Lesson 10
QUALITIES OF A CHURCH
Rev. Stanley L. Derickson Ph.D.
COPYRIGHT 2004
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of
the author, except as provided by U.S.A. copyright laws.
ERRORLESS
(Phil. 3:1-11)
3.1 Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you,
to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe.
2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in
Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh
that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin,
a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is
in the law, blameless.
7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the
knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all
things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law,
but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God
by faith:
10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of
his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
Philippians 3
1. Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you,
to me indeed [is] not grievous, but for you [it is] safe.
What does it mean to rejoice in the Lord? A phrase that is tossed around a lot
in Christian circles and we all know that it is a quick enjoinder to be happy
and confident in the Lord, but what does it mean - where does the thought come
from?
It relates to a greeting or can indicate great joy. It is in the present tense
imperative which indicates a command or something that Paul wanted them to do -
not just a friendly greeting in the handshake time at church - something that we
are to be doing in our lives as part of our lives.
“Be glad” is another way it is often translated in the New Testament. Be glad in
the Lord.
Show joy in the God you serve might be a good way to put it. Be joyful in your
everyday life, because of your God.
This might indicate why believers aren't joyful in this life - their Lord isn't
Christ but rather material things and they don't have enough of them so they are
never happy in their god material things.
He seems to be preparing to repeat something he has said to them before. The
term “grievous” can be translated sluggish or slow - he isn't slow in his
speech, he is confident it is something he wants to repeat to them. For them it
is safe or certain information and it will cause them to be safe and certain.
2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
Beware is the term - beware of the following items Paul says and he emphasizes
each item.
Beware is a term that relates to using the eye and/or the mind to become
knowledgeable or informed of something. It is also a verb in the present tense -
a command to continually beware of something.
Many people have good head knowledge of spiritual dangers, but the problem is
they don't compare everything that confronts them with their knowledge to see if
they should get involved. Many are the times over the years that I have pointed
out the wrongness of a teaching or activity, only to be told "I knew that, I
just had never thought about it."
Think folks! This is a battle we are in and we are often allowing the enemy to
win because we do not take time to apply the truth that we know from the Word.
"Dogs" can mean an animal or can be a metaphor of a man with an impure mind or
an impudent man. Impudent means according to Webster "Shameless; wanting
modesty; bold with contempt of others; saucy." Beware the person that is
shameless, beware the person that has no modesty, and beware the man that has
contempt for others. This is the "dog" that Paul had in mind.
Since the term “workers” is used in the next warning this most likely is to be
taken as a metaphor. Paul is picturing the false teacher as a dog, something to
beware of, to be on your guard about.
Barnes mentions, "The Jews called the heathen dogs, and the Mohammedans call
Jews and Christians by the same name. The term dog also is used to denote a
person that is shameless, impudent, malignant, snarling, dissatisfied, and
contentious, and is evidently so employed here."
"Evil worker" simply is someone that works at evil - indeed "worker" often
refers to a worker for hire. This is someone that makes evil their occupation -
someone that lives to be evil. The idea seems to be, in my mind at least,
someone that is on the side of evil that REALLY works at evil. Not just a lost
person, but a lost person that really works at living an evil life. Not just a
saved person that is not walking with God, but someone that really works at
staying away from God and someone that really works at the ways of the Devil.
"Concision" means to "cut up" or mutilate - it would seem from the next verse
that Paul is contrasting the concision to the righteous living people - those
that are doing right rather than these that mutilate what is right.
Many there are today that mutilate that which God would have us do in our
churches. Many would have us introduce into the spiritual realm things which are
definitely aimed at the physical enjoyment area rather than furtherance of our
spiritual lives.
Many there are today that mutilate that which God would have us do in our
personal lives. Many would have us introduce worldliness into our lives for the
sake of a brief experience of fun, of excitement rather than experiencing a
close walk with the Lord.
Beware the person that causes division in the church, beware the person that
causes division in the fellowship group – just beware of anyone that causes
division anywhere in the church.
Beware is the word - how can one beware if they are not in the practice of
evaluating those around them as to their correctness. Again, we see that those
that tell us not to judge are incorrect. We are to compare the works and beliefs
of others against the truth of the Word lest we become one of the dogs, of the
concision - one that corrupts the Lord's work.
3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in
Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
"We are the circumcision" identifies the believer as different from the
concision of the previous verse. The two words are related, one relating to
mutilation and the other to setting apart to God.
Concision is from two words, one to cut and the other is down. Concision would
be one that is cutting down that which is good it would seem, or more
specifically cutting down God. Circumcision is made of two words the last of
which is the same as before - to cut. In the area of circumcision the word is
used of cutting away that which is wrong or evil.
You see a contrast, one is cutting down God to make Him less and the other is
cutting away of sin to make Him more.
Col. 2.11 speaks to this spiritual circumcision. "In whom also ye are
circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of
the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:"
As the dogs are against God, so we as believers must be the opposite and be pure
- ready for God's use.
Barnes suggests that this cutting of the concision is cutting themselves off
from Christ - a very true evaluation. This is also in contrast to the
circumcision, the cutting off from the Devil and his ways.
One old version translates concision "the men of the circumcision" indicating
these were Jewish Christ rejecters - they were of those that worked against the
apostles and Christ.
ISBE says of the two words and most likely correctly from what I have seen, "A
term by which Paul contemptuously designates the merely fleshly circumcision
upon which the Judaizers insisted as being necessary for Gentile converts (Phi.
3:2), as distinguished from peritome, the true circumcision."
Robertson mentions the verb form of concision is always used in the LXX of
mutilations in the Old Testament.
We "worship God in the spirit" - the word worship relates to service for hire.
Now, we probably wouldn't want to apply that to our relationship to God would
we. We are to serve Him as one that is hired - doing what He desires us to do
would be the thought. Not a pleasant prospect for many believers today.
The word can relate to the priest that goes about his duties as priest. Hummm,
we are each believer priests - might well relate to our every day life with the
Lord - serve Him in spirit.
The term spirit speaks to the spiritual side of our being, that part that pays
attention to God. We serve Him in the spirit - we serve Him with our inner man.
It is of interest to me that many there are today that worship in the body
rather than in the spirit. They serve God with their body but not their spirit -
they get themselves all worked up in the physical and get excited and fulfilled
in the physical but leave the spiritual to atrophy.
We "rejoice in Christ Jesus" or boast in Christ Jesus, or give glory to Christ
Jesus - we are to offer Him the glory due him in our everyday life. We serve Him
spiritually and we should declare him verbally - declare Him our Savior, our
Supporter, and our Supreme.
We "have no confidence in the flesh" is simply saying that we don't place our
confidence in what we can do in and of ourselves.
Confidence is simply the idea of being persuaded that something is correct. We
are not persuaded that we can in and of ourselves do things that need to be
done. Yes, we can preach and minister, but if we attempt to do it without the
Lord we will quite possibly fail.
How does this relate to the pastors you have met that are going to build "their"
church, that are going to bring hundreds into "their church" etc. They may be
successful, but they may also be a failure in their "success" which they have
accomplished in their flesh.
I once sat in a pastor’s office and as he looked out the window he declared,
“This is my little corner of the world. This is MY church.” My heart sank to
think of the man’s arrogance and pride. He split the church within months and
was later forced to leave that church.
4. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh
that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
Paul continues his line of thought relating to confidence in the flesh - in what
you are and what you can accomplish - with the thought that if there is anyone
that should be able to do something in the flesh successfully it should be him -
a man above most men in background and education.
He lists his background as a Jew, as a leader and as a zealot for the Lord - if
anyone could accomplish something it should be him, but he counts all that he
was able to accomplish before Christ as loss.
Many there are that trust in their background or their education to produce
"fruit" for the Lord, but it would seem from this statement of Paul's that all
that will be loss unless Christ is in the mix.
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of
Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
He was about as classy a Jew as you could find - he was subjected to the law, he
was born into the right family and he was in the right group - what more could
you want.
In today's context a man that was made to go to church from birth, was raised in
a preacher’s family, went to Dallas Seminary and became a leader in the "in"
movement. Paul says even this kind of man cannot do anything for the Lord in the
flesh!
Sorry if I burst any bubbles! No matter how educated, no matter how well raised,
no matter how high up you might think you are you are creating loss if you are
operating in the flesh.
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is
in the law, blameless.
He states that he was zealous in his persecution of the church and he was
blameless - what more could you want in a perfect Jew, yet even he cannot
accomplish anything in the flesh.
It might be noted that he is listing his persecution of the church as a positive
in his Jewishness. One might wonder where in the Old Testament there is
indication that he should have been out persecuting the ungodly (Christians).
I would assume that he would base this on the fact that the Israelites were to
clean the pagans out of the land before they settled into possessing the land.
He was operating in the land of the Jews to rid it of these new pagans.
7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
It would seem that Paul may have some amount of pride in who and what he was
before he met the Lord yet he knows it was all in the flesh, nothing having been
done that would be a credit to his account.
I John speaks to this concept of who and what you are - or more specifically
what you think you are. I John 2.15 "Love not the world, neither the things [
that are ] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is
not in him. 16 For all that [ is ] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the
lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the
world. 17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth
the will of God abideth for ever."
No clearer statement is needed - the flesh will pass away, but the spiritual end
of things will continue on with God. Our labor for and by God is the only labor
that will last.
No matter how hard we struggle, work, moan and groan to build a church or a
ministry, all will pass away that is built by our own power and might - only
that which God was involved in will survive into God's Kingdom for eternity.
So, why do so many struggle for numbers, for programs, for whatever pastors are
struggling for these days? If they would sit back, relax and allow God to build
His church His way all would survive into the afterlife. It seems like such a
simple plan to me, but man tends to make everything complicated.
8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the
knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all
things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ,
Paul tells it like it is - give up everything you have and serve Christ - all
will be gone, but it would all have been worthless anyway so there was no real
loss to the one living for God.
Specifically he was speaking of who he was as a Jew, but the application is
clear that as we give up what is ours, be it position or material things, we
will become much better off in the spiritual realm as we seek to serve God.
I throw all pennies into a jar and when the grandkids come I give them to the
kids - pennies are a total loss to me, they are a waste of my time - they are
loss to me - worthless and I don't even miss them!
Dung is rather clear, but the thought is anything that is waste, that is cast
off, that is worthless, that is detestable. Not only is it worthless, but it is
detestable as well. Now in our modern day he is saying that our neat car is
detestable, our new flat-screen television is a waste, and that our new computer
is something that should be cast off. Does that make it more real for you now? I
trust that we will learn this concept of Paul's to our own betterment in
eternity.
9. And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law,
but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God
by faith:
He seems to define what he has been saying - he wants the righteousness brought
to him by Christ's work on the cross through faith rather than his own
righteousness earned by works under the law.
We know that lost people can live very moral and good lives, but we also know
that without Christ they are still lost. No works of good or righteousness will
gain any person heavenly standing with God -- yet so many attempt to do just
this.
My father told me on his death bed that he had tried to do good all his life and
hoped that he had done enough good to make it into heaven. Of course I
encouraged him to trust in the works of Christ rather than his own, but only
Christ knows if that change of mind ever happened.
10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of
his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
“That I may know him.” In a sense the following phrases in the verse define this
knowing.
How can we know Christ?
a. Reading the Word. The Old Testament offers a lot of insight into the Lord
through prophecy, through knowledge of the Angel of the Lord, which was Christ
pre-incarnate, and through general knowledge of God.
He is to be known certainly in the Gospels which are an account of His life and
work. Also the epistles define Him and His work doctrinally.
b. We can know Him by prayer, by considering our knowledge of Him and using that
knowledge in prayer.
c. We can know Him by learning of Him in the church meetings - worship services,
Bible studies, and Sunday school classes.
We can know Him by keeping company with Him. As we walk through life, if we know
He is along side it will limit our sinful ways.
“That I may know the power of his resurrection.” Power is the word "dunimas"
which gives us the word dynamite. There are several aspects to this word that
seem to relate here.
a. Power that is inherent due to the nature of the thing - here a person. This
is directly related to the next point. Christ's nature dictates His power.
b. That which a person puts forth. Being God, Christ is power - He is all
powerful.
c. Power for miracles. Certainly this power was evident in the life of Christ
while He was here on earth.
One only has to read the Gospels to find miracle after miracle that was done by
the Lord via the power of the Holy Spirit.
d. Moral power or excellence of soul. Just remind yourself of the cleansing of
the temple - this one occasion is a display of Christ's moral power and the work
of the cross gives testimony of his excellence of soul.
e. Power that is derived by wealth. Though Christ did not display this wealth,
He certainly knew of it - He knew the offer of the Devil to give Him the
kingdom's of the world was a false promise - the Kingdom's were already His to
command.
There is no power superior to that of Almighty God.
f. Power that is derived by numbers. This relates to the next point also - power
in armies.
The shear numbers of Christ's angelic army as well as His army of
brothers/sisters will one day be seen by all existing beings and that power will
be staggering - this Power of Christ will cause all to know that He truly is
Lord of All.
g. Power existing in or upon armies.
“That I may know the fellowship of his sufferings.” In other books Paul is clear
that he felt his own personal suffering was due to his relationship to Christ
and that it was a suffering that all believers are to expect if they walk with
him.
“Being made conformable unto his death.” This means that we are going to be
conformed or given the same form as - we will die as He did, though without the
sting of sin.
This may be partly where the thought that we die with Him comes from. We are
conformed to His death, thus the preceding can be true.
11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
Paul's whole life was an effort to be worthy of all that Christ had done for him
so many years earlier.
The resurrection of the dead is the goal of every one of us - it is based
squarely on the resurrection of Christ. If He didn't then we won't.
The phrase "might attain" is an aorist tense thus a one time occurrence - he
isn't straining to attain and keep over and over again, but to attain once and
for all. Some might suggest that he was working for what he perceived to be on
again/off again but that cannot be the interpretation here.
APPLICATION:
1. In verses two and three Paul mentions repeating himself. We might assume that
he speaks of his warnings of those that are teaching incorrectly, but still are
giving the gospel (1.14ff). Barnes assumes a little more and states "He warns
them against the Jewish teachers who urged the necessity of complying with the
Mosaic laws, and who appear to have boasted of their being Jews, and to have
regarded themselves as the favourites of God on that account, Php 3:2,3."
I don't know that we can understand this much from the information given, but
Barnes could well be correct. In light of Paul's use of the
concision/circumcision we might think that he may have been taking a verbal jab
at them if Barnes is correct and they were Judaizers.
Just imagine being one that thinks circumcision is required for salvation and
Paul saying, you are the concision - the mutilators while we are the
circumcision. I suspect that they received the point given. And then to make the
point even stronger Paul tells them that he has given all that circumcision
stuff up as worthless and offensive.
2. Verse two mentions we are to beware of the dogs. This had a much more terse
meaning and implication to the Jew in that the Old Testament Jew held someone
that was contemptible and filthy as a dog - someone that you came at with a
stave to keep it away.
Dogs were also used as watch dogs in that day. They would be chained to the door
way to protect. Years ago we had a little neighborhood mechanic that I took our
car to from time to time. One morning early I was to drop the car off before
opening and drop the keys through the mail slot in the door. The slot was down
low, about a foot from the ground. I had to kneel down to slide the keys into
the slot and as I did there was a loud crash on the door from the inside. I
looked up and was face to face with a big Doberman with his pearly whites out
for inspection. I had not heard a thing, just the crash as he slid into the
door.
This is more the thought of Paul when he uses the term.
Today we conjure up in our minds this fluffy white ball of fur that sits in a
tea cup or maybe as that big lumbering and loveable lab that licks our face. We
like dogs, we pamper dogs, we treat dogs as if they were our direct offspring.
The Jews saw dogs as the scum of society, something despicable.
No, don't treat false teachers as you treat Muffy when you get home from a
shopping trip, treat them as what they are - offensive, dangerous and to be
avoided.
Christ used the same term in Matt. 7.6 "Give not that which is holy unto the
dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under
their feet, and turn again and rend you."
3. We might speak of zeal for a moment. Zeal is a four letter word, but it is
not a four letter word if you get my drift. It is not a dirty word. Zeal is a
proper element in the Christian life, not something to be shunned as the plague.
Zeal is doing something with the excitement with which it ought to be done. It
is doing something the best way that you can, it is doing it with pleasure and
accuracy.
Take a concordance and just look through the Word of God and see how the term is
used. It should be pointed out that you can be zealous for the wrong cause as
Paul was before his conversion. However, his zeal for God did not change, it
just was redirected to the proper aim.
I have a study on zeal on my website if you want to dig deeper. (http://www.mrdsnotes.com)
4. Relating to "fellowship of his suffering" in verse ten Barnes comments quite
adequately "And the fellowship of his sufferings. That I may participate in the
same kind of sufferings that he endured; that is, that I may in all things be
identified with him. Paul wished to be just like his Saviour. He felt that it
was an honour to live as he did; to evince the spirit that he did, and to suffer
in the same manner. All that Christ did and suffered was glorious in his view,
and he wished in all things to resemble him. He did not desire merely to share
his honours and triumphs in heaven, but, regarding his whole work as glorious,
he wished to be wholly conformed to that, and, as far as possible, to be just
like Christ. Many are willing to reign with Christ, but they would not be
willing to suffer with him; many would be willing to wear a crown of glory like
him, but not the crown of thorns; many would be willing to put on the robes of
splendour which will be worn in heaven, but not the scarlet robe of contempt and
mockery. They would desire to share the glories and triumphs of redemption, but
not its poverty, contempt, and persecution. This was not the feeling of Paul. He
wished in all things to be just like Christ, and hence he counted it an honour
to be permitted to suffer as he did."
5. In verse one Paul mentions, "To write the same things to you." It has been
mentioned that he was repeating something within the letter. This is possible or
there are other possibilities as well. Some suggest that he was repeating
something he had taught them while with them. Others suggest that he is
repeating something he had written to them in another letter in the past or
possibly that it was something to another church that they might have read.
All are possibilities, but it seems consistent to relate the phrase back to
prior information within this letter.
No matter which of the possibles you like best, you need to admit that he was
using a good teaching principle. Repetition is always good. Some wise person in
ages past suggested you tell em what yer gunna tell em, then you tell em what
you want tu tell em, then you tell em what yu just told em.
This is a good teaching principle. This is not to say that you need to repeat a
teaching 2523 times in a two year period. I've heard some preachers that just
repeat their rhetoric over and over, just interjecting a new verse or new
illustration from time to time and change the order of their sound bites.
It is as though they memorized their 3001 sound bites in Bible college or
seminary and have been repeating them in assorted orders ever since. This isn't
preaching the Word of God from the pulpit, it is boredom on a stick. If you ever
look around a congregation and see the glazed looks on all the faces you may
know what is going on.
6. It has been said more than a multitude of times that you shouldn't be
negative in your preaching and teaching. This may be true, but there MUST be
some negativity if we are going to WARN the sheep about the wolves.
I have been in churches for two or three years and never hear anything negative
about the isms of the day. Do you suppose this is why the Mormon cult is pretty
much accepted as mainline Christian today by many Christians? If you don't know
a group is doctrinally unsound, how will you know? Most pastors/teachers either
assume their students are getting the needed information on their own, or they
just don't care about the sheep.
When the Moonies were just getting underway, I was teaching what they were
about, what they were teaching, and why their doctrine should be rejected. I
have never heard anyone preach against any of the mainline cults in churches I
have attended. It has been noted that many Christians are being sucked into the
cults - need we wonder why? No, the sheep have not been warned of the isms of
our age and so they fall into their clutches due to the failure of their
shepherd.
Reports state that the majority of new Mormons are "Christians" of one sort or
another. This is not the model that Paul sets forth. All through his epistles he
is warning others of the false teachers of their own day. He did not pull
punches, he named them for what they were - DOGS. How dare we do less? Yep, he
were one negative apostle! THANKS Paul!
7. We saw that Paul was quite open about his past and was in other portions of
the Word as well. He made no attempt to hide his pre-salvation life. He readily
acknowledged his former life and the fact that he had made a total change in
direction.
Why is it so hard for Christians to admit that they are wrong? Why is it that
some will lie to the end to prove themselves right, when they probably know they
are not? Why are Christians so reticent to simply admit that they are wrong on a
topic and move to the proper position?
I have seen people argued into the ground on different topics over the years and
they will make no attempt to admit they might be wrong, indeed they will usually
begin attacking their opponent personally to draw attention away from their
failing.
With all the controversy over doctrine that has occurred over the centuries you
would think that we would have come to the realization that we ought to leave
ourselves some leeway to admit wrong beliefs when necessary.
We all have changed positions from time to time if we are honest about our Bible
study. None of us can know everything there is to know of the Word, so why would
we not think that we might have wrong ideas about it now and then and want to
correct our belief system when necessary?
A few thoughts might be appropriate here.
a. If a church leadership finds that their pastor has shifted a little in his
theology it is a trip to his next church for him. If a major shift is present,
yes a trip might be appropriate, but for changing smaller doctrines, why not
allow for a difference of opinion instead of making him keep his thoughts
secret.
b. When a pastor/teacher finds that a student disagrees with him on a point, why
do most blast the incorrect thinker into the neighboring church - there are
differences and we need to acknowledge those differences.
Years ago I had the privilege of assisting in a small church with a friend. He
was pastor and I assisted and taught Sunday school. We knew we had differences
and did not choose to force them. When we preached or taught in an area of
difference we usually gave both positions and reasons for and against both and
moved on. These were no areas where anything major was involved and we made a
fairly good team over the months.
c. Some pastors tend to have a set number of doctrines that must be followed or
you are not as spiritual as they. This leads church members to either not talk
about some beliefs or else find another church.
We really need to get over ourselves and realize there are differences of
opinion and that we were not declared the authority by God. Allow for the small
differences and get along would be the implication.
8. The LIFE APPLICATION BIBLE observed of the Judaizers that they required
Gentiles to become Jews (Circumcision) before they could become Christians. That
is rather easy to see from their point of view. If they had not been taught
properly, it might be an easy conclusion to jump to.
The question might come to mind, do we in 2007 require people to become Baptists
or Presbyterians, or some other denomination before they become Christian? It
has been observed many times that many in our churches are not Christians. Is
this not indication that we are indeed requiring adherence to our own set of
doctrines before they become Christians?
A Baptist Bible college president many years ago observed in a chapel session
that Baptists do not believe in baptismal regeneration, but that many of the
churches practiced it. Often the emphasis on baptism hides the simple gospel of
Christ that we are called to preach.
May we be very careful to require the gospel response before we require the
denominational response lest we become as the Judaizers in method.
We met a Jewish woman that had some serious health issues. She had become a
Christian via a Baptist minister some months before. She was having some real
spiritual struggles and had many questions. She finally became entangled in the
Charismatic movement and went off into the sunset seeking "THE BAPTISM" and we
just kept answering her questions from the Word.
One evening she called and was so excited. She wanted us to drive down and let
her tell us the big news. We loaded the kids into the car and drove down
assuming we were about to find out that she had gotten the baptism.
When we arrived she was so excited she was bouncing off the walls. "I got save
last night!" was her big news, rather than the "baptism." We asked what had
happened and she said that she had been searching for something and thought it
was the baptism but instead she needed Christ.
She was not overly appreciative of the Baptist minister that had talked to her
about the gospel. She said that she didn't really understand what Christ was all
about, that she had never really understood Christ and her need for salvation.
He had made her a Baptist but had failed in the important part, making her a
Christian.
May we be very clear in our presentation of the Gospel! It is the only message
that can save and we need to deliver it clearly so that people understand it is
about Christ, not our particular version of Christianity.
9. One might wonder at Paul's use of the term circumcision when speaking of New
Testament believers and contrasting it to the Jews of the Old economy living in
his day. Is he saying that we are the true circumcision, those that are
circumcised of the heart? Many commentaries state this. They were Jews according
to the old ways but we are the true circumcision.
If that is what he was saying and it seems clear that it was, then does in not
follow that the Old Testament saint had some serious deficiencies in the
spiritual realm. Not that they were not going to be finally saved by God, but
that they were not there yet, that they needed that saving knowledge of Christ.
Or was Paul speaking to their lostness because they were counting on salvation
due to their works of the law? It is most likely the later, but there is a truth
that the Old Testament saint may have been lacking in a spiritual manner as
well. They did not receive the Holy Spirit, the Spirit did not indwell them, and
they were not ushered into heaven upon death - they were sent to Abraham's
bosom. (Luke 16)
If this is true, then the theory I suggest in one of my books might well have
basis right here. That thought that the Old Testament saints were not
regenerated upon belief, that they could only be regenerated after the work of
Christ on the cross. Those Old Testament saints that were dead at the
resurrection were finally completed in their salvation while living Jews were
required to make that decision about Christ. Many of the Jews of Christ's time
were Jews in name only, not really following the Law.
It seems this passage may be indication of this line of thinking.
10. This passage and related passages of Paul's past and conversion might be
handy to read to a Jewish person that was considering Christ. If this man, a Jew
from every angle, accepted Christ then there might be reason to give serious
consideration to Christ's claims. Other passages listed by Life Application
Bible " No Judaizer could boast of traveling hundreds of miles in order to find
Christians, bring them back in chains to Jerusalem, and cast a vote for their
deaths (Ac 9:1-2; 22:3-5; 26:9-11). No Judaizer had stood by holding the coats
of those who stoned an early Christian leader (Ac 7:59- 8:1). Paul persecuted
the church because he thought that Christianity was heretical and blasphemous.
Jesus did not meet the expectations of what the Messiah would be like, so Paul
and many Jews with him had assumed that Jesus' claims were false—and therefore
wicked (Ac 26:9)."
11. Almost all commentaries suggest that these dogs were Judaizers and they may
have been, however I am somewhat doubtful in that the Judaizers were preaching a
gospel of "become a Jew then you can become a Christian" which is not a valid
gospel.
It is possible that these dogs and the mutilators were a different group than
those that Paul spoke of earlier in the book that were preaching the Gospel for
a wrong motive.