04 Why God Does Not Recruit Superheroes (Galatians 2:1-10)

Krisan Marotta: Thank you for joining me today for the Wednesday in the Word podcast. I'm Krisan Marotta, and this is my podcast about what the Bible means and how we know. Today we'll be studying Galatians chapter 2, verses 1 through 10, and this is the fourth talk in my series on the book of Galatians. Lecture notes for today's talk are on the link below this podcast, or you can find them at Wednesdayintheword.com slash Galatians 4. Thanks for listening today. We're starting chapter 2 of Galatians this week. So far, we've seen two of Paul's main themes in the book of Galatians, and those are his apostolic authority and the certainty of his gospel message. To review, he is writing to the churches in Galatia, which is now modern Turkey. These are churches he founded on his first missionary journey, and now they're being confused by another gospel. The Judaizers have come to town and they've charged Paul with changing the gospel to make it more appealing to Gentiles. They say that Paul neglects to tell them that in addition to believing in Jesus, they need to keep the law. They need to live like Jews. And Paul didn't want to tell them that because that would be an obstacle for them to come to faith. They wouldn't want to believe if they realized now they have to keep kosher and be circumcised and live like Jews. So these two versions of the gospel are spreading throughout the region. They are in conflict, and the difference between them matters. Salvation and how you obtain it is on the line. Well, that raises the question: how do you know which version is correct? How do you weigh one against the other? And Paul began answering that question in chapter one. He argued first that we can have utter confidence in the message that he preaches because he neither received it nor was he taught it by men. Instead, he received his gospel as revelation from the risen Lord. He didn't invent it, he didn't learn it from the other apostles or any other scholars. And he offered his lack of contact with the other apostles as proof of the divine origin of his message. Well, that raises the question, okay, Paul, you got your message independent of the other apostles, but how do we know you're teaching the same thing they are? How do we know it's the same one? Maybe you're teaching some strange hybrid or variation, and the rest of the twelve are teaching something else. And that's the question he's going to address in this passage we're looking at today in 2, 1 through 10. He says that after his gospel was fully formed and his thinking was fully developed, this is approximately 14 years after his conversion, he went to Jerusalem to visit the other apostles, and that's the first time he really consulted with them. I'm going to read the whole section and then we'll talk about it. This is Galatians 2, 1 through 10. Then after 14 years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation and set before them, though privately before those who seemed influential, the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. Yet because of false brothers, secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery, to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. And from those who seemed to be influential, what they were makes no difference to me, God shows no partiality, those I say who seemed influential added nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised, for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles. And when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised, only they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. All right, notice that Paul says he went to Jerusalem this time because of revelation. He was not summoned by the leaders of the Jerusalem church, he was not called on the carpet for his teaching, he went because God told him to go. He takes with him Barnabas, who's a Jew, and Titus, a Gentile believer who is not circumcised. Now there is some disagreement over when this event takes place. Some people think Paul is referring to Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem. I think it's more likely that he's referring to the events in Acts 11. But let's talk about Acts 15 first. Acts 15 records the Council of Jerusalem, which is where this disagreement between Paul and the Judaizers comes to a head. The question of whether Gentiles must keep the law has become so divisive that they call for a meeting in Jerusalem to settle the issue. And I'm just going to read that for us. This is Acts 15, I'll read 1 through 6. But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses. The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. Acts 15 then goes on to talk about how they resolved the issue. Peter gives a speech which is recorded for us. Then they listen to Paul and Barnabas, and finally James speaks, and once James speaks, that seems to settle the matter. And basically they come to the same conclusion that Paul describes in Galatians. They don't correct Paul, and they don't require the Gentiles to keep the law. As Peter says, this is Acts 15, 10 and 11. Now therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus just as they will. So the council writes a letter and they send that letter back to Antioch. Luke includes the text of the letter in Acts, and it basically says, The Gentiles do not need to become Jews, and it gives four qualifications. They call those qualifications burdens. Let me just read that section. This is Acts 15, 22 through 29. Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders with the whole church to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter, and then here's the text of the letter. The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements, that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these you will do well. Farewell. Now what's going on with these four burdens? They say basically you don't have to keep the law, but only these four things. Don't eat meat sacrificed to idols, don't eat blood, don't eat what's been strangled, and then this very confusing reference to sexual immorality. I think the idea here is these four things are so offensive to the Jews that we ask you to refrain. So for the purposes of getting along with each other and being one congregation and one community, we ask that you abstain from meat sacrifice to idols, from what's been strangled, and from blood. And then this fourth one, which is sometimes translated abstain from fornication. So why is that on the list? It doesn't really seem to fit with the others. The best explanation I read is that this term was a broad enough term to include meaning who you married. For example, you could use this word to describe an incestuous marriage. The Greeks and the Jews had different views about how closely related you had to be for the relationship to be considered incestuous. And I think the burden being placed on the Gentiles is please respect the Jewish marriage laws. It's just too offensive for you to do otherwise. So they are asking the Gentiles to keep in mind the impact of their actions on the Jews around them, and if their freedom harms someone else, to refrain from doing it. So refrain from doing these things out of love. And I think that sexual immorality refers to who you marry. So while some scholars think Paul is referring to the Council of Jerusalem when he says in Galatians he went to Jerusalem, other scholars, and I agree with them, think that Paul is referring to the incident recorded in Acts 11, 27 through 30. Let me read that to you. Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them, named Agabas, stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world. This took place in the days of Claudius. So the disciples determined, everyone according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. And they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul. And remember, Saul's another name for Paul. So in this visit, a prophet named Agabus has a vision of an impending famine. They want to be ready to help when the famine strikes, so they organize a relief effort and they send the grain or the money or whatever it was they sent to Jerusalem in care of Barnabas and Paul. And that's really about all we know about this meeting. But Paul tells us in Galatians that he went to Jerusalem because of a revelation, and that fits more with this vision from Agabus. In Acts 15, there's no revelation. The meeting is called because the controversy has grown so divisive and so large. Also, I agree with the scholars who think that this letter was written before the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. There are several reasons to think this letter is before the council, but primarily it seems like Paul would have mentioned the council if it had already happened. Why wouldn't he say, oh, and by the way, the council of Jerusalem has settled the matter and they decided in my favor? If he had that kind of a Trump card, you would expect him to play it. It's like having the Supreme Court decide a case in your favor and then not mentioning it. If Paul had this powerful piece of evidence, a formal letter from the Council of Jerusalem saying he's right, it seems he would mention it. But he doesn't mention it, I think because it doesn't exist yet. In Galatians 2.9, Paul tells us that on this visit he met only with Peter, James, and John. Yet in Acts 15, it appears the entire council is present, which most likely included all the surviving apostles. And if that's the council he's referring to, it seems like he would mention, you know, all the other apostles agreed with me, not just Peter, James, and John, because that would bolster his case more. Also, Acts 15 does not mention Titus. Acts 15 is a fairly detailed account. The entire issue they're trying to settle is whether believers like Titus need to be circumcised. So it seems likely that if Titus was present, that Luke would have mentioned that in Acts 15 because Titus represents the very issue they're debating. And then Paul mentions remembering the poor in Galatians 2.10, and that doesn't seem to fit with the Acts 15 Council either, but it is very relevant to the Acts 11 visit that was bringing famine relief. He went to Jerusalem for the whole purpose of bringing relief because they were either on the verge of the famine or maybe in the midst of it, depending on the timing. In a famine, the poor would really need help. And the apostles ask for that help, and Paul responds, That's why I came. They say, Remember us, we're suffering here in this famine, and Paul responds, That's the very thing I'm eager to do. I just took this opportunity to meet you. On one more, Paul says he submitted his gospel to the pillars, that is, Peter, James, and John in private. That doesn't fit with the Council of Jerusalem because that was a very public and open meeting, but it does fit with Acts 11. So Paul goes on to describe this meeting. He says there are three groups present: Paul and his companions, the pillars of the church in Jerusalem, which he names as Peter, James, and John, and the false brethren, which are most likely the Judaizers, the ones who are teaching that you have to be circumcised to believe. And Paul says two significant things came out of this meeting. In three through five, he tells us Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. And then in six through ten, he says the other apostles did not change his message in any way. In fact, they approved of him and gave him the right hand of fellowship. Let's look at each of those sections. First two three through five. But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery, to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. So Paul gives this history as evidence that his gospel is no different than the rest of the apostles, even though he received it independently. He tells the story of how fourteen years after his conversion he goes to Jerusalem. He meets with Peter, Cephas is his Aaron name, and also James and John, and he has Titus with him, who is a Greek believer. Titus is not circumcised. Paul presents the gospel he proclaims to them in private. They don't correct him in any way, they find no fault with him, and besides that, they don't require Titus to be circumcised, despite the pressure from Judaizers to do so. Titus is a kind of a test case for these two competing gospel messages. Paul was teaching grace and peace with God based on the blood of Jesus Christ alone. And the Judaizers said, No, belief is not enough. You must follow that up with law keeping and be circumcised. And here Titus is a case in point. He's a Greek who has come to faith. And the question is, will the church in Jerusalem compel him to be circumcised or will they accept him as a fellow believer? Titus gives them a practical opportunity to act on what they believe, and the apostles land with Paul, they do not compel Titus to be circumcised. Now realize this is not a question of customs or traditions. This is a fundamental issue of salvation. The gospel itself is at stake. Titus has believed, but he is not circumcised. Must he be circumcised as an act of obedience to the Mosaic law to complete his faith? That's the issue on the table. The truth of the gospel is at stake, and Paul and his gospel are vindicated. The leaders of the church in Jerusalem do not compel Titus to be circumcised. Not only that, they wholeheartedly approve of Paul's teaching. And this is exactly what we'd expect. If two people independently get truth from God, we would expect that truth to be the same. And when they finally have a chance to compare, we find yes, they're in complete agreement. Now notice how different Christianity is in this respect than other religions. Paul's gospel is verified by the other apostles, and they all say, yes, that's the same message. The apostles were known associates of Jesus when he was on earth. Many, many people who heard Jesus teach were still alive at this point. And they could also verify, yep, we heard Jesus too, the apostles are telling the truth. Not only are there many witnesses who are all telling the same story, like the prophets, the teaching of the apostles was accompanied by miraculous healings and signs from God. So there were all these ways to verify this is the message. According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad received his message from an angel in a cave. No one else heard it, no one else saw the angel, no one else can verify it. Buddha wandered around living an ascetic lifestyle, claimed to be enlightened, and made up his philosophy, but no one else can verify it. Joseph Smith claimed to be visited by an angel who gave him the Book of Mormon, which he translated with a pair of golden glasses, but no one else can verify that. No one can corroborate that story. All the other religions require you to take one person's word for it, but the biblical tradition is different. Many people heard Jesus teach, many people saw his miracles, many people saw him die, and many people saw him alive again. Now you could claim, well, Moses was a single prophet, but even there his word was verified. When God spoke to Moses, the fire or the cloud descended on the tent of meeting, and people could see it. When Moses went up the mountain to speak to God, there was thunder and lightning. When Moses came down the mountain, his face was glowing so much it scared people. Everyone in the camp could see when Moses received a revelation from God. And God is very consistent that way. He testifies when he sends a prophet, he testifies to his authority by miracles and signs. Christianity is a message that can be verified through many different messengers, many different prophets, and many different testifying miracles, all of which culminate in Jesus Christ. So throughout biblical history, God not only revealed himself to his prophets and apostles, he made himself known in ways that we can verify and cooperate. And here we see Paul tell us that he and the other apostles were all preaching the same message. Now, throughout church history, we're often tempted to try to modernize the gospel. Various groups at various times have made it their mission to make the gospel more relevant to the modern age, to kind of pretty it up and reframe it so it's accessible to the new generation. Sometimes the science of church growth crosses into this territory, but often it's stated in terms of making the church relevant to today. I've never really seen that done well. I suppose it can happen, but every case that I'm familiar with where someone tried to make the gospel Attractive to a certain group of people, they ended up changing the gospel in a way that made it not the gospel. It's interesting that Paul insisted in chapter one, he never did that. He never tried to please men or make the gospel more attractive or more palatable. He's insisted that he's telling the gospel straight. He's not trying to pretty it up or make it acceptable. He speaks the plain and varnished truth. And if people reject it, it's because the Spirit of God is not at work in them to make them see the truth. Now I do agree that there are many ways to articulate the gospel. We always want to express it in ways that make it understandable to the audience we're addressing, but the focus is making the gospel clear and understood, not adorning it, changing it, or making it pretty. When the focus shifts to not telling the gospel straight in order to win people, I think that's a problem. There was a season in my church where we had a pastor who told us not to talk about the cross because the cross was just too offensive to the university crowd he was trying to win over. That didn't go well. That distorted the gospel. And Paul firmly denies that he did that kind of thing. He told the whole truth of the gospel and he has verified it with the other apostles. He's not making anything up to make the gospel more attractive to Gentiles, nor is he leaving anything out. Remember, in the last section, he told us he excelled at Judaism. He advanced beyond his peers and excelled at keeping the law. Judaism worked for Paul. He was good at it. Why would he need to invent Judaism light for the Gentiles? He was so zealous for, as he says, the traditions of his fathers that he was persecuting the church. He loved his religion and keeping the law and he was good at it, so why would he downplay a religion he loved? But then he abandoned all that and changed overnight because of his encounter with the risen Lord. And he's presented all this as evidence that he is teaching them the straight gospel without any alteration. So his first piece of evidence was Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. Now in verses six through ten, he says the other apostles did not change his message in any way. In fact, they approved of him. Let me read that. And from those who seemed to be influential, what they were makes no difference to me. God shows no partiality. Those I say who seemed influential added nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised, for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles. And when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. Only they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. So we know from 2-2 that Paul explained his gospel to the pillars, and he names them James, Cephas, also called Peter, and John, with two results. They didn't change his message in any way, and they accepted him completely. The striking thing in here is how Paul talks about the other apostles. He talks about those of high reputation, those reputed to be pillars, but it makes no difference to him. Is he being disrespectful here? What's going on? Well, Peter, John, and James, the brother of the Lord, had remained in Jerusalem. That's where they headquartered their ministry. They're older now, their beards are probably more gray than in the days before the cross. Their ministry is well rooted and well known, and they are godly men chosen by Christ for their task. Why does Paul make such a pointed reference to their reputations? I think he respected them a lot, but I think he also realized that these men had probably taken on an almost larger than life mystical aura. They had this awesome reputation because they had walked with the Lord during his earthly ministry. Now Paul lacked that privilege, so perhaps the Galatians had begun to disregard what Paul said because he was not one of these highly regarded pillars from Jerusalem. The way Paul describes them gives us some insight into how we should view human reputations. When all is said and done, Christian leaders are human beings. Even apostles can fail in their personal decisions and daily choices. Now they don't fail when they declare what God and Christ has given them to declare, but in terms of their personal lives, they are capable of failure, and we're going to look at one of Peter's failures later in this letter. Paul is saying, Christian leaders are only human. Their reputations may or may not be deserved. We should listen to those who speak faithfully in the name of the Lord, but we don't need to give them an otherworldly mystical view or reputation or put them up on a pedestal. God shows no partiality to those who are revered by men. Paul has argued that he had little contact with the apostles in his early years after his conversion. They had no chance to teach him the gospel, but when he did have the chance to present the gospel he preaches to them, they confirmed and accepted it. Therefore, we can have absolute trust in the truth of the gospel, because the gospel message was revealed to us by God Himself, not created or invented by the teachings of men. Paul says he was entrusted with the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter was entrusted with the gospels to the Jews. And in 115, he talked about God who set me apart before I was born and called me by his grace. Paul understands that God gave him this role as a gift. Likewise, Peter's role is not an accident, and neither is anyone else's. God has a plan and a purpose for each one of us. When Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus, Jesus revealed two important things to him. I am the Messiah, and I have a plan for you that I want you to take that message to the Gentiles. That plan and purpose is a gift. Paul was destined to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles, but he was called by grace. His role is not a privilege, it's not something he earned, it's not an honor bestowed on him because he had this great reputation. It's a gift that God has given him. And the same is true with Peter, James, and John. They had the great, wonderful opportunity to walk with the Lord during his earthly ministry. That's a calling, that's a gift from God. It doesn't make them superheroes, but it does give them a unique and wonderful role to play in the kingdom. That kind of attitude I think we would do well to adopt. Whatever role God has given you to play in his kingdom, it's a gift and a privilege. It is a strand in this great tapestry that God is weaving. Remember, God didn't have to give us any role at all. He didn't have to choose us, he didn't have to forgive us, he didn't have to grant us a place in his kingdom, and he certainly didn't have to give us a part to play in advancing his kingdom. He didn't have to give us the chance to encourage and influence our friends and family and other people or to have impact in other people's lives. That's a gift. Remember when Jesus was riding into Jerusalem on the donkey and the crowds were singing, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord? The Pharisees in the crowd tell Jesus to make the crowd be quiet. And Jesus says, If these were silent, the very stones would cry out. That's in Luke 19. God has an infinite number of ways to accomplish his purposes. He doesn't have to use people at all. He can use stones if he wants to. There's a popular message today that God needs you. If you don't go out and evangelize, then you know, it's just not going to get done. You need to step up because if you don't act, then God's plans will be thwarted. They never quite say it like that, but that's often the implication of the message. And I think we have to realize God doesn't need us at all. He will accomplish his plans with or without us. But as a gift to us, he uses us to play a role in his kingdom. As a gift to us, he gives us the reward and the fulfillment of teaching the gospel, sharing our lives with other people, and bringing about his kingdom. God gives us a chance to contribute in whatever individual way he's planned for us, but he doesn't need us. He's not required to employ us. It's a wonderful gift. And Paul's attitude here toward the apostles points that out. They had a different gift. It's a wonderful gift, but it doesn't make them superheroes. To conclude, I'd like to give you two points of application. First, as an apostle, Paul had this ongoing problem in that everywhere he went, there were people who said, you know, Paul, you don't count because you're not one of the original twelve. You have a weird history, you're a little peculiar, so we're not going to listen to what you have to say. And throughout his ministry, he constantly had to face these charges that he was not an apostle or that his authority wasn't as good as those in Jerusalem. Notice how Paul responds to this problem. He does not do what I would be tempted to do, which is to say, hey, here's my whole list of reasons why you should listen to me. I actually am much weightier than you're giving me credit for. I was trained in the right schools, I'm a brilliant scholar, I've been nice to my mother, whatever. There's a whole lot of really solid qualities about me that ought to contradict whatever negative things you're saying. Paul never puts himself forward. In fact, he often makes the case against him even harder because he'll agree with his enemies. He says, I'm the foremost of sinners. I came to faith too late to follow the Lord in the days of his earthly ministry. We know about Paul's early life as a persecutor of Christians primarily because Paul himself tells us. He doesn't disagree with his enemies, he doesn't contradict them. He says, I'm a sinner. I am not worthy of this gift. You're right. I am no one from nowhere, and I don't deserve to be an apostle. But then he turns their argument around and says, it's precisely because I was this kind of person, the chief of sinners, a persecutor of Christians, that what I am now must be from God. There's no other way to account for it. We have to conclude that God has taken this broken vessel and made something useful out of it. To serve God, you don't have to be perfect. You don't have to present yourself as the most qualified and the best educated and the only person worth listening to. You can be who you are and just say, look at what God has done in my life. I'm a sinner, I'm a wretch, but somehow he's found a way to use me. And that brings me to my second point. God doesn't recruit superheroes. Christianity is not attractive, true, or commendable because most of the nice people in the world gravitate toward it. It's not true and attractive and commendable because most the most effective, brilliant, capable, powerful, positive winners in life find their way to the Christian faith. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite. The Church of Jesus Christ tends to attract failures, losers, and sinners who have come to learn that they are failures, losers, and sinners. People, as Paul once described Christian leaders as the off-scourings of the earth. But God makes something beautiful and useful out of these ordinary, mundane people like you and me. And that's what commends our faith. That's what makes it attractive. That's where we see the science of God at work over and over again, because God takes hurting people, sad people, ordinary people, sinners like you and me, and does something glorious and wonderful. He makes us useful. And that's Paul's argument. And he says, they say I'm a really bad guy, and I agree. I have this really terrible history. I was a murderer. You have no idea how terrible my history is. But that's all the more evidence that this whole thing is of God because there's no other way to account for what I have become in Christ. So from our perspective, God frequently chooses the wrong person in the wrong place from the wrong circumstances with the wrong voice to accomplish his ministry. And you may look at yourself and think, you know, God can't use me. I'm too old, or I'm too young, or I'm too extroverted, or I'm too introverted, or I didn't go to the right schools, or I don't have the right degrees, I didn't come from the right sort of background, I'm not pretty enough, I'm not whatever enough. And you're right. You're probably not the perfect person. None of us are. But that's what makes you precisely the kind of person that God can use. God doesn't recruit superheroes, he recruits broken, sinful people like you and me, who know they are sinners and want to be saved by the cross of Christ, and then he uses them for this great plan. God calls you by grace, not by your accomplishments. And one more comment I'll make, and this is probably the most important, there is one and only one gospel, and it doesn't change. The gospel came from God Himself. It is trustworthy and we can count on it. Christian leaders are often tempted to jump from fad to fad. Having grown tired of the hard work of teaching and preaching the gospel, they search out a hook that will make things happen quickly and give them a sense of success. And I think Paul would have nothing to do with that kind of thing. Just as outward success is not a measure of our message, so we dare not change the message to make it more appealing to reach some arbitrary number or quota. The message of the gospel is that the blood of Jesus Christ frees us from our sins. And if that fails to win friends and influence people, so be it. Truth is not enhanced because it is declared by someone with an impressive degree who speaks eloquently or who is impressive in the world's eyes. The gospel is the gospel. There is only one authentic gospel, and we dare not change it. Lack of outward, immediate, visible success does not mean you have the wrong message or the wrong calling. God calls us through grace, not through our accomplishments. He calls broken, sinful people like us, not superheroes. The gospel is the power of God for salvation. It was revealed to us from God Himself to people He called and set apart to reveal it. From our perspective, they may look like the wrong person with the wrong voice and the wrong circumstance, but the message is true and reliable, and we can count on it. You've been listening to the Wednesday in the Word podcast. My mission is to explain not only what a passage means, but how we figure it out. If you've been blessed by what you heard, please rate and review this podcast wherever you listen to your podcast. You can find all the other episodes in this series on my website, Wednesdayintheword.com. RF Music is graciously provided by Reggie Coates. You can find his music at heartfeltmusic.org. Thank you so much for listening today. I'm Krissan Morana, and I hope I'll see you next week at Wednesday in the Word. In the meantime, stop by my website and take advantage of some free Bible study materials.