BIBLE DISCUSSION: Galatians Chap. 1 - Oct 14-21

[Pablo Rafael]

This thread is to discuss Galatians chapter one.

Please read the chapter and post any thoughts here. Included might be theological insights gained from close study and research of the text, personal reflections and thoughts, questions, prayer requests that the reading brings to mind, anything at all connected to the reading.

There are no wrong comments. I am hoping for a variety of responses from different viewpoints expressed in different ways.

[antonyh]

Here is a link to Galatians 1 using the NRSV:

http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=59288058

[BenL]

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]

Originally Posted by BenL

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

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]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Pablo Rafael

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

There 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]

Originally Posted by u-dog

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]

Originally Posted by sailaway58

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]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

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]

Originally Posted by sailaway58

.
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]

Originally Posted by sailaway58

.
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?

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.

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by u-dog

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]

Originally Posted by antonyh

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:

Originally Posted by I Corinthians 14: 26, 29-33

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]

Originally Posted by antonyh

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]

Originally Posted by antonyh

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]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

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.