vs 11
Again a Romans OT quote. You can almost read this verse as a dichotomy, as if faith and law are opposites. And interestingly, righteousness and justification seem to be synonyms (and in Greek they share the same root; dikaios and dikaioo).
vs 12
This verse has completely stumped me. Is Paul saying that the Law does not come from faith, but the faithful man who lives by them will do them, so suggesting that it is faith which underpins people's following of the law? Does it mean that the law-doer will simply pass their life doing them? Or that they will not die because of them? Or that they will enjoy a truly blessed life? Zao can mean any of those things. And I can't work out the context for this one. Perhaps I need more sleep.
vs 13
I don't know what sort of logic this is, but it seems to say that if the law is a curse for us, then Christ has to suffer a curse to free us from it. Obviously the Law can't be the curse for Jesus, because he was perfect in following the Law - he fulfilled the Law. So instead, his death had to be cursed - as was a death by crucifixion because of Deuteronomy.
That's two unanswered questions in as many verses.
vs 14
The words "He redeemed us" are not in the greek - their addition may well rock your faith and completely change your theology somehow. If it does, I pity you.
The difference between the NIV and the NASB here is that the NIV blatantly adjusts the text so that the "in order that" refers back to the "Christ redeemed us" of the last verse. The punctuation of the NASB blatantly suggests that the "in order that" refers to the "become a curse for us".
Considering both were done (our redemption and Jesus becoming a curse, or cursed), the point of the verse is that God's actions were designed to bring Gentiles back to God , under the blessing promised to Abraham, so that everyone might be able to receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
vs 15
God's promise is like any covenant or contract that we might draw up. Once it's been ratified, you can't then go and change the conditions. That's a Darth-Vader type thing to do, and you will remember well that Lando was not cool with his deal "gettin' worse all the time".
vs 16
This is a real nit-picking of the Scripture here, and it's these sorts of verses that encourage people to nit-pick in a similar way when they are reading. My understanding is that Paul is using some sort of Rabinnical, possibly Pharisaical argument here, which did involve a bit of nit-picking. The idea being that God's promise to Abraham was not about his many kids, it was about his 1 kid - Christ Jesus.
vs 17
Paul wants to clear this up, and this time with an argument that holds a bit more water to our modern thinking. God has ratified an agreement with Abraham, and that agreement cannot be broken. So even if God starts a new covenant, the Law (brought in so many years later), that doesn't change the deal he had with Abraham.
vs 18
The inheritance (of the blessings of Abraham) were not given to the world in the shape of the Law (you can read about what the promises of the Law were in Exodus 19 if memory serves). The blessings of Abraham were promised in a promise. It is that promise to Abraham that we as non-Jews inherit, not the Law. Sure, we inherit the Law as a religious history, but it is not for us a covenant to get to God.
vs 19
Whenever the word "angels" comes into a theological statement, my brain just goes *beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...*. What we can get from this verse is that the Law was added to the whole situation because people were acting against God, until such time as Jesus had come. Apparently the law was put into effect bythrough angels, by a mediator. I guess this could be referring to angels handing the 10 commandment stones to Moses, the mediator? ?
?
vs 20
To show you how greatly confusing the greek is, and to let you know how much you owe scholars, the greek here literally says "Now the mediator of one is not, but God one is". Eis has the great definition of "1. one". I have a feeling that there's some sort of wordplay going on here, and I'm just not getting it today.
Well, I must say I'll be glad to see the back of this chapter. I can't wait to get a commentary for Galatians and sort this stuff out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Well, I’ve got no idea what’s going on, but I’m keen to pool ignorances with you. That is, until you research this and don’t need my ignorance any more.
v 20
To work backwards, yeah, I think the “one” thing is wordplay (I think the “cursed” thing in v 13 is wordplay too; Paul seems oddly playful in this section – but maybe it’s a rhetorical device he’s using to drive key points home?). Obviously a mediator needs two parties in order to _be_ a mediator; “a mediator of one is not” a mediator - he’s just a representative.
What that has to do with God being “one”… um, bing? I think I need to go back further.
v 19
To get the angel thing out of the way, I’m not sure but it could be a statement that the authority of the law is equal to the authority of the earlier promise to Abraham, both coming through angels and therefore 100% guaranteed God-authentic.
This bit seems to be addressing the question of how the promise and grace which blesses us and the law which curses us can have a single source – and if they do, what does that say about the nature of God?
The section begins with rhetorically asking what the purpose of the law is, yet doesn’t really answer it, because I don’t think that’s his point here. As Paul goes on to state more clearly (and emphatically) in v 21, “Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not!” There is no duality or contradiction in God for having given us both; God does not mediate between himself; God is one.
v 13
Like I said, I think this is just a bit of wordplay – there is a link between the curse we’re under and the curse Jesus “became”, but it’s more of a poetic, conceptual one than a hard, justice-based logic one. This is dealing with mercy, which frankly isn’t all that logical.
v 12
I’m going to try to rephrase this verse to clarify what I think Paul is saying, but as always I can’t check it against the nuances of the original Greek. I think it’s saying:
The law has nothing to do with faith; on the contrary, “The man who _does_ these things will receive life by it.”
So… that’s my two denarii worth. Not sure what that equates to on the modern market...
vs 20
I don't think "playful is a term you can use about Paul's attitude towards the Galatians.
Like I said, I am convinced that Paul is using some form of argument style, perhaps rhetorical, perhaps rabbinical.
vs 19
Can you tell me where in the Bible an angel gave the law to Moses and the promise to Abraham? The NT generally does not see the messages of angels as authentic unless they are tested.
I think he answers it clearly. "It was added because of transgressions".
vs 13
Remember that these letters are occasional, so this verse meant something to the Galatians, and probably answered a question to them.
Paul is afraid they are slipping back into their old ways, which may very well have included magic and cursing. Such magical curses were very real to these people, and so the idea of being freed from curses is I am sure a big deal to them.
vs 12
The nuances of the greek are non-existant - it literally says "and the law is not of faith, but the one doing them will live by them".
The quote is from Leviticus, and in its context almost certainly means simply "you will live" as opposed to die.
So I do agree with you. Paul has a tidy little meaning in this verse - he is saying that the OT Law has nothing to do with faith, because it says itself "You live or die based on whether you do things or not". And then he goes on to talk about how Christ has saved us from that.
opiorht!
Hm, I may be too tired for this tonight, but anyhow.
vs 20
As a writer, no matter how serious the message you have to deliver, there's always some pleasure in juxtaposing concepts and words and making a point with more punch. I'm not saying Paul was taking this lightly - I do agree he had rhetorical purpose in doing it. I agree, you agree, we all agree. Good.
vs 19
In as much as "angels" are those that bring the Lord's word in person, I'm assuming Genesis 18 counts for at least confirmation of the promise. I suppose I'm making an ass out of u and ming, but their delivering the news about the son to be born to Abraham and Sarah seems to synch up with the promise being "put into effect by angels", although I cheerfully accept that you're going to call that too big of a stretch, and not to complicate the word of God when it's not called for, etc.
When I said that particular bit doesn't give the purpose of the law, well, it doesn't. Paul tells us why it was given - trangressions - but not how the law is going to address that or what it's actually going to do.
vs 13
Again, I didn't mean the subject isn't heavy because something is "just" wordplay. What I was saying was that Paul wasn't describing an exact equation, like our curses = Christ's curse, ergo salvation. It's a poetic link, but that doesn't make it namby-pamby fairy talk; it makes it powerful and human-heart talk.
vs 12
... oh, wait, we agree. I'm feeling light-headed - twice in one set of comments! We must be awfully clever somehow.
hlnvlis! I think I'll go to bed now!
addendum: vs 19; I know it's the law which Paul said was put into effect by angels, not the promise. I just got the sense that he was trying to say the law is not bogus, witness angels - it's as much from God as the promise.
I promise I'm not trying to invent a theology of angels (I don't usually pay much attention to that stuff at all), but if I were, the word bogus would definitely be in there. Bogus bogus bogus, a fun word to know and tell.
Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-mljbfcrz!
Okay, this time I really am going to bed.
Post a Comment