(Tina)Theresa Hannah-Munns
RLST 248-001 - Dr. William Arnal
Exegesis #4
Paul starts out very patronizing by using sarcasm, much as a father chastises a child. His point is emphatically stated of whether they received the Spirit of the Christ myth from doing the works of the law versus belief in the Christ myth itself. He sets up a polemic of works of the flesh versus belief in the Spirit, which is of divine origin and grace among his words of biting sarcasm to highlight his extreme disappointment in them.
Paul starts referring to the writings of the Old Testament (the label we know of today) to support his position on belief over works of the law. Since Abraham believed God, he received the benefits of God and the Gentiles will do well to follow his example in order for them to be part of the descendents of Abraham, which is only accomplished by those who have belief. He backs this up by quoting that God’s foresight was declared to Abraham about the Gentiles: “All the Gentiles (by faith is Paul’s argument) shall be blessed in you” (3:9).
He furthers his argument with another angle, one that sees the law as a curse since justification is not found in the law but in faith of the promise found in the Christ myth. If one chooses the law, he is bound by law and not within the benefits of the Christ myth since they turn their back on it. He continues to support his Abraham connection by showing how promise was not given to a plural form of offspring but to only one man, whom is believed in Jesus Christ(3:16). The law was utilized after the promise given in order to sustain faithfulness until the promise could be fulfilled. Paul points out that the
law is not opposed to God but has, over time, “imprisoned all things under the power of sin” (3:22). The law was “disciplinarian until Christ came” (3:24) and with Christ come faith that makes the Gentiles “children of God”, which Paul further postulates as systematically becoming one in Christ, first through belief and then followed by the action of baptism.
He reiterates all of this through another analogy using the relationship of parents and minors to stand for heirs to Christ’s kingdom (4:1-2). This exemplifies his idea that Gentiles are adopted into the family of Christ (4:5). The result is twofold: Paul is able to support his own general argument of faith while also moving into another specific issue of pagan worship (5:9). Paul twists analogy within analogy as he also compares favorably a child under a trustee of higher powers versus to a slave in trust of lower powers. As children of God, they are heirs to his inheritance through faith, whereas they are slaves to lower elemental spirits (4:8-11). Much like faith reverting back to the lower power of following the law, the act of elemental worship is a reversion from the promise of God in order to continue their own enslavement by the lower powers. Both of these are being argued as imprisoning the followers “under the power of sin” (3:22). Paul continues to show his disappointment through sarcastic means as he ends this patronizingly with his fear of wasting his time with them.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Galatians 1:13-2:15
(Tina)Theresa Hannah-Munns
RLST 248-001 - Dr. William Arnal
Exegesis #3
This passage is the first clear linear biographical account of Paul’s conversion and missionary practice. He establishes himself as beginning with ‘zeal’ in Judaism and that he avidly was against the Christian sects around him, stating that he was “violently persecuting the church of God” (1:13). He still is with his position on the legal faction of circumcision found within the Law of Moses and followed by the Jewish. Incidentally, he seems to have managed to accomplish his earlier mission to destroy the church within Jerusalem since it is his Doctrine to the Gentiles that lives to this day through the construction of the Bible. It is this letter to the Galatians that shows the dividing line between the church of Jerusalem who follow Mose’s Law, as advocated by Peter, and the Gentile church of Paul’s design. He seems to strictly adhere to the Jew/Gentile line again and again, separating Christians into two camps. He does this while also recognizing Peter’s authority within his own faction (1:7-8).
Paul emphasizes that his revelation from God about his Son was so sacred that he never consulted human agency, but only divine agency. He does this to establish his own direct experience with the Christ myth and set himself as equal to Peter as an apostle. Peter’s divine authority came from knowing Jesus in the flesh, whereas Paul states that his calling is of the spirit of complete divine agency for a mission of divine importance, for God “had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace” (1:15). Paul accounts how he travelled a bit and it was three years after his revelation that he then visits with Peter for fifteen days before retreating for another fourteen years before starting his mission.
Altogether, seventeen years of contemplation on his experience and the start of his formulations for the Gentile doctrine established him enough so that he could again present himself to Peter and the church of Jerusalem, again in response to a revelation where God must have told him he was now ready to begin his mission. He elaborates that his Greek companion who accompanied him at this start was “not compelled to be circumcised” (2:3). This is the first specific statement of reason for his writing the Galatia church and I assume that his mention of Titus was to establish the division that was honored in the beginning between Peter and Paul on who the Gentile mission was ‘entrusted’ (2:7). He further establishes even his earthly acknowledgement of being the fourth pillar by listing James and Cephas (Peter) and John as the three pillars from the Jerusalem church. This allows the readership to grasp the parallel ability of his gospel to coexist but be differentiated with that of the gospel of the law handed to Peter and the Jerusalem church (2:9).
He then leads into his confrontation of Peter at Antioch for Peter’s own hypocrisy of doing one thing and then teaching another. The circumcision faction seems not to have been an issue until it was conceived as an issue later after Jesus’ death. As Paul puts it, “for until certain people came from James, he (Peter) used to eat with Gentiles” (2:12). In the very next verse Paul seems to state that this is the beginning of the “circumcision faction” that has changed the behaviour and produced hypocrisy within the Jerusalem church. Paul would have no part in this and frankly stated what he seen was obvious “that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel” (2:14).
Paul ends his biographical summary with the main point of his argument that even a Jew who has the law have a hard time upholding the law, how much harder and more binding the law would be on the gentiles.
RLST 248-001 - Dr. William Arnal
Exegesis #3
This passage is the first clear linear biographical account of Paul’s conversion and missionary practice. He establishes himself as beginning with ‘zeal’ in Judaism and that he avidly was against the Christian sects around him, stating that he was “violently persecuting the church of God” (1:13). He still is with his position on the legal faction of circumcision found within the Law of Moses and followed by the Jewish. Incidentally, he seems to have managed to accomplish his earlier mission to destroy the church within Jerusalem since it is his Doctrine to the Gentiles that lives to this day through the construction of the Bible. It is this letter to the Galatians that shows the dividing line between the church of Jerusalem who follow Mose’s Law, as advocated by Peter, and the Gentile church of Paul’s design. He seems to strictly adhere to the Jew/Gentile line again and again, separating Christians into two camps. He does this while also recognizing Peter’s authority within his own faction (1:7-8).
Paul emphasizes that his revelation from God about his Son was so sacred that he never consulted human agency, but only divine agency. He does this to establish his own direct experience with the Christ myth and set himself as equal to Peter as an apostle. Peter’s divine authority came from knowing Jesus in the flesh, whereas Paul states that his calling is of the spirit of complete divine agency for a mission of divine importance, for God “had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace” (1:15). Paul accounts how he travelled a bit and it was three years after his revelation that he then visits with Peter for fifteen days before retreating for another fourteen years before starting his mission.
Altogether, seventeen years of contemplation on his experience and the start of his formulations for the Gentile doctrine established him enough so that he could again present himself to Peter and the church of Jerusalem, again in response to a revelation where God must have told him he was now ready to begin his mission. He elaborates that his Greek companion who accompanied him at this start was “not compelled to be circumcised” (2:3). This is the first specific statement of reason for his writing the Galatia church and I assume that his mention of Titus was to establish the division that was honored in the beginning between Peter and Paul on who the Gentile mission was ‘entrusted’ (2:7). He further establishes even his earthly acknowledgement of being the fourth pillar by listing James and Cephas (Peter) and John as the three pillars from the Jerusalem church. This allows the readership to grasp the parallel ability of his gospel to coexist but be differentiated with that of the gospel of the law handed to Peter and the Jerusalem church (2:9).
He then leads into his confrontation of Peter at Antioch for Peter’s own hypocrisy of doing one thing and then teaching another. The circumcision faction seems not to have been an issue until it was conceived as an issue later after Jesus’ death. As Paul puts it, “for until certain people came from James, he (Peter) used to eat with Gentiles” (2:12). In the very next verse Paul seems to state that this is the beginning of the “circumcision faction” that has changed the behaviour and produced hypocrisy within the Jerusalem church. Paul would have no part in this and frankly stated what he seen was obvious “that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel” (2:14).
Paul ends his biographical summary with the main point of his argument that even a Jew who has the law have a hard time upholding the law, how much harder and more binding the law would be on the gentiles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
