Conversation about Galatians 6:1

The following is part of a group conversation on Facebook.  It's much too long for a post there, so I'm posting a link to this on the group page, so that those involved can read it if they so desire.  Replies ought to be made in the group conversation over there.

Okay, here's my answer.  This is gonna have some serious length.  You're certainly welcome to disagree.

I do not write this in any spirit of arrogance or even 100% certainty, or with any sense that I am a greater biblical scholar or interpreter than anyone who has responded so far. This will be addressed to those who have replied to my query thus far, and I may well be entirely wrong, as I may be with any scripture that is less than perfectly clear in the same way to everyone who reads it. This is simply the place to where I have come.

Each of you agreed on what the passage means, and what you have said about it is exactly what I have understood to be true and have taught for 40+ years.  I was taught it by another, whom I had no reason to not trust to be correct, and I took that and ran with it, never giving it another critical thought, and never doing any further research about it.

I came by this kind of accidentally, while prepping to preach on Gal. 6:1-10 tomorrow, not expecting to find that I might need to rethink my approach to verse 1.  I've come to think that we're probably wrong about it in at least a couple of ways which work so closely together that they're difficult to separate.  They are: 1) the nature of being "caught"; and, 2) the nature of the sin itself.

We have taught that the use of the word "caught" means either that the sinning person is trapped by a particular sin from which he needs to be set free; or, that the sinner has been caught or found out or discovered by a fellow believer who should try to help that person become free from that sin.  And we have taught that the nature of the sin itself is that it is consistently repeated, with either a sense of despair at being completely defeated by it or a sense of surrender, something that the sinner has settled into, against which he may not even try to fight anymore or has come to accept as normal for him.  I have begun this week to think that both of those understandings are incorrect.

There were three steps I took into this new understanding.  They were each prompted by reading a large number of commentary and word meaning & usage references about the passage, from writers both new and old, somewhere around two dozen of them.  They agree almost entirely on both the details and the larger contextual approach.  When that happens, I find it helpful to pay attention.  I won't try to cite all of them here, but I'll give representative examples.

1^st step: What does "caught" mean in this context? 

(Donald Campbell) "The thought is that of someone running from sin but sin, being faster, overtakes and catches him."

(Richard DeHaan) "Notice that this brother was “overtaken” in a fault. This is quite a different thing than OVERTAKING a sin. Some people go looking for sin, and go out of their way to find it. But this is not the case in our Scripture. This brother was “overtaken,” implying that he was trying to get away from it, trying to avoid it, but because of weakness, failure of prayer, or failure to look to the Lord for victory, was overtaken. It was not deliberate sinning, but being “overcome” in a moment of weakness."

(BDAG) "To do something that involves some element of temporal priority (do something before the usual time, anticipate something - "begin the growth beforehand in favorable weather") "She has anointed my body beforehand" (Mk 14:8). To take, get of a meal (of the taking of food in the temple of Asclepius in Epidaurus),  in eating, "for in your eating each one takes his own supper first" (1 Cor 11:21). To be overtaken or surprised here in Gal 6:1. In the present context means to overtake by surprise, to overpower before one can escape."

2^nd step: What is the nature of the sin?

(a summary of concordance and word study resources) Trespass (3900) (paraptoma from para = aside + pipto = fall) is a falling aside or beside, a crossing of the line, to stumble on something (so as to loose footing) and figuratively describes a "false step", a slip or lapse rather than a presumptuous willful sin.

(Ralph Earle) "Some scholars have held that the reference here speaks of a Christian being surprised in his sin by some fellow Christian who caught him in the act. But it seems much more natural to hold that it refers to the believer being him-self overtaken by sin, perhaps to his own surprise. That is, it suggests the deceitfulness of sin in causing us to stumble before we realize fully the danger we are in....Though it is one of the many Greek words for sin in the NT, it suggests the less serious type of sin, that which is not deliberate or premeditated....But the word in this context seems to carry a somewhat stronger connotation. It refers to a lapse in Christian experience which requires a restoration. The unfortunate one, however, has been overtaken or seized suddenly and unexpectedly. That often happens, especially to the new convert."

(Precept Austin) "In this passage, paraptoma conveys the idea that the one caught does not commit premeditated sin but instead fails to be on guard and/or flirts with a temptation he thinks he can withstand. Looked at another way, in context of Paul's preceding instruction that we need to depend on the Spirit to live the Christian life, this individual attempts to live his/her life in their own power and fails, producing a deed of the flesh instead of bearing the fruit of the Spirit."

3^rd step: What is the overall context of the letter to the Galatians?

The letter to the Galatians centers on whether one is saved by faith in Jesus Christ or saved by legalistically depending on following the law.  This passage fits into that context nicely, as described by Warren Wiersbe:

 "Why did Paul use this illustration? Because nothing reveals the wickedness of legalism better than the way the legalists treat those who have sinned. Call to mind the Pharisees who dragged a woman taken in adultery before Jesus (John 8). Or the Jewish mob that almost killed Paul because they thought he had defiled the temple by bringing in Gentiles (Acts 21:27ff.). (Legalists do not need facts and proof; they need only suspicions and rumors. Their self-righteous imaginations will do the rest.) So, in this paragraph, Paul was really contrasting the way the legalist would deal with the erring brother, and the way the spiritual man would deal with him."

So, taking these comments (and many others) into consideration, I have begun to believe that in Galatians 6:1, Paul is primarily addressing the issue of Christians who are pursuing righteousness, but who are doing it imperfectly (and which one of us does that not describe!)  They fall into sin because they momentarily get distracted; or they trust the wrong voice; or they fall to the strong appeal of a sin that has been a problem for them in the past that they thought they had defeated; or they say to themselves, "I'm much better now, so I can handle a quick taste of this"; or some other cause.

As I worked through this, I also noticed, maybe for the first time, that this passage is less about the sinner than it is about how I, his fellow believer, will address the problem.  Shall I come down on this sinner like a ton of bricks, bringing all the power and authority of the law to bear on him, the way the Judaizers and legalists and Pharisees, etc., had done to so many over the decades.  Or shall I being to the sinner the gentle, faithful, grace-filled, loving truth of God, which is meant to restore and to give life and only to condemn if not responded to?

 That contrast has been what the letter has been all about.  And to me, that context shows much more clearly in my new understanding of this passage than in the way I've understood it for so long.

 So that's how I'm preaching it tomorrow.  You're welcome to agree, and I will disagree with your conclusion but graciously support you in your conviction.  And I'm absolutely open to correction (or maybe I should say RE-correction!)  Thanks much for your time, and for any response you may have.

 

A Higher Level of Embarrassment

Weakness is humbling. No, more than that . . . it’s embarrassing. It’s terrifically difficult to say, “I need help,” when the help you need is for something you think you should be able to do.

It starts when we’re small. “I do it!”, the toddler sternly declares. A few years later, “Nooooo! Let meeeeeee!” The teen’s exasperated, “I’m not a baby!!” Culminating in the oft-heard adult response, “Nah, I can handle it. Thanks, tho.”

We cherish our independence, take pride in our versatility, covet the image of capability. Many of us take it to such an extreme that when we really DO need help, even badly, we still can’t bring ourselves to allow it. “No; thanks for asking, but we’ll be okay.” To admit the need for help would expose our weakness or our failure or our . . . well, I don’t know what to call it. But to admit the need for help exposes something about us that we don’t like to admit – that we’re not as self-sufficient as we want to be.

When you read this, I’ll still have from four to eight weeks to go before I am allowed to pick up anything that weighs more than ten pounds (and ten pounds is really pushing the limits.) I can’t push or pull anything that takes as much as ten pounds of pressure to move. I can’t drive a car. I can’t play a guitar. I can’t raise my elbows above my shoulders or my hands above my head. I have to be extremely careful when taking the milk out of the fridge, or moving a chair to sit down at or get up from the table. (The thing I missed most on Sunday – hugging the children I usually get to hug!)

I want so much to do all the things I normally do, but I have to ask for help. But I’m blessed to be surrounded by friends, brothers and sisters in Christ who want to help. I’m blessed that way, because if I didn’t, I’d be lost in my day-to-day living.

The discussion brings to mind some pertinent scripture passages about weakness:

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly . . . but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:6,8)

Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.
(Rom 8:26)

But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong. (2 Cor 12:9-10)

We are too weak to save ourselves. We are too weak to communicate completely with God. We are too weak to move through life without the constant company of Christ. And just like our other weaknesses, we keep trying to avoid admitting those things.

We need to learn to tolerate a higher level of embarrassment.

Definitely the Better Half

"Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow. But woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up! Again, if two lie together, they keep warm, but how can one keep warm alone? And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him—a threefold cord is not quickly broken." (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12, ESV)

It is time to sing the praises of Marlys Baynor Loveall. Who, you ask?

The short answer is this: She is the one, after God, who makes my life possible. Anything I have made of myself, whatever that may be, I have been able to because she is in my life.

The long answer would take far more space than this forum allows. Before I met her, I was a man who, by the end of my 20's, had accomplished exactly nothing and who was not going anywhere worth going. One young woman in whom I had interest in dating, while I was at St. Louis Christian College, was kind enough to inform me that the general perception of me amongst the eligible females at school was that they saw no significant future with me because I didn't seem to be going anywhere.

By early 1990, I had graduated college and had developed a general plan about life, but wasn't getting anywhere with it. I was almost totally off-track, surviving day to day, month to month, but not much more than that. When God brought Marlys to me, and me to her, on June 16th of that year, not much changed immediately. But we began to connect more deeply, and sometime in the middle of August, I asked her to marry me (which we did, 10 months later. Very short courtship, longer engagement.) During that time, and as we started our life together, I began to be able to develop focus and direction. I had to -- I suddenly had a wife and a 5-year-old in the family. It was time to grow up and be a man.

But it only happened because God brought this wonderful person to my life. Her love, her support, her encouragement, her correction, her putting up with my idiocy and loving me anyway -- anyone who likes me at all had best be mighty thankful for Marlys. She is God's primary human tool for shaping me into what I ought to be.

Tomorrow's readings: Ecclesiastes 5:1-7; Joshua 6; Jeremiah 1:11-19; Matthew 17

"I don't care."

Picture Jesus saying those words. Kinda hard to. "So what? I don't care." Now, it doesn't translate just that way in Matthew 15, but that's what he's saying.

He's in the middle of raking the religious leaders over the coals for their hypocrisy (again), and calls some folks around him and tells them "Get this now -- It's not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; it's what comes out." His disciples pull him aside and say, kind of under their breath, I suspect, "Hey, listen -- these Pharisees, they don't care so much for that. They're really getting offended by what you're saying. you might wanta tone it down a little"

And Jesus says, "So? I don't care. Just let 'em be. They don't know what they're doing, and in the long run, they won't matter." (It says that, right there in vs. 13-14. No, really, it does. go look.)

You can say things like that when you're imbued with power and perfection, because you know you're right.

But I think I have enough timidity in me to keep from saying that more than occasionally. I have certain convictions that I am rock-solid-sure about. But I also have some convictions that I should use a word other than "convictions" for, because I'm strongly confident that I'm right about them, but I know I've been wrong before. And some others that I think I'm right, and can make (what seems to me) a good argument for, that I might also be wrong about to varying degrees.

The trouble is, I'm not always entirely sure which things fall into which of the last two categories. I try to speak as though I'm confident about it, but I tossed out a disclaimer during my sermon this week that needs to be spoken more often from the pulpit -- and not just mine, but from EVERY pulpit.

The disclaimer is this: Don't take my word for it, if your eternity depends on it. I'll do my best to steer you straight and true. But always, ALWAYS use your Bible to be sure that I'm right about it. And if you think I've missed something, or thought insufficiently about an idea, or am misinformed, then please, by all means, talk to me about it. I love to teach, and I love to learn, because I want to teach well, and I want to teach true.

I'd appreciate it if you'd give me a hand with that.

Thoughts I should have had earlier

Don't want to let this go without saying something about it. Like you, sometimes I come thru a time of scripture reading or sermon listening or lesson hearing, and just get absolutely NOTHing out of it. Sometimes it's the preacher or teacher's fault, for being dull or unorganized or lightweight or any number of things. (Of course, it's never Scripture's fault!)

But most of the time, it's my fault. Too tired, or distracted, or just unable or unwilling to make myself focus and think. That's what it was today. Too tired to think hard about it. Worked at busy stuff all day, just to keep going. Stuff that had to be done, but that didn't take much thought. Some days are like that.

I'm sorry if that seems "un-preacherly". But that's how some days are. I think that God understands that. I hope so, anyway. You're welcome to disagree.

Happy 3rd of July

Apparently my brain is already taking the holiday. I've done my reading, but I've got nothin'. Lots of note-taking material in today's passages, some good teaching material for a larger context, but as for the purposes of this blog-in-progress, I've got nothin'.

How 'bout you? Did you read the passages? What struck you or stood out from the rest? They were: Ecclesiastes 2:18-23; Joshua 1; Zephaniah 1:1 - 2:3; Matthew 12.


Tomorrow's readings: Ecclesiastes 2:24-26; Joshua 2; Zephaniah 2:4-15; Matthew 13.

A Time to Leave Mourning Behind

So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord, and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-peor; but no one knows the place of his burial to this day. Moses was 120 years old when he died. His eye was undimmed, and his vigor unabated. And the people of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days. Then the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended. (Deuteronomy 34:5-8, ESV)

You have to move on. You have to let things go.

I don't mean to be insensitive to feelings and loss, but, you know, people die. They've been doing it since the beginning, and they'll keep doing it until the end of this realm of existence. One reason we allow our children to keep pets -- dogs and cats and hamsters and lizards and turtles and birds and such -- is, or ought to be, because it gives them a chance to learn about death. They learn that, in the words of Pogo Possum, "Life ain't NOhow permanent;" that loss hurts, but isn't fatal; that we continue to live when someone we love dies.

Anyway, that's how it's supposed to be. Ever been in a home where they keep "the untouched bedroom", the one where nothing has been changed since the day its occupant died? Or watched as a friend or acquaintance lived their days in the shadow of loss? Some folks just won't leave it behind. I feel a strong sympathy for the parent who loses a child or spouse far too early in life; I don't mean to diminish the sense of loss when a loved one goes home. But there also comes a sense of irritation with that person who won't let go. Do we somehow think that the one who is gone from us is honored by a refusal to move through life without him or her . . . that they would WANT us to get stuck in a certain time and not live our lives? It's especially frustrating when it's a Christian who won't stop the mourning, as though Jesus were wrong when he talked about eternity and renewal and life and hope.

There comes a time when you have to move on, to stop clinging. And the people of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days. Then the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended. It's not just true of losing loved ones. It's true of losing leaders, teachers, jobs, situations, and so much more. The job you loved that you're not in anymore. The preacher who meant so much who's moved on, for whatever reason. The girlfriend/boyfriend that promised to never leave you, just before he/she broke your heart.

Let it go. Life moves ahead. Move with it. Pogo was wrong -- in God, life IS permanent. It doesn't stop, just because we come to an end here.


Tomorrow's readings -- Ecclesiastes 2:18-23; Joshua 1; Zephaniah 1:1 - 2:3; Matthew 12