Galatians 4 (reread)

Paul uses two different analogies to explain what it is like to be under the law versus in the grace of God.  These are the child heir and contrasting Ishmael with Isaac.

The child heir is likened to a slave.  He must obey all the rules and is disciplined.  Yet, in the future, he will inherit the kingdom.  However, right now, he is treated like a slave.  This perspective reminds me of the obedient son in the parable of the Prodigal Son.

I also find this an easier concept to grasp about the nature of the law.  Why did God do it in the first place?  Why not go straight to Christ at the time of Moses and skip the law?  I do not quite understand Paul's reasoning in the prior chapter, but this makes more sense.  The answer is because humanity was yet like a child.  It is not until Christ comes that ushers in an age of spiritual maturity.

The other analogy is to contrast Ishmael with Isaac.  This builds on what Paul discussed in chapter 3 in regard to Abraham.  So much of the Jewish identity was built on the patriarchs.  I think Paul makes a subtle point that by holding onto the law, the people are not acting like Isaac, but rather Ishmael.

It also builds on the prior discussion of a child heir.  By contrasting these two, the heir and the slave child born of a slave, he implicitly asks the reader - do you want to be a slave or an heir?

Crying out to the the father

At the beginning of the chapter, Paul mentions that it is the Spirit of the Son in our hearts that cries out "Abba!", meaning "Father".  This concept comes into full circle later in Galatians 5.

Re-enslavement

Paul discusses the freedom the Galatians have from being enslaved to the false gods.  The example that Paul uses to illustrate their enslavement is observance of "special days and months and seasons and years!". (verse 10).  What comes to my mind is the Sabbath or Jewish feast days.  But really, it could include any religious ritual.

This ritual aspect of religion is likened to slavery to being enslaved to those who are not gods.

This is all building the groundwork for chapter 5.

Galatians 3 (reread)

This chapter feels more dense than the ones preceding it.  I will tell you what makes sense about this chapter.

Abraham

The discussion of Abraham does a lot of thing simultaneously.

First, it contrasts the reliance on Moses by the proponents of the law.  Abraham is a pillar in the Jewish story and so is Moses.  But Abraham precedes Moses.

Second, Abraham relied on faith.  The law had not yet been given since it came before the law.  In this example, faith is more powerful than the law.

Third, God promised Abraham to bless all nations through him.  All nations would include the Gentiles.  In contrast, the law of Moses was for the Jews.  True, people could baptize into Judaism.

Finally, Paul relies on it on a substantive level to show that it is the promise of Abraham that is returned with Jesus.  The verse that stands out to me the most to reflect this is 18 - if the law was required for inheritance, then the inheritance would no longer depend on the promise.

I think Paul is saying that requiring Gentiles to keep the law would nullify the promise to Abraham in that Gentiles would be blessed by the faith of Abraham.

Verse 27 - baptized into Christ

I like Stott's commentary about this and will do my best to paraphrase.  Basically, Paul notes that being baptized into Christ and clothing oneself with Christ are two separate events.  Otherwise, baptism would be sufficient for salvation.  Thus baptism would replace circumcision as another required work.

But here, they are separate things.

Verse 28 - neither Jew nor Greek....

Here, Paul takes our notions of categorization (ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status) and says that in Christ, they do not matter.  If they do not matter and Gentiles are heirs of the promise of Abraham through Christ, then Jews do not need to obey the law either.

Galatians 2 (reread)

Paul continues discussing his personal history as an Apostle. This is all background to argument against those wishing to dilute the Gospel with a requirement of works.


His greater point about discussing his history as an Apostle is illustrate that the Gospel he preached did not come from men.  By "men", this also includes the other Apostles.  Rather, the Gospel he preached came from divine revelation.

In chapter two, Paul discusses an anecdote when he went back to Jerusalem after a fourteen year absence.

When did this happen?
Short answer - we don't know.

The book of Acts is a little unclear, but it could refer to the relief effort mentioned in Acts 11:27-30.  In that account, there was a famine in Judea and the church of Antioch collected offerings and sent them to Jerusalem, along with "Barnabas and Saul".  In Galatians 2:10, Paul is asked to "remember the poor".  This would lead credence to perhaps it was the relief effort mentioned in Acts 11.

However, Acts 11 makes no mention of Titus accompanying Paul and Barnabas, which is emphasized in the Galatians 2 text.  Likewise, the text of Galatians 2 emphasizes the action of Paul acting in a full leadership role as an Apostle.  This seems a little incongruous with the account of Acts 11, which states "Barnabas and Saul.".  Paul does not seem to be leading the Acts 11 visit to Jerusalem, since it is Barnabas that is listed first and Paul is still called "Saul".

That said, we know from 2 Corinthians 8 that there were other inter-church relief efforts.



Back to Galatians 2
Titus accompanies Paul to Jerusalem when he meets with other Apostles.  Paul emphasizes that Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile, was not compelled to be circumcised at this time.  Paul uses this to highlight that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised, but rather it is faith in Christ that this is sufficient.

On a related note, from the Stott commentary there seems to be some ambiguity in whether or not Titus actually was circumcised in the trip.  The ambiguity arises in the Greek text for verses 4-5 which the English Biblical translators tend to prefer that he was not circumcised.  That said, he was not compelled to be circumcised, and if he was circumcised, we can reason it was a voluntary act as a concession, as happened with Timothy (Acts 16:3).


In Jerusalem, Paul's Gospel is approved of by the other Apostles.  In verse 10, the Apostles agree that Paul and Barnabas should go to the Gentiles.  We can also reason from this interplay that the other Apostles approved of him as an Apostle.  Regardless of what reasoning to arrive at Paul as an Apostle and whether he fit into the Apostleship criteria of Acts 1:21-22 - we he did not fit in - acceptance from the other Apostles cannot be overlooked.


Later, we find people sent from James in Antioch, followed by a visit from Peter to Antioch.  There, Paul confronts Peter about the issue of circumcision.

When did this happen?
Again, there is no specific detail, but I think it happened right before the Council of Jerusalem.  In fact, I think this event sparked the Council.

Paul stayed in Antioch a "long time" after the missionary trip to Galatia.  (Acts 14:28).  In Acts 15:1-2, it states that people came from Judea to Antioch and preached that people needed to be circumcised.  We know of nothing more about these people except that Paul and Barnabas opposed them.  Immediately afterwards, Paul and Barnabas are appointed to go to Jerusalem, where they attend the council of Jerusalem.

But I think we can reason that this even is the famous rebuke of Peter by Paul as recounted in Galatians 2.

Further, by the time Paul and Barnabas arrive in Jerusalem, Peter is back preaching that circumcision is not necessary.

In the coming chapters, Paul will have a lot to say about following the law and justification through faith.  But in Galatians 2, he emphasizes that Peter, agreed with him, even allowing Paul to publicly rebuke him over it.

Galatians 1 (reread)

Background of the book

The Galatians

In Acts 13-14, Paul is in an area of central Asia minor (modern-day Turkey) known as "Galatia".  The cities he visits include Pisidian Antioch (13:13-52), Iconium (14:1-6), Lystra (14:7-20), and Derbe (14:20-25).

An interesting event occurs in Lystra, as recounted in Acts 14:19-20.  There, Jews came from Antioch and Iconium and lead the crowd in a stoning of Paul.  They dragged him out of the city, believing he was dead.  The disciples gather around his apparently life-less body.  But Paul stands up and goes back into the city.  

Shortly thereafter, the text of Acts shifts from Galatia to events back in Jerusalem.  An issue has arisen among the church about whether one should observe the Mosaic code and be circumcised.  Paul and Barnabus leave Galatia and head to Jerusalem.

Dating the Epistle

I believe the consensus is that it was at this time that Paul wrote the epistle.  In other words, he is en route to Jerusalem when he writes this.  Paul had just left the Galatians, so he knows what is going on.  Likewise, the issues in the Counsel of Jerusalem are similar issues addressed in the Epistle to the Galatians.

That said, the tone of the epistle strikes me as one of distance.  It does not come across like he recently visited Galatia, but rather, he left and he heard through the grapevine of problems they had.  

Paul declares he is "astonished" by how "so quickly" they changed their heart (1:6).  This could be an indication that it truly was fast (a matter of weeks or months) or metaphorically venting his frustration.

Galatians 1

Jesus raised him from the dead (1:1)

I think it interesting that this Epistle was intended to be read by people who may have seen Paul stand up after being stoned.  Paul may have actually been raised to life in the account of Acts.

Paul's defense of his apostleship

Paul discusses at length in the first two chapters about his history as an Apostle.  He does not directly call out opposition to his authority, but it seems he is trying to remind his audience of the source of both (1) his authority and (2) the message he brings.

He is angry at the perversion of the Gospel, which is 'no Gospel at all.'  We will see at length what this is in the later chapters.  But first, Paul reminds the reader about his calling as an Apostle.

He was called by God to be an Apostle before he was born.  This reminds me of Jeremiah's call as prophet (Jer. 1:5) or a similar pre-birth prediction about Esau and Jacob (Romans 9:10-13).

In preparation for this, I read John Stott's commentary on this chapter.  I respect his thoughts a lot, but I kind of disagree with him in a few attributes.

Most notably, I think there is a tendency among Protestants to define "Apostle" with an anti-Catholic nuance, that I don't think is present in Scripture.  From the Catholic perspective, Apostleship can be passed on in a process called "Apostolic succession".  This gives rise to the Papal institution.  I do not agree with the Catholic point of view entirely, but I cannot fully agree with the Protestant critique of it.

In particular, I have seen it articulated that to be "Apostle", one had to know Christ in the flesh.  This comes from a reading of Acts 1:21-22.  The Eleven Apostles are replacing Judas Iscariot and this is the criteria that Peter comes up with.  This would notably exclude the Apostolic Succession and the Papal supremacy.  

However, if we read Acts 1:21-22, then we see the criteria for replacing Judas as an Apostle was very, very strict.  It was not simply someone who knew Christ personally, but someone who had been with the whole group from the time of John's baptism to the when Jesus departed.

This would exclude Paul as an Apostle.

So, why accept Paul as an Apostle?

One rationale is that he saw enough of Jesus during his conversion that it was enough to meet the criteria of Apostleship articulated in Acts 1.  

I do not find that convincing.

In the famous story of his conversion from Acts 9:3-6, Paul is struck on the road to Damascus.  In that account, he sees a "bright light" from heaven.  Later, he recounts the story to King Agrippa in Acts 26:12-18.  In that version, he states that he saw Jesus and there he receives his Apostleship.  

In Galatians, while defending his status as Apostleship, Paul only obliquely discusses this story.  When discusses it in reference to the changed life he had, but does not mention that he saw Jesus at this time.  

Rather, after his conversion, he goes to Arabia for three years, then comes back to Jerusalem.    

Most importantly for his letter is that he states he received his Gospel from a supernatural source. The evidence of a supernatural encounter comes from his personal history - going from a zealot murderer to that of a Christian.

So, why go to Arabia?  Personally, I think that is where he went to either the Gospel supernaturally, to reflect on it, and spend time with Jesus.  The other Apostles had three years of time with Jesus, so is Paul's make-up time.

So again, why accept Paul as an Apostle?  

I think this is implicitly answered in 1:18.  After three years in Arabia, Paul spends 15 days in Jerusalem.  This could correspond to Acts 9:26-29, where the text emphasizes his debates with the Jews.  However, Galatians 1:18 says he stayed with Peter the 15 days.  

It is not stated, but I think it is at this time that Paul is receiving mentorship from the highest Apostle, Peter.  Likewise, Peter is also getting a chance to critique and review Paul's claim of Apostleship and the Gospel that Paul preaches.

Later in chapter two, Paul's acceptance of being an Apostle is confirmed by the other Apostles.

So, why discuss all this in regard to Galatians?  It is because Paul wants to confirm what he has to say is from God and he did not make it all up.

Philippians (reread)

Chapter 1

These are interesting thoughts from Pail about being imprison and awaiting his fate.   They are honest and raw self-reflection.

It somewhat reminds me of Ecclesiates or the Psalms in that we get an honest look inside the mind of a major Biblic character.  But Paul is beyond my sort of doubt, he seems quite happy.

2:13 

This stands out to me as a clear expression of free will vis a vis a relationship with an all-powerful God (3:21).

3:20 - our citizenship is in heaven
My childhood church would take statements like that to an extreme conclusion, far beyond a reasonable reading of the verse.

The logic went as follows:  If a Christian's citizenship is in heaven, then it is not in the United States, or any earthly government.  Therefore, a Christian should not actively take part of citizenship of the United States.  The church discouraged voting in government elections and possibly even jury service.

It heavily discouraged military service, but the rationale also conflated with general wartime pacifism.  Wartime pacifism is found in a lot of other churches for similar rationales.

Looking back, I think there is a temptation for Christian communities to make extra, superfluous rules.  The temptation is as old as the time of Christ, if we consider the Pharisee's rules on hand-washing and Sabbath observance.  Later, the Apostles struggled and disagreed with each other regarding circumcision and eating food offered before idols.

Nonetheless, I believe the temptation to codify tradition into community rules remains today.  

For example, at JMU, I was meeting someone at IV for a meal.  The JMU IV tradition - which is a common practice - is to pray before eating.  The guy told me off for not waiting for him to eat so we could pray for the meal together.  I sat in stunned silence, but thought, "you're an effing idiot".

But the mentality of turning tradition into Christian rules and expectations is much broader.  I see it when Christians get mad about Creationism v. Evolution, voting for Republican, or even saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas".

I think the greater point of Philippians speaks to this.  Paul encourages us to get along with each other.  For after all, our citizenship is in heaven.  So, if our citizenship is in heaven, why be upset if Obama gets his Obamacare, someone says 'Happy Holidays', or someone does not want to pray before eating.

Side note - I still don't pray before eating, but that's because I have seen it used in the wrong way too many times.  My childhood church turned it into a mindless ritual.  Then at JMU, I saw it used as a divisive ritual.