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

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by antonyh

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]

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]

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.

Originally Posted by sailaway58

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]

Originally Posted by keltic63

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]

Originally Posted by antonyh

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]

[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]

Originally Posted by u-dog

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

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by rainbow7

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]

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.

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by u-dog

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]

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]

Originally Posted by sailaway58

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]

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.

[BenL]

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]

Originally Posted by antonyh

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]

Originally Posted by BenL

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]

Originally Posted by u-dog

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?

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]

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]

Originally Posted by BenL

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]

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.