“Make them holy by your truth; teach them your Word, which is truth” (John 17:17 NLT)

Jesus is referred to as the express character of God, revealing His father’s love and His maxims expressed in His Word to mankind. He said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6 NIV) He came to reveal a new way of thinking about love, about grace, mercy, and forgiveness – a way of freedom from guilt and the eternal consequences of sin. Apostle John says that the Word of God is truth and is a standard to rely on.

Jesus also told His disciples to adhere to and seek truth from the Holy Spirit: “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (John 16:3 NIV) The Bible’s view of the truth of our Lord, in our focal verse is to make men holy, separate from the world, aside from those knowingly contradicting or evading truth made intelligible via scripture alone.

Jesus quoted Jeremiah when He taught that many have ears but cannot hear, many have eyes, but they cannot see (Jeremiah 5:21). He sought to teach the blind who were misled by the blind guides — the leaders of Israel — who did not follow scripture accurately but rather twisted it for their own ends.

I have thought a great deal about why a man or a woman might not align with any truth when clearly presented, whether in life or scriptural discretion. I get that atheists could care less as they live by a determined ungodly philosophy. Christians, on the other hand, seeking to be more like Christ, to my mind, should desire truth. To evade truth revealed in scripture, they would need to go against conscience, and evade the facts of “it is written” clearly presented.

Why church leadership is culpable where biblical error persists Generally, church goers are passive concerning theologically based scriptural study. Most congregations rely on their pastoral leadership. There is a distinction between dependence and dishonesty. A Christian who has accepted Christ’s work on the cross and is fully justified by faith may be passive regarding weighing scriptural evidence concerning truth versus blatant error. Believing something he or she has merely gone along with in a denomination — the social consensus of accepting a prevalent view – though it is not academically admirable, it is not necessarily dishonest, nor does it necessarily involve deliberate evasion of truth to sustain a specific misunderstood view. Even pastors who focus on preaching Christ crucified, and express the love and mercy of God, might prefer a slogan to avoid controversy in their tenure such as “I don’t get into theology”.

Sadly, many scriptural errors can be found promulgated in many active churches that do preach Christ crucified. Let me illustrate. Say a leader in the limelight taught something wacko, and all the pastoral leaders that you know agreed. What if an acclaimed regional or national leader stood up and taught the laity that the plan of salvation was made after the fall of man as follows: “The kingdom of grace was instituted immediately after the fall of man when a plan was devised for the redemption of the guilty race”? And let’s say that you know this can’t be true because the Bible is decisive on this point – it says the opposite about God’s foreknowledge about Yahweh’s son working with Him to reconcile mankind: “who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus”. (2 Timothy 1:9-10 ESV) And collectively, what if you found over fifty such scriptural errors published and distributed worldwide as an ongoing commentary to “enlighten the Word of God” in your own church?

The key to knowing if a leading elder or pastor is evading the truth If a man of God, as a senior leader called to teach the Word accurately, sees the need to think about an issue which contradicts scripture, and has some idea of how to go about dealing with it, and then fails to do independent and interdependent query, fails to study or assess the concern, and fails to demand an open forum — if he fails to lead his flock into the solid ground of scriptural truth — then he’s dishonest, because he’s evading biblical facts that he discerns oppose a false reality. Regardless if it’s a motive of laziness, parasitism, or he’s afraid he’ll be defrocked or lose his pension, or he just wants to be popular or desires more power — he just shuts his mind down to the Spirit’s leading and goes along with the error.

This is individually immoral before the Lord, especially regarding the man who has a high degree of reasoning powers in the sense that he’s deliberately rejecting his conscience – the Spirit’s revelation to his mind to now correctively share with his laity. Doing that requires sustained blindness to a call to review truth, terrifying evasion, ongoing evil, side-stepping reformative action, and therefore it is degradingly dishonest before the judgement seat of God. It is a moral tragedy within the church body when a leader inflicts self-deception. It is reverse mutiny turned on his flock. Leaders are often politically fearful of crossing sword points with the brethren. Yet their cowardly conduct is observed in heaven by the higher counsel, by the 24 elders who hear the prayers of God’s elect (see Revelation 5:8).

Ask, is the flock led astray? Laity often goes along with others for a different kind of reason — through helplessness — the flock without a true shepherd is spiritually harmed in the sight of our Lord. And that’s particularly true regarding the need to exposit scriptural truth. Not everyone has the capability to rightly divide the Word of Truth. Most people absorb doctrine from others, without considering that they might be absorbing controversial error, or that any alternative interpretation is supported by scripture.

They may have a view that doctrine is a subject that can’t be dealt with, it’s all a matter of opinion, or decreed by pre-established authority figures, or there are no answers, it’s irrelevant to church life — none of which you can blame them for having, given the way its advocates present the subject often through repeated indoctrination, church culture or lingo, or demonization for facing the truth of scripture.

Some people within a denomination’s laity may accept that a doctrinal subject is important, yet have no theological method to go about comparing scripture or weighing the evidence presented in the Bible. Without the cognitive capacity to unpack or compare a viewpoint, they cannot think about it and defer to their leadership. In this context when leadership chooses to evade scriptural truth revealing contradicting error, that leadership is culpable for hiding revealed truth.

Does God not refer to shepherding the flock as a holy responsibility? It is not a sin for the laity to end up conforming, accepting what they’re taught, fitting in, not so much out of laziness or fear or non-partisanship as out of ignorance, helplessness, and not even knowing that there is a real issue to think about or how to begin the process, because it is hidden from them! They’re caught in the position of officially being influenced to believe or half-believe that these issues of truth are insignificant — or of zero consequence before the Lord. The “helpless dependent” may be a good man who is baffled – albeit purposely stupified by the irresponsible leadership.

The responsibility of the intelligent laity with theological insight Now laity does include individuals who are intelligent and have a high capacity to reason. Some can teach, some can preach, some administer as elders or deacons. Some are intelligent fanatics who flaunt error to acquire a following. Insofar as they are dishonest conformists these leaders align with the evaders of truth.

All intelligent leadership is then responsible if their decided collaborate evasion creates inner chaos and confusion for any people within a congregation honestly seeking God’s truth. Such active, deliberate dishonesty would deny the Holy Spirit’s guidance into all truth as Jesus indicated He would relay to His disciples: “He will take of mine and reveal it to you” (see John 16:13-15)

Balanced compassion is a must How do you socially treat your comrades in the church despite doctrinal errors? In the case where the laity is innocent of promulgating deception, the proper policy regarding the weak dependents is to delimit your advocacy for specific truth or pedagogical efforts of teaching them directly about evasions that may affect your role as a thought leader in the church. You must deal with them in the realms where they’re innocent — praising the Lord together as mutually forgiven Christians. The difficult balance is found if you try to lead those who feel that they are already well-led into all truth. I believe that rocking their faith-boat may cause it to capsize. You do not want to fracture otherwise honest, beloved relationships whom you can guide in union with Jesus.

The weak dependent may be much like the misled flock when Jesus metaphorically taught them that you cannot put new wine into old wineskins, or you ruin the skins, i.e. the prominent religious view; and spill the wine — meaning, that hearers would lose the value of the truthful doctrine. Though the misled laity may be wrong, they are not Luther-like heroes of independent thought. Like Jesus you must have compassion – you cannot say the innocent laity is dishonest.

However, like Jesus, beware of the dishonest advocate, the deceptively misleading intelligent believer, the legalist, the populist, the religious politician, the puppet who is not just going along with others but is actively evading and ganging up —  going about-face in the back room to backstab truth, to choke it, to pull it down — working to sustain erroneous unreformed doctrine. He or she is essentially wicked, corrupt down to the roots. This distinction is important.

Ethical Summary Again, the typical leaders, the instigators, the theologians who are out promoting blatant scriptural error, those who decry honest eldership and theologians, yet tell their converts that they believe sola scriptura are downright two-faced — they are demonstrably dishonest and unfit for eldership. But as far as the laity are followers, and not leaders, on the whole, I won’t make that judgement. The distinction is that the followers go along with what they’re told, and they may indiscriminately veto their own mind to avow 13, or 24 doctrines come hell or high water — many relinquish scriptural management to their church leadership — they don’t dig for answers or cannot cognitively understand even if they did study the facts. Many who are loyal to a traditional view may be confounded by media-driven liars who continue to teach error and breed confusion.

Scriptural doctrinal errors can only be allowed to persist by culpable leadership, more so if in high places, which if their consciences perceive allowed error, are dishonest or cowardly if silent. It is wickedness — an evil affront to the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If our consciences are not yet affected by grace, let us defer to scripture: “we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.”. (Ephesians 4:14-15 NIV)

This study of Galatians chapter 1, will make it clear that Paul’s gospel message came directly to him via a Christophany — a visionary encounter with the risen Jesus Christ, and was never derived from the agency or effort of men. It was independent of men and dependent upon Jesus Christ alone.

The scriptures indicate that the Apostle Paul was “not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead”. Moreover, Paul was chosen before he was born, much like David and Jeremiah claimed. (Psalm 139:16; Jeremiah 1:5; Galatians 1:1; 15-16)

In his letter to the Galatians he emphasizes his apostolic status (see also Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1). At the same time, he emphasizes that the divine origin of salvation is Jesus Christ from whom he received his direct illumination about the gospel. Paul begins to address his unquestionable apostleship. In v. 1 of Galatians he states that the message of the gospel is: “sent not from men nor by man.”

There was the original special class of apostles called directly by Jesus, some to whom He also revealed Himself after His resurrection (1 Cor. 15:7) Paul knew he was also an apostle authorized by Jesus, even if he was “last of all” (1 Cor. 15:8; cf. Rom 1:1; Gal. 1:1).

Paul at times had to defend his status, with firm convection, such as at Galatia and Corinth. Paul was aware that he had been called by the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:7–8; Gal. 1:15–16) and that the Lord had revealed to him in that call the specifics of his ministry: Paul was to go to the Gentiles — those other than the Jewish race (Gal. 1:16; 2:7). This call was confirmed in Paul’s missionary successes and his miracles (cf. Rom. 1:5; 11:13–16; 15:19; 1 Cor 3:5–6; 4:15).

Paul’s ministry involved a personal responsibility to his churches evident by his words to the Corinthians: “you are the seal of my apostleship” (1 Cor. 9:2). Paul, along with the testimony of the church, saw the role of the apostles to be a special one in history; he knew that they performed a crucial function in the period just after the resurrection of Christ to define and articulate the teaching of gospel of Jesus Christ clearly — and to help the church rejoice in their freedom of redemption as defined by Christ in the New Covenant. Men of all races must learn that they can be free to express their faith and love together in Christ — a message not understood before Paul (1 Cor. 4:9; Eph. 2:20; 3:5–6; Col. 1:24–27). In the letter to the Galatians, he would express what this freedom looked like (Galatians 5:22-23 NLT).

Because he had been called personally by Jesus Christ on the Damascus road, he knew that he represented Jesus Christ and that he had a critical role in the church to unpack the entire message of Jesus Christ to the church as it was expanding universally into the whole world — to those outside of the Jewish circles.

He knew that his gospel was not cooked up by man, or any politicized or traditionalized group and was given directly to him by Jesus Christ. His authority to teach was freely imbued with Christ’s Spirit leading as he mapped the connecting redemptive biblical narrative, particularly, since Abraham. His authority to teach a transition from the old covenant (wherein academically he had been trained, and in which constraints he had lived) to the new revelations given by Christ becomes apparent when he argues against the Judaizers who later tried to convince the members that they had to be circumcised and follow the customs taught by Moses if they would be true Christians.

He expects the Galatians to listen; he knows that disagreement is no longer dialogue; disagreement means division from Christ’s directives when it comes to the essentials of the gospel as made known through the apostles and prophets. Even Paul himself must submit to his own gospel (1:8, 10). ¹

Paul argues that his gospel is independent of human teaching (Galatians 1:13–17), of the major churches in Judea (Galatians 1:18–19), of the Jerusalem “pillars” (Galatians 2:1–10), and especially of the apostle Peter who began to confuse the message of unity in Christ (Galatians 2:11–21). Paul eliminated other sources of his gospel. Why? First, Paul wants to make it clear that his gospel is a direct revelation from Jesus Christ. Second, he shatters opponent arguments that Paul’s gospel was not independent but was rather from the authorities in Jerusalem or at least from those connected with Jerusalem such as Peter. No, his gospel was independently handed down from Christ Himself.

The first part of Galatians1:10–2:21 states that his gospel is not, in fact, dependent on Jerusalem and its leaders. Instead, it is an independent expression. He states his independence negatively in vv. 11–12: it is not originating from people. Then he restates this positively —  it is from Jesus Christ. Moreover, his questions (Galatians 1:10) are implying that he is not seeking to please human beings but God.

“Paul’s claim … is this. His gospel, which was being called in question by the Judaizers and deserted by the Galatians, was neither an invention (as if his own brain had fabricated it), nor a tradition (as if the church had handed it down to him), but a revelation (for God had made it known to him).” ²

The term revelation describes something made known by God to humans, in this case to Paul, that would otherwise not be known or accessible. Revelation thus stands in glaring contrast to passing on of any sacred traditions, either in his day or our own.

Independence is not the most important description of Paul’s gospel. Rather, the most important description of Paul’s gospel is that it is a direct revelation from Jesus Christ and, therefore, not an indirect gospel that had come to him through the Jerusalem authorities.

Preaching and teaching of the gospel, when faithful to the Pauline gospel, is a direct revelation from Jesus Christ. It was this focus on Paul’s writings, which began the Reformation 500 years ago. There are creeds and people who have risen and will rise, who claim that they have the only interpretation of the gospel.

Even if we may have been called to any particular ministry (as Paul was), only progressive theological insights based on his gospel — not independent revelations differing from his gospel — should be assumed correctly in that calling. All teaching must align entirely or bridge with Paul’s teaching completely or be suspect of self-manufacturing.

The “I” in the “I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ” (1:12) is not an “I” that is interchangeable with our own “I.”

Every Christian needs to examine his or her convictions in the light of the Pauline writings to see if we are “seeking to gain the approval of men” or succumbing to social and peer pressure (v. 10). We must discern where our approval is based, where it is headed or locked.

We constantly need to examine our expressions of the gospel to see if they are consistent with the apostolic testimony. This is the principle of the Reformation, the revival of the church under Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin when the church sought to straighten itself out by radically committing itself to the apostolic gospel and biblical writings. It must also be the principle of our day.

¹ McKnight, S. (1995). Galatians (p. 49). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

² Stott, Only One Way