Galatians (The New FFF Commentary Series)

[Ransom]

Its overly simplistic to believe Paul found value in being from a tribe that included the first king of Israel. I posted the verse to show an uncertain prophecy engulfed the descendant of Benjamin.

The tribe of Benjamin remained loyal to the house of David when the northern 10 tribes rebelled.
Benjamin's territory included the holy city of Jerusalem, and hence the Temple.
They had special favour with God (Deut. 33:12).
Benjamin was specially beloved by Jacob, and a son of Rachel rather than Leah or one of their servant-girls.
Paul knew his lineage where most Jews did not; it was held in high regard if his family had preserved it.

Paul's point in Phil 3 is to say that if anyone had a legitimate claim to his Jewishness, it was him; the reason he mentions his descent from Benjamin was that it supported that point. There was more than one reason to be proud of his heritage if he was a Benjamite; I merely mentioned King Saul because it was the obvious one. The rest of this is beside the point.

 

[benutils]

Its overly simplistic to believe Paul found value in being from a tribe that included the first king of Israel. I posted the verse to show an uncertain prophecy engulfed the descendant of Benjamin.

The tribe of Benjamin remained loyal to the house of David when the northern 10 tribes rebelled.
Benjamin's territory included the holy city of Jerusalem, and hence the Temple.
They had special favour with God (Deut. 33:12).
Benjamin was specially beloved by Jacob, and a son of Rachel rather than Leah or one of their servant-girls.
Paul knew his lineage where most Jews did not; it was held in high regard if his family had preserved it.

Paul's point in Phil 3 is to say that if anyone had a legitimate claim to his Jewishness, it was him; the reason he mentions his descent from Benjamin was that it supported that point. There was more than one reason to be proud of his heritage if he was a Benjamite; I merely mentioned King Saul because it was the obvious one. The rest of this is beside the point.

I agree with your conclusion but your path to that conclusion is much clearer given the evidence you just shared. I have no idea why you would say "The rest of this is beside the point.". Being from a tribe that produced the first King is rather underwhelming. Besides, King Saul did evil. God took the Kingdom from him.

 

[Ransom]

I agree with your conclusion but your path to that conclusion is much clearer given the evidence you just shared. I have no idea why you would say "The rest of this is beside the point.". Being from a tribe that produced the first King is rather underwhelming. Besides, King Saul did evil. God took the Kingdom from him.

You are doing what I call "leading with your theology" - assuming the world must work in a certain way because of it. However, you can't assume that the ancients would have seen things exactly your way as well. Sure, Saul was a bad king. That doesn't mean the Benjamites weren't proud that he came from them; it just means they didn't see things exactly the way you do.

I have no idea why you would say "The rest of this is beside the point.".

Because this is a rabbit trail. The thread is about Galatians, not Philippians or 1 Samuel.

 

[benutils]

You are doing what I call "leading with your theology" - assuming the world must work in a certain way because of it. However, you can't assume that the ancients would have seen things exactly your way as well. Sure, Saul was a bad king. That doesn't mean the Benjamites weren't proud that he came from them; it just means they didn't see things exactly the way you do.

There were kings from other tribes of Israel. A first century Jew or Gentile would know this. Nothing changes when you look at what I wrote in the context of the 1st century. Had Paul been a direct descendant of the House of David, you might have an argument. A "jew" from the tribe of Benjamin that produced King Saul. Well, not so much.

Because this is a rabbit trail. The thread is about Galatians, not Philippians or 1 Samuel.

Don't be overly sensitive. I just questioned something you wrote. You've obviously appealed to situations external to Galatians itself.

I know hardly anyone has questioned what you've written. I'm beginning to see why.

 

[Ransom]

Don't be overly sensitive.

Ahem. You're the one who continues to press the point. I have explained my reasoning. Take it or leave it. Discussion over.

 

[benutils]

Don't be overly sensitive.

Ahem. You're the one who continues to press the point. I have explained my reasoning. Take it or leave it. Discussion over.

Okay "hot shot". Thanks for the conversation.

 

[benutils]

Major themes

We don't have the original letter from the Galatians that presumably outlined the problem that Paul was addressing. But it's pretty easy to see what it was all about: legalism.

How can the central theme concern legalism, when the dispute centers around a ritual that pre-dated the law?

Circumcision was given to Abraham as a sign of the covenant between him and God.

I believe it is a mistake to classify the central theme as "legalism"!

 

[Walt]

A second theme is the unity of believers. Paul says that before God there is no difference between an apostle or a non-apostle (2:6); no difference between a Jew or Gentile, a man or woman, or a freeman and a slave (3:28-29). He was willing to face down Peter over table fellowship, lest the idea got out that there were two sets of standards for Jews and non-Jews. As the saying goes, the ground is level at the foot of the cross.

So true!  And so often misunderstood!  The way of salvation is the same for all; there is not one way of salvation for men, and another way for women. There is not a Gentile way of salvation and a Jewish way of salvation.  We all must come by faith in Jesus Christ atoning work.

This similarity, however, does not mean that God does not distinguish roles; He has shown that there are separate roles for master and servant. There are commands in Scripture to old men, young men, aged women, and young women.  There are commands to husbands and wives.

 

[Ransom]

How can the central theme concern legalism, when the dispute centers around a ritual that pre-dated the law?

"Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?" (Gal. 3:2).

"But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved'" (Acts 15:1).

You're welcome.

 

[Ransom]

This similarity, however, does not mean that God does not distinguish roles; He has shown that there are separate roles for master and servant. There are commands in Scripture to old men, young men, aged women, and young women.  There are commands to husbands and wives.

Right. "Neither male nor female," for example, does not mean that men and women are interchangeable. To quote Gal. 3:28 in favour of female pastors or same-sex marriage, for example, would be a blatant misuse of it. Not only because that's not Paul's point, but also because the Bible teaches against such things explicitly elsewhere.

 

[benutils]

How can the central theme concern legalism, when the dispute centers around a ritual that pre-dated the law?

"Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?" (Gal. 3:2).

You're welcome.

I believe in faith. However, this verse doesn't correspond to my question. You can make the argument that the covenant is of faith. In fact, that IS the argument that Paul made. However, you can't make the argument that the covenant is of the law. The central theme of Galatians is the Covenant of Faith.

Is the central theme legalism or faith? Are you saying it faith? If so, then you should change your central theme.

 

[Ransom]

I believe in faith. However, this verse doesn't correspond to my question.

You asked how circumcision can be legalism when it pre-dates the Law. Paul is talking about circumcision as prescribed in the Law. "Circumcision" is a metonymy; it stands for the whole of the Law. "I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law" (Gal. 5:3).

Again, you're welcome.

Is the central theme legalism or faith? Are you saying it faith?

I actually said both legalism and faith were central themes. Did you actually read the introductory posts, or were you just waiting for an excuse to argue?

 

[benutils]

You asked how circumcision can be legalism when it pre-dates the Law. Paul is talking about circumcision as prescribed in the Law. "Circumcision" is a metonymy; it stands for the whole of the Law. "I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law" (Gal. 5:3).

Circumcision predates the law. Yes. Paul talks about circumcision in the law. Paul also talks about the covenant of promise, before the law. A covenant that includes circumcision.

I actually said both legalism and faith were central themes. Did you actually read the introductory posts, or were you just waiting for an excuse to argue?

Why say both? I quoted where you did not include "faith" and talked of a secondary theme. Why not include faith in such a statement. Seems disjointed.

No. I am not looking to just argue. Just trying to participate.

 

[Ransom]

Circumcision predates the law. Yes. Paul talks about circumcision in the law. Paul also talks about the covenant of promise, before the law. A covenant that includes circumcision.

Abraham was justified by his faith (Genesis 15:6) years before he was commanded to be circumcised (Genesis 17:10).

It's funny how Galatians quotes Genesis 15:6 in relation to justification by faith, but doesn't quote Genesis 17 in relation to circumcision. You'd almost think Paul was talking about the circumcision of the Law rather than the circumcision of Abraham.

 

[Ransom]

Why say both? I quoted where you did not include "faith" and talked of a secondary theme.

Mmm hmm.

But it's pretty easy to see what it was all about: legalism.

So the first major theme of Galatians is justification by faith alone.

See? Both. You're welcome.

 

[benutils]

Why say both? I quoted where you did not include "faith" and talked of a secondary theme.

Mmm hmm.

But it's pretty easy to see what it was all about: legalism.

So the first major theme of Galatians is justification by faith alone.

See? Both. You're welcome.

what it was all about: legalism.

 

[benutils]

Circumcision predates the law. Yes. Paul talks about circumcision in the law. Paul also talks about the covenant of promise, before the law. A covenant that includes circumcision.

Abraham was justified by his faith (Genesis 15:6) years before he was commanded to be circumcised (Genesis 17:10).

It's funny how Galatians quotes Genesis 15:6 in relation to justification by faith, but doesn't quote Genesis 17 in relation to circumcision. You'd almost think Paul was talking about the circumcision of the Law rather than the circumcision of Abraham.

Neither Genesis 15:6 nor Genesis 17 is speaking of the Law.

The circumcision of the Law is identical to the circumcision of Abraham. Could you explain how its different?

I don't want to endless argue the point. This the last question I'll ask in your commentary.

 

[Ransom]

Neither Genesis 15:6 nor Genesis 17 is speaking of the Law.

Didn't say they were.

Since you seem bound and determined to jabber about things you imagine I said, I'll leave you alone to hour delusions now.

 

[Ransom]

OK, picking up where I left off:

Paul's third proof of his apostleship is his whereabouts since his conversion.

I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. (Galatians 1:16-17): Upon his conversion, Paul's first thought was not to rush off to Jerusalem and meet with the Twelve.  He didn't collude with them, or with anyone else. Instead, the first place he went was Arabia. This is not the Arabian penninsula as we would understand it today; rather, he meant the kingdom of Nabatea, which corresponds roughly with present-day Jordan and the Sinai Penninsula. Its capital was Petra, that fantastic ancient city carved into the cliff faces.

Why was Paul in Arabia?  He doesn't say.  Some people suggest that he was evangelizing the Gentiles that lived there. Others suggest that he spent time alone reflecting upon his conversion. Still others say he was learning his theology through a direct revelation of Christ himself.  What is important, however, is not what Paul was doing, but where he was. If he was in Arabia, he was not consulting with the other apostles in Jerusalem.

and returned again to Damascus (17): Luke writes of Paul's time in Damascus in Acts 9: 19-25. However, Luke doesn't talk about Paul's trip to Arabia, so it gives the impression that Paul was in Damascus for a few days before being compelled to escape. Maybe this was Paul's first stay in Damascus; maybe it was his whole time there (interrupted by a trip to Arabia). There's no frame of reference to say for sure. However, Paul and Luke are writing about Paul's conversion and early ministry for two different purposes. Luke is writing about Paul as a new believer, and the reactions of local Christians and Jews to his newfound faith. Paul, on the other hand, is saying that he was in Damascus early on, and not consulting with the other apostles in Jerusalem.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother (18-19): Now, three years after his conversion at least, Paul goes to Jerusalem. This is probably the trip to Jerusalem that Luke describes in Acts 9:26-30.

Again, it appears difficult to harmonize: Paul says that he met only with Peter and James, while Luke says he tried to join the other Christians, but they were afraid of him until Barnabas took him to the apostles and vouch for him. However, if we were to give both authors the benefit of the doubt, the two accounts can reasonably be harmonized. Perhaps the "apostles" Luke has in mind are Peter and James specifically.

In fact, the real controversy in verse 19 has to do with whether Paul is naming James amongst the apostles. The Greek here is ambiguous, and could mean, to paraphrase, "I didn't see any of the other apostles except James" (implying he was an apostle), or "I didn't see any of the other apostles, but I did see James" (implying he wasn't); or even some sort of middle ground, such as, "I didn't see any of the other apostles, unless you count James, and I saw him."  My belief is that Paul is naming James amongst the apostles.  He would not be the only person outside of the Twelve or Paul named an apostle (Barnabas is also so named, in Acts 14:14). Also, the general details of his life are similar to Paul's: he was initially an unbeliever, who saw the risen Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:7), and then rose to leadership within the church.

In any case, contrast the length of time Paul spends in Jerusalem (15 days) with the time he spends in Damascus and Arabia (more than 3 years). He came to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter. The Judaizers who attempted to discredit Paul did so in part by claiming we was at best a secondary apostle who got his theology and commission from the Twelve. Although Paul and Peter almost certainly shared their individual experiences with the risen Christ during their visit, the two weeks Paul spent in Jerusalem is hardly enough time to establish him as a follower of Peter.

(In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) (20): This is serious business, if Paul is literally swearing an oath that he is telling the truth.  Swearing falsely in God's name was a violation of the third commandment.

 

[Ransom]

Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. (Galatians 1:21): Continuing with Paul's travels following his conversion, Luke tells us that because of death threats he was getting from the Hellenistic Jews, the church sent him out of Jerusalem to Caesarea, and ultimately to Tarsus (Acts 9:30).  Tarsus, Paul's hometown, was the capital city of the Roman province of Silicia in Asia Minor. When next we hear of Paul, Barnabas sends for him in Tarsus and accompanies him to Antioch, a major city in Syria, and the most important city in the eastern Roman empire apart from Alexandria.

And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only were hearing it said, "He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." And they glorified God because of me (22-24): Contrast Paul's reception in the churches of Judaea with his initial reception in Jerusalem.  No doubt they knew who this Paul was who had persecuted the church, but he remained personally unknown to them, and thus,rather than fearing him as a threat, they rejoice that a hater of the church had become a Christian.  Of course, Paul's main point is that if he was supposed to be a protege of the apostles, it would not make sense that he was a relative unknown to the rural churches in their vicinity.  Up until now, he had not walked in their circles and did not do their bidding.