Mark Horne » Blog Archive » Getting into the Galatian Heresy in the Name of the Reformation.
This is off the cuff and may be misguided, but I’ll throw it out there for feedback:
Is our fixation on the problem of “adding something” to Jesus really enough to describe the problem that Paul is dealing with in Galatians and First Corinthians?
(Yes, I’m claiming there is a real fundamental similarity in what Paul is dealing with. In both cases some are exalting themselves and/or separating from others and in both cases Paul invokes the sufficiency of Christ, the reality of the Spirit, and the meaning of baptism. I can write more about this if anyone needs me to do so.)
It seems to me that much of Paul’s hostility is focused on our desire to subtract other Christians from Christ as much or more than it is on adding anything to Christ.
In point of fact, not many admit they are adding to Christ. They accuse others of not fully following Christ.
(I got this idea reading Orlund’s own piece, so I think he’s more than aware of it. I’m just wondering if the “Don’t add to Christ” warning is the best way to describe the issue in order to do justice to Ortlund’s own observations.)
That’s a good point. How often do you see a situation where someone describes practically or doctrinally doubtful behavior, and someone else is quick to say, “Of course, they might not really be Christians if the they do/think that.” Yet that basic response is far different from Paul’s, where he consistently treats Christians as people who need to be slapped around (exhorted) for their own good lest they (we) do or believe all manner of ridiculously stupid things, not as people who will be generally assumed to be right and proper nearly all the time if we’re “really” Christians. (The difference is that Paul knows that Christians will have the desire and grace to respond appropriately to the warnings.) The people being directly and indirectly rebuked in Galatians and Corinthians sound a lot more like the people who question loyalty to Christ at every turn, than Paul does.
And interestingly, Paul seems to reserve a reflexive questioning of someone’s loyalty to Christ for a few very specific things — one of which is excluding others.
So the Judaizers want to excise the Greeks from the body?
And by that token, does the “uncircumcision” of the New Testament imply that man has return to a state of completeness? A creation-ordered “whole body”?
It wasn’t until the last few years that I was shown that Non-Circumcised people could be “saved” in the OT. Melchizedek, Nebuchadnezer, Queen of Sheba…etc, and that the Uncircumcised Gentiles could worship outside the walls, and that God justified them for faith. Now they could be justified, but not come to the table until they were circumcised (Ex 12). So table fellowship was a matter of circumcision.
The Galatians were telling Greek believers to be circumcised for table fellowship. That isn’t right but it isn’t a surprising error. What is shocking is that the people fostering this doctrine themselves were NOT LIVING LIKE JEWS. So the reason they made the easy doctrinal error, was NOT AN SIMPLE THEOLOGICAL ERROR… they were wanting social control, TO BOAST. They didn’t really care about the Law. They cared about themselves.
Am I right here?