*Starting in verse 11 we learn that Peter had been in Antioch with Paul, had been eating with the Gentiles, and had been living like a gentile. In Acts, Peter is not said to have ever been to Antioch, indeed never very far from Jerusalem. In Acts 10, we find a story of Peter experiencing a vision from God which makes it clear that "God accepts men from every nation" including their eating habits. Then Peter goes to Jerusalem and explains his vision to the apostles and other believers. The "circumcised believers" drop all objections to accepting Gentiles. They praise God, saying "So, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life." (Acts 11:18) That sounds like the gentile question is settled, right? This supposedly takes place before Paul and Barnabus go to
Jerusalem in Galatians.
*It is also interesting to note that Acts has Paul and Barnabus travelling to Jerusalem once before the circumcision question arose, in order to take money to the saints in Judea as famine relief during the time of Claudius, which had supposedly been prophesied in Antioch by a man named Agabus. (Acts 11:27-30) while writing Galatians, Paul seems to have forgotten that he had been to Jerusalem with Barnabus before.
*Getting back to Galatians, we see Paul saying that while Peter was in Antioch "certain men came from James." When these Jews arrived, Peter separated himself from the gentiles and attached himself to the Jews because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. Other Jews, and even Barnabas followed Peter's example. Paul rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy in front of everyone. Why was this even an issue if the passages in Acts 11 about Peter's vision and the Jerusalem Jews acceptance of the gentiles is true? Are these men from James the false brothers that Paul mentions in verse 4? And which James is this? In Acts 12, James the brother of John was executed, some time before the circumcision debacle and the following council in Jerusalem, found in Acts 15. Acts has Peter being bold and visionary, a friend and advocate of the Gentiles. Paul in Galatians has Peter being wishy-washy. There, Paul is the true friend and advocate of the Gentiles.
*The rest of the chapter, presented as part of Paul's speech rebuking Peter, is a doctrinal statement. Paul says no one will be justified by observing the law (of moses). Justification is by faith in Christ Jesus. But what is justification, and why is it necessary? Apparently, there are differing opinions on the subject, but they all seem to center around being made "righteous," after some kind of recognition that every individual is a sinner. Then we have to define righteous, which is another kettle of fish. Basically, we will think of it as unsinful.
*Verse 19 says,"through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God." Huh? Verse 20 begins a passage that has been familiarized in christian songs as a kind of mantra. " I have been crucified with Christ (?) and I no longer live, but christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." I think it is normal to question Paul's sanity here. Is he speaking metaphorically, or does he believe that Jesus actually lives inside him? Is he speaking for himself or suggesting that this is the case for all believers? Remember that the only knowledge of Jesus that Paul claimed to have was through personal revelation by visions and disembodied voices.
*Last, Paul says he does not set aside the grace of God (christianese for a gift of mercy that you don't deserve), for if a state of unsinfulness could be reached by the law, christ died for nothing. Weeeellll.
First of all, you have assume that there is such a thing as a state of sinfulness to begin with. Then you have to believe that the death of a god born by a woman can fix that somehow. Of course, you must first believe that gods born by women can exist and that their deaths have the power to cancel out sins. Then you have to believe that one actually died. But, yeah, if a dude named Jesus died for the sins of the world, it may have been for nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment