Good question! You're not alone!!
During this morning's sermon, I even managed to confuse myself, and was rattled for most of the remainder of the sermon because of it.
When I referenced Antiochus IV (c. 175-163 B.C.), I fumbled up my own point (that takes talent!). Here's an attempt at clarification. Praise the Lord for blogs, huh?
Antiochus IV "included a prohibition and a policy by which babies who had been circumcised were put to death along with the mothers who had submitted them to this sign of the covenant." (George, 143). Those were certainly horrible times for the Jewish people!
My point in mentioning this historical aside was (supposed) to highlight the possibility that the "false brethren" of Galatians 2:4-5 may have asserted, "My great, great, grandfather's younger brother [g,g,g uncle] was killed under that lousy tyrant simply because "uncle _____" was circumcised! Now we know why Paul is so wimpish on circumcision. He must be scared of persecution. That's why he preaches that circumcision isn't necessary. He's scared another Antiochus will kill him."
Little did they know, if anyone was fearful of losing his life for the sake of the gospel, it wasn't Paul (i.e., here, and here)! The gospel truth issue, however, was that Paul was not willing to have anything added to the sufficiency of Christ's atoning work...which is what the Judaizers were after.
Instead of making this point clearly, I managed to say something more confusing than a rubix-cube, and moved on.
With all sincerity, please forgive me for not pausing for prayer in the middle of the sermon, that I might more freely worship Christ with you through the remainder of the text! The Christ of the gospel of Galatians 2:1-10 is worthy of our worship. May He be yours in fullest measure.
In Christ,
Pastor Jordan
During this morning's sermon, I even managed to confuse myself, and was rattled for most of the remainder of the sermon because of it.
When I referenced Antiochus IV (c. 175-163 B.C.), I fumbled up my own point (that takes talent!). Here's an attempt at clarification. Praise the Lord for blogs, huh?
Antiochus IV "included a prohibition and a policy by which babies who had been circumcised were put to death along with the mothers who had submitted them to this sign of the covenant." (George, 143). Those were certainly horrible times for the Jewish people!
My point in mentioning this historical aside was (supposed) to highlight the possibility that the "false brethren" of Galatians 2:4-5 may have asserted, "My great, great, grandfather's younger brother [g,g,g uncle] was killed under that lousy tyrant simply because "uncle _____" was circumcised! Now we know why Paul is so wimpish on circumcision. He must be scared of persecution. That's why he preaches that circumcision isn't necessary. He's scared another Antiochus will kill him."
Little did they know, if anyone was fearful of losing his life for the sake of the gospel, it wasn't Paul (i.e., here, and here)! The gospel truth issue, however, was that Paul was not willing to have anything added to the sufficiency of Christ's atoning work...which is what the Judaizers were after.
Instead of making this point clearly, I managed to say something more confusing than a rubix-cube, and moved on.
With all sincerity, please forgive me for not pausing for prayer in the middle of the sermon, that I might more freely worship Christ with you through the remainder of the text! The Christ of the gospel of Galatians 2:1-10 is worthy of our worship. May He be yours in fullest measure.
In Christ,
Pastor Jordan
No comments:
Post a Comment