrived from James. At first glance, this may appear that they came on James’ behalf, but it may just be that the visitors associated themselves with James and his special burden to the Jewish believers. Then the pattern changed.

…But when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. (Gal. 2:12b NKJV)

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? Whatever his reason, he changed his pattern.

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, but 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’ — separate groupings with different life patterns for Jews and Gentiles. Paul rejected even the possibility; there could only be one Church.

Bad news from abroad

But the war was still raging in other theatres. News reached Paul from the new 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 one of its signs; 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 by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. (Gal. 5:1–4 NKJV)

There can be no compromise. Mankind’s response to the need for a qualification for acceptability is either law or faith; there are no alternatives or additions. Neither can there be two variants of the Gospel, one for Jews and another for Gentiles. As Paul was to express it so precisely later to the saints in Rome:

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, (Rom 5:1–2 NKJV)

Access is…by faith into this grace in which we stand. Faith alone, without alternatives or additions.

There is no ‘Jewish’ variant of the Gospel; it is no gospel at all, and those who say otherwise are under God’s anathema.

Ishmael or Isaac?

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 he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “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 NKJV)

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 bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. (Gal. 4:22–26 NKJV)

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 the Sinai covenant is obsolete. The Sinai covenant, he says, produces not sons but slaves:

…Which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—(Gal. 4:24 NKJV)

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)

No compromise… for love’s sake

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 with regard to acceptance with God? Could anything be made more clear?

Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” (Gal. 4:30 NKJV)

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.

There is an old saying that attempts to sum up how Christians should behave towards each other in matters of truth and conscience.

In essentials, unity.
In non-essentials, liberty.
In all things, charity.

Was this behaviour of Paul to Peter ‘loving’? In this ‘essential’ Paul had little choice. As with Martin Luther when the same issues surfaced centuries later, Paul’s only responses could be ‘Here, I stand. I can do no other.’

Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. (Prov. 27:6 NKJV)