Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Galatians

  • Perspectives on Paul: Paul’s Gospel or Another Gospel

    I don’t expect to finish this topic, but I’ll make a stab at getting started.

    I have added my interview with Dr. Herold Weiss to the resource page.

    Here’s the viewer embed for tonight:

     

    And here’s my interview with Dr. Herold Weiss:

  • Perspectives on Paul: Another Gospel

    Perspectives on Paul: Another Gospel

    Apocalyptic background - flash and lightning in dramatic dark sky
    Apocalyptic background – flash and lightning in dramatic dark sky

    Well, I’ll be starting from the word “church” and going forward to “gospel.” With only a half hour, I’m not sure how far we’ll get. Scripture is still Galatians 1:1-10, and you can add the first chapter of Herold Weiss’s book Meditations on the Letters of Paul, “My Gospel.”

    I’ll start at 7:00 pm central time and the session lasts 1/2 hour. Live chat will be enabled for those who would like to comment or ask questions.

  • Exhortation Does Not Interrupt Exposition

    [ncs_ad pid=’0664239013′ float=’left’ adtype=’aer.io’]On page 238 of his NTL commentary on Hebrews Luke Timothy Johnson uses the word “interrupt” to describe the transition between exposition and exhortation starting in Hebrews 5:11. In a way I’m nitpicking here, and because I am, I must also note that overall I find Johnson’s commentary nearly the most useful I’ve read, and if I were just talking about theological reflection, I would call it the best.

    I have a couple of objections to use of the word “interrupt,” however. First, it seems to me that calling the transition an interruption divides the text without consideration for the author’s purpose in writing. There is no exposition here which stands alone, and which can then optionally be applied to the hearers via an exhortation. Rather, the intention is exhortation and the exposition underlies the exhortation and is illustrated and illuminated by the nature of that exhortation.

    Second, the exhortations also help raise questions for the further exposition that follows. In the case in question (Hebrews 5:11-6:12), the question of the faithfulness and reliability of God is raised, which will be answered in Hebrews 6:13ff. This is also the critical question of the entire book. God has provided the final High Priest (logically and temporally), who will offer the final sacrifice, and will provide the way back to the presence of God. Since this is all final, human beings are presented with this final choice, in the view of our author. If you reject this, what means can God provide for you?

    Without exhortation, the exposition would be dry, pointless, and incomplete. The exhortation is an integral part of developing the topic.

    I emphasize this because of some of my experience in studying Pauline epistles in college and graduate school. We would make it through the theological exposition in the beginning of the book, but when we got to the practical admonitions, those were treated as something of an afterthought by Paul. “Here’s your theology of salvation, and oh, by the way, there are a few things it would be a good idea to do …”

    But for Paul those admonitions grow out of the theology he has presented. The practical elements are not appendices to letters that are otherwise theological treatises. It would be better to call the theological exposition introductory matter to the practical sections. Perhaps this explains why Galatians and Romans seem to get so much more treatment from a theological viewpoint than 1 & 2 Corinthians.

    Sometimes I think the worst thing about biblical scholarship is that it is carried out by biblical scholars. Their interest is in extracting theological propositions and historical data. The writers, especially Paul, are writing pastorally. The two don’t always work well together.

    At least that is the view from someone who took Romans (through chapter 8!) and Galatians (through chapter 4!) in school. As far as I could tell, the professors were happy with that.

  • From My Editing Work: The Cross and Resurrection

    From Galations: A Participatory Study Guide, p. 9:

    Paul’s words gave the Galatians hope for transformation and they are hopeful to us, too.  Jesus Christ frees us from bondage.  The external world may not immediately change, but the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ frees us from guilt, fear, anxiety, and hopelessness.  God acts in Christ to set us free to live joyfully and creatively.  The cross and resurrection are a matter of life and death – they must be proclaimed – spiritually, ethically, and communally.  Anything that challenges God’s liberating message must be confronted boldly.

    Besides the excellent message, there’s a good “editorial” moment in there. Do you see “the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ frees us.” Grammatically, I should correct that to free us, except that I know from the context that these are being seen as a single event. I’m sure some folks will say this is an error. Perhaps it is, but it is intentionally so.

  • From My Editing Work: The Bible Comes Alive

    From page xvii of Galatians: A Participatory Study Guide by Bruce Epperly —

    When we encounter scripture with heart, mind, and hands, the Bible comes alive and changes our lives and communities.  We become the Galatians of our time, reveling in Christian freedom and living in the Spirit.  We discover that God’s liberating Word, incarnate in the crucified and risen Christ, challenges everything that gets in the way of spiritual freedom and faithful discipleship.

    Sounds like fun!

    Galatians: A Participatory Study Guide

  • Gifts to Build the Body

    T. C. Robinson has a post on the gifts of the Holy Spirit in Galatians 5:13.  He makes several points that I think are important, but I did not draw from that particular passage, though I did draw from Galatians 5:22-26 with the fruit of the Spirit.  T.C. points to the importance of 1 Corinthians 13 in connection with the purpose and use of the gifts.

    I wanted to connect this with a series of posts I wrote that make a similar point amongst others.  I think it is tragic that 1 Corinthians 13 is often disconnected from 12 & 14 in discussions of the gifts.

    Here’s the series:

    I illustrate the connection between the fruit of the Spirit and the gifts as follows:

    A B&W version of that slide is used in my book Identifying Your Gifts and Service (Workbook), designed for use in a classroom setting, and I discuss the issue in the Small Group edition of the same book.

  • Quote of the Day – on Genesis 15:6

    … In the Tanakh, faith does not mean believing in spite of the evidence.  It means trusting profoundly in a person, in this case the personal God who has reiterated His promise.

    (from The Jewish Study Bible: featuring The Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation, page 35.)

    I think that’s an excellent statement of what faith is and is not, and might also tie the usage of faith between James 2:23 and Galatians 2:15ff as it relates to Paul’s use of Genesis 15:6 starting in Galatians 3:15.

  • New Perspective on Paul and the Book of Hebrews

    Nijay Gupta has a short interview with Gordon Fee regarding his new commentary on Galatians (HT).  Since I have an extremely high regard for Gordon Fee’s work in general, and for his commentary on 1 Corinthians (which I cite frequently) in particular, I’m certainly planning to get my hands on a copy of his work on Galatians.

    As a completely undeveloped, unresearched, and unreconsidered thought, I wonder if anyone has written anything related to the relationship of the New Perspective on Paul to the theology and potentially even the authorship of Hebrews.  I personally find the language differences fairly compelling on the authorship of Hebrews, and have always found the argument based on theology less than compelling, but it sounds to me like the reading of Galatians based on the New Perspective is closer to the theology of Hebrews than a more traditional reading of Paul.  Specifically, in Hebrews, Jesus Christ becomes the fundamental law or the core of the Christian’s belief and action rather than the Torah.

    Now please bear with me.  I could decide in five minutes that the paragraph above is way off track, though more likely I’ll take longer than that to think about it.  But it seems that even if this did not bring one to believe Paul himself wrote the book, it might strengthen claims a Pauline genetic connection with the book and thus more strongly favor an author who sat under Paul’s teaching, as is already suggested.

    In any case, I’d be interested in any research along these lines, especially available on the internet, but also in any recent/forthcoming commentaries.  It’s about time for me to run through Hebrews again with a good commentary!

  • Look at New Perspectives on Paul

    This will be a slightly different post than my usual for this blog. Normally I grab a Bible passage or a principle of interpretation and comment on it. In this post, I want to tie together several threads of my blogging and teaching and point the direction toward some new questions that I’d like to examine as I continue some of my current study.

    I was launched in this particular direction by a post at Adrian Warnock’s blog, The PCA Considering Excluding the Followers of N. T. Wright. Now I’ve been watching Adrian’s blog lately because of the various atonement wars (as I call them), and things about N. T. Wright are bound to catch my attention. I have truly appreciated reading Wright’s material on the historical Jesus. His thorough scholarship and remarkably courteous form of dialog are quite refreshing. It’s not my plan to criticize anyone’s readings of the Westminster Confessions. I am, after all, not Calvinist. But the broader issues involve are very important to me.

    In addition, I just started podcasting a series on Mark that came from the older Bible Pacesetter Radio Program. This series was started 11/24/2003, and continued into 2004 until we canceled that program. Now I’m using the old programs, and then planning to continue through Mark. In listening to my teaching, I couldn’t help but notice some dependence on N. T. Wright for things that I said about Mark’s view of the proclamation.

    Further, I just completed a read through Galatians alongside J. Louis Martyn’s commentary, and I have saved more than 20 note items intended for future blogging out of Galatians. I’m not going to call that a series, because I have no idea when I’ll get to them. I already have numerous items for my series on Hebrews that I simply haven’t had time to post.

    I would note here that my primary training was in the ancient near east and in Old Testament, rather than New Testament. Yes, my concentration was Biblical languages, but at the graduate level that involved a very small amount of Greek, and a very large amount of Hebrew, but since I now spend my time teaching lay audiences, the New Testament is more in demand. This whole issue has become somewhat more important to me.

    So I followed this all up by starting to read from The Paul Page which is dedicated to the new perspective on Paul. One key item immediately caught my attention. As argued by Martyn, the new perspective relates the controversy over circumcision more to the identification with God’s people than to a faith-works issue. In a related point, Martyn argues that the “Jerusalem” of Galatians was not Judaism, but the circumcision oriented mission to Judaism which was based in, if not supported by, the Jerusalem church.

    A second key item is the view of Judaism, and particular the view of the law in the Old Testament/Hebrew scriptures. It has always seemed to me that New Testament scholars do not characterize this view accurately. It seems more like a caricature, but I haven’t taken the time to work on that in detail.

    This leads to the following comment, also from The Paul Page (Summary):

    Translating the doctrine of justification into contemporary terms, Wright notes with irony that this doctrine, which was principally concerned with unity and acceptance in the body of Christ regardless of social barriers, has been one of the most divisive doctrines in the history of Christianity, particularly between Catholics and Protestants who have traditionally interpreted it as a question of precisely how salvation is to be attained.

    I think this is a point of critical importance. How is something that is supposed to bring joy, freedom, and unity so often construed as a way to divide the body of Christ?

    In discussing this and other issues related to the atonement, I’m going to be working through these materials and becoming better informed on this new perspective.

    Update: Since I’m not Calvinist, I won’t be interacting with this that much, but I think it is only fair to present a link to the PCA preliminary report.

  • Galatians 3:15-18 – Preliminary Thoughts on Seed and Seeds

    I want to make a few quick notes on this passage right after studying through Martyn’s Galatians commentary notes on it. This is a passage that has troubled many because in verse 16 Paul makes a major issue of the singular “seed,” thus pointing the passage directly at Christ. Now if one reads the passage in its original context, “seed” is a collective, referring to all of Abraham’s descendants, and thus the meaning is precisely the opposite of what Paul claims.

    I didn’t use this passage in my essay Was Paul an Exegete? but I certainly could have. In that essay I concluded that in the modern sense of searching out the original historical meaning, Paul was not, and didn’t try to be an exegete. I would add here that Paul is quite open about how he sees Jesus as the Messiah breathing new life into texts.

    There are several key points from this passage that I want to tentatively connect. Paul claims that:

    • God established the promises
    • The promises were for the seed, singular, Christ
    • Nobody other than the one who makes a will/covenant can modify it
    • The law could not modify or set aside the promise that preceded it. This involves the argument that the law was given by angels, but that goes beyond what I’m discussing right now.
    • Eventually the promise meets its fulfillment in Christ

    Now Martyn, commenting on these verses indicates that the law is not, according to this passage, another step in salvation history, but rather that the giving of the promise, and finally the act of God in bringing reconciliation through Jesus are both punctiliar events. He does not see the law as another step or another way of implementing the promise (pp. 337-352).

    The Jewish view, which in part would have been incorporated by the teachers who opposed Paul in Galatia, makes the Torah a single whole. There are not separate entities in it of “promise” and “law” and there certainly would not be a covenant without there also being a law. Sirach 44:19-21 represents Abraham as law observant, and presents God’s promise as depending on Abraham’s faithfulness in fulfilling the requirements. So Paul is hear creating a substantial difference in view between these historical events. The giving of the promise occurs before the giving of the law, and even though it comes from that same portion of scripture, the Pentateuch or Torah, it is not part of the same law. The law, given at Sinai, is something separate and different, and cannot in Paul’s view alter the original promise, nor is it an organic part of that promise.

    Gentiles are not being brought into Israel through the covenant at Sinai. Rather, they are being brought into God’s promise, incidentally given to Abraham, a promise that is superior to and unalterable by that law.

    My preliminary suggestion here is that this relates closely to what I have pointed out in my article Structural Typology and the Tabernacle, where I suggest that God’s original intent was to dwell with his people (Exodus 19:6), but that because of fear they required a separation (Exodus 20:19). The Tabernacle, far from representing God’s presence, in many ways represents God’s absence. Peter sees the fulfillment of this goal and promise of God in Jesus and the church (1 Peter 2:9).

    Where I would differ from Martyn, I think, on salvation history is that the law is indeed a step in salvation history. There may be two punctiliar acts, between which the law is a parenthesis (Martyn), but that parenthesis is an essential one, tuned to human needs. There is still salvation history, but that history is not a continuous march of progress, but rather it takes detours as God deals with people as he finds them and leads them in the direction he wants them to go.

    In this sense one can also see “seed” as an inspired “breathing-in” by Paul, through the Holy Spirit, of new meaning into the word and form, because in Jesus all the promises given to Abraham were fulfilled in one man (singular) for everyone (very plural). The spiritual application trumps the historical exegesis.