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

[andrewlittle]

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]

Originally Posted by u-dog

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.

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

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by u-dog

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.

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

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

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]

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]

Originally Posted by sailaway58

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]

Originally Posted by u-dog

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]

Originally Posted by u-dog

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]

Originally Posted by u-dog

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?