Pretty much everything you enjoy as a worker has been fought for and won by Unions. 40 hour work week. Time and a half for overtime. Your wages have been moved up even if you don’t have a Union because non-union employers have to keep up or they won’t have employees. In Carnegie’s steel mills, workers worked twelve hour days 12 days in a row, on the thirteenth day worked 24 hours and then got their one day off. All for $0.25/hr and no overtime. To think that now that we have such great conditions, unions are no longer necessary is a mistake.

While we often key on pay, safe working conditions are an important contribution which Unions have made. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, earlier this year my Dock Manager informed me that I had to work ten straight hours without a break. My Union provides a place to dispute such bullying on the part of management. Collective bargaining levels the playing field.

While I am sure that those who are non-union have “merited” their pay and raises (I am also sure that what they got is not as much as what they merited), I think that the common claim that Union members do not merit their pay or benefits is not correct. Contracts are negotiated based on how well the company is doing. In the context of Issue 2 in Ohio, Ads are constantly harping that “great” teachers are always suffering at the unfair hands of “tenured” teachers. “Great” teachers get fired while that lazy, phone-it-in tenured guy just goes on and on. What makes this false is the reason for seniority rights is to protect longer serving workers from arbitrary firing in order to replace them with lower-payed junior people. “Great” is nowhere in the equation. A friend of mine was working (non-union) at a local Hospital. As she approached her 25th anniversary, her manager invented a reason to fire her. 25 years of merit and, more importantly, her 25 years of pension all lost. She is just one person and unable to stand against a multi-Billion dollar a year corporation.

Another reason it is false is why are proponents of the bill so interested in “firing” teachers? The reason is it is in their plan to cut pay and benefits and fire teachers and do not want anybody to stand up against them. So, when they talk about “rewarding great teachers” what they mean is lower seniority teachers will get to keep their jobs with lower pay, far larger classroom size, fewer supplies and fewer benefits.

I have keyed on teachers, but this also affects Police and Firefighters whose safety equipment and staffing will be unilaterally decided based solely on budget considerations.

One person objected to my defending Unions saying Unions are, “Symptomatic of the kinds of behavior human beings will sink to left unchecked. Unchecked because they know full well that unions effectively put up an impenetrable legal shield which makes it difficult to weed out the crap”.

To which I replied, This is wrong. Though you seem to believe that Unions encourage bad behavior, I know that when people on the dock are caught stealing, there is no “impenetrable legal shield”. There are steps so that one is not railroaded (because management is not incapable of planting stuff on people to get rid of them), and that he has a Union steward with him at all times (Weingarten Rights), but in the end, the ones caught stealing are driven away from the dock in a police cruiser and the fellow workers are happy that the thief has been caught. In your utopia, who “checks” management? Not Unions, because you wish to get rid of Unions. Not Government because you wish to get rid of government regulations. So let’s just trust our morally superior business superiors? Once you have gotten rid of every worker protection, what will protect the workers?

Another person wrote, I can understand the impetus to unionize fungible workers who can be taken advantage of because the nature of their work is such that there isn’t a metric by which one worker is better than the next, outside of their willingness to put up with managerial abuses. However, with teachers, there is a quality difference, so good teachers should be able to, individually, negotiate a market rate for their services. Some teachers are better than others. Certain things like the apportionment of school resources is by necessity a collective process, but in any workplace, you have to work together to figure out if Area A needs more resources, will it be Area B, C or D that gets less?

To which I replied, Teachers are free to go to private or Charter Schools with their services. I still think, however, that the stereotype of all those excellent teachers unrecognized and crushed by the Unions is false. If not false (we all know senior people who game the system and people with integrity who are frustrated by the system, but getting rid of Unions will not fix that) at least exaggerated for the emotional effect.

One person gave the standard “Unions are no longer needed” argument: Unions served a purpose back in the day to get workplace safety regulations and minimum wages imposed, but we have those now (and I’ve worked for more than one employer who saw minimum wage as “I don’t need to pay any more than” – those are the kinds of jobs one ought to be holding while one works to acquire skills one can trade for more money). Are unions still necessary, or are regulatory agencies filling the need?

I wrote, Don’t look now, but those who want to destroy Unions are also getting rid of all government regulations, including minimum wage (They already have a below minimum wage for what you described). Recent pronouncements by the pro-business politicians include getting rid of NLRB (which is supposed to enforce Labor laws), minimum wage is unconstitutional as well as child labor laws. Indeed, any legislation regulating business is unconstitutional. You cannot assume that once the Unions and regulation are gone, management will continue to protect worker’s rights or their safety.

Someone wrote, As for firing with seniority, I may be showing a generational gap here, but I really don’t see what’s wrong with letting a worker go when you decide that the quality differential between them and a less-experienced worker isn’t worth the pay differential. The employer gets what it pays for, so why is it wrong for them to decide they don’t need experience? Again, that might be the generational gap or it might be that I’ve always worked in situations where I knew my employment is only as secure as my worth to my employer, and I’ve never had a paid day off in my life.

I replied, Everybody knows that paying less is cheaper than paying more. You are working with an assumption that the company gets what it pays for, when in reality, they get more than they pay for. Why shouldn’t they just use people and throw them away? I guess that’s true but why would you want that? How did Randian brutality become our cultural dogma? Has not the worker invested anything? Part of the Contract, written or otherwise, is that the employee is investing something as well – something more than 40 hours for which paid-in-full comes on Friday. The common wisdom today that the employee’s only return on investment is fully accomplished by payday is false. The employee has committed himself to the company. He has committed himself to the company’s success. The bitter old guy in the office who has been there a century has a century of himself in that company. He may be in some “filler” position because they don’t know what else to do with the guy and he refuses to retire, but the company still makes more off him than they pay him. On its end the company promises more than just pay. To have the company seeing their contract with the employee as utterly expendable once the guy gets paid is not good business (As I’ve shared before, my company has breached its contract with me not only in pay but in refusing to pay into the pensions they agreed to pay into). In the case of my friend I mentioned before, a pension was part of the contract and after 25 years of my friend keeping her end of the contract, the business reneged by firing her in a way which lost her pension. Saved the company a boatload of money so makes business sense, right? Similarly, a friend of mine worked at a shop where a man was killed in an industrial accident. Management called their stooge into the office and told him to plant drugs in the dead man’s car before the police arrived. Fake that he was a doper to get rid of workman comp expenses. Who protects the worker from abuses?

While it may be generational (probably more your age, the idea that old people just need to be sent away on ice floes makes less sense the older you get), the idea of pensions will become more important to you as you get older. I would suggest that the definition of a job needs to expand beyond 40hrs work for 40hrs pay. The employee/employer relationship is far more complex.

Concerning the rights of minors to work, while stories abound from those who are trying to get rid of the child labor laws of children who are proud to contribute to their family the reasons for wanting to hire children more likely are 1) Children are cheaper. 2) Children are more easily intimidated 3) Children are disposable and 4) we will hire children rather than their parents. [Update: Recently, when Gingrich floated this, a key part of what he said was to get rid of the Union Janitors and hire kids from the school to clean up. He did not even try to pretend his idea was really to fire the adults and destroy the Union]

Were children hired, I would absolutely want both Unions and Federal regulations to make sure they are not enslaved and oppressed and placed in unsafe working conditions. Those who wish to get rid of child labor laws also wish to get rid of Unions and federal regulations. They are not targeting child labor laws because they plan on continuing to voluntarily keep them.

I do not follow the idea is that inflexibility is some Union invention. Yeah, I understand that management thinks that just stopping payment into pension funds as they agreed in the contract is a great money saver and the Union’s inflexibility stands in the way. When the Unions are fighting the cost-cutting ideas of management which target the workers while their pay remains the same or is increased, the Union is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. The assumption that breaking Unions will help when a family loses the bread-winner just doesn’t make sense. Ideally, Unions fight so that workers families will not be destitute should that happen.

Someone wrote, But if you were paying people to do a job, wouldn’t it be in your best interest to pay the productive workers more than those who are sitting around twiddling their thumbs?

To which I replied, That, then, would be the management’s concern, not yours. As for the twiddling their thumbs bit, while not denying that people game their jobs, something which would take place whether there is a Union or not, everybody thinks they are the hardest worker on the floor. Everybody thinks they put in an honest day. Ultimately, there is exactly and only one person at your company over whom you need to have concern.

Here on the dock, I am third from the bottom in seniority. Doesn’t matter that I am 58 years old, doesn’t matter that my first Union job was in 1977 or my first job in 1969. Some people above me phone it in every day and I run circles around them, that is none of my business. Some senior people are incredibly beat up by their years here and need people to take up their slack. I do so because I am a human being and it doesn’t matter that perhaps when it’s my turn to have infirmity some young guy will just not believe that I don’t just die already. Some people think that “senior” means they can order me to make the popcorn or the coffee. Sometimes I do sometimes I don’t, but what’s wrong with making coffee? I drink it.

Some senior guys work 7 12- hour days each week, while I am on layoff. Kinda selfish of them, but it is their right to work whenever it is offered and their decision is none of my business. Were I in a position to be offered overtime, I would choose based on whatever I make my decisions on and it’s nobody else’s business but mine how I decide on legitimately offered choices (management cannot skip a senior guy to offer me anything). Last year, in one week I worked 104 hours. They kept offering overtime and for my reasons, I kept taking the overtime. Some senior guys, the same ones working 7 12-hour days each week, got their noses out of joint over that and I told them it was none of their business what hours, legitimately offered, I accept. If the choice gets to me, that means it has already gone through all the senior guys and they either said no or yes, as is their choice.

I’m sorry you’ve been in positions where you were the only person in the whole company who did anything with any quality, but really, that is what the company paid you to do. To allow judging things which is not your concern and jealousy of coworkers to spoil your satisfaction in a job you did well, while easy to do is really not the best way to go.

Management, knowing that a divided workforce is easier to take advantage of than a united workforce, makes sure that you are watching that worker who is none of your business to watch. “My hands are tied” they tell you “because of this Union”, when in reality, their hands are not as tied as they say.

One gentleman, who was president of a college agreed with that and said as president he had no problems getting rid of bad professors, either he proactively denied them tenure, or if they were tenured he either convinced them to leave, or he went through due process and fired them.

I wrote, I was talking to my plant manager in Dallas and he pointed out some goofball who did less than me, with less quality than I had but who was making the top rate just like I did and wondered why the Union could not do something about him. I said that if he wished to hand the enforcement of the contract over to Union discretion, I’m sure we could put that in the next contract. End of conversation.

Every contract between Union and management gives management the authority to make workplace rules not covered in the contract, to schedule workplace resources based on market needs and to enforce discipline for employee breaches. The Union, for their part, represents the worker and ensures that these authorizations are exercised fairly and consistently and, yes, sometimes it just asks for leniency based on the big soft mushy heart of management. Management is not paralyzed by the big out-of-control Union.

And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked. (Mark 14:51-52) This passage in Mark has caused a lot of speculation. On the one hand, some scholars point to its abruptness and how it seems to not fit into the flow of the passage and say that the “compiler” of what we now know as the Gospel of Mark slapped this story into a place where it didn’t fit, indicating not only a compiler but that the event did not happen but was a later myth about the events in the garden. Of course, this speculation depends on a “given” that the writer of the Gospel had no idea what it means to write something or that he was so committed to his agenda he did not care. He had no plan, no purpose and just haphazardly (and uncritically) threw stuff together. This given is patently false. Even in the first century AD (likewise if one accepts a 2nd or 3rd century date for the writing of Mark), authors wrote for a reason. The Gospel of Mark shows both a pattern and a purpose for writing and the quick dismissal of this event as purposeless is an injustice which one would not perpetrate on other writers or writings.

On the other hand, many speculate on who this young man is. Most commonly, people say this must be Mark himself making a cameo appearance. Having previously only heard people suggesting Mark, I was surprised to learn that others have suggested Jesus (the stripping prefiguring his trial and execution); John (because of John 18:15,16 and some early (4th and 5th century) writers); James, the brother of Jesus (because Eusebius writes that James wore a linen garment all his life, purportedly the one he abandoned in Mark 14); “Joseph” (Either an unnamed “Joseph-like” character or Joseph of Arimathea, because of this story’s similarity to historical Joseph’s losing his garment to Potiphar’s wife in Genesis 39); Lazarus (because the High Priests wished to kill him as well as Jesus John 12:10,11); or some unnamed Baptismal Initiate (based on an 18th century document which some claim to have been a copy of a letter written by Clement of Alexandria (cc. 150-217)).

In Mark’s Gospel, the only Gospel which has this story, the man is identified as “a young man” (νεανίσκος) (That’s Greek. You’re welcome). Though it’s tempting to try to figure out who this is, young man is what Mark calls him and it seems to me if who he is were important to the story then Mark would have named him.

This young man is also said to be a follower of Jesus. In the Gospel of Mark, “follow” was what it was the disciples were called to do (2:14; 8:34; 10:21) and follow was what the disciples had been doing (1:18; 2:14,15; 6:1; 10:28,52). So, by saying the young man followed Jesus, Mark was saying this young man was a disciple of Jesus.

Yet, Mark had already said that the disciples had fled, And they all left him and fled (Mark 14:50). What does this section add to the picture? It seems in one sense, it is a reverse discipleship. Those who had abandoned all to follow Jesus (1:16-20; 2:14; 10:28-31) are now abandoning all – including their clothing – to flee from Jesus. Interestingly, there is an earlier incident in Mark (10:50,52) in which a man name Bartimaeus abandons his cloak to follow Jesus, whereas here, the follower abandons his garment to flee. So the incident accentuates the failure of the disciples. Also, the incident mentions twice that the young man was naked indicating the shamefulness of their abandonment of Jesus.

There seems to be another reason in the broad story of the Gospel of Mark for the inclusion of the story, indicated by how Mark uses his words. As I said, in this story it is twice mentioned that the man was naked. As the story of Jesus’ passion continues, Jesus is stripped twice by his captors (at his mocking 15:16,17 and on the cross, 15:24). Our incident also mentions twice that the young man wore a “linen cloth” (σινδόνα) the only other time this word is used by Mark is at the burial of Jesus who was wrapped in linen (15:46 also twice). So, this would indicate a ‘clothing exchange” in the theology of Mark; that the cloth abandoned in shame was taken up by Jesus at his death. And there is more.

In the Gospel of Mark, there is one other time that the word translated “young man” is used, And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe (Mark 16:5, italics added). This repetition (the word is used 2x in Matthew; 1x in Luke; never in John; and 5x in Acts) in the Gospel should cause us to consider if the author is trying to connect the events. This is not to say that the two young men are the same person. We know that the one was a human follower of Jesus, while the other is called an Angel in the other Gospel accounts. But the fact that Mark chooses the same word indicates that he is broadening the picture, given that he was an author who was trying to say something.

This man is also wearing (also the only two times Mark uses this word “wear”) a garment, a white robe. Remarkably, the only other time in Mark where “white” garment is mentioned is at the Transfiguration of Jesus, and his clothes became radiant, intensely white, as no one on earth could bleach them. (Mark 9:3). So, it appears that another “clothing exchange” has occurred. At Jesus’ resurrection, the white robes of glory now clothe the young man.

To put it another way: in Mark, two literary exchanges of clothing take place:
1A: A young man wore linen which he shed in shame
1B: Jesus is wrapped in linen at his shameful death
2A: Jesus wore white robes of glory at the transfiguration
2B: A young man wears white clothing at the resurrection.

This literary device of the author presents a picture of the exchange which occurred at the cross. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21) It is also a picture of restoration of the abandoning disciples. Notice that of the Gospel accounts, Mark alone places the young man specifically “at the right” (16:5), a clear reference to the placing of the Messiah David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.’ (Mark 12:36 quoting Psalm 110:1) and so the identification of Christ and his followers. Also remember that Mark alone has the pointed, But go, tell his disciples and Peter (Mark 16:7 italics added) As Kuruvilla says, “There is hope for all who will follow Jesus … albeit stumbling and failing, clumsy and hesitant. Because of what Christ did, the shame is exchanged for glory.” (p 544)

This story, then, teaches something about Mark’s theology of the Passion of Jesus. As I said there seems to be a couple of important applications for today. The first is more theological in that there are those who would deny one or both of the imputations which occurred at the Cross. Historically, Christianity has taught that our sin was imputed to Christ and Christ’s righteousness is imputed to those who will believe. Some have denied that this was the case, and it seems these days their voices are getting louder. This story within the broader picture of Mark’s Gospel teaches both imputations. Our shame to Jesus, his glory to us.

The second application affirms the life of pure, unearned grace which is being a follower of Jesus. There is a reason this young man is unnamed and it’s not so that we can speculate about who he might be. As Kuruvilla says, “Who is the naked runaway? He is Every Disciple, shamefully feeble and fallible. And the enrobed reporter? That one, too, is Every Disciple, gloriously restored by the grace of God, through Jesus Christ!”

Ewww!

Eww!

These statements got me thinking. I think they are proof of the wisdom of the common Protestant attitude towards Tradition. These statements were made in response to the biblical statement that Abraham’s wife, Sarah, was also his half-sister and were followed by the denial of the statement because Tradition says there is a better – more moral – story. Ultimately, it is the anachronistic imposing of later-century morés into a millennia-old story, as if saying “eww” grants one the authority to change the story. At issue is the concept of Revelation.

The doctrine of Scriptures, for me, must include the concept of Revelation. God is God and he is not a man. Man cannot understand God or figure him out and so for knowledge of God and his will, man is dependent on God revealing himself. (Admittedly, this view assumes not only man’s finitude but also his rebellion against God, theologically called Depravity). I believe that God reveals himself and that Revelation to be the Scriptures. No commentary on the Scriptures, no Traditional teaching on the Scriptures – no matter how well-meaning, sincere or pious its source – attains that authority of Revelation. There are all kinds of teachers. Some are better (more pious and/or insightful) and more worthy of respect and consideration, but their teaching remains their teaching and it is subject to the Scriptures, not the other way around. Those who add Tradition authoritatively into the mix, as here, invariably place Tradition above Scripture in authority. It was stated by the author of the above quotes “if you only read the Scriptures apart from the traditional teachings you are not getting the whole story”. What I call STs (Sacred Traditionists – those of denominations who see “Sacred Tradition” as revelatory) within Christianity are even more blunt “Unless you fully accept the traditions of my One True Church, you are not part of the Body of Christ”. Scripture – God’s Revelation – is not merely inadequate, it is damning if only taken by itself.

In the illustration I started with, it may not matter much if Abraham married his niece rather than his sister, much like the common Christian claim that those called “Jesus’ brothers” in the NT were really his cousins (or half-brothers from some previous marriage of Joseph’s), but the attitude towards the Revelation is what I am concerned for. If the Scriptures are God’s Revelation, then that received text (No, I do not mean TR) means something as received. To make the received text subject to your morés and what would cause you to say “eww!” is a flipping of what should be the proper relationship between you and God’s revelation.

In the context of Abraham’s time, marrying one’s half-sister was not an issue. At the time, there was no “eww” involved. The Law of Moses forbidding that practice was almost 500 years future, and our own culture another 3400 years beyond that. The progressive nature of God’s revealing himself has bearing here. Abraham cannot be judged by later Revelation, he was faithful in his relationship with God and he was called God’s friend.

To use another example, later on in Genesis is the story of Jacob. He married Leah and Rachel, two sisters (and had what I have called “The Baby Wars” Genesis 29,30). Like Abraham, this was according to the rules of the day. There was no “eww” involved. Yet, were one to read commentaries on this story (I mean Christian commentaries, the ones I have read), they take great pains to let us know that Jacob was a sinner here, as if the lesson to be taught from the story is “one man, one woman” just in case there is some guy reading this in the 21st century thinking “Great! I can go marry some woman and her sister!” This story is strategically placed in the broad story of Jacob’s life to show us God fulfilling his earlier promise to bless and prosper him (Genesis 28:13-15) Yet, in many of the teachings, the lessons of the received text concerning God and his promises are made secondary to safe, “MC” (Morally Correct) keeping people in line, with the result that the text is tamed. One Christian writer conceded this story was God blessing Jacob by saying “God did ‘bless’ Jacob, but we can only guess how much more he would have been blessed had he done things God’s way.” – a horrible subjection of the text to modern moralizing.

As one who believes in the Doctrines of Scriptures and Revelation, my first commitment is to the text as received. Teachings and Traditions on that text may be helpful, insightful and pious but they are not Revelation. The thoughts of others do not “fill in the gaps” of Scripture with the authority of Scriptures themselves, which sometimes, frustrating our wish for trivia, has gaps. (Sometimes the music is in the pauses between the notes, said the pianist.) The text as received is the Revelation. Tradition is the inserting of someone’s “ewww” between me and the text. The one who revealed himself is concerned that I respond to the revelation, not with how creatively I cover up what I find disconcerting or fear someone may misuse.

We have come to the BIG event in Abraham’s life. It is the high point to which his life of faith carried him. Of course, it’s not quite as easy as the clichés make it sound. Biblically, this is the big one and through the centuries people heap praise on this event. But practically, the specific example is not one we would support anyone following. Were a Pastor to preach on this incident, and one of his listeners say “I have been greatly inspired by your sermon. This afternoon, Junior and I are going off to worship and later we will return.” The pastor would do everything in his power to dissuade the man. In fact, the intervention would be quite intense and final. If the guy could not be dissuaded, junior would not be allowed to go with him.

After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here am I.” He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac. And he cut the wood for the burnt offering and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place from afar. Then Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; I and the boy will go over there and worship and come again to you.” And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son. And he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So they went both of them together. And Isaac said to his father Abraham, “My father!” And he said, “Here am I, my son.” He said, “Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” Abraham said, “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So they went both of them together. When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built the altar there and laid the wood in order and bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son. But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here am I.” He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called the name of that place, “The LORD will provide”; as it is said to this day, “On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided.” And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven and said, “By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.” So Abraham returned to his young men, and they arose and went together to Beersheba. And Abraham lived at Beersheba. (Genesis 22:1-19)

Clearly there is a lot going on here and as usual, I’m going to sprint through it. As the story of Abraham’s life has gone on, there have been many allusions and connections to this story. Here are some observations.

The timing of this event (After these things, looking back to the previous chapter with Birth of Isaac, his weaning and the subsequent banishment of Hagar and her son, and the treaty with Abimelech at Beersheba) is hard to nail down. Typically, it is thought that Isaac was early teens when this happened, given the physical task he performed. If so, that would make Abraham early teens plus 100 years.

It says God “tested” Abraham. The Hebrew word has a range of meanings: to test or try or prove. What seems to be tested is Abraham’s obedience. Given that one aspect of testing is perfecting, I would say that this testing was not to see if Abraham would obey so much as to push him into the step of growth where he came to understand that God would raise Isaac from the dead. In the previous blog (on Genesis 18) I talked about Abraham struggling with the thought that no matter how things may look, the Judge of the whole earth shall do right. Here, the judge of the whole earth will do right with Abraham’s covenant, promises and his son, his only son, whom he loves, Isaac.

The love for the son is a huge component in this event yet the story reads fairly devoid of emotional content. I think that any teaching of Jesus’ words, If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26) should include this passage in its analysis. Outside observers would say that Abraham must hate Isaac, but in reality Abraham’s love for Isaac was intense, as was his love for Ishmael, whom he sent away in chapter 21.

In an interesting echo, God says this was to be done on a mountain “of which I will tell you”. This goes all the way back to the first call of Abraham. Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. (Genesis 12:1) Once again, there was a call to go but the specifics await a later revelation. He was to sacrifice on a mountain in Moriah (approximately 50 miles from where Abraham lived in Beersheba), which some say eventually became the Temple Mount, based on 2 Chronicles 3:1 Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah. It seems, however, that Jerusalem was already inhabited at that time (Melchizedek, in Chapter 14, was King of Salem, which many think may have been Jerusalem). The place Abraham went to seems more remote, but still in the land of Moriah.

Another parallel can be found with the previous chapter. In chapter 21, God had told Abraham to send away his son from Hagar. God coupled that command with the promise that Ishmael would become a great nation. Abraham’s response was immediate So Abraham rose early in the morning (Genesis 21:14) and we find an equal immediacy in chapter 22, So Abraham rose early in the morning (Genesis 22:3).

I would like to point something else out. A lot of times we read this story and Isaac is mainly background. We don’t know what he was thinking or when or if he caught on to what was going on. “Whatchya doing with the knife, dad?” I think the text offers a clue. It’s a phrase found in verses 6 and 8. So they went both of them together. And Isaac said to his father Abraham, “My father!” And he said, “Here am I, my son.” He said, “Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” Abraham said, “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So they went both of them together. (Genesis 22:6-8) It may be speculation on my part, but it seems that here is where Isaac came to understand what was going on. The repeated phrase “so they went both of them together” on each side of the interaction says more than they were walking together, but has the added weight that Isaac, now knowing the plan, submits in faith. Also, looking ahead to after the event, it says So Abraham returned to his young men, and they arose and went together to Beersheba. (Genesis 22:19). The story emphasizes the unity of father and son in the event.

Upon reaching the place God revealed, it says that Abraham built the altar. Again, this is an echo from Abraham’s whole life. Whenever he went anywhere, he built an altar. In my article on Abraham’s call, I noted that in the Hebrew of Genesis 12:1-3 there were two imperatives, “go” (12:1) and “be a blessing” (12:2). Abraham went in obedience, but also in obedience to the second imperative, wherever he went, Abraham built an altar to the LORD and called upon the name of the LORD. (Genesis 12:8) Here in chapter 22, Abraham’s altar was to sacrifice Isaac and it equally fulfills his calling to be a blessing.

In the end, God did provide a ram as substitute for Isaac. Note that Abraham looked and saw a ram. Similarly, Hagar looked and saw a well in the previous chapter (21:19). Abraham, who showed no expectation of a substitute, received his son back from the dead, as he believed he would.

God’s striking words, I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me. (Genesis 22:12), evokes for me another father who also did not withhold his son He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? (Romans 8:32) Speaking about false idols, the Psalmist says Those who make them become like them; so do all who trust in them. (Psalms 115:8) From the life of Abraham, we see that the life of faith is a journey in becoming like the one we worship. We think like he thinks, and commit to his commitments.

In Genesis 18:16-33, there is another story which has engendered confusion over what is going on. Taken from the idea that Abraham is an anti-example of perfection, there are things to say, but I think very little light to be had. Perfectionism is a harsh, unpleasable master. Looking at it from the idea that Abraham is The Believer and our example for living by faith, I think we can see here the story of Abraham’s continuing growth without which he would not have made it to chapter 22 (the sacrifice of Isaac).

Then the men set out from there, and they looked down toward Sodom. And Abraham went with them to set them on their way. The LORD said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.” Then the LORD said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.” So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the LORD. Then Abraham drew near and said, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city. Will you then sweep away the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” And the LORD said, “If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.” Abraham answered and said, “Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes. Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking. Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five?” And he said, “I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.” Again he spoke to him and said, “Suppose forty are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of forty I will not do it.” Then he said, “Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak. Suppose thirty are found there.” He answered, “I will not do it, if I find thirty there.” He said, “Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of twenty I will not destroy it.” Then he said, “Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak again but this once. Suppose ten are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of ten I will not destroy it.” And the LORD went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place. (Genesis 18:16-33)

This starts kinda mid-context (indeed, my last post in this series was from Genesis 15, so I skipped over a lot). Abraham saw three men walking by his abode. He stopped them and offered hospitality. Turned out, these were angels whom God sent with a message. Within a year, 99 year-old Abraham would father a son with his 90 year-old wife. Abraham had no idea to whom he was offering hospitality and this specific incident is used in the Book of Hebrews as an exhortation to offer hospitality (Hebrews 13:2).

There was another reason these messengers were sent. So, after the meal, the three got up and went towards the city of Sodom. Abraham walked with them, again not expecting anything but because it was the hospitable thing to do. Here, a remarkable thing happens: The LORD said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.” (Genesis 18:17-19) One of the three messengers turns out to be The Lord (Heb YHWH) and he has a conversation with himself. Of course, he is not figuring something out, but he is revealing to us what is happening and why. He is not going to hide these actions from Abraham because God had made promises to him and this event was an important step in the fulfillment of these promises. It is important for Abraham to know because that knowledge will affect his commitment to keep faithful to the Lord and the raising of his children.

When people talk of the great turning points of the Kingdom of God, I am unaware of anyone who points to Genesis 18:16-33. Maybe some might mention the earlier part of this chapter with its announcement of the birth of Isaac. And yet, God’s own words say that this event was essential. Not the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, but God’s revealing of his plans to Abraham and, I believe, Abraham’s reaction as he struggled with that revelation.

Then the LORD said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.” (Genesis 18:20-21) The Revelation is straight forward. The sinful actions in Sodom and Gomorrah have caused people to cry out to God. The two messengers are going to the cities to gauge for themselves what it is like. Implicit is that if it is as bad as they say the cities will be destroyed. This is what God chose to show Abraham, because of His promises to him. To be sure, this revelation shows God’s justice and that His justice is deliberate, not knee-jerk. Considering that God is just, we should live our lives doing righteousness and justice (v 18).

Key to the incident, especially from the viewpoint that the man of faith Abraham is our example, is Abraham’s reaction. It is here, also, where the “imperfect Abraham” teaching is found. A not infrequent analysis is that Abraham is “bartering” with God. You, of course, must understand, according to this teaching, that one does not barter with God. I once read a book on prayer that used this section as an example of how not to pray! Since he did not get God to spare Sodom, the prayer was a failure. The writer noted that Abraham stopped after six requests (Get it? Six! The number of human frailty!) and encouraged his readers to be “Seven-Time Pray-ers” (like Elijah 1Kings 18:43).

It seems to me that reading Abraham’s prayer shows none of these criticisms. Then Abraham drew near and said, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city. Will you then sweep away the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Genesis 18:23-25) The phrases in the prayer lead me to see that Abraham was shocked at what God revealed. “Will you indeed …”; “Will you then …”; “Far be it from you …”; “Far be that from you!”; “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” This last being what I think is the key point of the prayer. Having been given a new revelation of God, Abraham struggled to understand how that fit into his previous understanding of God. Abraham knew God of covenant and promises; of protection and provision. But God, the one who destroys cities? Possibly punishing the righteous with the wicked? I contend that Abraham’s prayer was a struggle to know that the Judge of the earth will do what is just.

What we see in the prayer of the man of faith is an active concern for understanding who God is. His prayer sure was humble enough, repeatedly confessing his unworthiness to talk to God, but there was something he did not understand and he struggled with it. God, for his part, did not seem bothered by the prayer but continued to allow Abraham to question him. We, in our common understanding of faith, would like to think that “men of God” do not struggle with things or ask questions. This story, which God called essential to the process of fulfilling his promises to Abraham, teaches otherwise. There is a “quick acceptance” which passes for faith but which is a short circuit to it. Rather than showing trust, it shows laziness, impatience and a lack of spiritual integrity. People of Faith own the Revelation given to them. Indeed, seeing a life of faith as a life of growth, I suggest that were it not for this episode of struggle, the future life of Abraham would have played out a lot differently.

While the text says that God left Abraham, indicating that God was the one who ended the interaction, I have to think that the point had been reached where Abraham’s struggle was satisfied. Not that he thought Sodom would be spared, not even that Lot would be spared, but he understood the Judge of the earth will act justly. Looking ahead to the rest of Abraham’s life, as he stood the next day seeing the smoke rise from the plains, he did not know if Lot was spared, but he knew the Judge of the earth shall do what is just. In chapter 22, as he is walking with Isaac to the Mount, it says that Abraham believed that God would raise his son from the dead. How could he have gotten to that point of faith if not by going through this struggle about the justice of the Judge of the earth?

God, he tells us, chose to let Abraham in on what he was doing. His reason for doing this was because his covenant with Abraham was going to be fulfilled. From God’s side, we see a revelation of his character. From Abraham’s side, equally important, we see the owning of that revelation through struggling to understand. Abraham, our example of the life of faith, is an example of growth and building up of faith and relationship with God.

To expand on the idea that righteousness affects your obedience: In the first section, we saw there was a difference between how the scribes and Pharisees viewed murder and how Jesus viewed it. The teaching they heard had only to do with the physical act of murder, to a degree understandable since no one can read someone else’s thoughts. Jesus, however, warned people of their inner selves. As he said later, clean the inside of the cup so the outside will be clean.

A person is a whole person. Even though we sometimes talk of “parts” of a person (ie people consisting of body, soul and spirit), that is more as a theological or philosophical convenience. When a person acts, the whole person acts. A righteous person will not be content with outwardly righteous acts when he knows inward reality conforms to their unrighteous alternatives. This next section, one of the better known teachings in the Sermon, also has that outer/inner contrast but there is a twist.

You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into hell. If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into hell. (Matthew 5:27-30)

This is one of the most well-known passages in the Sermon. The old “lusting in the heart” thing. Some of you may be old enough to remember that in 1976, then presidential candidate Jimmy Carter, thinking he was witnessing to a reporter after the end on an interview, went into this passage and the story was published that Carter admitted he had committed adultery “in his heart”.

This section continues the idea of the previous section that your inner thoughts indicate your righteousness. As verse 8 of this chapter said, what is required is a pure, or undivided, heart. One cannot point to a lack of physical actions as righteousness when inwardly unrighteousness is indulged.

I had said there was a twist. I think another thing brought out by this section is the inadequacy of using a “checklist” approach to morality. So often people approach the Christian life as if it is a list of what’s naughty and nice. Do not murder? Check. Do not commit adultery? Check. The Pharisees had the checklist in spades. One result of the checklist approach is you relate to your list, rather than God, or even to yourself. This aspect of the work of Christ, I believe, is brought out in Hebrews, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (Hebrews 9:14) The checklist puts one’s conscience into service of the works rather than God. The imputation of true righteousness frees you from that service so you can serve God.

Another thing about the checklist, it forces a narrow focus and not an integrated view. The Pharisees quote one of the Ten Commandments You shall not commit adultery. (Exodus 20:14) what is missed with that is that only a few verses later, it says You shall not covet (Exodus 20:17). People commonly think that Jesus here was making the Law harder when in reality he was teaching the Law. Adultery? No. Coveting? Um, eh. Later on in Romans 7, Paul talks about this same thing, coveting, which caused his pharisaical house of cards to fall. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. (Romans 7:7-8)

The call of Jesus’ teaching, I believe, is to judge ourselves with true discernment. Our inner lives seem much harder to control than our actions and it is there that we need the power of imputed righteousness to free us. And we join with the two-fold prayer of the Psalmist, Teach me your way, O LORD, that I may walk in your truth; unite my heart to fear your name. (Psalms 86:11)

This one is Cash doing a Nine Inch Nails song called Hurt. Very striking images. I’ve not heard the original but the 70 year-old Cash who has felt and caused hurt in his life, does the song with the hope and offer of redemption.

This second one is called God’s Gonna Cut You Down. I have had this on my Mp3 for a couple of years. It is also currently being used in a Jeep commercial. What is striking is the HUGE cast of people who are in this video, including Dennis Hopper, Keith Richards, Bono, Woody Harrelson and Iggy Pop.

In Matthew 28 there is a story of just such an assignment. Looking at it, we see it can be broken down into the essential parts of a commission.

the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place. And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers and said, “Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day. (Matthew 28:11-15)

Report to authorities: First, the group receiving the commission is brought before the Authorities. the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place. They are men under command and it is not up to them to assign themselves their commission. They present themselves before their Authority.

Authority for the commission: The authorities have to give or delegate authority for the accomplishment of the task. they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers A commission cannot be accomplished without authority or impetus for the task. In this instance, the guards were given money.

Message: In this instance, their commission was to disseminate a message. Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ This message was given to them by their authorities. Individuals on a commission cannot make up their task or present a personal message. Their message is their commission. They were to tell the people that the resurrection was a matter of negligence on their part and cunning on the part of Jesus’ followers.

Assurance: along with authority, a commission should contain assurances to the people commissioned. And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble. These men’s commission did not reflect well on them, being guards who admit they fell asleep. Their commission contained assurances that such an admission in their commission would not adversely affect them but they will be protected.

Result: This commission contains a report on the results of the commission. So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day. The results show that the commission was successful. The guards took their authority and accomplished the dissemination of their message with the result that to the day of the writing of this report, the message had been spread among the Jews.

This is a fairly straight forward commission, easily analyzed and reportedly successful but there is another commission in Matthew 28. Let’s look at that:

Report to authorities: Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him

Authority for the commission: Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Message: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

Assurance: And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

Result: In this instance no result is reported. I assume that’s because the authority of the commission has not come to completion. Yet.

There are several sections here starting with “you have heard …” each one containing “but I say to you …” Clearly, Jesus is speaking with some authority as none of the Rabbis would start such a teaching with “I say to you”. Some commentators go too far, however, by saying that Jesus was “adding to” the Law or making the Law stronger (some I have heard made it sound almost like the Law was getting too easy so Jesus had to make it harder). More to the point is that it was the teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees which made the Law easier and Jesus was correcting their teaching that which condemned them as something which justified them. Even though most are direct quotes from the Law, verse 43 has more than the Law quoted “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘hate your enemy.’ Love your neighbor was in the Law, hate your enemy was not. This shows that Jesus was addressing how the Law was taught, not the Law itself. Also arguing for this take is Jesus not using his typical way of quoting Scripture, “It stands written …” (e.g. Matthew 4:4,7,10).

“You have heard that it was said to an older generation, ‘Do not murder,’ and ‘whoever murders will be subjected to judgment.’ But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subjected to judgment. And whoever insults a brother will be brought before the council, and whoever says ‘Fool’ will be sent to fiery hell. So then, if you bring your gift to the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother and then come and present your gift. Reach agreement quickly with your accuser while on the way to court, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the warden, and you will be thrown into prison. I tell you the truth, you will never get out of there until you have paid the last penny! (Matthew 5:21-26)

Jesus quotes teaching from two parts of the Law, Exodus 20:13, You shall not murder, and Numbers 35:29-31, which regulates the trying of a person accused of murder, So these things must be a statutory ordinance for you throughout your generations, in all the places where you live. “Whoever kills any person, the murderer must be put to death by the testimony of witnesses; but one witness cannot testify against any person to cause him to be put to death. Moreover, you must not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death; he must surely be put to death. This teaching is abbreviated into “whoever murders will be subjected to judgment”. This abbreviation seems to take some of the gravity from the original. Also, as given it seems the teaching keys on outward actions only. Jesus’ correction turns things inward. As he says later, it is from the heart that murder comes. But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a person. For out of the heart come evil ideas, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. (Matthew 15:18-19)

Jesus’ correction also has grades of offense and punishment. Interestingly, the lightest offense has the punishment which the Pharisees taught for the act of murder.

But I say to you, anyone who is angry with his brother without a cause will be subject to punishment. The first thing Jesus mentions is anger, “without cause” say some translations. The word translated “anger” means “rage” or “to be furious”. This brings to mind the passage in James I have quoted before, With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who are made in God’s likeness. (James 3:9) How we treat the Image reflects how we view the reality. God takes seriously our interactions with his image. Anger, which is so easy to feel towards others, is a concern for God because it concerns his image. Anger is asserting yourself to judgment on the other person. Do not avenge yourselves, dear friends, says Paul, but give place to God’s wrath, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. (Romans 12:19)

And whoever says to his brother ‘Raka!’ will be subject to the Council. The word “Raka” has been left untranslated. It is an Arabic word which translates as “empty-head”. We have many such insults in English – “airhead”, obviously – but the point is not the specific word used but the fact of insult. When we insult we are essentially judging the value of a person.

And whoever says ‘You fool!’ will be subject to hell fire. The third grade of offense is linguistically like a common insult found today – the word translated “fool” is where we get our word “moron” from. Biblically, however, the word has far more impact. Fools say to themselves, “There is no God.” (Psalms 14:1; also consider the use of the “fool” in Proverbs, a man without moral sense) “Fool” is ultimately a judgment of a man’s moral character. In Jesus’ gradation, the step from the second to the third is a step from snobbery and insults to character assassination.

Jesus follows this teaching with a couple of examples. They essentially come out of failures to keep the Law as Jesus taught it. The first is with a Brother (I take “brother” to mean a fellow member of the Kingdom of God) and the second is with an opponent in a legal case. The teaching in both cases is to make peace with him, a peace from humility, consideration and respect rather than the responses of grudge, arrogance and character attacks. In the heart of the righteous, failure to live out righteousness results in a desire to rectify it

The first example says that the relationship with the image takes precedence over the performance of religious ritual. The worship of God is negated by the animosity between brothers (again, James 3:9 comes to mind). So, restoration of the division precedes the worship.

The second example strikes me as very pragmatic. Do what you can to restore peace. If it goes before the judge, it is in someone else’s power to rectify the breach. Actions have consequences and the Judge will decide what those consequences are. His ruling will be binding.

What we see from this section is that people were being taught the Law in a way that divides external from internal. As long as those who can see the outside don’t see anything, then the Law is satisfied. However, the problem of sin is far deeper than the externals. Crimes against fellow image-bearers start with a heart which asserts itself as judge of others, which then leads to rage and insults and character assassination, which the teaching of the Law at that time said were okay.

We can also see that these guys were not so different from us. Our first commitment is so often to justify ourselves rather than see ourselves. You may have to just take my word for this, but I have never killed anybody. Yet, my heart gets angry and my tongue gets sharp. I dwell on things incessantly. Jesus tells us that Righteousness reaches deep. Righteousness which God works in his people does not stop at the external.

I’ve been thinking of this verse in Galatians. Paul is recounting the events of Acts 15 when he and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to confer about the issue of circumcision. Some were teaching that Gentiles must be circumcised – they must become Jews – to be saved. Paul opposed this teaching.

This event comes up frequently in certain circles as the First Church Council and this verse in particular is used to say that Paul had uncertainty concerning what he preached and that he was submitting what he preached to the Church leaders for their affirmation or for their correction. According to this take, Paul was unsure if what he taught was accurate and had the leaders ruled that Gentiles must be circumcised, it is assumed, Paul would have had to admit he had run (taught) in vain and changed his teachings in submission to the leaders. I suggest, rather, that this phrasing means something quite else. Paul did not fear the teaching he received “by revelation” was false but that “those of repute” (A title which seems to show that Paul is referring to them not for any need on his part for their authority, but used as an apologetic towards his opponents) may decide against the Gospel.

One of the first things to notice is that the “to make sure I was not running in vain” – NET (“I did this because I was afraid that I was running or had run my life’s race for nothing” – ISV) take on this is quite contrary to the confidence Paul was expressing in the rest of the passage. Paul had deliberately brought an uncircumcised Gentile believer (Titus) to take part in the discussion at Jerusalem. Indications are that Paul considered Titus “Exhibit A” for “no circumcision”. Titus was an “in the flesh” example of the Gospel which Paul preached which he presented to those who were of repute (v 2).

Also, those who would wish Titus to be circumcised were “false brothers” (v 4 clearly distinguishing these guys from “those of repute”) to whom he gave no inch (“not even for a moment” v 5). This confidence is quite opposite of the picture presented that Paul was concerned that he was teaching the wrong Gospel.

With the confidence expressed by Paul, “lest, …” is probably not expressing concern for error on Paul’s part, but rather may be a question for his “reputable” hearers which almost forces a negative answer. “Here is the Gospel I preach and here is an uncircumcised Gentile believer resulting from my preaching. Can you really say that I am running in vain?”

Paul’s other uses of “vain” also push things in this direction. holding fast to the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain. (Philippians 2:16) Here the vanity would not be in false teaching, but the short-lived fruit of his preaching. For you yourselves know, brothers, that our coming to you was not in vain. (1 Thessalonians 2:1) Here, again, Paul is talking about the fruit of his preaching despite previous persecutions and then current opposition. Finally, an example that not only talks about working in vain but is also introduced with the same phrase “lest, by any means” which introduces the Galatians passage, For this cause I also, when I could no longer forbear, sent that I might know your faith, lest by any means the tempter had tempted you, and our labour should be in vain. (1 Thessalonians 3:5). Here, the possibility which concerns Paul is not that his teaching would prove to be in error but that something would destroy the work. His work would be in vain because there would be no lasting effects and the people would be following false teaching.

Likewise, the fear for Paul in Galatians 2:2 would be the destruction of the Gospel and the fruits of his work should it be decided or become accepted teaching that circumcision be required for Salvation for the Gentiles. Later, he puts it very strongly: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. (Galatians 5:2) The requirement of circumcision runs counter to the Gospel (given to Paul by revelation and never doubted by him) and the teaching must be stood against.

Given the confidence of Paul, the certainty that he had of what was given to him by revelation and his common concern for lasting fruit, it seems unlikely that Galatians 2:2 expresses concern that Paul was teaching wrongly about circumcision and was submitting his teaching for correction. Rather, he was standing up against a false teaching which originated in Jerusalem and placed his “running” on the line as evidence for the Truth of the Gospel.