Galatians chapter 4

After reading chapter 4:

*Verses 1-7. Paul says that Galatians previously had the status of children who have not reached the age of inheritance. Under aged children are still like slaves to their father. (In that day and age) So the Galatians were like slaves under the basic principles of the world. Time passed and god sent his son, "born of a woman, born under law" to redeem  those under the law (the Jews) that they might recieve the full rights as sons. To me, the analogy breaks down here because  children don't need to be redeemed by other children to inherit from ther fathers. It happens naturally. Maybe I'm missing something. Also, here we see god as the father and  an unnamed human mother as parents of "the son." Paul never names Jesus's mother in any of his writings.

*After the son redeemed the slaves/children (which are they?), they became the recipients of the full rights as sons (of god). Because the Galatians are sons of god, (when did that happen?), god sent the spirit of his son into their hearts. Now they are no longer slaves but sons and heirs.  Aren't sons still sons/heirs even when they are underage? This whole metaphor feels leaky: A child is like slave-- you were like children-- therefore you were  slaves, not sons. Someone, who was a son, redeemed you and you became sons too. Because you are now a real son, now can you call god your daddy (abba). Now god will make you his heir. Of what?

Plus is Paul talking Jews, Gentiles, or both, in these passages?

*Verses 8-11 seem to be clearly speaking to gentile Galatians. He talks about when they previously participated in non-Yahweh religious practices, observing special days, presumably pagan rituals. Paul says they were once enslaved by their old practices, do they want to go back to that lifestyle? Maybe they did. Maybe it didn't feel like slavery to them. Religious syncretism was a common thing. Paul wonders if he has wasted his time and effort on them.

*In verse 12, Paul begs them to become like him because he became like them. He was very ill when he was in that part of the world and they took extra good care of him. So he preached the gospel to them while he was there. Apparently they recieved it with joy (or they were humoring him.) They May have just been really nice people that would have listened to anyone's stories of religious salvation. We don't have the Galatian's side of the story.

*Paul complains about the people who are trying to teach the Galatians different things than Paul did. Those nice Galatians appear to be willing to go along with the newcomer's teachings, too. He doesn't want the Galatians to be zealous for their teachings but for his teachings instead. The other teachings are "for no good." Paul is confused and wishes he were there to sort things out. He implies that christ is not fully formed in them, and it's causing him pain for them like a mother giving birth to her children. So, Paul thinks of the Galatians as his children in the faith, and he wants them to be obedient to him.

Edited.

Galatians chapter 3 part 4

*Now we finish the chapter, starting at verse 26. The Jews have been released from the prison of the law, what about everyone else? Now, Paul says, every single person who has faith in christ is a child of god. Everyone who has been baptized has clothed themselves with christ. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female." Paul is saying that distinctions of ethnicity, social status, and gender don't matter. "If you belong to christ, you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise."

*There Is a question  I have now that may be answered in the rest of Galatians. We'll see.

What are christians heirs of, exactly? What is this promise, this inheritance? So far, we have not had an explanation of this in Galatians. Look back to god's promises to Abraham in Genesis 12, 15, 17. They are: Abraham will have many descendants, his descendants will be given the land of Canaan, and El/yahweh would be his god. That's basically it in a nutshell. There is never any mention of any christ figure, any punishment for sin with redemption, or any eternal life package.  Christians obviously didn't inherit the land of Canaan. But they did inherit Yahweh as their god. Yahweh used to be a one nation god, but now he is not. Is that what Paul means?

In Genesis 12:2-3 god says to Abraham, "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." Is that the promise Paul is referring to? Is he saying christians will be a blessing to the world and that whoever blesses them will be blessed, and whoever curses them will be cursed?

*Also, about "Abraham's seed." Paul claimed the word seed meant one person- christ. Now he is using the word seed to mean all the people who believe in the christ. Paul is playing fast and loose with his definitions, isn't he? We can't fault him too much. The whole Bible plays with words right and left, using puns, innuendoes, metaphors and similes, and alternate meanings. Paul is just following in the path of those that have gone before. It wouldn't matter,  if the Bible was just literature. But, if we are supposed to take it as a guide to reality, we should be able to pin down exactly what is meant.

*It's interesting that this passage clearly supports baptism as essential to being "clothed with christ." That is one of the fundamental teachings of the church I belonged to. It is one teaching of theirs that I would say follows what the bible actually teaches. Too bad, I don't believe the bible has any real authority to tell anybody anything.

*I still don't get why the gentiles need faith in Jesus to become god's children. Why can't they go the direct route like Abraham and just have faith in god. It would be less complicated. Still, that would not make it more true.

Galatians chapter 3 Part 3

*We have reached the last part of verse 19 where the author says the law was put into effect through angels by a mediator (Moses?). Frankly, I don't understand verse 20, but my study bible claims it means the law was a contract between god and the Israelites, but god's promise to Abraham was one sided and needed no mediator. According to Paul, this does not make the law opposed to the promise because the law that was given was not capable of imparting life or righteousness.

*Next, Paul says scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin. Pause. When the New Testament writers talk about "scripture" they are referring to what we know as the books of the Old Testament, probably those included the Septuagint.  The Bible as we know it today did not exist. The Septuagint also had more books than our modern Protestant Old Testament. I am not familiar with those books deemed unsuitable for the modern protestant versions. They may very well have a passage that states the whole world is a prisoner of sin. My Bible does not. However, there are numerous passages in Isaiah and Psalms that refer, in poetry and metaphor, to prisoners and captives being freed by god and/or his special servant. After reviewing many of them, it seems clear that the writer  of Galatians most likely derived his Jesus theology from these kinds of passages.

*I'm going to do some armchair psychology here and say that I suspect Paul felt himself to be a prisoner of sin, because of his own attempts to follow the law of Moses to the nth degree, and finding himself incapable of doing so. Maybe he visited the temple and saw the floors running with the blood of the never ending sacrifices. The priest's garments would have been spattered with blood and gore. So much death. And some of it was because of him. Being an intelligent guy, he eventually figured out there was no way anyone could win at that game. (Just like Tic Tac Toe and Thermo-nuclear War) Also being psychologically incapable of declaring the law to be a farce, he had to come up with some reason god had imposed the law upon the Israelites. He also had to discover god's plan for the future, because god surely wouldn't leave people in that sorry state of being prisoners to the law forever. Couldn't god come up with a way to "fulfill" that bloody law of sacrifice for sin, once and for all? Paul must have seriously obsessed over this dilemma before he had his visionary revelation of Jesus.
Could his supposed vision have been influence by passages like Psalm 42 which talks about making god's servant "a covenant for the people and a light for the gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind, to free the captives from prison, and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness."

*Paul says,"Before this faith came, we (Jews) were held prisoners by the law, locked up untl the faith should be revealed." To whom was it revealed? Paul! Trust him. The law was put in charge to lead them to christ that they might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come (back), they are no longer under the supervision of the law. It can't be wrong, he had a personal revelation.

Edited. 

Galatians chapter 3 part 2

*After the last post, I began to think: If Gentiles were not under the law of Moses, and they were not required to be, then the law's curse never applied to them. Since Jesus became cursed to remove the curse from the law. why did Gentiles even need him? In Galatians chapter 3:14, Paul basically says Christ redeemed the Jews so that the blessing of the spirit that was given to Abraham, because of his faith, could also be given to the Gentiles, if they have faith in that christ. The writer of Galatians seems to be saying Christianity is a movement by god to open up membersip in his fan club and make it all inclusive. However, to be a member, you need to understand that the Jews (descendants of Abraham) had exclusive membership first, through God's promise to Abraham, then through the laws of Moses.  The Jew's terms of membership through the law have been voided by this Jesus guy. The new membership rules require an understanding that the old membership rules are defunct, and a belief that  Jesus made them defunct. Faith in him is the new requirement for anyone who wants to recieve "the promise of the spirit." Whatever that is.

*Another question that constantly arises in my mind is: What was the exact historical moment when this belief in Jesus as the redeemer of the curse of the law was required in order to be part of Yahweh's entourage? That's pretty hard to pin down. What happens to all those billions of people, before and after that historic moment who were completely clueless about Yahweh and/or his requirements?

* Moving on to verse 15 and following: Here Paul does some verbal gymnastics to explain how this faith in Jesus requirement works. Contracts are binding, human ones and god ones. El/Yahweh made a contract with Abraham. The contract contained promises to Abraham and his "seed." In spite of linguistic conventions and common usage that denotes "seed" as a collective singular meaning all descendants, Paul says, "Look, seed is singular, not plural. Therefore it is actually talking about a single descendant. That single descendant was one person, christ." Hooray for logic! Thanks, Paul, for clearing that up. We (literally) would not have known that, if not for you.

*Next, Paul says, "430 years after Abraham, Yahweh made another contract, the law. The previous contract and its promise was still valid though. The inheritance (?) didn't depend on the law contract, but on the one that came before it, the Abrahamic contract. " What on earth was the purpose of the law then? "I'm glad you asked," says Paul. "Let me 'splain. The law was added because of transgressions (If there was no law, what was being transgressed?) until the Seed (capitalized now) to whom the promise had referred (says you) had come."

To be continued.

Most of the dialog in quotes here is my paraphrasing.

Galatians chapter 3 part 1

After a few detours, we are back in Galatians at chapter 3:

*Here Paul is berating the Galatians. He says they recieved the "spirit" by believing about the crucifiction of Jesus as it was portrayed when they heard it, probably from Paul, who never encountered the living Jesus, except through visions. They recieved the spirit and witnessed miracles not because they observed the law, but because they believed. Here, and in most of christianity, belief is the supreme virtue, even above any moral acts.

*Abraham is given as the epitome of righteousness obtained through belief, and anyone who believes is a metaphorical child of Abraham. Paul says everyone who relies on observing the law is under a curse because it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." (Deut 26:27, Jer. 11:3) Well, Paul, technically that means you and your gentile friends are cursed. To counter that, Paul also quotes Habbakuk 2:4 which  according to Paul says "the righteous will live by faith." Looking back at that verse in Habbakuk, I find a footnote that says this passage could also say "the righteous will live by Faithfulness." Faith and Faithfulness are two different things. The first cognitive the second active, comparable to the difference between belief and ongoing obedience. One word that could send Paul's argument down the drain. Abraham didn't have to worry about the curse under the law because it didn't exist yet.

*Next Paul says Christ redeemed us from the law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written, "cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." (Deut. 21:23) Well it seems to me that being crucified is not the same as being hung. I guess it doesn't matter because it's still on a piece of wood. What about all the other innocent people who were hung or crucified, were they cursed for our sake? How does that work? We are cursed by not following the law properly,  then we are not cursed because Jesus was cursed for us, then we are cursed for trying to follow the law anyway? I think Paul is trying to say that Jesus's crucifixion nullified the law and its curse, essentially rolling back  to before there was a law, when Faith was the supreme virtue. But then he wants to claim that curse still holds if you don't believe in Jesus crucified.

*Abraham, if he existed, didn't believe in Jesus, he believed in El/Yahweh. Can a person just believe in that and be free from the curse of the law? It seems that Paul says you have to actually believe there was a redeemer of the curse for the nullification of the curse to work. It's like your mind flicks an invisible curse switch. Otherwise, you're toast.

Jesus and gentiles part 5

Now we look at the book of John

*This is interesting. After a quick skim through the book, I found NO references to Jesus interacting with or talking about Gentiles. There is the incident with the Samaritan woman at the well, only found in John. But I haven't been counting Samaritans as Gentiles, even in the other gospel accounts, because they have a unique relationship with the Jews and worship the same god. John does talk about "the world" a lot, but he seems to be referring to his immediate surroundings and the Jewish community,  not the entire world.

Another interesting thing I found this dialog in John 9:48-49: "The Jews answered him,"Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?" "I am not posessed by a demon," said Jesus....   Jesus denies being possessed by a demon but he never denies being a Samaritan! Of course, in the story of the woman at the well, Jesus is clearly a Jew. However, wouldn't that be a fascinating twist if the actual historical Jesus (presuming he existed) turned out to have been a Samaritan. Perhaps that was an early accusation that Jews made about the Jesus sect.

Also, at the end of John, there is no comission to the apostles to go out and spread the gospel to all nations. There is only the instruction of Peter to "feed my sheep." Who were his sheep?

*There you have it. The sum of Jesus's interactions with, and words about, gentiles. I may have missed one or two small things. Even so, it doesn't seem to add up to much, a couple of exorcisms, a healing, and an exhortation to the disciples to preach to all nations. The two exorcisms were couched in the insulting terms of pigs and dogs. Matthew, Mark, and Luke contain the story of the mad man and the pigs. Luke doesn't have the story of the gentile woman with the demon possessed daughter. Mark doesn't have the story of the centurian. Luke's explanation for the healing of the centurian's servant was that the Centurian had built a synogogue for the Jews, so he deserved it.

Jeusus and gentiles part 4

We continue to look at the book of Matthew.

*In chapter 15 of Matthew, we read a repetition of the story found in Mark of the non-jewish woman who had a daughter possessed by a demon/evil spirit. In Mark the woman was a Greek. In Matthew she was a Canaanite. In Matthew, Jesus significantly tells the woman,"I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." He did not say that in Mark. Also, in Mark, Jesus admires the woman's reply to his implication that non Jews are dogs. In Matthew, he admires her faith.

*At the very end of Matthew, we read another version of the "great commission." There
Jesus tells the remaining eleven disciples to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit." This passage seems to clearly indicate that the disciple should have been out teaching gentiles after Jesus's ascension. However, we saw in Galatians and Acts that both Peter and Paul had to explain their ministries to the Gentiles and approval was sought from the jerusalem council of Jewish christians. Why weren't all the disciples out teaching and baptising "all nations?" There are traditions that this happened, such as Thomas in India, but there is no evidence.

Now let's take a look at Luke.

*In chapter 7, we have repetition of Jesus healing the centurian's servant, also found in Matthew 8. Here we are told people pleaded with Jesus that the centurian deserved the consideration of Jesus because "he loves our nation and has built our synogogue." In Matthew, the Centurian speaks directly to Jesus. In Luke, they communicate through friends.

*In Luke 8, we have a repetition of the story of the demon possessed man and the pigs, also found in  Mark and Matthew. This version is more like Mark's.

*I didn't notice anything else until Luke 24, where, instead of the great commission, Jesus tells the disciples, "This is what is written: The christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations (presumably including Gentiles), beginning at Jerusalem." First of all there is no OT scripture that actually says this. It is cobbled together from various passages in Psalms and Isaiah, which most likely were not originally intended to refer to Jesus. My study bible gives these references: Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Psalm 16:8-11, Isaiah 49. There are references to suffering and  passages that coincide with the NT descriptions of Jesus's death. We are told "All the families of the nations will bow down before him" (him being Yahweh). We are told Israel will be made a light to the gentiles. We are told a suffering servant will bear the sins/iniquities of many. But... We are not told all these things clearly in one place. We are definitely not told that a particular person called the christ will rise on the third day and people will preach in his name. That is something the (unknown) author of Luke made up.

So, I did some more looking into the "third day" claim. I found Hosea 6:2 that says, "After two days  he will revive us, on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence." The study bible does not claim this has any relationship to Jesus rising on the third day, good for them. There are numerous references to things happening on third days, a number of days that is very popular in the OT. But none of them seem to suggest the resurrection of a christ in any way. So why have Jesus raised on the third day? Well, the story of Yahweh appearing on Mount Sinai in Exodus 19 may be the inspiration. After a period of three days, god appears with thunder and lightening and a loud trumpet blast. It doesn't really fit, but that's all I have.