|
|
Galatians 1:6-10 |
| Yes! It Could Be Today! |
| HOME :: Bible Studies :: New Testament :: Galatians :: |
Introduction (1:1-10)
1. A Salutation (1:1-5)
2. A Rebuke (1:6-10)
1. The Gospel: Paul's Paul's Authoritative Message (1:11-2:21)
2. The Gospel: Legal Bondage Is Not for Today (3:1-4:31)
3. The Gospel: Christian Liberty Is for Today (5:1-6:10)
Conclusion (6:11-18)
In Paul's letters his salutation would usually be followed by some good words, typically thanksgiving for those to whom he is writing. Not so here. Here Paul omitted these good words and moved directly to a very strong rebuke of these people. Paul's rebuke was directed to those believers in the churches of Galatia who were abandoning his message to them and accepting that of false teachers. From the very outset of the letter he left no doubt about the content and seriousness of the issue he was about to address in this letter. His stern words here are an indication of his concern for these believers and the situation created by those who are making trouble for them.
Regarding this variation in Paul's pattern Erdman writes, "In opening his letters Paul usually follows his salutation with a thanksgiving. Here the thanksgiving is not only conspicuously absent, but its place is filled with a severe rebuke. It is even more asserting in that, while the salutation closed with a doxology, in this rebuke Paul invokes a curse." [Erdman, Galatians, p. 33]
The verses in this rebuke section may be divided as follows.
1. For the Fickle Galatians (1:6,7a)
2. Because of the False Teachers (1:7b-9)
3. From a Faithful Servant (1:10)
6 I am amazed that so quickly you are turning yourselves away from the one who called you by the grace of Christ to another gospel; 7a which is not another
Paul expressed his amazement that these believers should so quickly turn from the truth of the gospel he had taught them and be so quickly taken in by a "different" gospel.
Paul was amazed by the quickness with which these Galatians were abandoning his gospel message and moving to another "gospel." The false teaching had caused a rapid change of direction for these believers. The quickness is not likely measured from the time that Paul first started ministering in these churches. Instead it seems more likely to be measured from the time the false teachers came in and started presenting their version of the gospel after Paul had last left them earlier on his present missionary journey.
I am amazed
This verb amaze is often used in cases where what is observed as real conflicts with what we think is possible. The word occurs numerous times in the New Testament. It is sometimes translated as "marvel" or "astonish." Examples include: Acts 4:13 (the authorities were amazed at the boldness of the unlearned apostles); Acts 7:31 (Moses was amazed when he saw the burning bush); and Revelation 13:3 (the world was amazed at the beast with the healed mortal wound). The verb used here in a negative sense is found in a very positive sense in 2 Thessalonians 1:10 (we who have believed will be amazed at Christ when he returns, because Christ will be more magnificent than we ever imagined).
What Paul was hearing regarding the situation among the churches of Galatia was amazing to him. It is not what he expected to hear. Evidently somehow Paul had been apprised of the situation facing the churches to which he was writing. And he could hardly believe what he had heard regarding these believers. It was completely unexpected. Paul's amazement was not at the false teachers or their message but at their success with these Galatians. How could these believers abandon the true gospel he had proclaimed to them?
that so quickly you are turning yourselves away
Assuming this was written during Paul's time in Ephesus on his 3rd missionary journey, then Paul had recently (compared to the length of time since these churches had been founded on the 1st missionary journey) visited them. He may even have dealt with this problem while there (perhaps suggested by the "said before" in verse 9) and felt that everything was under control. Thus, Paul marveled that the situation was changing in such a brief period of time. The "so quickly" may indicate their hasty action [Vine].
As a middle voice form, the verb translated “turning away” (“deserting” in the NASB and ESV) could be rendered "turning yourselves away." The middle voice seems to lay the blame on the Galatians themselves [Vine, Galatians, p. 20]. Yes, there were those among them proclaiming a false gospel. But these believers knew the true gospel and should have been more careful. Later in the letter Paul challenged them to think carefully, something that they had not apparently been doing.
The present tense may indicate that this turning away process is ongoing and has not yet been completed [Vine, Galatians, p. 20]. Paul, of course, was writing to halt and reverse this process. Rarely does one change his thinking instantly. Even so, the process of reversing course for these believers is evidently moving rapidly.
from the one who called you
Turning involves change in direction away from one object and toward another. Paul made it clear that their actions have a consequence and in this case it is that they were moving away from "the one who called you." They cannot go in two directions at the same time. It's either toward God or toward something other than God. By abandoning the true gospel message and turning to "a different gospel" these believers are, in reality, deserting the very one who called them to their salvation.
The antecedent of the Greek participle "the one who called" is "our God and Father." It is the Father that called us to our salvation. Note 1 Corinthians 1:9 where Paul refers to "God by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son." Later in this first chapter of Galatians (1:15,16) as Paul recounted events having taken place in his own life, he referred to his own calling by God. "It pleased God who … called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me." In both of these passages notice the reference to "his Son" making it clear that the God who is doing the calling is God the Father.
In Romans 8:28-30 Paul included this calling work of the Father in an ordered list of five steps that he has completed (note the past tenses) in order to accomplish our salvation. With regard to "those who love God," the elect, the Father foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified. Some have called this series "the golden chain" because there are no "broken" links. Anyone who is foreknown will be glorified. While all these actions were settled in God's decree, apparently, with respect to time, the foreknowing and predestining took place before creation; the calling and justifying take place at the time of an individual's salvation; and the glorification will take place at some time in the future. With reference to this calling, see also 1 Thessalonians 2:12, "God, who calls you into his kingdom." If we consider justification the action that saves us, "delivering us from the domain of darkness and transferring us to the kingdom of his beloved Son" (Colossians 1:13), then importantly, calling precedes our coming to be saved.
In other passages Paul linked this calling to election and to God's purposes. In 2 Thessalonians 2:13,14 he told the Thessalonian believers that God "chose you as the firstfruits to be saved" and that this was accomplished as "he called you through our gospel." In a letter to Timothy, (2 Timothy 1:8,9), he wrote that God "saved us and called us … because of his own purpose and grace." This call is that which brings us to salvation. "The call spoken of in the New Testament epistles is always an effectual call to salvation." [MacArthur, Galatians, p. 13.]
Note that in abandoning the true gospel for a different one these believers are at the same time also deserting a person. "If [the Galatians] left the grace of God they left God Himself." [Vine, Galatians, p. 21.]
by the grace of Christ
This phrase modifies the participle, "the one who called." Thereby, Paul emphasized the fact that the call by the Father is related to the grace of Christ. We were called in grace. God's decision to call any believer is based on grace. God did not decide to call anyone because of foreseen merit on that person's part.
In what sense is "the grace of Christ" related to calling? It is true that we are saved by (or through) grace (Ephesians 2:8,9). We are justified. It is also true that in being saved we are brought into the sphere of grace (Romans 6:14). We are being sanctified. But calling precedes both justification and sanctification. So what is Paul's point here?
How is the preposition by used here? Is it used in a locative or instrumental sense? It has been variously translated. The ESV and NKJV have "in." The NAS, NIV, and NET have "by." Here, in the context of the Father's calling, the latter seems better. Because of the grace of Christ, the Father calls us to our salvation. Perhaps this grace refers to the Son's willingness to do the Father's will and lay down his life so that we might be saved.
Notice the "parallel," with its change in preposition, in verse 15, where Paul says that he was "called through his grace." In this verse the emphasis is on the work of the Father in calling the elect being enabled by grace whereas in verse 15 the emphasis is on the specific, gracious call by the Father of Paul at the time of his salvation.
to another gospel
Before examining this phrase, we need to consider what Paul was contrasting. First, by saying that these believers were turning we understand that there are two sides, a turning "from" side and a turning "to" side. Two "gospels" are being contrasted. On the one hand, as we noted before, the "from" gospel is that good news mentioned in verse 4, "the one who gave himself for our sins so that he might liberate us out from the present evil age." On the other hand, the "to" side is what Paul called "a different gospel." A true gospel is being contrasted with a false one.
Second, the fact that these Galatians are turning "from" one gospel "to" another indicates that Paul is concerned with the way they are acting as those who have come to Christ. Paul's concern with those in the Galatian church is not whether they are true believers. To his mind they are. They have been called. And calling is effectual. His concern is with their conduct as such. The gospel message Paul is defending is that believers, having been saved by grace through faith, must also live by grace through faith. This certainly includes justification. However, in this letter Paul's focus is not justification but sanctification. As we see the letter unfold, Paul's concern is not that the Galatians are wrongly attempting to evangelize but that they are wrongly attempting to live. And once Paul finishes defending his apostleship and the message he proclaimed as such, he then begins to directly address this concern. He demonstrated that sanctification by grace through faith is consistent with justification by grace through faith and any other approach to living is "different" and "false." As Paul wrote in Romans 1:17, the righteousness we have in salvation is "out of faith into faith."
These believers are turning to a different kind of gospel. The false teachers who came after Paul have been proclaiming their message as the good news. But when compared with the gospel of grace, it's really not good. Here the word another is "another of a different kind." In the next verse note the change in word translated "another" (from eteros to allos) and the resulting contrast. See also 2 Corinthians 11:3,4 (another Jesus, another spirit, and another gospel). These Judaizes had likely included in their teaching many of the same elements as those included in the genuine gospel. But they added works to their message. Anything added to pure water (besides more pure water), makes the water impure. In this case, this mixture of truth and error produced error that was very dangerous.
"The test of the Gospel is grace. If the message excludes grace, or mingles law with grace as the means to either of justification or sanctification … it is 'another' gospel." [NSRB, Galatians 1:6.]
which is not another
On the one hand, it is another gospel because it differs in content. But on the other hand, and in reality, it is not really another gospel when compared to the real thing. There is no good news in it. The word another here is "another of the same kind." Because it is not of the same kind Paul says that such a message should not really be dignified by the term gospel. "Thus at the outset [Paul] closes the door against compromise, and throughout the epistle this severity of tone is maintained." [Vine, Galatians, p. 22.] If a message contradicts the true gospel, then it cannot itself be called "gospel" in any sense.
7b only there are some who are disturbing you and are desiring to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel out of heaven were to preach to you besides the gospel we preached to you let him be anathema. 9 As we said before also now I say again: If anyone is preaching a gospel to you besides that which you received let him be anathema.
Paul's rebuke came because of those false teachers who had drawn away believers in these churches from the truths that Paul had originally taught them.
only there are some
Who were these troublemakers that were disturbing the Galatian believers? It is assumed that these are outsiders, perhaps some who have come claiming authority directly from the apostles in Jerusalem, such as James and John. Likely they are professing Jewish Christians (perhaps mixed with some genuine, but misguided, Jewish Christians). They are "followers" of Christ but have not been willing to break with the Law of Moses. Perhaps they were among those who opposed Paul in Antioch [Acts 15:1,24 (circumcision required for salvation)] or at the time of the council meeting in Jerusalem [Acts 15:7 (there was "much disputing")]. The issue was supposed to have been settled once for all at that council, but it seems clear that it was not. [Cole, Galatians, 1989, p. 54.] Later in this letter (2:4), speaking of those at the council who were causing dissension, Paul said they were not believers. He called them "false brothers."
who are disturbing you
These people were agitating these Galatian believers. Compare Acts 15:24 ("certain who went out from us troubled you") where the same word for disturb is used.
How were these people troubling these Galatian believers? What were they trying to do? Were they trying to change the message of justification used by the Galatian believers (as they evangelize the lost) or were they trying to change the method of sanctification used by the Galatian believers (as they live out their own lives)? Or were both true? It seems in light of the balance of the letter that to some degree both were true.
Justification and sanctification are two separate aspects of true salvation. In genuine salvation justification in no way depends on sanctification. However, in a false salvation where justification depends on sanctification, the two become inseparably joined. Although the majority of the letter is concerned with sanctification, for Paul to argue against such a false approach he will address both subjects: justification and sanctification.
Paul refers to those who are teaching a different gospel as those "who trouble you," i.e. as troublemakers. These are the Judiazers mentioned earlier.
and are desiring to distort
These troublemakers wished or desired to alter or to change the message of the gospel from that taught by Paul. The idea is "to transform into something of an opposite character, as the sun into darkness, Acts 2:20, laughter and joy into mourning and heaviness, James 4:9." [Vine, Galatians, p. 22.] These teachers distorted the gospel of Christ when they changed it, introducing law or works, so that it was no longer the gospel of grace. As noted, this impacts the proper approach to both justification and sanctification.
"Law does not moderately pollute grace but reverses and destroys it." [MacArthur, Galatians, p. 15.]
the gospel of Christ
Paul wrote that these troublemakers are distorting "the gospel of Christ." To what is Paul referring here? How extensive is the content of this gospel? What are they distorting? Does this gospel involve only initial salvation or justification? Or is present salvation or sanctification also included?
The term gospel as we often use it can have a narrow reference to the message that we proclaim for the evangelism of the lost. It is the good news by which the lost sinner comes to the savior. In this sense it relates primarily to coming to salvation or to coming to be justified. The word is used this way in 1 Corinthians 15:1, 2 ("I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel … by which you are being saved … unless you believed in vain."). In this case the gospel centers on facts related to the death and resurrection of Christ. These are facts which must be believed today when someone comes to trust in God for his or her salvation. The word gospel is also used in this narrow sense in Romans 1:16. There Paul wrote that he was "not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes." This "coming to" aspect of our salvation is sometimes referred to as the past tense of salvation.
But what is this "gospel of Christ" here? Verse 4 clearly emphasizes a present aspect of salvation, deliverance from the evil age. Also clearly, as we move through this letter, Paul is concerned about the present aspects of our salvation as we live under grace. Note the use of gospel in 2:14 ("their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel") where Paul indicated that a believer should walk uprightly. See also Romans 1:16, 17 where Paul wrote of its power to save us when we believe and move us from initial faith to a life of faith. Not only are we saved by faith at a point in time, we are to walk by faith over the course of our lives. This walk by faith is an aspect of the present tense of salvation. This was certainly Paul's approach. Later in this letter he wrote, "the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God" (2:20).
It would seem then that as Paul used the word gospel here it has a broader meaning, referring not only to the good news regarding the past tense of salvation, but also regarding the present tense. These troublemakers were not only trying to change what it takes to get saved, they were also trying to change the ongoing conduct of those who are saved. In fact, as noted earlier, it is this second "present tense" aspect of salvation that is more important in this letter to the Galatians. Note the following statements that show Paul's concern for how these believers were conducting their lives.
| 2:5 | Titus was not circumcised "so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved" |
| 2:14 | [Peter and others] "walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel" |
| 2:20 | Paul said that "the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God" |
| 3:3 | Paul asked these Galatians, "having begun in the Spirit, are you [believers] now made perfect by the flesh?" |
| 4:9 | Paul asked, regarding how they live, "how turn you [believers] again to the weak and beggarly elements?" |
| 5:1 | Paul commanded that these believers, "stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery" |
| 5:16 | Paul commanded that these believers, "walk by the Spirit" |
| 5:18 | Paul told them that "if led by the Spirit you are not under law" |
Thus the good news here is that those who are saved (are justified) by grace through faith are also to live (to be sanctified) by grace through faith. Works, or law keeping, are completely excluded. These false teachers pervert the gospel of Christ when they do not live according to the true gospel of grace and teach that believers should live by adding works to their faith to maintain their standing before God.
But
Paul used a strong adversative conjunction. He wanted to make one thing perfectly clear.
even if we or an angel out of heaven
Evidently the troublemakers who had come to Galatia had impressive credentials and thus were deemed to have a great deal of authority. They may have made claims about their commission, e.g., they might have claimed that they were "sent" to set believer straight regarding requirements to adhere to Old Testament practices. Perhaps they had elevated their own position, depreciating Paul in the process. In any case, they had led these Galatian believers to accept their "gospel" over that preached by Paul.
From Paul's perspective, he did not care who was doing the false teaching. On the one hand it could be someone who claimed to be an "apostle," like Paul. On the other hand it could be "an angel out of heaven." Vine says that the reference to angels suggests "the highest conceivable authority" [Galatians, p. 23], short of God. The credentials of the messenger make absolutely no difference if the gospel message is not the true gospel of Christ.
were to preach to you besides the gospel we preached to you
Paul stated a hypothetical case. The "were to preach" is a subjective form. Suppose someone did this. If that should be the case, Paul made it clear what should be done.
Other "gospels" may be preached. But Paul measured all contenders for the designation "gospel" against the true one that he proclaimed to the Galatian believers. Any gospel that is not consistent with the one that he preached is to be disregarded. "Paul's claim was that the gospel as he and his colleagues had preached it was complete, absolute, final." [Vine, Galatians, p. 23.]
Given two individuals offering different versions of the truth, it seems that more regard should be given to the one who can best speak on the subject. Paul believed that was himself. Paul's credentials, and those of his traveling companions, trumped those of these troublemakers. (He will defend his own credentials in the balance of this chapter and the next.) So too do the credentials of an angel. But even so, Paul is ready to pronounce a "curse" on anyone, including himself or an angel, who does not proclaim the truth.
let him be anathema
The verb here is an imperative. Paul was very serious about what he was saying. He was instructing these believers as to how they should treat those who pervert the true gospel. They should be considered as those who are under a curse.
The Greek noun, transliterated as "anathema," occurs twice, here and in verse 9. The word is found four other times in the New Testament. In Acts 23:14 it is used along with the verbal form of those Jews who bound themselves under a curse until they killed Paul. In Romans 9:3 Paul desired it for himself for the sake of his fellow Jews. In 1 Corinthians 12:3 Paul said the no one speaking by the Spirit can say "Jesus is accursed." And finally, in 1 Corinthians 16:22 Paul pronounced a curse on any not loving the Lord.
The verbal form of this word is found four times. This form is used along with the noun in Acts 23:14 referring to those who desired to kill Paul. In this account it is also used in Acts 23:12, 21. In Mark 14:71 the writer records Peter's use of this verb when he invokes a curse on himself while in the process of denying that he knew Jesus.
So what does this word anathema mean? On the one hand, many commentators view the meaning of this word as "condemned to eternal punishment." Note what Erdman writes. "The term 'anathema' meant originally 'devoted to God'; but as an animal, for instance, thus 'set aside' as a sacrifice, is doomed to death, so the special sense of the word came to be 'a curse,' a 'thing devoted to destruction.' This is the sense of 'anathema' throughout the New Testament; namely, 'accursed.' ... It is the strongest possible form of condemnation." [Erdman, Galatians, p. 35.]
On the other hand, according to Vine (in both Expository Dictionary and Galatians), this word anathema was commonly used in the LXX to translate a word meaning either "devoted to service" or "devoted to destruction." Later use of the Hebrew word took on the more general meaning of "disfavor of Jehovah." And this, Vine says, is the way it is used in the New Testament. "Here the meaning is that any who thus pervert the gospel of Christ shall for so doing incur the disfavor of God." [Vine, Galatians, p. 23.] Perhaps then, the word could, in some instances, include being under a judgment of God that also involves a person's death.
Agreeing with Vine, anathema should be viewed as under God's disfavor, perhaps in a sense opposite of grace or mercy. Perhaps this in the sense of what Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:12, "if we deny him, he also will deny us." It is not likely that Paul used the word as a reference to eternal condemnation, especially when he used it of believers (or even of himself in Romans 9:3). Compare Galatians 5:4 where Paul spoke of believers who were not living by the principles of grace, saying that they were "severed from Christ … fallen away from grace." Perhaps a better understanding would be "cut off from the grace or mercy of God" which could include a judgment of death carried out in this life. See also Acts 23:14 where men bound themselves to kill Paul. So then, the word does not necessarily mean "eternal condemnation" but, at times could include that idea.
Paul would have none of this preaching of a false gospel. He was most serious about this whole subject. That is clear from his statements in verses 8 and 9. Two times he wrote, "Let him be accursed." Paul invoked anathema on any person, be it human or angel, who would preach a doctrine which is contrary to that which he was preaching. In pronouncing this judgment, as Andrews [Galatians, p. 25] notes, "[Paul] writes with untypical ferocity." The gospel is that important.
Furthermore, note Erdman's comments.
It should be noted that Paul speaks these solemn words not of men who are teaching infidelity or heathenism or atheism, but of those who professed to be preachers of the gospel of Christ. He pronounces "anathema" upon anyone who perverts that gospel. (Galatians, p. 35)
We should further note that as with the past tense of salvation (justification), so too with the present tense (sanctification), there is only God's way. Any other way is wrong. Any other way will fail. Changing that one way, regardless of how it is changed, was "anathema" to Paul and is to God.
As we said before
Paul will repeat what he has just said. This repetition no doubt stresses the importance of his words.
also now I say again
Vine says that "now" implies a lapse of time, indicating that there were warnings given during earlier visits. That could be and if so might further indicate a later date for the writing of the letter. However, that may not necessarily be the case, especially given the context. Instead, this immediate repetition serves to further emphasize the seriousness of perverting the gospel. Note how Paul emphasized his repetition: "also," "now," and "again."
If anyone is preaching a gospel to you
As Paul indicated before, it does not matter who is bringing this false gospel to the Galatians.
In the previous verse Paul had spoken in hypothetical terms. He repeated his warning, moving to the actual. "Paul turns from the hypothetical to the actual as he reiterates his concern." [MacArthur, Galatians, p 17.] The present indicative verb in this verse, versus the subjective in the previous one ("is preaching" versus "were to preach"), makes this concrete rather than hypothetical. "If anyone is proclaiming a gospel to you" is the sense.
besides that which you received
The gospel that concerned Paul was any gospel other than the one that these people had received from him. There is a shift in perspective here. In the previous verse it was the gospel that had been preached to them. Here it is the gospel that they had received. If any gospel that comes to them is not like the one received from Paul it is wrong. This change in perspective is an indication that Paul accepted these Galatians to be believers. They had received his messaged indicating their agreement with it.
This reference to receiving the gospel is similar to that used by Paul in other places. Compare 1 Corinthians 15:1 where he wrote of "the gospel which I preached and which you received." Also consider 1 Thessalonians 2:13 where Paul told the Thessalonian believers "you received the word of God which you heard from us." In these cases the word received has the sense of believed. They received the gospel when they believed it. This is the same sense as found in John 1:11, 12 ("his own people did not receive him, but to all who did receive him"). Jesus was received when he was believed.
let him be anathema
Again, here Paul useed an imperative form of the verb. The expression here is identical with the earlier one. Again, Paul's language is strong. And his repetition shows that he meant what he was staying.
10 There now, am I seeking approval of men or God or am I seeking to please men? If I were still pleasing men, then I would not be a slave of Christ.
The rebuke came from Paul, who was not a man-pleaser but was a faithful servant of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Why was Paul concerned that these Galatian believers understand this point about his seeking to please God and not man? Why raise the point? Evidently, the false teachers had accused Paul of tailoring his message to fit his audience. Thus, he rebuked any who accused him of “duplicity and insincerity.” They were accusing Paul of teaching men what he thought they wanted to be taught, as “to please man.” This was based in part on the fact that to some degree Paul continued to observe the Mosaic Law even after his conversion to Christianity. These accusers said that to please the Jews, Paul observed the law; to please the Galatians, he proclaimed freedom from the law. Thus, they accused him of seeking for popularity and human favor. (Erdman, Galatians, p. 36) Paul denies such a charge, stating that his desire to be “the servant of Christ” will not permit such duplicity.
Paul denied that he was seeking the approval of men, stating that he was "the servant of Christ." Paul was faithful to proclaim the message given to him by Christ. His allegiance was to God, not man. His concern was with what God, not man, thought. To him it was inconsistent to please man and at the same time think that he was a servant of Christ.
Paul had written something similar to the Thessalonians regarding his work there.
2 But though we had already suffered and been shamefully treated at Philippi, as you know, we had boldness in our God to declare to you the gospel of God in the midst of much conflict. 3 For our appeal does not spring from error or impurity or any attempt to deceive, 4 but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts. (1 Thessalonians 2:2-4)Just as Paul was faithful to God in proclaiming and living by the true gospel message, too should we be.
There now
Paul had been very severe, not just once, but twice. "The strength of his language requires justification, this he proceeds to supply." [Vine, Galatians, p. 24.] His statements have not been endearing to either those preaching falsely or those accepting their false teaching. So Paul provided an explanation for why he was so strong with them.
Perhaps the sense of this phrase is this. "Given what I have just written, what do you think?" Basically, his explanation will be that he was not seeking to please men but to please God. The only way he can do that is to call out those who are teaching error and warn those who are receiving it. If they are not pleased in being called out, so be it. As God's slave, it is God who Paul desires to please, not those to whom he was writing.
am I seeking approval of men or God
Paul asked these believers to think about whose approval he was seeking. The basic meaning of the verb here is to persuade. The idea is to persuade others in the sense "to make friends of, win one's favor, gain one's good-will" [Thayer, peithō]. Compare Matthew 28:14 where this verb is similarly used.
So from whom was Paul seeking approval? His question is clearly rhetorical. The answer is obvious. At one time, before his salvation, Paul sought the favor or approval of men. Not so now. Now he only sought the approval of God. He would not compromise the truth for anyone, even when those to whom he delivered it did not approve of him or his message.
or am I seeking to please men
Again, Paul asked a rhetorical question. And again, the answer is obvious. Paul was not seeking to make himself pleasing or acceptable to men. He was not trying to look good in anyone's eyes except God's. Paul was following the principal he cited to Timothy. "No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him" (2 Timothy 2:4).
With regard to pleasing God as he delivered the gospel message God had given him, to the Thessalonian believer he had written, "we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts" (2 Thessalonians 2:4). Paul's statement to the Thessalonian believers is clear. He was always more concerned with what God thought. In 2 Corinthians 5:9 Paul said that "we make it our aim to please him."
However, this does not mean that Paul never tried to please men. True, when it came to the content of his message, his aim was to please God. But in his conduct before men he desired to please them. The difference is that Paul is speaking of his message on one hand and his conduct on the other. Recall 1 Corinthians 10:32, 33. "I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved." So Paul conducted himself in a way to please men as he proclaimed the gospel, but in so doing worked to please God by not compromising the truth of that gospel. Notice Paul's approach to the Thessalonians recorded in 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12 where he does not compromise the message but does take care as to how he treats them.
If I were still pleasing men
Again, Paul's focus here was on what others thought of him as he proclaimed the true gospel message. There was a time when Paul did try to please men. As a Pharisee he worked to gain the favor of his peers. As such he was servant to them. If Paul continued to do this, compromising his message in order to make himself acceptable, he would become the servant of those to whom he ministered. Paul stated this as a condition, "if I were." Of course, he wss not doing so.
then I would not be a slave of Christ
Paul made it clear that you cannot have it both ways. If in proclaiming the message of the gospel he pleased, and thus served, men, then he could not at the same time be "a slave of Christ," and thus pleasing him. It is not possible to compromise the message to please men, thereby serving them, and at the same time be the slave or bond-slave of Christ. But Paul has made it clear that the condition is false. This was his justification for not pleasing men. He desired to remain the slave of Christ.
(Top)