BIBLE DISCUSSION: Galatians Chap. 1 - Oct 14-21 [Archive]

BenL

10-13-2007, 02:38 PM

As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!

I think it would be a great temptation for me to decide that my personal understanding of the Gospel is the correct one. That certainly is what many fundamentalists do. And it is so tempting to comdemn them for it and then turn around and say that I understand the Gospel and here's what it means ... I think that Paul earned his right to claim the Gospel revelation through much prayer and suffering, but I have a need for great humility before I pretend to understand it in its fullness.

Am I now seeking human approval, or God’s approval? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Oh, my, but Paul is a fierce one, isn't he? How I want to please everyone. And how impossible that is. Servanthood is not a comfortable condition. Putting others first, putting Christ before self. Paul packs an awful lot into a couple of sentences. Of course, you could say he is just fulminating against the Galatians, who had abandoned him. But the words go beyond the temporal situation for me.

Steven E. Webster

10-13-2007, 08:04 PM

Oh, my, but Paul is a fierce one, isn't he? How I want to please everyone. And how impossible that is. Servanthood is not a comfortable condition. Putting others first, putting Christ before self. Paul packs an awful lot into a couple of sentences. Of course, you could say he is just fulminating against the Galatians, who had abandoned him. But the words go beyond the temporal situation for me.

Paul, of course, was writing a letter. He had no idea that he was writing what we would regard as sacred scripture. One would hope he wouldn't have been so "fierce" if he knew who would eventually be reading this stuff.

I don't know how much of his anger is really directed at the Galatians here, though. He's really expressing his disagreement with the "human authorities" at "Church Headquarters" in Jerusalem. In particular, he's expressing serious disagreement with James and Peter. Paul is angrily dissenting from those who are "pillars of the church." James, "the brother of the Lord," was head of the Jerusalem church, and Peter, of course, would later be regarded by some as the first Pope--but Paul says "to heck with them!"

Steven Webster

sailaway58

10-14-2007, 08:45 AM

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age
This is the first thing that hits me. It reminds me that our faith is deeply rooted and has not changed in its very basic and valued truth. Evil has been around a long time and we are set free from the chains that bind us.

BenL

10-14-2007, 08:51 AM

Paul, of course, was writing a letter. He had no idea that he was writing what we would regard as sacred scripture. One would hope he wouldn't have been so "fierce" if he knew who would eventually be reading this stuff.

I don't know how much of his anger is really directed at the Galatians here, though. He's really expressing his disagreement with the "human authorities" at "Church Headquarters" in Jerusalem. In particular, he's expressing serious disagreement with James and Peter. Paul is angrily dissenting from those who are "pillars of the church." James, "the brother of the Lord," was head of the Jerusalem church, and Peter, of course, would later be regarded by some as the first Pope--but Paul says "to heck with them!"

Steven Webster

Paul and Scripture have layers of meaning, don't they? There was the presenting issue of the time, as Steven so aptly pointed out. (Thanks for reminding us about the context.) But, as he says, we continue to see new and personal significance in the words Paul wrote sometime mid-first-centure C.E. I find Paul can be quite irascible, expecially when he hits an issue that is a sore spot for me. But, oh, how his poetry soars and lifts us into the mind of Christ. Maybe I'm nuts, but I argue with Paul all the time. For a while years ago, I could hardly read his letters.

antonyh

10-14-2007, 08:58 AM

Paul, of course, was writing a letter. He had no idea that he was writing what we would regard as sacred scripture. One would hope he wouldn't have been so "fierce" if he knew who would eventually be reading this stuff.

I see your point, however, in Galatians 1 Paul goes to endless length to say that his gospel was from Christ himself. So in some sense he connected his words to God's words. The idea of the letter being viewed as sacred scripture is only one step away.

For I want you to know, brothers and sisters,* that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

antonyh

10-14-2007, 09:08 AM

It is important to Read Acts 9 as background to Galatians 1. Acts 9 describes Paul's conversion experience.

http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=59370796

Pablo Rafael

10-14-2007, 01:25 PM

I 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. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. v. 6-7 NIV

This is the verse that stood out to me. I see in "Christian" churches that the gospel, the good news that God loves each one of us despite our faults, gets cast aside and a legalism takes its place. That legalism really is "no gospel at all". In fact most people see Christianity not as a message of grace but as a list of arbitrary rules that must be followed.

My Bible commenmtary says that the word the NIV translates "to pervert" means to change into something of the opposite character. Sadly I see so often Christianity turning the message of God's love into legalism, generally a legalism of each person or each group's own making.

I think LGBT individuals really get hit hard with this legalism when people try to condemn us. The message of love has gotten "perverted" into something of opposite character. It was several months ago I heard a comment from a Lutheran minister about people trying to twist the meaning of the Bible to suit their own purposes. I thought immediately of how people try to say that the Bible condems homosexuality when it in no way does; how the Bible is used as a hammer to pound down a group whose only fault is being different from the majority. Just as that thought was in my mind, the minister proceeded to go forward with an anti-gay message.

Pablo

sailaway58

10-14-2007, 02:15 PM

This is the verse that stood out to me. I see in "Christian" churches that the gospel, the good news that God loves each one of us despite our faults, gets cast aside and a legalism takes its place. That legalism really is "no gospel at all". In fact most people see Christianity not as a message of grace but as a list of arbitrary rules that must be followed.

My Bible commenmtary says that the word the NIV translates "to pervert" means to change into something of the opposite character. Sadly I see so often Christianity turning the message of God's love into legalism, generally a legalism of each person or each group's own making.

I think LGBT individuals really get hit hard with this legalism when people try to condemn us. The message of love has gotten "perverted" into something of opposite character. It was several months ago I heard a comment from a Lutheran minister about people trying to twist the meaning of the Bible to suit their own purposes. I thought immediately of how people try to say that the Bible condems homosexuality when it in no way does; how the Bible is used as a hammer to pound down a group whose only fault is being different from the majority. Just as that thought was in my mind, the minister proceeded to go forward with an anti-gay message.

PabloThere would be those that accuse us of twisting the scripture to suit our agenda as well. Of course I agree with you Pablo but our views are hated and this passage is one used against us as well.
One of our daughters best friend is Pentecostal and we (with her mothers permission) got her hair trimmed. Just the broken split ends mind you. Her grandmother had her in tears as if she had sinned. That's what this passage makes me think of. These kind of things are abuse if you ask me, emotional abuse. There is only so much I can say without overstepping but I hate what perverted religion can do to others. I think Paul hated it for the same reason.

sailaway58

10-14-2007, 02:31 PM

it is JESUS WHO IS THE WORD OF GOD and not scripture. Scripture bears unique and authoritative witness (as we Presbyterians say) to Jesus Christ but it is HE who is the Word of God

I've never heard it said that way, interesting.

Steven E. Webster

10-14-2007, 02:46 PM

I've never heard it said that way, interesting.

The phrase "Word of God" is not used in scripture to refer to a text or canon or scripture--am I correct? It always refers to something more spiritual and immaterial. Of course, it refers to Christ in the first chapter of John. But I think some places it refers to the Holy Spirit, or to God's action in the world.

I didn't mean to get off topic. So back to Galatians--despite the fact that Paul didn't intend to be writing scripture, we believe that God did "speak" though Paul. The Word of God some how finds expression through the words of Paul.

Paul tells us in Chapter One that he had a "revelation of Jesus Christ." Ben refers us to Acts for one account of Paul's conversion/revelation. But remember, Acts was written many years later than Galatians by Luke. Luke's account of this event is late and second hand. In Galatians we hear it directly from Paul. (Luke also writes partly with his own agenda, as did every Biblical author. Luke likes to smooth over controversy in favor of unity. Paul isn't smoothing anything over!)

Steven Webster

sailaway58

10-14-2007, 03:31 PM

Paul tells us in Chapter One that he had a "revelation of Jesus Christ." Ben refers us to Acts for one account of Paul's conversion/revelation. But remember, Acts was written many years later than Galatians by Luke. Luke's account of this event is late and second hand. In Galatians we hear it directly from Paul. (Luke also writes partly with his own agenda, as did every Biblical author. Luke likes to smooth over controversy in favor of unity. Paul isn't smoothing anything over!)

Steven Webster
For I want you to know, brothers and sisters,* that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
Why do we believe Paul and not others that have come since then that proclaim similar experiences? Mormons, Jehovah Witness, Seventh Day Advents and others that come from our Christian tradition but have claimed Vision from God to Clear up mistakes made as Christianity was passed down?
We trust Paul's vision, why?

Steven E. Webster

10-14-2007, 03:51 PM

.
Why do we believe Paul and not others that have come since then that proclaim similar experiences? Mormons, Jehovah Witness, Seventh Day Advents and others that come from our Christian tradition but have claimed Vision from God to Clear up mistakes made as Christianity was passed down?
We trust Paul's vision, why?

I would attempt an answer by giving a little more context for Paul's claim:

You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.

What exactly was it that was revealed to Paul? Whatever it was, it really shook Paul up. (The story Ben referred to in Acts gives us an idea.) Paul was a devout Jew, learned in the Law who, for some reason, felt that it was a good and holy thing to do to persecute the Church. Then came the sudden revelation "of Jesus Christ" and Paul was changed. Now instead of persecuting the Church, he begins "to proclaim him [Christ] among the Gentiles."

So what is it that has Paul so angry at the "pillars of the church" at the "headquarters" in Jerusalem? Is it that they are being intolerant of the Gentiles much as Paul had been intolerant of the Church before his revelation? Is it that they are "zealous" for the Law like Paul had been before his revelation? According to Acts Paul's revelation was that his persecution of the church was actually a persecution of Jesus himself. Suddenly, he saw things differently.

So, again I ask (not knowing the answer entirely), exactly what is the Gospel ("good news") that Paul is preaching, and how does it differ from the gospel of James and Peter and the church in Jerusalem?

Steven Webster

antonyh

10-14-2007, 04:03 PM

antonyh

10-14-2007, 04:21 PM

I agree with you Tim. This is why I think it is important to be clear that it is JESUS WHO IS THE WORD OF GOD and not scripture. Scripture bears unique and authoritative witness (as we Presbyterians say) to Jesus Christ but it is HE who is the Word of God. Whenever we lose sight of this fact and start to say that the "BABLE IS THE WORD OF GAWWWD" we fall into the Pharisee's trap and begin to pervert scripture and use it to beat up little girls and gay teenagers.

I'm done being nice to these people. I'm ready to go to (non-violent) war!

Paul would refute this. He is saying that there is a particular gospel, a particular teaching that is authoritative. Paul is saying that there is a particular scripture that says it right about Jesus. There were different gospels and Paul is rejecting those different gospels.

My point is that Paul placed the authority not on Jesus as the Word of God but in the correct expression of this notion.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel* from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!

Steven E. Webster

10-14-2007, 04:22 PM

This is the question of the day. This really troubles me and has for a long time. Galatians is one of the earliest books in the NT. Go back in a time machine to early 50 AD when Paul penned the letter. Allegedly, Jesus had died on the cross a full 20 years earlier. None of the gospels or the book of Acts had been written yet. Paul shows up and claims to have had this mystical experience on the Road to Damascus with the risen Christ (we have no evidence they met in person) who has revealed the entire gospel to him. This mystical experience with the risen Christ becomes the authority to say what he does about the gospel.

Recently a fundamentalist Christian turned Atheist produced a film that addresses this very conundrum. http://www.thegodmovie.com/. The movie timelines the New Testament and shows that the entire Christian faith boils down to the very questions you posed: Do we trust Paul's vision, why?

One of the claims of the movie is this:
The early founders of Christianity seem wholly unaware of the idea of a human Jesus. Did Jesus ever really exist?

I'm not saying that I agree, but if you're a critical thinker...it does pose an interesting dilemma.

Friends,
Do bear in mind that Paul was not the only one having revelations in the early church. Paul writes about everyone having revelations in the church:

What should be done then, my friends? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. . . . Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to someone else sitting nearby, let the first person be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged. And the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets, for God is a God not of disorder but of peace.

So Paul says that all revelations must be "weighed." That would include Paul's revelation also. It appears that Paul's revelation was weighed by the Church and was found worthy of the gospel (but not without controversy).

Anthony, you are right---we always need to be critical thinkers. I believe that's what Paul expected of his listeners. As a matter of fact, some commentators describe Paul as somewhat defensive in Galatians. He knew what he was saying was running counter to what "the pillars of the church" were teaching.

Paul says to us in I Corinthians "You can all prophesy one by one." I think the word "can" is not well translated. A better translation is "You each have the power to prophesy one by one." Each of us can speak a revelation from Jesus or God--but then again, what we are saying might be B.S. too. It was the same in the early church.

Steven Webster

Steven E. Webster

10-14-2007, 04:28 PM

Paul would refute this. He is saying that there is a particular gospel, a particular teaching that is authoritative. Paul is saying that there is a particular scripture that says it right about Jesus. There were different gospels and Paul is rejecting those different gospels.

My point is that Paul placed the authority not on Jesus as the Word of God but in the correct expression of this notion.

Nope, I don't see this in the text at all. Where exactly do you see this in the text? Paul is not refering to any particular scripture--he's refering to his own revelation of Jesus. He doesn't say in chapter one exactly what is this "gospel" and he doesn't say exactly what "gospel" he is rejecting. I think we have to read on the rest of the the letter to Galatians. When we get to the end of it we'll understand better what Paul means by "the gospel," but we still won't have a particular authoritative text--we just have the revelation of Jesus Christ (whatever that is).

Steven Webster

Steven E. Webster

10-14-2007, 04:43 PM

Paul would refute this. He is saying that there is a particular gospel, a particular teaching that is authoritative. Paul is saying that there is a particular scripture that says it right about Jesus. There were different gospels and Paul is rejecting those different gospels.

My point is that Paul placed the authority not on Jesus as the Word of God but in the correct expression of this notion.

Anthony,
Let me try again

Paul says:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

Isn't Paul saying that the "gospel" that Paul accuses the Galatians of deserting is "the grace of Christ"? The "different gospel" we find out later in Paul's letter to the Galatians is the teaching that obedience to the law of circumcision is necessary for salvation. This so-called "gospel" of law negates or "perverts" the "real" gospel of grace according to Paul.

Part of our problem is that when we hear the word "gospel" we think of a particular gospel like Matthew, Mark, Luke or John (or Thomas)---none of which existed when Paul was writing. In Paul's day the "gospel"--which simply means "good news" was the proclamation of the church--not a text or a system of doctrines.

Steven Webster

antonyh

10-14-2007, 05:48 PM

Anthony,
Let me try again

Paul says:

Isn't Paul saying that the "gospel" that Paul accuses the Galatians of deserting is "the grace of Christ"? The "different gospel" we find out later in Paul's letter to the Galatians is the teaching that obedience to the law of circumcision is necessary for salvation. This so-called "gospel" of law negates or "perverts" the "real" gospel of grace according to Paul.

Part of our problem is that when we hear the word "gospel" we think of a particular gospel like Matthew, Mark, Luke or John (or Thomas)---none of which existed when Paul was writing. In Paul's day the "gospel"--which simply means "good news" was the proclamation of the church--not a text or a system of doctrines.

Steven Webster

I'm not thinking of "gospel" in terms of Matthew, Mark, etc., but teaching with particular content where one gospel is correct and the other is incorrect.

Steven E. Webster

10-14-2007, 06:07 PM

I'm not thinking of "gospel" in terms of Matthew, Mark, etc., but teaching with particular content where one gospel is correct and the other is incorrect.

Anthony,

O.K. I wasn't sure. So this brings me back to Galatians. Just what was Paul's "gospel" and what was the "other gospel" that Paul rejected.

Further, we must ask why Paul is right and his adversaries were wrong.

I think we are probably going to agree that we'll want better reasons than "because Paul says so." I agree with you that critical thinking is essential and that all "revelations" must be subjected to some form of critical reasoning so we can decide why one is worthy of being called "gospel" or "good news" and another "gospel" misses the mark. We could decide that Paul is wrong and his adversaries were right after all. Or we could decide they both were wrong. Or we could decide they both were right.

Does that cover all the possibilities?

Steven Webster

BenL

10-14-2007, 06:53 PM

Here's what John Dominic Crossan, in his book In Search of Paul, says about the tone of Galatians:

Paul's letter to the Galatians is at once apologetic and polemical with a tone both bitterly reproaching and emotionally pleading, a text as cold as the Taurus heights in winter and as warm as the Anatolian plateau in summer. As far as we can understand the situation from Paul's response to it, opponents had told his Galatian converts that his gospel was all wrong, that their males must still be circumcised, that Paul was nothing but a subordinate missionary (not even an apostle), and that, moreover, he was living and teaching in disagreement with his superiors at Jerusalem and Antioch. That attack explains Paul's opening sentence, which is less a statement of identity than a manifesto. The counterattack begins, as it were, on the outside of the envelope. "Paul an apostle -- sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead" (1:1). This is also why we get Paul's vocation story soon after that opening (1:11-17). He received, says Paul, a divine call at Damascus and not a human job at Jerusalem. (p. 215)

keltic63

10-14-2007, 09:48 PM

it is JESUS WHO IS THE WORD OF GOD and not scripture. Scripture bears unique and authoritative witness (as we Presbyterians say) to Jesus Christ but it is HE who is the Word of God.

I've never heard it said that way, interesting.

which reminds me, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. So John tells in his gospel that it is indeed JESUS who is the Word of God. The scriptures are not the WORD.

I know, you've all left that conversation long ago, but I had to respond to that before I could move on to the rest of the thread.

antonyh

10-14-2007, 10:18 PM

which reminds me, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. So John tells in his gospel that it is indeed JESUS who is the Word of God. The scriptures are not the WORD.

I know, you've all left that conversation long ago, but I had to respond to that before I could move on to the rest of the thread.

I personally don't disagree with you or with u-dog. I'm all about the experience of God and the belief that the Bible is a human attempt to understand this experience.

But when I read Galatians 1, I see a man who is going to great lengths to show that his version of the gospel is the right gospel.

"For I want you to know, brothers and sisters,* that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."

"But even if we or an angel* from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!"

There were obviously many different versions of the Christ story floating around at the time. Some more pagan, some more Jewish. Paul is making the claim that his version and only his version is the right version and if you don't like it you're accursed!

If I approach Galatians from the standpoint that this is a human response to God, it helps me spiritually in the following way:

1) Experience with God is possible. Paul clearly had a powerful experience with God as did Mohammed, Rumi, etc.
2) When the experience of God is mediated through the egoic mind and the writer's culture, it can be transformed into something dangerous. In this case, Paul is demanding conformity to an exclusive vision of God and curses anyone that does not comply.

I think we can learn so much about spirituality by understanding the flaws of the Biblical authors and by looking at the repercussions of these flaws throughout church and human history.

Steven E. Webster

10-14-2007, 10:56 PM

I personally don't disagree with you or with u-dog. I'm all about the experience of God and the belief that the Bible is a human attempt to understand this experience.

But when I read Galatians 1, I see a man who is going to great lengths to show that his version of the gospel is the right gospel.

[snip]

There were obviously many different versions of the Christ story floating around at the time. Some more pagan, some more Jewish. Paul is making the claim that his version and only his version is the right version and if you don't like it you're accursed!

I appreciate what you are saying, but, Anthony, Paul isn't saying that "his" gospel is better than any other--he's objecting to ONE SPECIFIC "gospel" that he says isn't any gospel at all. He's objecting to preaching which is coming from the leaders of the Jerusalem Church (presumably Peter and James) that is excluding Gentiles from salvation unless they become circumcised.

I admire Paul for standing up against these so-called authorities. Paul is making a stand for the equality of the Gentiles and against the authoritarian teaching coming from Jerusalem.

Paul is writing defensively, because he is only one guy. He is not a Bishop. He doesn't have any particular power. Nobody elected or ordained him to any position of authority. All he has is this revelation from Jesus that convinced him that he was on the wrong track when he was "zealous for the law" and persecuting Christians.

When the experience of God is mediated through the egoic mind and the writer's culture, it can be transformed into something dangerous. In this case, Paul is demanding conformity to an exclusive vision of God and curses anyone that does not comply.

If Paul really was doing this, than I agree with you 100 percent. But as I see it, Paul is taking a courageous stand for freedom against those who were trying to impose legalistic directives on the Gentiles he had brought to faith in Christ.

I think we can learn so much about spirituality by understanding the flaws of the Biblical authors and by looking at the repercussions of these flaws throughout church and human history.

I do agree with you 100 percent here. Paul had flaws. He expresses himself with too much anger. Later in the Letter to the Galatians Paul says of those who want to perform circumcisions that he wishes the knife would slip and they'd castrate themselves! Not a very Christ-like sentiment. But then, this underscores that Paul is human.

The Bible is definitely a human product.

I want us to look very carefully at Galatians and see it in its actual context and not read into it all of the abuses that have been justified by the church in the centuries since.

Galatians was a very important text to me as a young gay man. Paul's proclamation of freedom from the Law and inclusion of the gentiles in my view applied not just to circumcision, but also applied to the compulsory heterosexuality that church authorities have tried to impose on us. Paul's gospel says we are free from all that! I believe somewhere in this letter Paul says, "There is no law against love."

Please forgive me for being "defensive" about this letter of Paul's--as I said, it was very important to me many years ago when I was coming to terms with my gay identity and my spirituality.

Steven Webster

rainbow7

10-15-2007, 09:12 AM

[QUOTE=antonyh;43843]

2) When the experience of God is mediated through the egoic mind and the writer's culture, it can be transformed into something dangerous. In this case, Paul is demanding conformity to an exclusive vision of God and curses anyone that does not comply.

QUOTE]

Tell me more about your use of the word "mediated." I think we can never escape ego or our subjective cultural context.....so the "danger" always exists, and studying scripture in a diverse community of faith is one of the important ways to be intentional about inviting the Holy Spirit into the process, thereby reducing the danger of just such a thing happening. I think inviting others to listen to one's own experience of revelation is equally critical.

Polly

antonyh

10-15-2007, 01:27 PM

Someone has come along later arguing that Paul is full of shit, doesn't know what he's talking about and that his followers should REALLY be listening to Peter and James and he people "who really knew" Jesus. He is writing back to these old friends and saying (in a really angry tone) Listen! I shared with you the Gospel as I recieved it from the Risen Christ on the road to Damascus. Peter and James can teach whatever they want but their authority does not supercede mine.

This is what I am saying. Paul is asserting that his version of the gospel is the correct and only version that should be followed. Let's look more carefully at Paul's logic:

The risen Christ appeared to me
The risen Christ revealed the gospel to me
The proof about this experience with the risen Christ is that I went from persecuting the church to advancing the gospel

THEREFORE (warning ... logical leap)

My gospel is authoritative! My authority superceds Peter and James. If you don't follow my version of the gospel you are accursed.

Here are my issues:
1. Can Paul every really prove that he had a mystical experience with the risen Christ?
2. Is his conversion proof enough of this experience? It is an impressive change of heart, but does it prove that he experienced the risen Christ?
3. What does it mean that the risen Christ revealed the gospel to Paul?
4. Why does an experience with the risen Christ automatically confer apostolic authority to Paul?

The logic of Paul's argument does not entirely cohere for me.

Which leads me back to the danger of mystical experience mediated through the egoic mind. The most important thing I have learned from Buddhism is that our minds don't tell us the truth. All experience is interpreted. The minds interpretations (often autonomous) are often wrong and destructive.

Paul had an experience with the risen Christ but Galatians 1 is his interpretation of the content and the implications of that experience mediated through is egoic mind. He imagines that what he says is authoritative and that anyone else with a different gospel is accursed.

Fundamentalism embraces the same rhetoric in opposing civil rights for LGBT people. Just listen to the fundies in the Episcopal church as they seek to stamp dogmatic and authoritarian interpretations of their experience of God and the scripture on the whole Episcopal church. They are very much acting in the spirit of Paul in Galatians 1.

Isn't Sunday School at Soulforce fun :lol:

antonyh

10-15-2007, 01:36 PM

Tell me more about your use of the word "mediated." I think we can never escape ego or our subjective cultural context.....so the "danger" always exists, and studying scripture in a diverse community of faith is one of the important ways to be intentional about inviting the Holy Spirit into the process, thereby reducing the danger of just such a thing happening. I think inviting others to listen to one's own experience of revelation is equally critical.

You can reflect critically on how your mind and ego operates in interpreting your experience of God. I agree with you that by studying scripture in diverse communities of people you can minimize the risks. Unfortunately, most liberals don't read evangelical interpretation and most evangelicals don't read liberal interpretation. We tend to think we are right and that our liberal or conservative brother is accursed!

BrentRichards

10-15-2007, 03:44 PM

It also seems to me that Paul's statement that those who reject the genuine gospel (and, putting myself out there, I believe there IS a right and wrong version and interpretation of the gospel message ... if I didn't, I wouldn't bother to stick it out in the church) are anathema (accursed) is less a threat and more a statement of fact. If you choose to live by a "gospel" message that relies on works, on being right, on doing what other believers say, and so on ... then you are truly going to find yourself living an accursed life, outside of the experience of God's magnificent free grace. I must side with U-Dog, in affirming that Jesus Himself is the Word, in the most correct sense, and that, as a correlate, He is Himself the Gospel. This seems to be implicit in what Paul has in mind here ... note that he makes a point to say that he did not get his message by conferring with the powers that be in the church ... he understood the gospel as a personal confrontation with the living Christ. To live in that Gospel is to live in peace and freedom. To live with any other gospel is to live under the Law, which is surely an accursed existence (I know of what I speak), eternal destiny entirely aside.

I will throw out a trite observation here, too ... trite for being such a common observation (in circles I've run in) but profound nonetheless. Paul begins this letter, as almost all of his letters (the formula in the Timothy letters is slightly different), with a blessing of "grace and peace to you..." It is always in that order (Timothy is "grace, mercy and peace"), never reversed. Whether he intended any theological significance to that is anyone's guess. Probably not. But it is an apt observation nonetheless: Grace always comes before peace. There is no way to peace except the full understanding of grace, wonderful and free. As Luther observed to his guilt-ridden friend Melancthon, "You must understand that the whole of the gospel is OUTSIDE OF YOU." That is the gospel message ... with regard to meriting God's favor, it is about Jesus, never about us.

Yes, in case you haven't been keeping score, I'm an evangelical! And a Calvinist. I've tried the therapy, but I couldn't change. :rolleyes:

BrentRichards

10-15-2007, 03:54 PM

Oh brother! ME TOO! perhaps we could form an online 12 step program! "Hi! My name is U-dog... and I'm a Calvinist";)

Hmmm... We admitted we were powerless over salvation—that our lives had become unmanageable.

Actually, a real Calvinist could stop there: Step one: There's nothing you can do. End of story.

(P.S. - Good news, God already did it.)

sailaway58

10-15-2007, 04:31 PM

In verse 4 Paul says it is the will of God that Jesus died to save you.
How do we reflect our gratitude to him in our daily lives? Or do we?

BrentRichards

10-15-2007, 04:41 PM

In verse 4 Paul says it is the will of God that Jesus died to save you.
How do we reflect our gratitude to him in our daily lives? Or do we?

And this is why we keep you Arminians around! Always challenging us Reformed folk: "Yes, but what do we DO about it?" It's a good challenge. I have some immediate reactions, but for a real answer, I must mull.

antonyh

10-16-2007, 08:02 AM

BenL

10-16-2007, 08:15 AM

Here is Gal. 1:3-5 from the RSV, which is all I have at hand at the moment:

Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.

This sums up the glorious mystery of salvation for me. Yes, it was according to the will of God the Father, but salvation was still a giving on the part of Jesus, whose will accords with the Father's in all thngs. Now, it seems to me that all we have to do (big understatement here) is bring our wills into accordance with the Father's, and we will be performing the ultimate thanksgiving. But (and there's always a but) we have all sinned except one, so we are not in comformance with God's will, which is the definition of sin for me. Christ's supreme gift on the cross, and in turning our lives around, should generate thanksgiving. For some it comes in an instant, as an experience of salvation. To many others like myself, it is a plodding pilgrimage of realization of just how much this wonderful gift means. It's stewardship time in our parish, as I imagine it is in a lot of churches, and we stress that the giving of stewardship is first and foremost THANKSgiving.

So, to answer Tim's question: what do we do in our daily lives? Give thanks.

BenL

10-16-2007, 08:20 AM

I used to be evangelical myself. I think the legacy of the Christian faith in my own life and in the world around me has made me deeply skeptical. I have a hard time taking Paul's claims by faith or even viewing them as reasonable. If I am being too skeptical, out of respect I should probably bow out and let the more centered people carry the discussion.

We need to be challenged in good faith to use the pedestrian meaning of that phrase, Anthony. It makes us think. You respect everyone's view, which is, I think, the only major requirement for participation.

sailaway58

10-16-2007, 09:26 AM

Here is Gal. 1:3-5 from the RSV, which is all I have at hand at the moment:

This sums up the glorious mystery of salvation for me. Yes, it was according to the will of God the Father, but salvation was still a giving on the part of Jesus, whose will accords with the Father's in all thngs. Now, it seems to me that all we have to do (big understatement here) is bring our wills into accordance with the Father's, and we will be performing the ultimate thanksgiving. But (and there's always a but) we have all sinned except one, so we are not in comformance with God's will, which is the definition of sin for me. Christ's supreme gift on the cross, and in turning our lives around, should generate thanksgiving. For some it comes in an instant, as an experience of salvation. To many others like myself, it is a plodding pilgrimage of realization of just how much this wonderful gift means. It's stewardship time in our parish, as I imagine it is in a lot of churches, and we stress that the giving of stewardship is first and foremost THANKSgiving.

So, to answer Tim's question: what do we do in our daily lives? Give, thanks.
Interesting, you took me a different direction. I gotta think about this a little

antonyh

10-16-2007, 12:37 PM

Antony, I would personally not like to see you withdraw from the conversation though I appreciate the respect from which the offer comes. I think there is room here for your experience and your skepticism. The danger is that your skepticism and our response to it will BECOME the issue and at that point the study of galatians will be hijacked (by all of us, not just you) So... is there a way to have your skepticism be IN the conversation without it BECOMING the conversation?:love:

I will certainly try to be IN the conversation vs. BECOMING the conversation. The fact that I am curious about Galatians is telling in it's own way.

BrentRichards

10-16-2007, 03:39 PM

From a current evangelical to a former ... I agree with the others ... don't bow out! As long as we can listen to each other without shouting at each other or devaluing one another's opinions, life is good!

sailaway58

10-16-2007, 04:31 PM

So, to answer Tim's question: what do we do in our daily lives? Give thanks.
Okay here is my take on the question. First I like your logic and your answer is every bit as valid as anything I have to add.
My thoughts have gravitated to what I have been experiencing the last couple months and my thought is, the way I can show my gratitude to God for what he has done for me is to do the same for others. Not tolerate others, not love the sinner but hate the sin, but just love others without expectations. No ulterior motive. Of course my hearts desire is that all would experience Gods love and come to an acceptance of Christs sacrifice for them but my first priority is to unconditionally accept others. What God requires of others is not my responsibility to impose.
So my line of thinking is now, give thanks, AND love others just like Christ loves me.

andrewlittle

10-16-2007, 05:14 PM

Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Using Ben's RSV translation, which is not unlike most others at this point in Galations, I would like to offer a couple of thoughts.

The word dontos, which is translated as "gave" and sounds like it past tense, is an aorist participle. The significance of this is not exactly in meaning, but in timing. Aorist, as a representation of time in Greek, is used for an action that happened in the past and continues beyond the present into the future. If it was meant to reference an event or an occurance that happened at one point in time, an imperfect would have been used.

A translation more in tune with the Greek, although cumbersome, of this aorist participle would be, "the one who has been giving..."

Also the word exeletai, translated as "deliver" or "rescue" or "set free" depending on your version, is a subjective aorist verb. The timing issue is present here also, past and future, as is the distinctive nature of subjective verbs. The subjective is best trabslated with "may" or "might", if it is not the framing of a question (which is the case here). The word opos preceding it has the meaning of "in order that".

A translation more in tune with the Greek would be, "in order that he might deliver us from ..."

Lastly, while "present" is not incorrect, the word enestotus is a perfect participle with a timing sense of present into the future. It is more accurately translated with "imminent" or "impending".

I am curious. Does a reading like ...
Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, the one who has been giving himself for our sins in order that he might deliver us from the impending evil age, according to the will of our God and Father; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.
... create any different interpretations of the passage.

Like I said, just curious.

andrewlittle

10-16-2007, 06:01 PM

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--
7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. NRSV

These two verses, more literally translated from the Greek (not literally or inerringly interpreted, just to be clear of the difference) would read:

I am astonished that you are so quickly turning from the one who called you in grace [of Christ] to another gospel (good news) — although another it is not – since are there not some who are disturbing (frightening, terrifying) you and wishing to alter (distort) the gospel (good news) of Christ?
(I am not posting the details of the Greek grammar to save space, but I will certainly if anyone is interested.)

Couple of notes.

Most extant Greek manuscripts have "... called you in grace ...", without the "of Christ". It is generally assumed that "of Christ" was added later as a clarifying point. If an definite article preceded the "grace", which it does not in any manuscript, reading it as "The Grace" or "the grace of Christ" might be understandable. But it reads "... in grace" (most commonly) or "...in grace of Christ (least commonly), without the "the". So what was this grace in which Paul called the Galations?

Also, rather than the sense of these other people "confusing" the Galatians, as you get in NRSV and NIV, the word used has more of a connotation of other people frightening or scaring the Galations. Are these others being authoritarian or abusive or using fear to control or [insert other interpretation]? The Latin Vulgate kept the original sense of meaning, while the KJV used "troubling". Later translations used a more modern meaning of "troubling" to arrive at "confusing", but this deviates from the meaning in the Greek and changes our perception of the passage somewhat. Is this significant - others preaching another gosple that confuses, as opposed to a gospel that frightens?

Does this prompt any thoughts, or am I just enjoying my own private geekfest?

andrewlittle

10-16-2007, 07:44 PM

I am finding that I'm not following your argument here, Andy, which is unusual in the extreme. Can you step back a few paces and take another run at it? What is the translation that you are arguing against and what are you arguing for and what are the ramifications of each. I'm sorry that I am being dense. :o

Sure! And you just automatically assume it's MY problem. Oh, wait a minute - it was. Never mind.

BrentRichards

10-16-2007, 07:45 PM

I am finding that I'm not following your argument here, Andy, which is unusual in the extreme. Can you step back a few paces and take another run at it? What is the translation that you are arguing against and what are you arguing for and what are the ramifications of each. I'm sorry that I am being dense. :o

I was hoping I wasn't the only one ... feeling rather dense, too, at the moment.

Steven E. Webster

10-16-2007, 10:55 PM

Also, rather than the sense of these other people "confusing" the Galatians, as you get in NRSV and NIV, the word used has more of a connotation of other people frightening or scaring the Galations. Are these others being authoritarian or abusive or using fear to control or [insert other interpretation]? The Latin Vulgate kept the original sense of meaning, while the KJV used "troubling". Later translations used a more modern meaning of "troubling" to arrive at "confusing", but this deviates from the meaning in the Greek and changes our perception of the passage somewhat. Is this significant - others preaching another gosple that confuses, as opposed to a gospel that frightens?

Does this prompt any thoughts, or am I just enjoying my own private geekfest?

My hunch is that those who came from Jerusalem with "another gospel" disturbed, troubled or confused the community of the church in Galatia by introducing dissension and controversy. Some, no doubt, agreed with the line being promulgated by the "pillars" in Jerusalem and others sided with Paul. My sense of Paul is that the peace and unity of the community mattered more to him than anything.

Steven Webster

Pablo Rafael

10-17-2007, 07:15 AM

The clearest and most detailed doctrinal statements in the New Testament come from Paul. He seems to get much criticism for being one who lays down the law and puts forth the rules, the joy of legalists and the bane of progressives.

However when one looks at the influence that Paul had in the transforming of the church (I believe it was God transforming the church through Paul.), we see that he overturned the entire legalistic structure of the church. He was instrumental in doing away with the holiness laws and the barriers to gentiles. He turned the church from an inward looking one to an outward one.

Despite the criticism he has gotten from women, his comments about the role of women is remarkably liberal in the super-oppressive Greco-Roman culture. His views on homosexuality often put him at odds with the gay community, but when I look at his comments on homosexuality, I don't see where he ever says anything against it. It is only later interpretations of his words that make him sound anti-gay. I don't think he (or any writer of the New Testament) says anything anti-gay.

Paul really is the left-wing radical of the New Testament. He was fairly unconcerned about the laws of the Old Testament and was instrumental in setting Christianity on a new course. He was much more concerned about reaching out to those who needed to hear the gospel message than he was about getting people to tow the line. Of course I believe that Paul was not doing it on his own; it was God working through him. How do we know that the words of Paul can be trusted? It is a matter of faith. I believe that the God who created the universe and who came to earth to redeem mankind, can easily preserve his word and bring it to us today so that we can hear his message.

(I always consider myself a conservative Christian. Am turning into one of those liberal radicals myself!? Grandma is turning over in her grave at the thought.)

Pablo

BenL

10-17-2007, 07:39 AM

So my line of thinking is now, give thanks, AND love others just like Christ loves me.

Genuine thanksgiving always involves giving of self unconditionally, just as we received unconditional love.

antonyh

10-20-2007, 10:15 AM

The equation of theological orthodoxy with social conservatism is a CROCK !!! The two have nothing to do with each other. The Gospel is a RADICAL IDEA It shakes the ground under our feet and shatters the walls of human ideology and social structure. The fact that the Gospel got hijacked by constantine and his successors (the Popes) and enslaved to a project of social control rather than Christ's agenda of spiritual liberation IS NOT PAUL'S FAULT.

ORTHO-RADICALS UNITE !! THE REVOLUTION IS UPON US !!!

I have been pondering your statement all week...that theological orthodoxy and social conservatism are really two different things. Can you get more clear on the definition of each of these:

Theological orthodoxy:

Social conservatism:

Also, do you know of any groups or organizations that operate in a theologically orthodox way without embracing social conservatism.

I think you're onto something here so I wanted to flesh it out a bit.

antonyh

10-20-2007, 05:09 PM

Theological orthodoxy:

I can say the following creed without crossing my fingers or mumbling or going silent in the middle

Social Conservatism:

1. unrestrained capitalism is the only way to organize an economy
2. gay is sinful
3. women should be subservient to men
4. America (fill in the name of your empire here) is the best country
5. Its a good thing to spank children
6. Nice people don't say bad words
7. Nice people don't drink alcoholic beverages
8. Poor people are poor because they don't work hard
9. light people are better (more virtuous, harder working, more honest) than dark people.

Social conservativism is about resisting change, limiting choices, and facing the world from a posture of fear. It is a world view that seeks to control what it is acceptable to think and do and who and how it is acceptable to love. It is a worldview ... an ideology better suited to the disciples of the pharisees than it is to the disciples of Jesus Christ.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is basically the crazy, frightening, outrageous notion that there is NOTHING WE CAN DO TO CONTROL OUR DESTINY! that our salvation and reconciliation to the divine has already been effected without our doing anything. That neither our virtue nor our obedience has the power to bind the freedom of a sovereign God.

The two CAN co-exist in the same person... I've seen it. They are not mutually exclusive. however they aren't necessarily mutually INCLUSIVE either. it is possible to be ONE without being the OTHER. I AM such a person.

I can see the distinction. But how do you separate orthodoxy from belief in the inerrancy of Scripture?

antonyh

10-20-2007, 08:19 PM

The biblical hermenuetic known as "scriptural inerrancy" is only about 125 years old. It emerged as a fear response to modernity. The understandings of the authority of scripture that predate it are much more subtly nuanced than that. The Scriptures themselves give us almost NO CLUE as to how we should use them.

That is an interesting point. We spent a lot of time in Seminary studying the internal rational for canonicity...like there was some internal logic for choosing the books that we have in the Bible. I never found the arguments very compelling. Part of the rational for the New Testament was apostolic authority. As we see in Galatians 1, Paul spent a lot of time on the authoritativeness of his words based on encountering the living Christ.

Marcus Borg says that the Bible is a record of a completely human response to God. The inerrantists say it is a divinely inspired book. Would you say it is somewhere in the middle?