Gálatas 1:10

DISCOURSE: 2051
MEN-PLEASERS REPROVED

Gálatas 1:10. Do I seek to please men? For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

IN the Churches of Galatia, great efforts were made, by Judaizing teachers, to “pervert the Gospel of Christ,” and to establish in its place a doctrine more congenial with Jewish prejudices and Jewish habits. St. Paul set himself vigorously to withstand their influence, and to maintain the Gospel in all its purity. For this end, he declared, in this epistle, his full authority from God to require from all of them a submission to the doctrines which he preached; and he denounced a curse on any creature, whether man or angel, who should attempt to introduce any other Gospel. In prosecution of his argument, he appeals to the Galatians themselves, whether he was, or could be, actuated by any unworthy desire of pleasing men: “Do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men?” In explanation of these words, some would supply an ellipsis here, as though he had said, “Do I persuade (preach) the things of men, or of God [Note: “Dei appellatione τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ intelligit: et πείθειν idem declarat atque τὸ κηρύττειν.” Beza in loc.]?” Others would translate it, “Do I solicit the favour of men or of God [Note: Doddridge on the place.]?” But neither of these interpretations can I altogether approve. The former is that which our translators seem to have acquiesced in; though, father than express it, they have left the passage altogether unintelligible. But if the word which we render “persuade” were translated “obey” (as it is translated in other parts of this very epistle [Note: Gálatas 3:1; Gálatas 5:7.]), I conceive that the sense would be more clear. Let it be remembered, that the Apostle, previously to his conversion, had sought to please men, and, under their authority, had opposed to the uttermost the cause of Christ [Note: Atos 9:1.]. Now he laboured, with no less zeal, to maintain that cause; and denounced a curse, even against an angel from heaven, if one should be found presumptuous enough to oppose it. But was he now actuated by the same motives as he was before? Did he now act under the authority of men, or seek to please men? Was he not rather acting in obedience to God? It was clear that he was not pleasing men, nor could possibly have any such object in view; because men’s wishes were in direct opposition to God’s commands, and to the ministrations which he felt it his duty to maintain: and if he would please and obey man, he could not be the servant of Christ.

That this is the real meaning of the passage appears, both from the terms which are used, and from the relation which the different parts of this verse bear to each other. The Apostle says, “Do I now obey man [Note: ἄρτι, at this present time.]?” I did formerly; but I do not now: “for if I yet [Note: ἕτι.] pleased man, I could not be the servant of Christ.” Here, you will perceive, the two services are opposed to each other, and declared to be inconsistent with each other [Note: ἀνθρώπους πεἱθωis put in opposition to Χριστοῦ δοῦλος.]. And this not only makes the sense clear, but cuts off all occasion for supplying an ellipsis, in a way which one would not wish, and which, in my opinion, can scarcely be justified. As to the text itself, that, in its import at least, is perfectly intelligible: and, in opening it, I shall,

I. Confirm the Apostle’s assertion—

We shall have no doubt of its truth, if we consider the grounds on which it stands:

1. The things which men, and the Lord Jesus Christ, require, are directly contrary to each other—

[Men have their maxims and habits, to which they wish all others to be conformed. Our blessed Lord, on the contrary, says, “Be not conformed to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your minds, that ye may know what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God [Note: Romanos 12:2.].” But this is not all: he commands us, not only to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but also rather to reprove them [Note: Efésios 5:11.].” Now, the separation alone is, of itself, sufficently displeasing to the world, because it forms a tacit reprehension of their ways: but, when to this is added a testimony borne against their ways as evil, they are irritated and incensed; and, in self-defence, they brand their opponents with every term of ignominy and reproach. Our blessed Lord found it so with respect to himself: “The world cannot hate you,” said he to his unbelieving brethren; “but me it hateth, because I testify of it that the works thereof are evil [Note: João 7:7.].” And he has taught us to expect the same treatment on precisely the same ground: “If ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you [Note: João 15:19.].”]

2. There is no possibility of reconciling them—

[Our blessed Lord has placed this beyond a doubt: “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon [Note: Mateus 6:24.].” This is the very foundation of that separation from the world, which is the bounden duty of every one that calls himself “a servant of Christ.” “What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” “Wherefore come out from among them, and he ye separate, saith the Lord [Note: 2 Coríntios 6:14.].” In truth, this is nothing but what must commend itself to every considerate mind. St. Paul appealed respecting it to the whole Church of Rome, and, in fact, to the whole world: “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey [Note: Romanos 6:16.]?” It may be said, perhaps, that the services of God and Mammon are not so irreconcileable as we represent them; since our Lord himself has shewn us that they may be reconciled. In one place he says, “He that is not with me, is against me; and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth abroad [Note: Mateus 12:30.]:” and in another place he says, “He that is not against us, is for us [Note: Lucas 9:50.]:” and therefore he may, in this latter passage, be said to have modified and tempered the severer language of the former. But there is no real opposition between the two passages: for if the occasions on which they were spoken be duly marked, it will be found that the former passage forbids neutrality in our own conduct; the latter forbids uncharitableness in judging of the conduct of others. Strong as are the declarations of our Lord and of St. Paul, which have been before cited, they fall far short of that which is spoken by St. James. From them we see that neutrality is treason, in reference to God, just as it would be in an earthly kingdom, where a subject would not move to repel an invading enemy. But St. James declares, that even a wish to preserve friendship with the world is nothing less than a direct act of rebellion against God. “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever, therefore, will be (wishes to be) the friend of the world, is (is thereby constituted) the enemy of God [Note: Tiago 4:4. the Greek.],”

On these grounds I conceive that the Apostle’s assertion admits not of the smallest doubt; but is plain, direct, and incontrovertible.]
Let me now, then,

II.

Shew the bearing it should have on our life and conversation—

It is of great importance for us to remember, that broad and unqualified assertions may easily be perverted, to the establishment of principles which, in reality, are false; and to the encouragement of conduct which is essentially unbecoming. It is the part of sound wisdom to make those discriminations, which will serve to guide an humble and conscientious Christian to an adjustment of contending claims, and to a discernment of the path of duty in difficult and conflicting circumstances. With a view to this, I will point out,

1. Negatively, what effect this assertion should not produce—

[It should not render us indifferent to the opinions or feelings of those around us. Indifference to the feelings of others is highly criminal: it argues a want of love; without which divine principle, whatever a man may have, he is no better than “sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal [Note: 1 Coríntios 13:1.].” Those around us have immortal souls, for which we ought to be tenderly concerned: and, as they must of necessity be more or less affected by our conduct, and have their estimate of our principles influenced by the fruits which they produce, it becomes us, for their sakes, to avoid casting any stumbling-block before them, or giving them any unnecessary offence. We should, as far as possible, “prevent even our good from being evil spoken of [Note: Romanos 14:16.].” Nay further; we should endeavour to “please men,” yea, to “please all men.” “Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification: for even Christ pleased not himself [Note: Romanos 15:2.].” Nay, I go further still, and say, that we ought to be ready to make considerable sacrifices for this very end: for St. Paul, speaking on this very subject, says, “Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God: even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved [Note: 1 Coríntios 10:32.].” Now, this is a point on which religious people, and young people especially, need to be put upon their guard. There is a self-will, and self-pleasing, in religious matters, as well as in things unconnected with religion: and there is a disposition to magnify the importance of matters that are indifferent, and to urge the claims of conscience for things which are really dictated only by inclination, and an undue pertinacity in these things frequently proves a greater stumbling-block to our friends and relatives, than a firm adherence to any positive duty would do. Still, however, I must guard this on the other hand; and say, that, in any concessions which we may make, we must look well to our motives, which, none but God can see. We must not comply with the wishes or solicitations of men, merely to please them, or to avoid exciting their dipleasure: we must do it simply “for their good to edification.” This was the Apostle’s motive, in all his compliances: “Though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more: unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law: to the weak, became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do (not for my own sake, but) for the Gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you [Note: 1 Coríntios 9:19.].” Let this distinction be kept in view, and this principle be in operation, and we shall not materially err, either by pertinacity on the one hand, or by compliance on the other.

It may be said, that this mode of proceeding will make a Christian’s conduct extremely difficult and unnecessarily dangerous; and that it will be better to adhere to the broad line altogether, and to wave all consideration except for the good of our own souls. But to this I can by no means accede. I agree that this would be far easier, and in some respects safer: but I cannot therefore say that it is better. It may be right to incur both difficulty and danger for the good of others; though it would not be right to incur them merely for their gratification. It would be right to expose our own lives to a tempest in a small boat for the sake of saving a shipwrecked crew, when it would be highly criminal to do so for the amusement of those on shore: and, if we do subject ourselves both to difficulty and a measure of danger for the everlasting salvation of others, we may expect the Divine protection and blessing in our endeavours. Let us but serve our God according to his directions, and we need not fear but that “he will give his angels charge over us, to keep us in all our ways.”]

2. Positively, what effect this assertion should produce—

[It must lead us to adopt a decided part, and never to swerve from the path of duty, even if the whole world should be against us. The conduct of the Apostles should be ours, whenever such an alternative is presented to us: “Whether it be right to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye;” for we cannot but do the things which our God requires [Note: Atos 4:19.]. We must be very careful to examine what the path of duty is; but, having ascertained it, we must not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, on any account whatever. We must not deviate from the path of duty, in a way either of commission or of omission. Suppose it said to us, as to the Hebrew Youths, ‘Bow down to this idol, or thou shalt go into the fiery furnace;’ we should not hesitate to choose the fire in preference to the sin. Or if it were said, as to Daniel, ‘Forbear to pray to thy God, or thou shalt be cast into the den of lions [Note: Daniel 3.];’ we should not hesitate to prefer the den of lions, to an abandonment of an acknowledged duty: nay, we should not even appear to concede the point; but should serve God openly, and at all events [Note: Daniel 6.]. As far as our Lord and the world go together, we should follow the world: but where they separate, we should let all men see “whose we are, and whom we serve.”]

Now, in this subject we may see,
1.

Matter for serious inquiry—

[“Do I yet please men?” This has been the habit of us all in former times: for the unconverted man has no higher principle of action than this. But, if we have been truly converted unto God, we have given ourselves up to another Master, even Christ; and to serve and please him is our chief, our only, aim. We must have no will, no way, but his. For him must we both live and die.

Well do I know, that our change, in this respect, is often imputed to us for evil; and that we are deemed weak, conceited, and fanatical, because we presume to judge for ourselves in this particular. But where eternity is at stake, how can we do otherwise? We must approve ourselves to God, and to our own conscience. In no other way can we have peace: in no other way can we ever attain to glory.
And I cannot but say, that in what the world demand at our hands, they are very unreasonable. For they will not mete to us what they expect us to measure to them. They will not be persuaded by us to do the smallest thing for God, and for their own souls. If, to please us, they read a book which we put into their hands, or attend upon a ministry which we have recommended, they think they make mighty concessions; though, in the daily habit of their minds, they are as much addicted to the world as others: but there are no bounds to the concessions which they require of us: nor are they ever satisfied, till they have drawn us into the same vortex with themselves. I must therefore recommend extreme caution in carrying into effect the very advice which I myself have given. For though to please all men is a legitimate and becoming object of pursuit, if you have attained it you will have great reason to suspect yourselves: for you will have attained what neither our Lord nor his Apostles ever did, or ever could. If “all men speak well of you,” you may be perfectly assured that you have been unfaithful to your God, and that nothing but a woe attends you [Note: Lucas 6:26.]

2. Matter for unceasing consolation—

[It is extremely painful to have our friends and relations displeased with us, as they assuredly will be, if we give up ourselves unreservedly to the Lord. Our blessed Lord has told us, that, though this was not the end of his coming, it is, and will be, the effect: “I am come,” says he, “to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against the mother, and the daughter-in-law against the mother-in-law: and a man’s foes shall be those of his own household [Note: Mateus 10:35.].” But then we should ask ourselves, “Have I, like Enoch, this testimony, that I have pleased God [Note: Hebreus 11:5.]?” If I have, I am satisfied. I would most gladly, if it were in my power, please all who are connected with me: but if they reduce me to the dilemma of either displeasing them or God, they must excuse me: for “I must obey God rather than man [Note: Atos 5:29.].” The persons who are offended with me, would expect their servant to obey them rather than a stranger: and is not God entitled to that deference from me? I am “a servant of Jesus Christ;” and I must, at the peril of my soul, obey him. And as our blessed Lord said respecting his own conduct to his heavenly Father, “I do always those things which please him [Note: João 8:29.];” so, God helping me, will I say: and if I stand condemned for it at man’s tribunal, I have this comfort, that, when standing at the tribunal of my God, he will say, “Well done, good and faithful servant; enter thou into the joy of thy Lord [Note: Mateus 25:21.].”]