Digging in: John 9 (1000)

[This is public blogpost #1000.  In this post, I'm going to attempt to merge concisely some very significant areas--exegesis, religious challenge and reform, and worship.  And then I'm going to take somewhat of a break.  This is a longish blog, but I hope you'll take the time, because there won't be any more blogs coming from me anytime soon!]

Digging In:   John 9

One of the Marvelous Happenings in the Life of Jesus

Exegetical Interpretation, Focusing on Christian Challenge/Reform and Worship
With a Timely, Eulogistic Postscript

John 9 has long been a favorite chapter, and it’s not because I memorized it as a child or because it was read at a family funeral.  This chapter is of deep impact on me because the story highlights Jesus in a way that simply won’t let me go.

While it would have been nice, I suppose, to have a true essay worked out, I would need more time for that, “living with” the text for a period of weeks or even months.  I trust that it will be beneficial to see the process of asking questions of the text, not only the reaching of conclusions.

Method  Ideally, I would start with two or more readings of the entire gospel, in different versions — perhaps one with more of a sentence-for-sentence orientation, and another, more of an expansive paraphrase.   Initially, my method was simple:  to read/refresh myself on the whole of chapter 9, and jotting questions I had while reading.  The “first pass” through chapter 9 resulted in the need for a second pass.  Within about an hour and a half total, I had approximately two pages of notes/questions.  (An irresistible 3rd pass is yielding almost as many additional questions and brought tears to my eyes, but the new material will have to wait.)  For sake of brevity — ha! — I am selecting only a portion of these questions to blogshare (to coin a term).

Book-level questions

Bypassing for the moment the typical, academic, background questions that are important but are more stock-in-trade (author, date and place of writing, audience, etc.), I ask such things as these, from a perspective that is mostly “zoomed out” on the entire gospel of John:

• What special features can be found in John’s vocabulary and literary style?
• Within the whole gospel, does chapter 9 constitute a bona fide pericope?  Does John use pericopes as, say, Matthew does?
• What is the relationship of blindness and sin for John?
• How does God the Father relate to Jesus in the narrative?  Is Jesus called “Son of Man” earlier? later? throughout? often?
• How does John’s stated purpose (20:30-31) relate, or not, to key aspects found in this passage, such as spiritual blindness, sin, coming to faith, and worship?  How might belief in 9:35-36 be tied to the overall, stated purpose?

Smaller-context questions

Now zooming in more to the immediate context:

• Where are we in the progression of John’s narrative when we reach the events of chapter 9?  What occurs immediately before, and immediately after?  (The answer to these questions may be singularly significant.)
• Check 9:1-2 for chiastic structure.  (Note the three mentions of blindness.)
• Note the various portrayals in this chapter:  disciples, Jews, neighbors, Pharisees, and the man.  (Larger question:  how is each group painted in John overall, as compared to Mark?)
• What is the relationship of blindness and sin for each of the above people/groups?
• Could there be a larger inclusio from 9:1-34 (“the Jews’” idea of sin as bookends)?
• Note the relationship between eyesight and light and works, as in verse 4.
• Is “Siloam” Aramaic?  Translation relationship to Greek “apostle”?  Any significance to be found in Jewish background there — either with the Siloam pool or with the use of the word in OT texts?  What is John saying by inserting the definition of the word?
• Chiasm in 9:13-16 vicinity (Pharisees, had been blind, Jesus, mud ==> Sabbath, Pharisees <== mud, Jesus, see, Pharisees/Sabbath). Yes? Investigate.
• Examine the use of “disciples” in 9:27-28 vs. its use in John overall.
• How does the Father God figure in to this story?
  • What do “the Jews” and the Pharisees think of Him?  How do they “use” Him? (vv. 16, 24, 29)
  • What does the blind man think of Him?  (9:31, 33)
  • What could be made out of the fact that Jesus mentions God early in the story but not later?
• Hermeneutically speaking, are questions (such as the above group) significant from both John’s and the first readers’ points of view?  Does John show any bias or agenda that his first-century readers would naturally share, or naturally be resistant to?  How is God potentially working through John to say what needs to be said?  And how do these answers affect my own point of view?
• What is the significance of the label “Son of Man” in this particular text?  (It seems significant for John in the ultimate responsiveness of the [formerly] blind man.)  (9:35)
• There appears to be a mirroring mini-chiasm in 9:39:  blind ==> see; see <== blind?  Do “judgment” and “guilt” complete this mini-structure?
• Note some striking, possibly unusual, recurring, or significant vocabulary words and phrases in NASB:  blind, works of God, displayed, Light of the world, spit, seeing, eyes opened/opened my eyes (vv. 10, 13, 17, 30, 32), mud, miraculous signs, prophet, put out of the synagogue, “give glory to God,” disciples.

Musings  Some musings and commentary stem from these types of questions!

I.  In terms of challenge to the status quo and religious power structures … it seems to me that there are battles presented in this chapter — a battle of people and cliques, a battle of systems, and ultimately, a battle of and for the Kingdom.  Clearly, the Jews and the Pharisees are the “conservatives” here, resisting challenge and change — while the simple facts of the blind man’s story necessitate, on the other hand, that traditional viewpoints are challenged.

Although the connection of blindness and sin might be an easy target for preachers of sermons, one should not dive into a topical sermon that uses a snippet of John 9 without first knowing a good deal about the context(s) here.  We could not, in other words, legitimately draw any conclusions about the equation of spiritual blindness and sin without knowing more of how John the inspired writer uses and develops those ideas (or doesn’t) within the literary context.  Just as significant would be some cultural insights — related, for example, to blindness, begging, synagogue norms, Pharisees, and more.  This area, like so many others, requires more investigation.

It has long seemed to me that the parents in this story are presented as weak and sniveling.  (Textual clues gained in further investigation could bolster or counter this impression.)  Out of fear, they deflect attention and responsibility.  On the other hand, the “Pharisees” and “Jews” groups are not “weak,” but they are in some sense blind and foolish.  Note, for example, that they pronounce a cloudy half-truth regarding Jesus and the Sabbath in v. 16, and they resort to name-calling in v. 34.  The Jews in power are more interested in protecting their system than in avowing the obvious wonder that has just occurred at the hands of Jesus.  From their standpoint, 1) Jesus is a threat, and 2) the now-seeing man — although formerly negligible — may now be a threat, too.

Something that struck me 25 years ago, and still strikes me today (and here, I hope I’m not just coddling my earlier reading) is this:  the Pharisees could not even see, much less accept, the God-glorifying miracle that had obviously occurred because they were too invested in protecting their empire.  John presents unadorned facts in v. 7 (that the man “returned seeing”) and in v. 9 (that he kept saying “I am the one”).  Waxing prophetic, I would assert that the implications of the Pharisees’ stubbornness here are momentous for institutional Christendom, and for various cliques and sects.  Could the Pharisees legitimately be seen to represent some of the entrenched “clergy” of later eras?  The implicit warning echoes through the centuries:  Watch out that you’re not building your own structures, and pay attention to the work of God, or else you may be found blindly rejecting Him.

In contrast to the Pharisees and the parents stands the blind man.  I would imagine that a Jewish person reading or hearing John’s gospel would find intense irony here:  the blind man appears as largely a positive example, although he would previously have been a worthless drain on society — a mere opportunity to be seen giving alms!  Initially, the man is trusting and obedient.  He also makes an ostensibly false assumption:  that “God does not hear sinners.”  No, he doesn’t quite “get” everything about Jesus yet (no one could), but he is open, and he is coming to faith.  (Who wouldn’t be experiencing new things after having been given sight?!)  Not only can he see the ground in front of him for the first time in his life, but he is beginning to see who and what Jesus is.  An encouraging message surfaces:  that one can travel the road of discipleship, progressively coming to see more truth.

II. In terms of worship … the response seems so beautifully unfeigned and unaffected — the man simply worships, when confronted with the truths that Jesus is 1) from God and 2) able to work miracles.  (Let alone, for now, the question of the meaning of “Son of Man.”)  The antecedent worship word here is proskuneo, which

• is not inherently a “religious” thing to do
• means “kissing toward” as an act of homage, and implies bowing down
• has nothing directly to do with so-called whole-life worship
• is rather the simple act of response — by one who recognizes greatness far beyond oneself

Letting alone the so-called worship wars of our times, and jettisoning any historical connections related to liturgy/”services,” or checking off items on a list on Sunday mornings, or any other corruptions of biblical worship ideals, we see worship, pure and simple, in this text.  We see that an unconstrained person, when he observes the reality of Jesus, worships.

And that is a beautiful precedent that both instructs and compels.  Lord, may we.

~ ~ ~

Postscript

It worked out to honor my grandfather, Andy T. Ritchie Jr., by publishing my blogpost #1000 on this, the 104th anniversary of his birth.  (I even set the posting time as 19:09 CDT, the year of his birth, but this part is useless trivia.) 

Andy Thomas Ritchie, Jr., son of Andy T., Sr. and Fannie Mae Cobb Ritchie, was born and raised in the Nashville, Tenn., area.  He married Kathryn Delma Cullum in 1933; the pair had four children — Andy T. III, Edward, Bettye, and Joan.  I am #7 of 10 grandchildren, and there are 29 great-grandchildren.

Granddaddy taught music at David Lipscomb College and Bible and music at Harding College.  (Both later become universities.)  He was a concert singer who recorded an album in addition to his performing on stage and on radio.  He influenced thousands through his

• personal conversations and correspondence
• leadership of personal evangelism meetings and “lily pool” hymn sings on the Harding campus
• direction of the Harding Chorus for several years
• much-remembered classroom teaching (see here for an external mention)
• inimitable, compelling leadership of worship  in song, and preaching — in his own congregation, and in other states
• manner of living life

I think Granddaddy would have appreciated a good deal of what I’ve written on this blog to date, although certainly not all.  He himself wasn’t known for his writing as much as for his leadership in other veins, but he did publish articles in multiple periodicals and wrote a full-length book on worship.  I imagine that, were he alive today, he would also have expressed being inspired by John 9, and would have appreciated my exegetical efforts, along with the highlighting of the challenge of the (Jewish) status quo.  (Therein, certain goals of the Restoration Movement which influenced both of us are also highlighted.)  Granddaddy probably would have appreciated most the emphasis on the worship of God the Son, as seen in this compelling story.

Believe it or not, one of the more memorable aspects of Andy T. Ritchie, Jr., almost eluded mention until the fourth draft of this postscript.  He was severely sight-impaired for the last 20 years of his adult life, having suffered detached retinas related to diabetes, and later became legally blind.  This mention of his blindness, written after the main portion of this post, leads me to include, here, a prayer song I wrote for a family reunion some years ago.  Please take a moment to read at least the words of Lord, I Want To See.  (A sound file may be downloaded by clicking this link.)

Granddaddy entered the land of the eternally living and seeing in 1983.

In praise of exegesis (999a)

If you’ve got a detail in a score that’s hard to hear, that’s not an excuse for not hearing it!

- Ken Ward, The Bruckner Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 (March 2008), p. 41

Spoken with reference to complex musical texts (a/k/a “scores”), the above is also easily applicable to investigating the riches of scriptural texts.

[This is blogpost #999a.  (#999b has now been inserted, but that's a dull story.)  As I write, I have a rough idea of what #1000 will be, and then I'm going to take a break, probably posting some more "voices" from the past, things I read, etc. -- but not doing much new, original writing for a while.  I have loose plans for some beginning to write three different series, but no one will see those for weeks or maybe months.]

Anyway, it seemed appropriate that this near-last (for a while) post be on biblical exegesis — a topic close to my head and heart.  This is no primer on exegesis; I wouldn’t be able to write one if I tried.  It is merely intended to 1) motivate by highlighting the importance of the topic, and 2) offer a few particulars.

I believe that Christians should be consistently engaged in seriously investigating — and submitting to — scripture texts.  Toward that end, to state a sort of conceptual baseline:  we may not elevate any scripture text out of its historical and literary contexts, in order to respect a specific religious tradition or an individual interpretation.  Neither may we discard a text for those reasons or any others.  (The problem comes not so much in the positing or the believing or the dreaming, but in the doing.)

I suppose that, given my book-oriented Christian upbringing, I ought to feel I’ve studied scripture more than most.  But the more I come to understand the exegetical mindset and mode, the less I think I’ve actually studied scripture exegetically in the past.

Exegesis is not a particularly “religious” word but has perhaps come to be associated more with the serious study and interpretation of biblical texts than other types of texts.  Exegesis is not hermeneutics, exactly, but the two are related.  Exegesis is inextricably associated with the enterprise of digging into a specific text, and using available means to understand that text on its own terms.

One way of envisioning this type of goal is articulated by Dr. Greg Fay in his forthcoming two-volume series on the Bible (and here, I’ve taken a couple liberties with his statement):

The challenge is to stop interrupting God when He’s speaking to us — digesting scripture fully, even holistically, in its historical, literary, and sometimes very personal contexts, as if we were present in the defining moments of God’s first conversations with his people.

One way of “interrupting God” is pasting a “verse” (yanked from here or there) on top of another “verse” that comes from a completely different context.  Or, as Gary Collier’s imagery has it, we get things mixed up when we put a bunch of different text-ingredients into a blender and press “puree.”  If on the other hand we get into a single text and attempt to understand what it is about, we stand to gain immeasurably.  We may use various ways and means, including reading and re-reading the text itself, reading multiple Bible versions in English, delving into the original languages, investigating the cultural/historical background in which the text was written, highlighting recurring words, analyzing the structure of the text, reading multiple commentaries, and more.  (A sample listing of some possible exegetical tools may be found here, and a portal to many others, in the red section of this page.  A Christian college offers a master’s-level concentration in Biblical Exegesis; oh, that this were a required concentration for the majority of those training for jobs in official Christian capacities.)

When you think of exegesis, you might think “Exodus,” when the people came out of Egypt. The literal roots of the word “exegesis” have to do with being 1) guided or led 2) out of something.  So many people seem to want to read onto or into (eisegeting) instead of drawing a well-founded interpretation out of (exegeting) a text.  This trend is as disconcerting from a broad perspective as it is unhelpful to the individual who wants to continue in the way of discipleship.  Initially, at least, exegetical study is the way to go.  It does not preclude a more subjective, devotional approach, but some solely devotional approaches can be wispy and not true to the text.  It can be very exciting to dig into the original texts more intentionally, peering over the obscurant mountain built by centuries of ignorance and decades of Christian marketing.

Effort is required in digging into texts, extracting their riches.  But as the writer said in relation to a musical score, having to expend some effort for the reward is no excuse for not expending said effort.  The details can be incredibly illuminating!

One aspect of digging into some texts involves, conveniently enough, digging!  (Excavating and exploring uncharted territory may add to the imagery here.)  Biblical archaeology (which is a bit of a clumsy term that refers to excavating sites of biblical significance, not to digging into the Bible itself) can be an enticing field, and I recently had opportunity to hear Dr. John Monson in an insightful (online) lecture on the value of “Physical Theology.”  I’d like to offer the following quotes as appetite-whetters, hoping you’ll click the link below when you have time to listen to a lecture online.

Increasingly, the academy and the church are propelled by the prevailing intellectual trends of our time.  Many scholars and theologians discount such concepts as reliable history and purposeful text, while the community of faith is often complacent toward biblical context as the Bible’s central role continues to decline.

The urgent quest for personal religious experience often displaces Scripture, not to mention the archaeological and linguistic material that can elucidate and enliven the biblical text.  It is a supreme irony that the Bible’s original context is often dismissed or discounted by the academy and the church precisely at the moment that corroborative evidence abounds like never before.  – Dr. John Monson, lecture, “Physical Theology: The Bible in its Land, Time and Culture,” Feb. 11, 2012, Lanier Theological Library lecture series (web-housed recording accessed 3/13/13)

Israel, Syria, and the Christian nation (996)

A long-lived misunderstanding has been perpetuated regarding the nature of 1) biblical Israel and 2) the new “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16).  While there surely remains some gray area in this topical arena, it is my intent in this brief post to assert the notion that that modern political entity of Israel has no special place in God’s plan.

[First, as an aside, I'm offering two paragraphs of self-disclosure, since I expect that a few readers will click in based on the blog title and tags, without having previously seen what I write about.  I am a seriously committed Christian. That does not, by any stretch, mean that I should be associated with mainstream evangelicalism, the Christian Right, or mainline Protestantism ... and certainly not with Roman Catholicism (which in my view is thoughtlessly, perturbingly associated inextricably with Christianity; it comprises a system quite distinct from the one described in the New Covenant writings).  While I have close ties to the first "ism," I prefer non-franchise Christian gatherings, I manifest a restorative interest in the unadulterated message of historically attested Christian scripture, and I gravitate toward simpler expressions of church and Christian discipleship in general.

I am always hoping to draw otherwise disinterested readers who would see something new and/or worthwhile in Christianity; my attention-getting inclusion of Syria in the title for this essay was probably a bit disingenuous.  The Inquisitions and Popes and Phelpses and Bakkers and Mormons and so-called Jehovah's Witnesses of the ostensibly Christian world have deeply -- and very publicly -- harmed what could have been a more solid reputation, and I want to do what I can, in my small corner, to give another perspective to stereotypes.  Anyway, my only specific thought related to Syria is that Damascus is inside it, and some important events occurred near that city, approximately in the years 34 and 37 A.D.  See this post on "the birth of Christianity" as chronologized by Paul Barnett.  Now, for the substance of this post. . . .]  

I am only moderately politically aware, but it seems to me that Israel has figured far too prominently in the political policies of the Western world.  I suspect that multiplied attention given to Israel has related, in part, to imputed guilt over such major happenings as the Nazi Holocaust.  I find the major political parties in the US to be needlessly divergent on Israel; these divisions firmly place most Christian interests on the right; and most liberal, inclusive interests (i.e., inclusive of other religious traditions), on the left.  I don’t claim any insight related to foreign policy, but I figure Israel should matter no more than any other nation.  The fact that it does seem to matter more, I presume, is related to religion and maybe history, more than to economy or politics.  (If you’re a Christian Rightist reading this, and I’m ticking you off right about now, stop to think about why you clicked in to this post but ignored those on biblical exegesis or worship or matters related to church.)

Israel is now merely a political entity in God’s eyes, no longer constituting the “chosen people.”  This assertion, if accepted by Christians far and wide, ought to lead to less rancor about Israel and Syria, Israel and Jordan, Israel and Iran, Israel and the Gaza Strip, and what-have-you.  Less rancor, and, dare I say it, more hands off.

Considering NT references to Israel in the past, I had thought it was obvious that the expression “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 (also see Romans 9:6) had nothing to do with the old Israel, but I now think that I was biased and that there could be a double entendre here.  Could the expression refer jointly to these groups?

1. those Gentile believers who “line up” (see Gk. stoichesousin) in thinking that circumcision is immaterial
   
2. the Jewish believers, i.e., if they are really of God in following promise, Spirit, and the Christian New Covenant

In any event, it is clear in Galatians that the Old (Hagar, Mt. Sinai and law, flesh, child-guide, etc.) is painted negatively, so it makes little sense to read “Israel of God” in 6:16 as referring to theocratic Israel/Jews, alone, in a positive sense.  This old-is-bad sense may not be as fully present in other documents, but in Galatians, it is.

Portions of Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapters 9 to 11, are problematic for those of us who believe that, as of the crucifixion and shortly after, the Jews were no longer considered favorably by God on the basis of their Jewishness.  Moreover, even the most careful and well informed New Testament scholars find different emphases in the different documents that make up our New Testament canon.  For instance, Luke’s writings in his gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles are seen by some to emphasize more of the Jewish connections than most of Paul’s letters.  On this point, please consider this note by by Dr. Robert Wall in his paper, “Israel and the Gentile Mission in Acts and Paul:  a Canonical Approach”:

There is a sense in which the deeper logic of a theology of Acts differs from that of the Pauline corpus, although this may be one result of different literary genre.  An historical narrative will tend to privilege the fact of experience as the setting for occasion of the logical reflection, even as Pauline literature tends to privilege core theological convictions as the setting for religious experience.

Here, Wall suggests that Luke’s (inspired) narrative purposes naturally deal with the Jewish lineage.  I might take that a step further, perhaps, by asserting that Paul’s writings on this subject (and most subjects) constituted bona fide theologies more than Luke’s.  In other words, what we have in Paul’s letters (e.g., Romans, Galatians) was more of an intentional, watershed articulation of the new status quo, whereas Luke’s literary purpose was in this respect more narrow, focused on historically connected narrative of God’s work — as it progressed from Jerusalem to the rest of the world.  Inasmuch as Luke was concerned with this progression, it would be natural to build more on Jewish foundations.

As of the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, ca. 33 A.D., the new scene is one in which “Israel of God” equals “people of God according to the New Covenant.”  The current people of God are those who are in Christ, regardless of ethnic background or (former) Jewish status.

I share with most evangelical Christians an inclination to resist unfounded, pluralistic ways that affirm other faith-pathways that supposedly lead to the one God.¹  Consisting largely of evangelical Christians, the “Religious Right” tends to be associated with undying support for political Israel today, yet that very political (military, even?!) support constitutes pluralism, in that it allows room for non-Christians.  To be inclusive of Israel today is, curiously, the more liberal position — a fact that may annoy some of my politically conservative friends.  :-)

I don’t believe Hinduism or Taoism or any other, non-Christian faith system has the answers.¹  I acknowledge a particularly deep-seated fear of Islam, and this fear stems not only from fear of Muslim extremists.  Whatever my fears or yours, these are human and are limited by time.  The Christian Right needs to realize, too, that being in Christ far transcends anything that may or may not happen with world religions and political boundaries in the 21st century.  All these things will pass.

When Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” He was saying that His followers should pay taxes submissively; He wasn’t expounding the benefits of wholesale purchase of a political system.

When Peter re-appropriated Exodus and spoke of the “holy nation,” the “people for God’s own possession,” he wrote of Christians, not of the U.S. or Israel.

When Paul advised Timothy singularly to please the one who enlisted him, Timothy was involved in Christian Kingdom, not in a military or political cause.

Christians who seriously enlist on the side of Jesus and His kingdom will be much less concerned with current, geopolitical Israel than with being in Christ.

==========

¹Not believing Hindus and Buddhists, etc., will end up with God eternally doesn’t mean I consign all non-Christians to hell.  God is judge, and I suspect that His grace will include lots of ignorant and erring ones — or else we’d all be damned.  I do believe the (bona fide) Christian faith is singular and should be adhered to by all who have the opportunity.

From Jesus to Paul (994)

I remain struck by the closeness in time between the historical Jesus and the earliest evidence about him.

Even for the important people like emperors the lead time tended to be much longer.  It is likely that fifty years elapsed before Tacitus wrote his account of Nero’s assault. . . .

Paul R. Barnett, The Birth of Christianity, 21

Caveat lector:  This is a post about the dating of events, and about historically attested evidence.  It is “academic,” but it is far from academic in its ramifications.  It takes determination to work through the details in this post.  If you’re not interested in details, just re-read the quotes above, and skip to the paragraph near the bottom with the bold sentence in it.

I’ve been impressed with Paul Barnett’s 1st-century chronologies that grew out of his ardent study of Christian origins.  I borrowed Barnett’s book from my dad’s shelf once and, convinced of its value, promptly bought a used copy myself.  From that volume come these chronological notes.

Barnett suggests the following in his investigation of the timeline.  First, Acts firmly fixes two dates (details in Barnett, p. 24-25) within world history:

1. A.D. 29 (15th year of reign of Tiberius):  initial prophesying of John the Immerser¹
2. A.D. 50:  Paul’s arrival in Corinth

(1) above also fixes A.D. 29 as the earliest possible year for the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.  But in what year is the endpoint for Jesus’s life — the year of the crucifixion?  (This answer will also be the earliest possible year for Saul’s conversion.)

Astronomical considerations relating to Passover have resulted in only two generally accepted possibilities for the last year of Jesus’ life on earth:  A.D. 30 or 33.  I don’t know of anyone who would hold that Jesus’ ministry proper started in 29 and was completed in 30, i.e., was only one year in duration.  Rather, the duration of the recorded ministry is much more rationally set at 3-4 years, starting in ca. 29.  So, the crucifixion and ascension must have been in 33.

Now, about Paul’s conversion … what happened after Damascus Road for Paul, and when?  Both Paul and Luke, whom Barnett finds to be “independent authorities” (i.e., neither copied from the other), have the same sequence for Paul’s life, albeit with less detail in Luke’s accounting (this info from p. 18):

Paul’s sequence (Galatians)	Luke’s sequence (Acts)
P. attempted to destroy God’s church	P. ravaged church in Jerusalem
God revealed His Son to Paul	“light from heaven … voice”
Damascus	Damascus
Arabia
Damascus
Jerusalem	Jerusalem
Syria-Cilicia	Tarsus
[Antioch]	Antioch
Jerusalem	Jerusalem

• For sake of discussion, let’s set Paul’s conversion at 34.  (The earliest it could have been would be 33, the same year of the crucifixion.)
• Gal. 1:18 has Paul’s return to Jerusalem 3 years after the Damascus call.  (The Damascus-Arabia-Damascus phase would then be a total of 3 years.)  The earliest possible date for Paul re-entering Jerusalem is 36, but let’s say it was 37 (arithmetic:  34+3=37).
• Gal. 2:1 has another return to Jerusalem 14 years “after.”
• Scholars differ on whether the 14 incorporates the prior 3 or not.  See * below.
• Details of Paul’s flight from Damascus (2 Cor. 11:32-33) follow:
  • The escape immediately precedes Paul’s first return to Jerusalem, which in turn was at least three years after his conversion.
  • The king was the Nabatean ruler Aretas IV, who died in A.D. 40.
  • The earliest plausible date for the first return to Jerusalem is 37, and the latest possible date is 40 (the year of Aretas’s death).

Again, then:  Paul’s conversion and call would have been between 34 and 37, in order to have the first return to Jerusalem between 37 and 40.

* Now, looking back to the third bullet above . . . if Paul’s second return to Jerusalem were 14 years after his first return, the arithmetic becomes 34+3+14, which adds up to the year 51, which is a year later than Acts has Paul arriving in Corinth.  Impossible.  (Backstep for a minute.  We could consider that Paul could have been converted as early as 33, the same year of Jesus’ crucifixion, and not 34.  The math here would then be 33+3+14=50 for the year of the 2nd return to Jerusalem and the arrival in Corinith.  But, the likelihood that the two arrivals occurred in the same year seems unlikely or even impossible.)  Whether Paul was converted in 33 or 34, the preferable option for dating his second return to Jerusalem is 14 years after the crucifixion, leaving the math at 34+14=48.  The possible time window between Jerusalem and Corinth would therefore have been approximately two years.  In other words, this timetable works; Paul would have arrived at Corinth approximately 2 years a) after visiting Jerusalem the second time, and b) after a mission to Cyprus and southern Galatia.

Aside:  if Paul were converted as late as the year 35, the first return to Jerusalem could have been in 38, and then the second return in 49 (14 years after 35).  It is conceivable, but less likely, that Paul would come to Jerusalem in 49, and make it to Corinth by the next year.

The net effect of Barnett’s reasoning is a sort of chronological “crushing backward”:   the most plausible time frame suggests that key events of Paul’s life occurred a) earlier than is sometimes thought, and b) closer to one another.

Barnett asserts, “On the hypothesis that the crucifixion occurred in 33 we conclude that Saul the Pharisee was converted about a year later, in 34, and that he fled from Damascus to Jerusalem in 38 (Gal. 1:18)” (PB … or, possibly in 37  -bc).  The import of this hypothesis is that Paul was then quite an early convert, having come to faith in Jesus about a year after His ascension.

Barnett again:  “The ramifications are considerable.  Paul the early convert is chronologically the first (extant) Christian theological writer, and his christology is as advanced and developed as any. . . .”  “… The christology he articulates was formulated within that brief span between the crucifixion of Jesus and the conversion of Paul.” (cf. Gal. 1:11-12,17)  (PB, p. 26).  In other words, Jesus’ identity as Messiah was already being set forth by 34, the likely year of Paul’s conversion.  Paul then continued said expounding in his missionary preaching, documented to have begun by 37, after the first return to Jerusalem.  (Of course, any preaching in Damascus [see Gal. 1:17 and Acts 9:22] and Arabia would also have been presenting Jesus as Christ, but we have no canonical documents that offer any further details of Paul’s 3 earliest years.)

An approximate, resultant timeline is as follows:

1. 29:  ministries of John the Immerser and Jesus of Nazareth begin
2. 33:  Jesus crucified
3. 34:  Saul converted
4. 34-37:  Saul-Paul’s Damascus-Arabia-Damascus phase
5. 37-38:  Saul-Paul escapes from Damascus and returns to Jerusalem [37-48:  various churches established]
6. 48:  Saul returns to Jerusalem
7. 48-49:  letter to Galatians
8. 48-49:  visit to Thessalonika
9. 49-50:  1st letter to Thessalonians
10. 50-51:  visit to Corinth

The evidence points solidly to a firm christology established very soon after Jesus’ death.  Incidentally, scholars differ on which was written first — the letter to Galatia or the first one to Thessalonika, but Barnett tends to think Galatians was written ca. 48-49, just prior to Paul’s visit to Thessalonika in ca. 49.  Whether 1 Thessalonians or Galatians was penned first, it is difficult for any rational mind to deny that

• in the years immediately following his historically attested life, Jesus was proclaimed as Messiah/Christ
• within five years of Jesus’ crucifixion, the people of the nearer of the two Antiochs labeled the disciples as a movement

Christian faith is attested historically and undergirded solidly.

====================

¹ In these confused days, for sake of clarity, “John the Baptist” is best rendered “John the Immerser.”

Let us often be reminded that “baptize” did not originally suggest anything other than dipping/submerging/immersing.  Pretty much every language scholar agrees that that is what the word “baptizo” means.  What they differ on is whether humans in later centuries have the right to alter the “mode” to include pouring or sprinkling.  I assert that the antecedent word dictates the mode — leaving no safety for adjustments based on convenience.  Further, even if the word “baptizo” had a range of meanings that included sprinkling, the symbolism of identifying with Jesus’ burial and resurrection is far too strong to accede to a method other than immersion.

Expected answers (992)

As I begin this essay, I’m watching a master at work.

At the performance, two days later

He is a musically gifted conductor with a long-developed, international reputation, and an artist I’ve had the honor of working with in more than one symposium.  He, like all the rest of us mortals, has a pedagogical crutch/quirk or three.  The one I’m thinking of hasn’t hampered him much, but I still notice it:  he has the habit of asking a very specific type of closed-end question.  He just queried, for instance, “Trombones, at D, I need a little bit of what?”  The “what” is a blank he’s ostensibly asking for help with, but there is only one right answer, and everyone in the room knows it.  As I said, this little teaching crutch works fine for this master conductor, but it’s a minor irritant for folks like me who dislike feeling like a blind sheep,¹ so I resist it.

I’m more bothered, though, by expected-answer word formulas (incantations?) that play a part in so many churches — of a) the mainline protestant, b) the more evangelically oriented, and c) the Roman Catholic varieties.  If a responsive reading or some such is specified thoughtfully and theologically soundly, it’s not so bad (although rarely truly inspiring for me).  What I react more negatively to is these:

1. “The Word of the Lord” ==> “Thanks be to God”
2. “God is good” ==> “all the time” // “All the time” ==> “God is good”

Taking those in reverse order:  I definitely do affirm that God is good all the time; I just don’t care to parrot that truth with a covey of other parrots.

And, regarding the first incantation, I might or might not believe that what was just read in church constituted “the word of the Lord” more than “the word of us.”  If I perceive it to be more employed as our word than as the Lord’s, I’m hard-pressed to recite “Thanks be to God” with the same enthusiasm.  Why my negative cast here?  Because the “thanks be to God” utterance, at worst, could be tantamount to shading the light around God’s throne by highlighting some human misappropriation.  In other words, I want to be sure that it’s truly God’s voice speaking, as opposed to some stilted, misapplied, or irrelevant phrase masquerading as God’s word.

So, whose word was it?  I suppose there’s no solid answer, because communication can be complex, especially when there are many people in a room.  Determining whose word it has just been may involve

• consideration of the reason(s) the particular passage was selected (be careful not to be too suspicious … and also be careful not to be too gullible!)
• awareness of the passage’s literary and/or historical context
• assessment of the relative scriptural literacy and spiritual maturity of the group

(Generally, the more literate and mature the perspective, the more a passage may legitimately be separated from its context without misunderstanding.  The more developed the group, the greater the possibility that the passage might be well applied even when not heard in its context.)

Even if scripture — of which I hold a very high view — is used well, I retract from the call for expected answers.  I simply don’t prefer them.  They don’t thrill my soul.  They don’t ignite my passion or inspire me to worship more richly or to live more devotedly.  Those of you who are more trusting by nature, and more captivated more by large-group dynamics may naturally feel otherwise, but I offer these critical, introverted thoughts to help round out your thinking.

And now, with thanks for their existence and acknowledgement that their imperfections are minor, back to music and masters that do thrill my soul. . . .

===========

¹ Feeling like a blind, helpless sheep — as though I have no initiative or insight in myself —  is to be desired and avowed when Jesus is the Shepherd.  Since I repudiate the notion of apostolic/papal succession (!), though, having a “pastor” ask this kind of thing of me is far less appealing.

Laying down the Law (2)

The following, additional excerpts are from Ben Witherington, “Excursus:  Laying Down the Law,” in Grace in Galatia (Eerdmans, 1998).  I think they are of the utmost significance and am closing this series on Galatians with them — and a bit of personal commentary.

The actual problem with the Law as a means of Christian living is at least sixfold:

1. [The actual effect of the Law] is to imprison those who are under it in a form of slavery, the Law acting as a rather strict guardian.
2. It involves God’s elementary principles which the believer, as he or she grows up, needs to get beyond.
3. The Law is a temporary expedient … to go back to it is not only to be anachronistic, but is tantamount to a denial of the efficacy of the work of Christ and the Spirit.
4. The Law is quite incapable of giving what Christ and the Spirit give – life, freedom, fruit, gifts, etc.  The Law is not bad; it is simply impotent.
5. The Mosaic Law was intended for Jews, separating them specifically in social practice (Sabbath, circumcision, food laws, etc.), but also to make them stand apart in moral behavior and theological belief (contra immorality and idolatry). . . .  Although the Shema and Ten Commandments were at the heart of the Law, Paul was willing to place the Law in the categories of “ministry of death” and “form of fleeting and fading glory” while talking about those very ten commandments (2Cor 3)
6. Paul opposes the mandatory observation of the Law by any Christians whether Jews … or Gentiles.  No doubt the reason he does so is because if some choose to be consistently and permanently Torah true, this will divide the community … into clean and unclean, sinner and holy one, first- and second-class citizens. . . .  In the Christian community the basis of association is simply being in Christ in whom there is no Jew or Gentile.

~ ~ ~

We may sum up by saying that for the Christian Paul, the Mosaic Law was a good thing, something that came from God … but that it was limited — limited in what it was a) intended to accomplish and b) could accomplish, c) limited in time-space, and d) limited in terms of the group it was meant to be applied to. . . .  The people of God were no longer to be under the Guardian, given the advent of the eschatological age.  Those in Christ could then be new creatures, walking in the Spirit.

My regurgitation of Witherington’s most forceful comparison of Old to New could at first seem to be aimed at certain teaching, teachers, or denominations.  It’s true that personal conversations and relationships pass before my eyes sometimes!  I’m concerned, for example, with an emphasis on modern, geopolitical Israel, which I believe has only a historical, relative place in Christian theology, and which I suspect has no place at all in Christian eschatology.  I do suppose that some, more than others, tend to place greater trust in the Old, but a strong and anything-but-silent majority appear to elevate the Jewish Law to a place of all-encompassing, lasting oversight, and I find this elevation ill-advised.  The Old was, and is, fulfilled in the New.

I rather think it is all Christian believers who need to hear the message of Galatians, and hear it well.

==================]

This entire Galatians series, which includes text-based and devotionally oriented posts, may be accessed through this link.  If you don’t like heady or detailed material, try this post for starters.

The ultimate Galatians: laying down the Law (1)

The following excerpts are from Ben Witherington, “Excursus:  Laying Down the Law,” in Grace in Galatia (Eerdmans, 1998).  I think they are of the utmost significance.

For Paul, the encounter on Damascus Road led to a drastic re-evaluation of the Mosaic Law.

By what rule or standard will the Christian community live and be shaped?  Paul’s answer:  cruciform and Christological … it is to follow his example and the pattern of Christ and walk in and by the Spirit.  It is, in short, to follow the Law of Christ which is not identical with the Law of Moses.

Paul does not think the Law is against God’s promises, he just does not think that Law-keeping is the means through which those promises come to fulfillment. . . .  The effect and the purpose and intent of the Law are not one and the same.

Paul’s letter to the Galatians is neither antinomian nor an attack on legalism per se.  It is a historical argument on salvation, recognizing what time it is, and what covenant God’s people are (and are not) now under.

Some Scriptural continuity should not be confused, however, with what we may anachronistically call “ecclesial” continuity between “Israel” then and now.  Paul’s view is that the way to obtain the benefits of the promise to Abraham is through Abraham’s true and ultimate seed Christ, not through continuing to keep the Mosaic Law.  It is Jew and Gentile united in Christ (emph mine  -bc) that are viewed by Paul as the people of God.  In short, Paul is arguing that the people of God were narrowed down to the elect one, Christ, the [S]eed—after which those who are “in the [S]eed” … are “in” the people of God.

More to come in two days, in the final post on Galatians.  This entire series, which includes text-based and devotional posts as well, may be accessed through this link.

Galatians: Old and New

[This is the 6th in an 8-part, text-based series on Paul's letter to the Galatians.  The entire series, which includes other types of posts as well, may be accessed through this link.]

Conceptually speaking, Galatians is sometimes seen as a “mini-Romans”:  each letter presents Jew-Greek issues and treats them from the new Christ-centered perspective.  Galatians is obviously not as extensive or theologically developed as the later Romans, but it is at least as emphatic, in my estimation.  Having studied some in Galatians and having been somewhat intimidated by the prospect of truly studying Romans, :-) I’m glad I have done the former.  It takes less effort and is very inspiring!

One of the issues dealt with solidly by both Pauline letters is the relationship of the Jew to the New Covenant and the Savior, Jesus the Christ.  The following lists, based on information in Ben Witherington’s Grace in Galatia (Eerdmans, 1998), helps in solidifying the distinction.

Pejoratives

• Hagar
• The covenant from Mt. Sinai                 
• The current Jerusalem                           
• The children of the slave (i.e. Ishmael)   
• Not sharing the inheritance
• Flesh, emphasis on physical things (e.g., circumcision)
• Jewish nature
• Old Law
• Judaizers (key:  2:14, e.g., Peter, just before proposition 2:15ff)

Affirmatives

• [Sarah]
• The covenant of the promise
• The Jerusalem above
• The children of the free (Isaac)
• Sharing the inheritance
• Spirit
• Leading/governing/piloting (paidagogos root) of Law
• Law of Christ (5:14, 6:2)
• Faith, belief
• Gospel, preaching, messenger

In the above categories, we may see clearly that the former items are presented negatively in Galatians, while the things in the “Affirmatives” list are positive and to be pursued by the Galatian Christians.  In the reading and study of Galatians, there can be no doubt that the Old Covenant is being contrasted with the New, with the former viewed unfavorably.

I’d like to move now to one specific passage that may serve as an exemplar in viewing Paul’s message about New vs. Old.  I imagined these conversational responses inside the heads of the first “Judaizing” hearers of 3:28, as they read/heard 3:26-29.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek.”

“Yeah, yeah … I know he’s been saying that, but he can’t really mean that.”

“Neither slave nor free.”

“Now he’s meddling.  He really needs to just stop.”

“Neither male nor female.”

“What?!!  This guy is clearly off  his rocker.  Now he’s talking physical impossibility.

Wait … if that’s what he’s saying, maybe he really does mean that the Jew/Hellenist distinction s supposed to be erased in Christ now. . . .” 

This imaginary “conversation” sprang from my growing understanding of the radical change Paul was affirming in terms of adherence — i.e., moving from Old to New.

Galatians mini-structures

[This is the 5th in a text-based series on Paul's letter to the Galatians.  The entire series, which includes other types of posts as well, may be accessed through this link.]

If you became overwhelmed with the detail level of the prior two posts, you are not alone — I did, too.  Today’s material is no light fare, either, but the rewards for digesting it are great.  Today, I’ll be sharing two small-scale textual structures presented by New Testament scholar Greg Fay, and one I found on my own.  These are chiastic or inclusio-type structures.

Mini-structure No. 1:  3:1-9 (Greg Fay)

A          3:1     You foolish Galatians …

   B        3:2      (“works of the Law, hearing of faith”) (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως)

C    3:3    “Are you so foolish” (opening of resultant question)

Beginning                ἐνάρχομαι  (enarchomai)
by the Spirit           πνεύματι   (pneumati)

3:3b                 D                  [are you] now

by the flesh             σαρκὶ  (sarki)
completed?             ἐπιτελεῖσθε   (epiteléisthe)

C’        3:4  “Have you suffered so many things in vain, if indeed it was in vain?”

   B’        3:5    (“works of the Law, hearing of faith”) (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως)

A           3:6-9  (identifying of peoples/groups)

1. Speaking transparently here … for me, the A sections above are not all that readily seen as book ends, but for Dr. Fay, they made sense as section markers.  It is not always the individual words that form relationships; sometimes, it’s an antithesis or a concept or even a sound (think homonym and pun).
2. Moving inward toward the B sections, the mirroring is clarified:  the Greek expressions “works of the law” (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου) and “hearing of/with faith” (ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως) are identical in both 3:2 and 3:5.
3. The C sections (3:3 and 3:4) are not as conceptually related but are both pointed questions asked of the audience.
4. The syntax of the even more pointed question in 3:3b may not be apparent in English translations, or even in an interlinear Bible.  The center of the chiasm appears to be the word νῦν (now/at present); the time reference.  Flanking this single word are the mirror expressions a) spirit vs. flesh and b) having begun vs. completed.

The significance of the above isn’t as great as, say, grace vs. law, the relationship of old and new, and more.  However, the structure does make clear the pointed way Paul was addressing the issues in the Galatian region.  I (i.e., not necessarily Dr. Fay) might suggest that the thrust here is to move the Judaizing Galatians forcefully to serious consideration of the negative implications of trust  in the flesh and law of the Old Covenant.

In writing this post, I have spent nearly an hour refreshing myself on the above chiasm, which is one that I was already convinced of, based on prior study.  The lasting reward found in such discoveries is compelling, though — so much so that I think I’ll try a conceptual paraphrase of v.3 on my own here!

Are you so ridiculously deluded?

You started out in the Spirit; that’s established.
What about now?  
You have a choice to make in the present.
What is it going to be now? 

Will you make a choice to continue in an ongoing, fleshly system?

Or will you decide to continue on the better voyage you had embarked on, in God’s Spirit?

~ ~ ~

Mini-structure No. 2:  2:15-17 (bc)

I have great respect for New Testament scholars that are able to read Greek fluently and to determine from the primary sources things that are not always clear to English readers.  Although most of what I have recently studied and learned from Galatians was a step removed from the sources, I did some work with the Greek text myself, and I was delighted to discover the chiasm below on my own:

A  We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles;

   B  nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law

C  but through faith in Christ Jesus,    διὰ πίστεως, εἰς Ἰησοῦ| Χριστοῦ

C’  even we have believed in Jesus Christ,   εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν,

    B’  so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since (that) by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.  But if, while  seeking to be justified in Christ,

A’  we ourselves have also been found sinners,

Remembering that chiasms and inclusio-/sandwich-type structures are by no means all that the Spirit used, through the conduit of Paul, in communicating to the Galatians, I immediately thought it logical and likely that the propositio (“proposition” to be proved, 2:15-21) would include a more formal, intentional rhetorical device such as the chiasm.

For me, the key to locating the center of this passage was the elementary observation that “Christ Jesus” was mirrored a few words later with “Jesus Christ.”  Next, the prepositions jumped out at me; I am learning that Paul sometimes (and perhaps particularly in the early letters to Thessalonika and the Galatian region?) intentionally used prepositions serially in structuring certain emphatic thoughts (cf. 1 Thess 1:10).

Next:  there are four different forms of the same verb (justify) found in 2:16-17, and this usage strikes me (I may be off-base here) as emphatic.  One can’t help but notice the relationship of the two notions of justification.  Being justified by faith in Christ is being established as distinct from being justified by works of the Law.  Note the textual mirroring in these expressions from the first and last parts of 2:16:

hoti ou dikaioutai anthropos ex ergon nomou

[that is not justified a man out of works of the law]

hoti ex ergon nomou ou dikaiothesetai pasa sarx

[since out of works of the law will not be justified all flesh]

Important/corresponding elements in the above include

• man/flesh
• “out of works of the law” (identical above and below)
• “not” (ou in Greek) preceding the verb “justified”
• the fact that these two are “hoti” (“that”) clauses, which are generally significant in exegesis and have been translated differently — “that” is most often used, but this word may also be rendered as “because” or “since”

Again, the hyper-emphasis of this chiasm is the centrality — both textually and theologically central! — of faith in Jesus Christ/Christ Jesus.  Below, for the Greek-literate, is the entire text of 2:16 (the fourth dikaio* verb is found in 2:17).  Note the convincing textual mirroring in the bold expressions — “belief of/in Jesus Christ” is set against “Christ Jesus believed.”  As with Greg’s chiastic layout of 3:1-9 above, the textual direction of 2:15-17 could be a forecfully personal thrust designed to require the Galatians to enlist, with Paul, on the side of faith in Jesus Christ.  The seemingly simple words kai hemeis (and we) are found between the two “faith in Christ” expressions.

εἰδότες [δὲ] ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος
ἐξ ἔργων νόμου
ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ,

καὶ ἡμεῖς

εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν,
ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ
καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου,
ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου
οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ.

~ ~ ~

Mini-structure No. 3:  3:26-29 (Greg Fay).  I had previously highlighted 3:26-29 in this prior, more devotionally oriented post but cannot resist doing so again!  Greg Fay has noted that this passage may be the conclusion to which the overall argument is headed (and the center of 3:1-4:10, pre-epistolary “request”).

A   Sons of God (υἱοὶ θεοῦ) through faith in Christ Jesus

B    Immersed, put on (clothed with) Christ

C    Neither Jew, Greek, etc.
C’   One in Christ Jesus

B’   Of (belong to) Christ

A’  Sons (seed — σπέρμα) of Abraham, heirs of promise (ἐπαγγελίαν κληρονόμοι)

~ ~ ~

One additional example of textual structuring to be pointed out here is not chiastic (concentrically formulated) but is rather a repetitive use of a single preposition in a relatively short section of the letter:

Five ὑπὸ (under) phrases from 3:22-4:5

• under sin
• under law
• under a guardian (paidadogos, paidadogon)
• under guardians (epitropous) and managers (oikonomous)
• under basic forces of the world
• under the law

===============

This concludes the more exegetically/textually oriented material on Galatians.  

The concepts dealt with in the three concluding posts in this series on Galatians are of serious significance to most of the Christian world.  I’m under no illusion that the opinions of the scholar I’ll be quoting (or my own choices of the quotes or emphases of the concepts, for that matter) represent the crux.  However, if you’ve merely skimmed most of this material on Galatians to date, I sincerely hope you will pore over the upcoming, three final posts that deal with the relationship of Old and New.  

Galatians words and notes (2)

[This is the 4th in a text-based series on Paul's letter to the Galatians.  The entire series, which includes other types of posts as well, may be accessed through this link.]  

Below are some additional, selected textual notes on Galatians, following up on yesterday’s first list.  These are representative of my  notes made from consultation of works of Robertson, Fay, Witherington, and others, and from personal study.

• 4:13-15 — it must be a visible flesh-ailment — likely the eyes (or possibly head, neck, hands, lower legs/feet, which would have been typically visible in this age).  If eyes, it speaks of a Galatian act of supreme kindness:  the eyes were considered most valuable of all organs. cf. 5:11 “large letters.”  Whether eyes or not, it is a “weakness of the flesh,” i.e., not a fever or demon or some internal condition.
• 4:14
  • nor rejected (ουδε εξεπτυσατ). First aorist active indicative (basic, single-action past tense) of ekptuw, an old word meaning “to spit out” (Homer), to spurn, to loathe.  Found here only in the NT.   Clemen (Primitive Christianity, p. 342) thinks it should be taken literally here since people spat, as a prophylactic custom, at the mere sight of invalids, especially epileptics.  But Plutarch uses the word of mere rejection.
  • “As an angel of God” (ως αγγελον θεου), as Christ Jesus. In spite of his illness and repulsive appearance, whatever it was.  Not a mere, generic “messenger” of God here, but a very angel, even as Christ Jesus.  Cf. Acts 14:12, Lystra — Paul at first welcomed as Hermes, god of oratory.  However, that narrative is hardly conceptually applicable here in Gal (due to antagonism from Jews from Antioch in Pisidia and Iconium).  -Robertson
  • Possible word-play with αγγελον (angel) — possibly refers to famous story of Phrygian hill country in which there were consequences of not welcoming (or alternately welcoming) the gods when they came incognito (Ovid’s Metamorphoses 8:626ff)
  • Acts 13-14 “welcomed as a messenger of God” “More to the fore perhaps is the fact that Paul has just exhorted them to become as he is, namely Christlike, and now he is reminding them of how they treated him ‘as Christ Jesus’ when he first visited. In short, these remarks are meant to strengthen the appeal for imitation.” – B. Witherington
• 4:19
  •  I am in travail (ωδινω). I am in birth pangs. Old word for this powerful picture of pain. In N.T. only 3x:  here, 4:27 and Revelation 12:2.
  • “Until Christ be formed in you” (μέχρις οὗ μορφωθῇ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν) — future temporal clause with mexri ou (until which time) and the first aorist passive subjunctive of morpow, late and rare verb, in Plutarch, not in LXX, not in papyri, only here in N.T. This figure is the embryo developing into the child. Paul boldly represents himself as again the mother with birth pangs over them. This is better than to suppose that the Galatians are pregnant mothers (Burton) by a reversal of the picture as in 1 Thess. 2:7.  - Robertson
• 4:28 — “but you, brothers, according to Isaac of promise children (tekna) are” — cf. the wording of 3:29
• 4:30 — Cast out (ekbale).  Second aorist active imperative (basic past tense without focus on results of the action) of ekballw.  Quotation from Genesis 21:10 (Sarah to Abraham) and confirmed in Genesis 21:12. Strong negative (ou me with future indicative). “The law and the gospel cannot co-exist.”
• 5:1-12
  • 1-6 sets out declaration of liberty
  • 7-12 are a more free, “collection of pointed remarks, rhetorical questions, proverbial expressions, threats, irony, and a joke of stark sarcasm” (-Witherington)
• 5:1
  • 5:1b is either the end of a section, transitional, or beginning of new section. No transitional particle to connect it to preceding and (probably) uses dative case unusually.  Many textual variants.  Possible English readings include these:
    • For freedom Christ has set us free. (NET)
    • It was for freedom that Christ set us free; (NASB)
    • It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. (NIV)
    • Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, (KJV)
    • We have freedom now, because Christ made us free. (NCV)
    • Christ has set us free to live a free life. (MSG)
  • The expression “for freedom” is a “dative of goal, destiny or purpose” — e.g., C.K. Barrett.  In other words, our freedom is the goal/purpose of Christ’s having set us free.
  • This grammatical construction also found in “sacral manumission procedures” of Ancient East
  • Be not entangled again (μη παλιν ζυγω). “Stop being held in by a yoke of bondage.” Common word for ensnare by trap. The Judaizers were trying to lasso the Galatians for the old yoke of Judaism.  ”Yoke of slavery” strongly implies the “different gospel.”
• 5:7 — Compare 5:12 imagery “cut in on” — see also 1Thess 2:17 — “late verb” but possibly early, intentional uses by Paul — both very negative.  Wigram has “incision” as a secondary meaning. “Cut or strike in, hence, to impede, interrupt, hinder; incision, e.g., a trench cut in the way of an enemy.”
• 5:10 — Subjunctive (tense of possibility/contingency/uncertainty).  It seems unlikely that Paul knew precisely who the leader of the Judaizers was.
• 5:12 — Phillips and others have another possibility, based on Jewish law that excludes the castrated eunuch–that the Judaizers (doubly ironically! -bc) would be completely cut off from the Galatian Christians.  In other words, the ones who want to require cutting to be part of the church would, Paul says, “cut themselves off” from the whole organic church, and in doing so, would be doubly cut.  In other words, they would be cut off metaphorically from the church and also castrated symbolically, thereby cutting themselves off from Judaizers, too.
• 5:16
  • peripateite — walk in step (also a key term in 1Thess — another early letter).
  • ου μη τελεσητε — strong double negative — you will really not fulfill the flesh
• 6:1 — trespass (paraptwmati).  Literally, a falling aside, a slip or lapse in ancient papyri (rather than a willful sin).  Koine word, also in Polybius and Diodorus.
• 6:2 a) “Keep on bearing” — present active imperative of bastazw, old word, used of Jesus bearing his Cross in John 19:17.  Or b) fulfill — Some MSS have future indicative (anaplhrwsete) – this variant reading is very uncertain.  Others have first aorist active imperative.
• 6:7-8 Longenecker says the hortatory unit is self-contained in 6:7-8.  1) introductory formula, 2) proverb, 3) maxim, 4) Paul’s explanation – flesh-spirit dichotomy.  The import of this oft-quoted (and often generalized, perhaps falsely) passage may be that God’s just, covenantal plan must not be mocked: Spirit/Promise/Faith must be the course. 
• 6:15 — καινη κτισις – query:  what might this expression “new creation” mean here, considering the book-level context?
• 6:16 — What is the Israel of God”?  I have long thought it was obvious that this expression had nothing to do with old Israel, but could there be a duality here?  Could the expression refer jointly to those Gentile believers who “line up” (stoichesousin) in thinking no circumcision matters, and also the Jewish believers, i.e., if they are really of God  in following promise, spirit, new covenant?
• 6:17 — old word from stizw, to prick, to stick, to sting.  Slaves had the names or stamp of their owners on their bodies. It was sometimes also done for soldiers. There were devotees also who stamped upon their bodies the names of the gods whom they worshipped. In a round-up, cattle are given the owner’s mark. Paul gloried in being the slave of Jesus Christ. This is probably the image in Paul’s mind since he bore in his body brandmarks of suffering for Christ received in many places ( 2 Corinthians 6:4-6 ; 2 Corinthians 11:23 ), probably actual scars from the scourgings (thirty-nine lashes at a time). If for no other reason, listen to me by reason of these scars for Christ and “let no one keep on furnishing trouble to me.”

=====================

Coming next:  Mini-structural elements (chiasmus and more) in the Galatians text.  

For more detailed insight into the minutiae of Galatians words, try Robertson’s Word Pictures, available free on the WWW.

Galatians words and notes (1)

[This is the 3rd in a series on Paul's letter to the Galatians.]  

One means of getting a handle on the content of a letter is to examine it for recurring words and themes.  For example:  the words law and faith are clearly very significant here.

Below are some notes on frequently used words.  The definitions given here are minimal; the specific contexts are always important in determining more specific meanings.  The word counts were software-based and relatively scientifically sound; the selection of words was perhaps more biased, although I don’t think I’ve omitted any highly significant, recurring words in the letter.

Greek	Rough definition	Found in Galatians
δικαιο* / dikaio*	to justify	2:16-17; 3:8; 3:11; 3:24; 5:4 (10x total, including below)
δικαιοσύνη / diakiosune	righteousness	2:21; 3:6; (3:11 dikaios); 3:21; 5:5 (10x total, including above)
νόμο* / nomo*	law	2:16; 2:19; 2:21; 3:2; 3:5; 3:10-13; 3:17-19; 3:21; 3:23-24; 4:4-5; 4:21; 5:3-4; 5:14; 5:18; 5:23; 6:2; 6:13 (23-25x total)
πίστ* / pist*	faith	Noun form 1:23; 2:16; 2:20; 3:2; 3:5; 3:7-9; 3:11-12; 3:14; 3:22-26; 5:5-6; 5:22; 6:10 Verb form 2:7; 2:16; 3:6; 3:22 (participles 2:16, 3:6) (20x total)
ζῇ -zao / ze – zao	life, live, and cognates	2:14; 2:19-20; 3:11-12; 5:25 (10+x)
ἔργων / ergon	work	2:16; 3:2; 3:5; 3:10; 5:19; 6:4 (7x)
ἐπαγγελία / epangellia	promise	3:14; 3:16-19; 3:21-22; 3:29; 4:23; 4:28 (9x total — all in chs. 3, 4; 17x in Gal and Rom combined; 13x in Hebrews, 52x total in NT — more than half the NT uses are in Gal, Rom, and Heb.)
ἐλεύθερ* / eleuther *	freedom	2:4; 3:28; 4:22,23,26,30,31;  5:1,13  (9x total)

Here are some miscellaneous textual notes, selected from my gleanings:

• 1:3 – grace and peace — xaris is Christian; eirene is Jewish.  This pairing, presumably owing to the ethnic dichotomy in the Galatian churches, also appears in the letter’s conclusion (peace 6:16, grace 6:18)
• 1:1-5 — is all one sentence
• 1:6 — amazed/surprised — element of intense unbelief (perhaps could be as much “disgusted” as “surprised”?)
  • metatisthese
    • deserting Him — not defection from mere custom or creed; present tense (defection is not complete, i.e., not in perfect tense)
    •  ”quickly deserting”  — support for earlier dating of letter.  Gk. is colorful — used of military revolt, change of attitude
    •  verb is in middle voice, therefore, Galatians are responsible, although there’s evidence of outside influence (said to be in the middle between the active and the passive voices because the subject often cannot be categorized as either agent or patient but may have elements of both.  (Wiki)
• 1:13 — “church of God” may stand in opposition to the succeeding mentions of Judaism
• 3:1 — second aorist (basic, single-instance-focus past tense) passive indicative of prograpw, old verb meaning “to write beforehand,” to set forth by public proclamation,” “to placard, to post up.”  This last idea is found in several papyri (Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary) as in the case of a father who posted a proclamation that he would no longer be responsible for his son’s debts.  Grapw  was sometimes used in the sense of painting, but no example of prograpw with this meaning has been found unless this is one.  With that idea, it would be to portray, to picture forth — a rendering not very different from placarding. 
• 3:3 — nun sarki epiteleisqe? — “are you now perfected in the flesh?  There is a double contrast between enarxamenoi above (having begun) and epiteleisqe (finishing), and also between “Spirit” (pneumati) and flesh (sarki). There is keen irony in this thrust (Robertson).
• 3:29 — Although word order is not often important in Greek, since the word “promise” figures in significantly in chs. 3-4, I couldn’t resist this:  κατ επαγγελιαν κληρονομοι  — “according to promise heirs.”  Promise is emphasized in this section of the letter.  The compound word “heirs” would have some legal import, using nomoi (law).
• 4:12-20  No grammatical marker (no alla or de) appears in the text at 4:12 to indicate that we should set off 12 from for 11 to any significant degree.  Witherington does not believe this passage was written by a “crazed” Paul “going off”; it’s just a different kind of argument, within the “proving” of the probatio.

• 4:12 verb is present middle imperative, “Keep on becoming as I am.”  Paul will not give them over, afraid though he is.  Paul a

  ssumes (a subset of) the addressees were not like him, i.e., they were then observing Jewish calendar and dietary laws, and seem to have been contemplating circumcision as necessary.

• There are three vocative-case (rare in NT) instances of the word “brothers” in Gal: 4:12, 1:11, 5:13.  For investigation:  what case are

  4:28, 4:31 6:1, and why would Paul have employed vocative  in the first three?

=====================

For more detailed insight into the minutiae of Galatians words, try Robertson’s Word Pictures, available free on the WWW.

Galatians overview and macro-structuring

[This is the 2nd in a series on Paul's letter to the Galatians.]

One means of getting a handle on the content of an ancient letter is examination in terms of recurring themes and words.  Many believe that freedom is the underlying key concept in the Galatian letter, although the word itself is not seen as frequently as law or faith.  The next post in this series will contain a chart of recurring words in the letter.

As the letter is seen as a whole, one key thematic area is the relating of the Old and New Covenants.  The conclusion of this blog series will present some high-impact material from Ben Witherington III on this relationship.

Witherington emphatically highlights that Galatians is not primarily about how to begin, or even about how to remain; rather, it’s about how to move forward.  (On this point, immersion in 3:27 is not an emphatic point in the letter, but may rather be assumed, i.e., Paul would have found no need to instruct about it, as he would today; believers in Jesus as Christ were clearly being immersed as a habituated matter of practice, clothing themselves with Christ.)

For Aristotle (who lived and taught some 350 years before Paul), philosophy was concerned with the how and what of things.  He gave some major headings for aspects of persuasive rhetoric, all of which Paul appears to have used in communicating with the Galatians:

• ethos (asserts speaker’s personal character, credibility)
• pathos (puts the audience in a frame of mind based on emotional appeal)
• logic (offers argument, proof)

Galatians also appears to employ quite a few discrete rhetorical devices (not only chiasm or epistle form).  Ben Witherington III and many others agree on a rhetorically based outline of the document, though, and it runs something like this:

• Epistolary prescript 1:1-5
• Exordium 1:6-10 (11) (intro)
• Narratio 1:11(12)-2:14 (statement of facts that relate to issues)
  • Gospel 1:11-12
  • “Narrative of surprising developments”) 1:13-2:14
• Propositio 2:15-21 (statement of points of agreement/disagreement, issues to be proven)
  • succinct, in keeping with general practice
  • relatively complete
  • looks both backward and forward
  • smooth transition in and out of (note the “we” beginnings, followed by “I” statements)
  • the question, for Witherington:  Who are the people of God, and what constitutes them?
• Probatio 3:1-4:31 (confirmation, [proof], develops arguments – “explanation” that it’s about faith, not law or works; and that faith preceded Law)
• Exhortatio 5:1-6:10 (the “so what” or “therefore” — the “application” — how to use freedom)
• Epistolary Postscript (with peroratio/conclusion included, 12-17):  6:11-18

The Word commentary affirms that a) 1:6-10 and b) 5:1-12 establish an inclusio for all the arguments and persuasions of the letter.  Note the “sustained severity” of these “bookend” passages.

The following chiastic or inclusio-type structure is given by John Bligh (as quoted in Word Bib Commentary, cxiii).  This outlines the entire letter:

A Prologue 1:1-12

  B Autobio 1:13-2:10

    C Justification by faith 2:11-3:4

     D Arguments from scripture 3:5-3:29

         E Central chiasm 4:1-10

     D’ Arguments from scripture 4:11-4:31

    C’ Justification by faith 5:1-10

  B’ Moral section 5:11-6:11

A’ Epilogue 6:12-18

To the extent that the above is on target, the “central chiasm” of chapter 4, verses 1-10, would be seen as a focal point of the whole.

Galatians Intro

Some months ago, our group embarked on a study of Paul’s letter to the Galatians.  The study is now complete, but, life being what it was, I didn’t make time for weblogging some gleanings during our process.  Reading aloud helps me to take in important material more thoroughly, and reviewing/writing about such things also aids me in processing the material, so I resolved to move through the study material again.  I recently did just that.

Today, then, begins an 8-part blog series on Galatians.  This material will involve more scholarship (and less personal opinion) than many of my little essays.  If you have little patience for serious textual investigation . . . well, I commend it to you, anyway (!), but you could tune out, I suppose, taking a break from my blog for a the next couple of weeks.  I sincerely hope not to overwhelm, so these relatively abbreviated posts will come every two days.

On to Galatians!

Authorship.  This letter is universally accepted as authentic, i.e., no one thinks it was penned by some later charlatan. Galatians was almost certainly written a brief 14-16 years after Saul’s Damascus Road theophany; it is said to be the most historically detailed of all of Paul’s letters.

Audience.  The identity of the Galatian peoples addressed is a matter of some question; it was either addressed to the Phrygian province of Galatia, or to a larger “Gaul-atian” region into which massive people groups had migrated from the North and West.  I favor the former, more traditional viewpoint on this question; inference has led many scholars to this conclusion, based on the documentary evidence of Paul’s mission visit to Phrygian Galatia, not to mention its more strategic location in the Roman world at the time.

Dating.  The measuring of the intervening time periods between Damascus Road and missionary activity and letters to churches is not insignificant.  Some theologically liberal scholars — i.e., those who are unconvinced of Jesus’ divinity and the specific, saving work of God on earth — are fond of suggesting that Paul “invented” Christianity some decades down the road.  However, a close examination of the timetable shows that, at most, there could only have been 3-4 years between the ascension and Paul’s conversion.  Likely, Paul was converted between 6 and 18 months after Jesus died.  I highly recommend Paul Barnett’s monograph The Birth of Christianity as a means of comprehending both the chronology and significance of the first 15-20 years of Christianity.

In the Galatian letter and in other attested documents, Paul presents the “apostles” as having gone before him: “the church of God” and “the faith” were for him objects of prior persecution.  By the time of the writing and publication of the Acts (post-70AD), Jewish rejection of Jesus as Christ was more or less a done deal; matters were presented differently at that time because the social context and resultant agenda of that inspired author (Luke) were different.  The letters, though, were written chronologically closer to the actual events; at that time, Jewish rejection and Gentile acceptance were both still somewhat surprising.

Galatians has been dubbed the “Magna Carta of the Reformation.”  As such, it provides essential material for any student of Christianity and certainly for the serious disciple of Jesus.

MWM: both promise and promise-keeper

Michael Card’s Christmas album The Promise stands tall above so many others, in that it is artfully conceived as a whole.  It incorporates at least one discernible bow that ties the whole package together.

The title track, “The Promise,” sets the stage with orchestration that gives way to a finger-picked acoustic guitar intro.  Straight from Isaiah 9, the initial lyric line observes,“The Lord God said when time was full, He would shine His light in the darkness.”  This prophecy bespeaks “promise.”  The most provocative line in the song is this later observation:

The Promise showed their wildest dreams had simply not been wild enough.

Don’t you love that?  Coming from that previous line, the Chorus can now be more expressive:

The Promise was love
And the Promise was life.
The Promise meant light to the world.
Living proof that Yahweh saves
For the name of the Promise was Jesus.

Now let’s move for a few moments, if you will, to Paul’s letter to the Galatians.  Among the compelling word-themes in this seminal letter are faith (of course), law, righteousness, and … wait for it … promise.  Jesus is quite specifically the fulfillment of promise.  I think it’s significant that the word epangellion (promise) is used only in the middle two chapters of Galatians, helping to form the center of Paul’s persuasive argument.  In fact, as scholar Greg Fay has said, Gal. 3:26-39 may be the conclusion to which the overall argument is headed, and the center of 3:1-4:10.  (On this point, note the placement of the word huios (son) in 3:7, 3:26, and 4:6-7, not to mention promise in 3:27 4:28.)   In the concentric text layout seen below, from 3:26-29, the A sections link identity as sons of God and sons of Abraham and the ideas of faith and promise.  This latter idea is borne out more fully as one becomes more familiar with Galatians.

A Sons of God, faith in Christ Jesus

B Immersed, put on Christ

C  Neither Jew, Greek, etc.
C’ One in Christ Jesus

B’ Of Christ

A’ Sons of Abraham, heirs of promise

Being sons of Abraham, for the Jew, meant being an heir.  In Galatians, Paul argues that being a true son of Abraham would be from the line of the free woman (not named, incidentally, but clearly painted in contrast to Hagar, who is named).  The free woman, Sarah, was the woman of promise; and faith, like that of Abraham, for whom faith was credited as righteousness, now leads to Christ Jesus.  Jesus becomes the personified Promise–both in Galatians and in eternal reality.

Back to Michael Card now.  Near the end of his album, in deeply simple, deft phrasing, Card uses these lines in a more hymnic, choral song:

Thou the Promise and keeper of the promise –
Our Salvation and our only Savior.
Our Redemption, our Redeemer, 
Thou art ours and we are Thine.

So be it.

Michael Card has for probably 30 years been a biblically focused, dedicated, scandal-free, prolifically inventive songwriter.  His sincere vocals are unique, and I’m at home with them, but his voice isn’t what I’m drawn to — it’s his thorough ability to distill biblical narrative and biblical teaching into songs.  Although I’ve been a Michael Card fan for about 20 years — starting with “Know You in the Now” and “Maranatha” and “Could It Be?” instead of the earlier “El Shaddai” and “I Have Decided” — I am neither groupie nor paid advertiser.  I merely think this kind of high-quality work merits ongoing attentiveness.

[This is an installment in the Monday Worship Music series.  Find other, related posts through this link.]

Highways in context

Among many other things, my dad taught me to think about geographies and topographies.  Roads would often make him think of other roads, and areas of the country would be like, or not-so-like, other areas.  Features such as hills and winding roads and skylines would take on personalities of their own.

Where we currently make our temporary dwelling, Rt. 19 is the main road.  It’s one of 2-3 roads of consequence in our entire county, actually.  Rt. 19 reminds me a little of a few Delaware roads, such as Frazer Rd., near the MD line, or sections of old Limestone Rd. (near the old Lowe’s, that later became a church-house, or maybe that little section no one travels near the PA line).  Our Rt. 19 may be even more like Rt. 71, between Lum’s Pond and Red Lion “proper” (is there a Red Lion “proper”?).

Rt. 19 is a nice road, really.  It stretches the entire length of our sizable county, from the Pennsylvania border, south of Wellsville, then running alongside the Genesee River, all the way to Fillmore.  There, it forks:  19 heads northwest, then north again to Pike, and 19A meanders northeast to Portageville, which is the southern gateway to Letchworth State Park, containing a remarkable gorge, just into Wyoming County.

Rt. 19 is traveled by quite a few 18-wheelers and all the rest of us who go anywhere from time to time.  Being beside a river, it’s relatively flat, and has a goodly number of curves.

At face value, Rt. 19 is a standard, two-lane highway.  There’s nothing really remarkable about its size, shape, or construction.  But it defines and supplies a lot about Allegany County, and adjacent areas.  It is a reputable, dependable marker, and we depend on it.

I’m grateful that the highway maintenance crews take care of Rt. 19 as they do.  But they, like all of us, need to be a little more aware of context.  You see, when autumn was expiring, the crews came out to do their pre-winter work, fixing some of the little potholes, presuming to protect the road from the coming winter damage (snow, ice, salt, blades).  

In their zeal to do an extra-good job, they did something new this year:  instead of simply digging out loose macadam and patching holes one by one, they put new asphalt down over long stretches, parallel to the solid white line on the right.  Seems like a good idea, right?  Looks pretty nice, all considering, and provides for a bit smoother ride if you set your wheels to the right.

But they forgot something about our local context.  This might have been fine in the dryness of Colorado or Arizona, but here, we get lots of moisture, and we do depend on this road.  The seam is at just the wrong spot — it’s just where the right tire rolls, for moderate- or small-sized cars.

Hey, guys!  Remember, we have a lot of rain and snow here, and the water and slush will build up on the seam where the new asphalt meets the old.  I’ve already almost hydroplaned a time or two.  You’ve actually created a hazard with the way you fixed the road.

Durn.  Welp. . . .  This winter, people just gotta be extra careful.  I guess we can get out there in April & do something about this after the snow melts.

Wonder what happens when we forget our contexts at our jobs, in our churches, and in Bible study.  We try to fix things, but some damage lasts a while, no matter what we do.

Slogans in context

My undergraduate institution, Harding University, toward which I still feel some fondness and loyalty, once used this slogan on its advertising materials:

Educating for Eternity

I think this slogan was coined before the days of so-called “public relations.”  Perhaps those more skilled in advertising would have nixed this idea because of its double meaning.  Sure enough, some rogue-comedian student wrote something in the student newspaper about the 5th- and 6th-year seniors who were engaged in an apparently eternal education process.  The parents who were footing the bill probably weren’t amused at the double entendre.  :-)

In the context of the Church of Christ of the 60s, 70s, and 80s, though, that slogan was an apt one.  Most of Harding’s constituencies, I’m convinced, would have latched onto the idea of “educating for eternity” fairly easily.  The slogan wouldn’t have drawn many outsiders, but it wasn’t supposed to.  Subsequently, though, Harding “progressed” and began to revision itself, for better or worse, as the “Harvard of the South.”  The constituencies were broader and more numerous; the context for the slogan therefore changed, and eventually, so did the slogan.

Here’s another Harding slogan.  I’m pretty sure this one had its origin in the servant heart of one very likeable, charismatic (in the non-miraculous sense), little, white-haired, charming man.  It’s so simple that it’s almost timeless, context-less.  But the logo aspect appears passe, doesn’t it?

[Aside:  I don't recall if any of the graduate institutions I attended for one or more courses had slogans per se.  No matter what the marketers think, for all their well-intentioned work, those costly wordings and images don't stick with some of us.]

~ ~ ~

The institution at which I now teach, Houghton College, had this slogan emblazoned on its fleet vehicles and letterhead when I arrived five years ago.

A Higher Purpose in Mind

I kind of liked that one.  But when it went the way of the mammoth and mastodon, I realized that it, too, was a slogan that had outlived its contemporary context.  Actually, it was probably ill-advised at the outset, not unlike “Educating for Eternity.”  Yes, I get “higher purpose,” and the inclusion of the mind is clever for a higher-ed institution, and especially one that has way-above-average aggregate SAT scores.  But … imagine the constituent of another “Christian institution”¹ as the Houghton van passes by.  ”Hmm.  We are trying to be Christian, too.  Do they think they’re better than we are?”  Or, worse, imagine the basic, secular person who might have heard of Houghton but who knows nothing about it.  The phrasing “Higher Purpose” might have sounded differently cocky and/or out of touch.

~ ~ ~

Postcript   These educational institutions’ slogans bring to mind that education occurs regardless of marketing.  Personally, I’m learning some tough lessons recently, and I’m not learning them very easily or willingly.  I’m also learning biblical Greek in a much more intentional way than ever before.  What are you learning these days?

==============

¹ Strong, well-founded feelings of lots of Christian college teachers and administrators to the contrary, I’ve been unconvinced for more than 20 years that the “Christian institution” notion is one grounded in reality.  The people are generally much more than nominally Christian:  most at Harding and Houghton, for instance, are more serious than the average bear about their Christianity.  It’s that the organizational workings of an institution are so often at odds with the needs of individual Christian disciples, and a world apart from the priorities of the Kingdom of God.

Form in Galatians

In coming to understand many things, form and structure are important.  I know this because I’ve been confronted with my own lack of understanding so many times, and often, my understanding grows a tad bit when some aspect of structure that I hadn’t previously been aware of is spotlighted before my eyes.

Q:  Why was this meeting held with those people?
(Oh — it’s because of this way of viewing the structure of the organization.)

Q:  What does that piece of art, or that musical composition, “mean”?
(I can get closer to understanding something about it if I learn about its component parts, its makeup.)

Q:  How does the form of this architecture relate to its function?  How does it “work”?
(Just think how many more disasters we’d have if architects didn’t understand form.)

I am not equal to the task of writing much commentary about Paul’s letter to the Galatians, but in studying the letter more deeply than ever before, I’m coming to understand more by delineating some component parts.  It’s not always possible to do this without preconceived ideas, and the delineation sometimes seems to be more art than science.  Still, knowing the following general sections helps to understand what Paul is saying by the guidance of the Spirit of God:

• Epistolary prescript 1:1-5
• Introduction 1:6-10 (11)
• Statement of facts that relate to issues to be addressed 1:11(12)-2:14
  • Gospel 1:11-12
  • Narrative of Surprising Developments 1:13-2:14
• Key summary section:  statement of points of agreement/disagreement, issues to be proven 2:15-21
• Confirmation, proof, development of arguments just summarized 3:1-4:31(5:1)
• Exhortation (the “so what” or “therefore”) 5:1-6:10
• Epistolary postscript (with conclusion included)  6:11-18

For much of the above, thanks are due to Ben Witherington III and his commentary Grace in Galatia.  Other scholars I’ve contacted have laid things out similarly.

For me, the key help has been the labels affixed to 2:15-21 and 3:1-5:1.  Understanding the summary, introductory nature of 2:15-21 brings new light to the meaty middle of Galatians.  And some of the confusing argumentation in chapters 3 and 4 appears more lucid in light of the various rhetorical means Paul employs in attempts to persuade the Galatians.

As our group moves into the final two chapters — a section more devoted to “how to live, how to move on” — I’m feeling more confident, although not as confident as I yet may be, about any applications we might make to our current lives in the 21st century.

God, give us all the mind of Paul, inasmuch as he had Your Spirit, in coming to understand more deeply

  integral arguments about Christian identity 

    key word-concepts (e.g., faith, justification, law, freedom, promise)

      persuasive, overarching themes seen in rhetorical structures

And may all of this result in the infusion of even more of You in our hearts, crying, “Abba!”

Collier on context

The following especially helpful words on biblical context were written by Gary Collier.  I respect Gary’s exegetical bent and his scholarship and asked his permission to repost these words here.

The gospels are especially helpful in seeing the problem of “dumping” texts from each other onto each other, and then reading them all as just one massive gospel.  (As if . . . “What one says, they all mean . . . even if they didn’t say it!”) 

So it is best to read them one at a time for a while, letting each say its own piece.  For example, study Luke 6:20-23 in light of Luke only.  What is the flow of the text?  Are there themes or motifs that surface?  E.g., how do the “poor” function in Luke?  How does Luke 6 function within that context?

Doing this might take a while.  If we’ve never read the gospels like this, then we might need to spend days, weeks, or even months holed up with just one Gospel.  Once this begins to sink in . . . then we do the same with Matthew—letting only Matthew speak.  After a while of this—getting to know the gospels individually—we’ll then be in a position to ask, “How do they relate?  Why are they different?  How do specific stories function within each Gospel?

Do this and your Bible reading life will be changed forever.

BTW:  One day, I intend to write a piece called “The Gospel According to Wyatt Earp.”  In this piece I will take a look at four movies made on this American Legend:  “My Darling Clementine,” “Gunfight at OK Corral,” “Tombstone,” and “Wyatt Earp.”   (There’s more of course, but these four rise to the top in the current “canon” of movies on this man.)

Nearly everyone gets lost in the shallow end of the pool when talking about these movies—with comments like “Val Kilmer is the best Doc Holliday,” or “Kevin Costner can’t act,” bla bla bla—it all misses the point!   The question is really about how “story” is told, how characters are depicted, how plot is developed.   What would anyone think if we did a cut-and-paste from various movies to blend all of these movies together?  Why, it would be a mess!  Ridiculous!  But that is our primary way of reading the Gospels.

It not only does not make sense . . . it is embarrassing.

For more from Gary Collier, whom I personally know to be a highly qualified, energetically mission-driven New Testament scholar, visit one of his websites:  http://coffeewithpaul.com or http://bibledashboard.com.

(M)W(M): springboard phrases

This is no longer Monday or, even Tuesday, but this is an installment in the Monday Worship Music series.  Find other, related posts through this link.

Ponder/consider/think on/ruminate over/dwell in/trust in/be inspired by one of these phrases with me:

child of promise

because we believe

selected and adopted

by Your Spirit

not under the curse of sin

promise of the Spirit

inestimable blessing

live by faith

clothed with Christ

Why not be biblically based in some of our worship?

The above phrases come ek (out of, by, from) Galatians and are not given here because they relate directly to any existing worship music — thus the weird parens around the Ms in the heading for this post.  While a song may arise out of these words, worship is of course not all about the music, so perhaps you and I could worship God through one or more of those phrases in our hearts.

Old and new (Inconsistencies, pt 2)

A longtime reader queries, referring to a subpoint from my last post on “Inconsistencies,”

So this post isn’t about “Sabbath,” and yet the statement is still there.  I see your reasoning in not calling it “Sabbath,” but I’ve been pretty convicted about the whole rest/setting apart thing in the past few years.  I don’t have a great list of reasons to support it right now, but how can you justify that being the *only* one of the 10 commandments we’re not expected to follow?

What a devoted question — one I’m not qualified to answer — but one I think deserves more consideration, so here are some thoughts.

Hundreds of books, if not thousands, have been written on one or more of the “10 Commandments.”  I would bet, moreover, that hundreds of books have been written that focus on the fulfillment of the Commandments in the New Covenant.

I’m no expert in this area, but I’ve been conditioned to see spiritually-new-covenant applications of physical Old Testament realities.  Through the years, I’ve grown more convinced that this is generally the right track to be on with respect to the relationship of the “Old” and the “New.”  Take, for example, ancient wars involving the Hebrews.  Regardless of views on geopolitics, governments, and the use of military force, no sane Christian would take the accounts of Hebrews bludgeoning Canaanites and Amorites as justification for ganging up & killing opposing ethno-religious or political factions today.  The “takeaway’ here is that some things in the OC times aren’t applicable under the NC.  But what do we do with this?

In this case, some of the apocalyptic language of Revelation (and maybe Ezekiel and Daniel) illuminates the scenario, at least for me:  the language of obliterative war authorized by God under Joshua, the judges, the kings, etc., finds its fulfillment in the ultimate victory of God over the spiritually opposing powers.  See Rev. 15, 16, and especially 12:7ff.

There are scores of Hebrews mini-laws that no one thinks twice about.  If we are subject to the 10 Commandments per se, why wouldn’t we be subject to prohibitions around yeast and pork and hyssop and beards?  Isn’t it either the whole law or none of it?

Jesus came to fulfill the law and the prophets, according to the evangelist.  Although it’s “proof-texty” of me to pull out Matt. 22:40 and Matt. 5:17 to prove a point, I think fulfillment of Jewish types is close enough to the heart of this particular gospel that it’s not out of line to highlight the ideas of His having fulfilled. subsumed, and summarized the “Old.”

So, Sabbath as a law to be enjoined on Christians?  I think not, as such, but the larger question about the “Ten Commandments” must be answered to the satisfaction of each believer.  Could it be that none of the Commandments, in themselves, are pertinent anymore?  And, more important, could it be that exemplary principles of Jesus such as loving neighbors and “as a man thinks in his heart, so is he” and treating others as we want to be treated gloriously, effectively trump Old-Law rules such as not killing and not committing adultery and not coveting?

I don’t know that it would be possible to articulate fully a NC fulfillment of each OC commandment.  That exercise, though, might be less than necessary, in full view of the over-arching principles of Jesus — principles that cover all of living without need for appealing to a Jewish commandment.

In the case of the old Sabbath law — and I do agree that it’s important to rest — one thing that comes to mind is the notion of doing everything for God’s glorification.  Our human need for rest and recuperation would seem to relate to better potential in glorifying Him.  In addition, there is that all-surpassing thought of being created in God’s image, and after all, He is said to have “rested.”  I certainly don’t think it’s a bad idea to rest, or even to have regular patterns of rest, but to suggest that Sabbath, as such, was transferred a) to the New Covenant and b) to Sunday is simply inaccurate.

Your phrasing “setting apart” piques my deeper thinking more than the rest aspect.  I know I could do better with dedicating times, including times of private and public worship.

P.S.  This whole topical area appears to constitute a four-lane intersection with the text of Paul’s letter to the Galatians, I think.