Preliminary Thoughts on Galatians 2006 October 18^th for November 15^th

Galatians is the first of four short letters from Paul to new churches other than the ones weÕve already seen, Rome and Corinth. The others are Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians. The way we have divided our progress between New and Old Testaments, we will go through considerable Old Testament while only occasionally taking a week out for one of these letters. Put another way, most of the Bible is the Old Testament and since we are going page by page, that is where most of the time is being spent. Nonetheless, much of Christian theology comes from these letters so we will labor carefully, if briefly, to find out whatÕs going on with them.

In this letter, Paul will talk about how much traditional Jewish religious observance the new non-Jewish Christians are required to make. Apparently, and not surprisingly, there was much confusion on this matter early on. This will be an interesting discussion in that we have just finished II Kings and seen how much evolution there had been in Jewish religious observance between the giving of the Law by Moses and the exile to Babylon. Even within the same religion, observance and ordinance changes considerably from age to age as we see in our studies and as we experience firsthand. It is a surprise, then, how seriously people take their own observance habits and traditions and how many fights occur over such matters.

IÕve been in formal Bible studies that covered Ephesians and Philippians (over twenty years ago) but not Galatians or Colossians.

Galatians 1-2 2006 October 19^th for November 16^th

The salutation is brief, but immediately establishes PaulÕs claim to divine credibility: ÒPaul, an apostle – sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead – and all the brothers with me.Ó

Then, he instantly comes to the point. No wonder this letter is so short: ÒI am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – which is really no gospel at all.Ó

It doesnÕt matter, according to Paul, who preaches it. Anything but what they were originally taught is wrong. Those who preach something different should be Òeternally condemned.Ó

He then goes into his own credentials. By saying these things is he trying to please men or God? God, of course. Those who please men are not servants of Christ. Notice that it is implied that one cannot please both God and men, a well-established tenet of Christianity and one spoken by Jesus though he, himself, Ògrew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men,Ó as a boy. (Luke 2:52)

Also, despite his former zeal against Christ and the church as a leading Jew, Paul did not learn the gospel from anyone in the church or anyone who had followed Christ directly, but learned it directly himself by revelation from God. Even when he learned it, he did not go looking for the other apostles for their instruction or approval, but went immediately into preaching elsewhere, and not in Judea where there was already preaching. Only after three years did he go back and meet any of the others, and then only Peter and James, JesusÕ brother.

Paul was accepted by the apostles, but they agreed that it was reasonable to split the ministry. Paul would go to the Gentiles and Peter and the others would go to the Jews. GodÕs grace was for all, but there were different approaches. By way of conformity, ÒAll they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.Ó This shows GodÕs compassion in both camps.

It is interesting that the Catholic tradition begins with the Apostle Peter, but it appears that we, as Gentiles, should trace our heritage back to Paul on these grounds, and that Jews today who are Messianic should be the ones looking back to Peter.

But then there was the matter of religious observance. Peter had been shown in a vision from God and by other demonstrations that the Gentiles could be acceptable without becoming Jewish to do so. Nonetheless, Peter had backslidden a little in this respect and started hanging out only with Jews and excluding Gentiles again because Òhe was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.Ó Circumcision was a key provision of the law, the Jewish way that would have to be followed by any follower of God, according to this group. But that was just untrue.

ÒWhen I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, ÒYou are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?Ó

Yeah!

Paul then goes on beating this horse, as he always does when making a point. But notice, that part of his credentials is that he wasnÕt afraid to stand up to even Peter when Peter was wrong. (ÒWhen Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was in the wrong.Ó)

É another reason to trace our heritage back to Paul rather than Peter, which the Protestants more or less do, de facto.

The plainest reading of this outcome is that Gentiles need not become observant Jews to follow the God who had been before then thought to be exclusively the God of the Jews, at least the observant ones. Gentiles need not be circumcised or follow the Jewish dietary restrictions, or do Temple observance and sacrifice to come to God. The deal for the Gentiles was different. ÒI do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!Ó

Note, however, that it does not say that Jews are suddenly exempt from these laws. Even though the law is now seen as not being the road to salvation, GodÕs deal with the Jews has not itself changed.

Galatians 3:1 - 25 2006 October 20^th for November 17^th

Now to PaulÕs next point: ÒYou foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?Ó

The elaboration on this is that, because of universal imperfection, the law only brings curses and condemnation, but belief, that is, faith, in what was heard brings freedom and life. By taking curses on himself (among other things being Òhung on a treeÓ) Christ breaks the curse of the law, but he does not break the law or invalidate it, he just breaks its hold on the imperfect creation. No one receives salvation by obeying the law because no one does it perfectly.

As a parallel example, Abraham received the promise of God and believed it and this counted as righteousness, even 430 years before the law was even delivered. Did the delivery of this law at that time invalidate the promise? Did Abraham lose the promise because the law had arrived? No.

This seems to argue against Òdispensationalism,Ó a set of beliefs in which GodÕs evolving revelation impose different rules on peoples of different eras. Different ÒdispensationsÓ would begin, for example, with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Paul says here, however, that the law did not change the promise. By extension, then, did the new faith through belief in preaching about the good news and the resurrection of Christ not invalidate the law?

No, but ÒBefore this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.Ó

What Paul appears to be saying is that the law was necessary in order to instruct us in what Christ was all about, and how to receive him, but in itself was inadequate and even a curse. The law is not gone, only its power over us is removed.

Galatians 3:26 – 5:12 2006 October 23^rd for November 20^th

To be a son of the law is like being a child of a wealthy man. Although the child owns the estate, he is not of age and is therefore on the same status with the slaves until he comes of age. Historically, the Jews passed through this stage of childhood, being under the law, but now GodÕs own son has come to make us all like sons, free partners in the family and not slaves.

Why would the Galatians go back to being slaves then? Who is trying to separate them from the teaching of Paul by making them want to do this? Why, having been free, go back to slavery?

This is symbolized by the two sons of Abraham. One, Ishmael, was born of the slave woman Hagar and represents Sinai and the law. The other, Isaac, was born miraculously to the free woman, Sarah, by the promise of God and represents our freedom in Christ.

By allowing themselves to be circumcised, the new Christians are signing up for keeping the whole law. This ritual puts one under the law. The problem is, as we have seen already, it is impossible to keep the whole law, and we become like slaves trying to do it. By itself, the law leads only to death and demonstrated imperfection. ButÉ

ÒFor in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.Ó

You saw it here first.

Then Paul ends with this colorful metaphor into which we read some frustration: ÒBrothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!Ó

It is impossible that some of this would not have slipped through into our Victorian Bible translations. It is there, after all.

Galatians 5:13 – 6:18 2006 October 24^th for November 21^st

Paul finishes this letter to the Galatians by charging them not to fight and Òdevour each other,Ó behavior that can only lead to destruction. ÒThe entire law is summed up in a single command: ÒLove your neighbor as yourself.Ó

He reiterates something we have seen before, to live by the Spirit and not gratify the sinful nature of the flesh. These two are opposed to each other. ÒThe acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.Ó People who live like that are warned that they will not inherit the kingdom of God.

ÒBut the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.Ó

When people sin, restore them gently and carefully. You could be tempted yourself. DonÕt compare yourselves to each other but carry your own load and be proud just of that.

You reap what you sow, pleasures of the sinful nature or the pleasure of the Spirit. The difference is death and life.

Paul then takes the writing tablet himself and writes a conclusion in his own hand. He repeats that circumcision doesnÕt mean anything anymore with respect to salvation. The circumcised must still follow the law but all can be saved, made into Òa new creationÓ, circumcised or not.

ÒFinally, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.

ÒThe grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit brothers. Amen.Ó

He doesnÕt say what these Òmarks of JesusÓ are.

It is on passages such as these that much Protestant theology of self-denial and even aescetism are based. It is from these that the idea comes that you have to finish having all your fun before becoming spiritual in any way. But, reading over the list of the sinful nature again, I donÕt see much that looks ÒfunÓ. What I see are things that show lack of control of discipline over the visceral physical nature. I suffer from some of these to various degrees, but donÕt wish that I wasnÕt Christian so I could experience more of them more intensely. Perhaps, then, the teaching we have received has extended PaulÕs list beyond its intent.

Concluding Thoughts on Galatians 2006 October 25^th for November 22^nd

In writing to the Galatians, Paul has basically done two things: re-established his credentials and treated the matter of whether new Gentiles needed to become Jews to become acceptable to God. The answer, due to ChristÕs work, is that no, they do not.

As mentioned at the outset, we have breezed through Galatians rather quickly. There are courses of study at various degrees of formality that would unpack this material further, considerably further. These are based on the belief that the inspired Word of God is deeper than any mortal can possibly fathom, so no amount of detailed study is inappropriate. Indeed, much has been made of these and the other works of Paul on that very basis.

Perhaps it is a heresy, but I wonder sometimes if all of this digging deep into an epistle that a leading apostle dashed off while on the way to the boat in response to some urgent crises isnÕt a little misplaced. Certainly, without the guidance of God, that is, the Holy Spirit, any type or depth of study can go wrong. In science we use model-based understandability and reproducibility as the guidance through which beliefs are verified. Given the amount of diversity of belief in both science and religion, one might conclude that there was a lot of human filtering going on in each. My perception is that, in both, there is much agreement at the core while much of the dissension and heat is around the less well-explored edges. Of course, my perception is itself very parochial.

I say this to build on something that came up yesterday, that modern religious teaching has expanded much on the lists of vices and virtues given directly by Paul. Is this OK? After all, the book is just an apostolic directive and makes no claim to be exhaustive. On the other hand, maybe much modern religious teaching is the result of too much misplaced zeal. Jesus spent a lot of energy dealing with misplaced zeal.

There are doctrinal matters and behavioral matters. In establishing the new faith, Christianity, Paul addresses both in a reactionary way. When things go wrong in one of the new churches, he deals with it head on, sometimes direct to the point of irritability. Clearly, as detailed to some extent in the book of Acts, Paul also did this sort of thing in person. Much of that action has been lost to history.

One other thing that IÕve picked up recently in outside reading is the notion that Paul, like many of us today and Christians throughout the intervening centuries, felt that the end of history, that is, the return of Christ, was imminent. He may not have had any concept that he was establishing firm doctrine for literally hundreds of generations of believers to follow. Maybe this generation and part of one more, he may have thought. Reading these instructions with that in mind, that is, that they were intended to last for a few years and were directed at a specific problem of a specific audience makes them seem a whole lot less strident as absolute regulations for us two thousand years later. More zealÉ.

I think we can agree at this point on the two basics of Galatians, however. First, one does not have to become a Jew and follow the law to be a Christian. If this is wrong, developments of the last two thousand years have been seriously erroneous. Second, Paul is a valid Apostle. We know the story. Ultimately this, like everything else, must be taken on faith.

© Courtney B. Duncan, 2006