Saturday, January 11, 2014

Book of Hebrews

Click here for the previous book, Philemon.


CHAPTER 1

Now for the odd letter.  The first 13 books of the New Testament are all letters claimed to be written by Paul.  In each of those 13 letters, the letter-writer says he’s Paul – and in at least half the cases it looks like it really was Paul.

Hebrews has no listed author.   From the second century AD, there was a tradition that Paul wrote it, but it was still a matter of debate.  By the fourth century, they figured Paul wrote it, but it’s always been a point of uncertainty.  For example, the letters of Paul are all listed roughly in order of length – beginning with the pair of 16-chapter letters and ending with the sole one-chapter letter.  Then comes Hebrews.  The Bible organizers had some ambivalent about who wrote it.

Biblical scholars now doubt that this is Paul.  The tone is all wrong.  The feel is all wrong.  The focus is all wrong.  And of yeah – Paul never claimed to write it.  This letter probably isn’t even letter, just a description of theology, with a quick bit at the end to make it look like a letter. Likely the author did it because so many of the other early Christian readings were letters that it just seemed like the style.  It was popular, and Paul wrote most of the early letters, so people assumed Paul wrote this.  Probably not.

This doesn’t remind me of Paul much at all.  The approach is all wrong.  It’s an examination of some dry, dull, and forgettable theological details.  Paul was a big picture guy.  He had to be – he was out doing the yeomen work trying to win new converts for Christ.  He had to focus on the big picture to do that.  This is stuff that comes later – working out the theological details and shoring up the foundation.

There is also a lot written in verse/poem form instead of prose.  Yes, Paul did that on occasion, but only on rare occasion. 

The first chapter just notes the Christ is the Son of God (OK, so far so good) and then goes off on an extended digression that the Son is higher than the angels.  See what I mean?  That’s working out the theological details.  This is like a question that arises in a community 20 years after conversion.  Paul wanted people to avoid Jewish law, not deal with things like this.  And things like this are boring.  The Bible is at its best when it is at its most human, and comparing angels to God’s kid is a bit away from that.

CHAPTER 2

People are told to be faithful.  Yeah, I didn’t get a damn thing out of this chapter.  Glancing at it now, it looks like I was just randomly underlining sentences to stay awake.

CHAPTER 3

Jesus is superior to Moses.  Yeah, that makes sense.  I don’t really need six verses pointing that out, though.

Israel has been unfaithful, and that’s nothing new.  So the Christians shouldn’t let that happen to them.

CHAPTER 4

I didn’t get anything out of this one, either. 

You know what this reminds me of?  It reminds me of the Book of Wisdom, a book only founding the Catholic Old Testament nowadays.  It is (not surprisingly) part of the Wisdom Books – and its the least of them.  Like this one, it spends all of its time stuck in fairly pointless theological points that I can’t imagine really do much to speak to the faith of the common believer.  Maybe it helps out with the finer points for the people that really get off on that sort of thing, but otherwise --- pphhhhffffft!

CHAPTER 5

Now we get some talk on how priests should act.  Yeah, aside from the pastoral letters (which no scholars think were actually written by Paul) there is no evidence Paul’s churches had much of a religious hierarchy.  He thought Christ would be here so soon, there was no need for that sort of stuff.

Also, our letter writer says of Christ, “In the days when he was in the flesh, he offered prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears.”  Fun fact: Paul never discussed the teachings and sayings of Jesus.  He died and returned – that was the big thing for Paul. Oh, and he had the Last Supper.  That’s all Paul cared about.  This vague quote above hints at what Jesus did in his life prior to the week before his crucifixion, which is something that never happened in the previous 13 letters.

CHAPTER 6

The letter writer wants priests to know the basics of Christian theology.  Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. 

CHAPTER 7

This is a weird chapter.  It talks at length about some Old Testament priest named Melchizedek.  Was he even in the Old Testament – I don’t recall him.  I assume he was; probably in the boring parts of Leviticus.  Like Leviticus, Hebrews reads like priestly navel-gazing, where the topics are things that matter to priests, but don’t really matter to many others. 

This chapter deals with priestly duties back in the day.  Or something like that – I really can’t tell.  The chapter notes how the priestly class came from Levi, but “our Lord arose from Judah.”  I guess that is some sort of point or something.

CHAPTER 8

We have a new covenant now, so that means the old one couldn’t have been very good.  The author gives an extended quote from Jeremiah, which my footnotes say apparently come from a slightly miscopied version of the Bible.  Heh.  And oops.


CHAPTER 9

More about covenants.  More about Jesus dying.  Basically, the letter writer points out that the old sacrifices couldn’t have been very good.  You’d sacrifice some goats and then a little later you have to sacrifice some more.  But then Christ came, and made his blood the sacrifice.  Now that’s a sacrifice with some real staying power.  So pee on the Hebrew with their lame ass sacrifices.  (Well, he doesn’t put it in quite that terms, but that seems to be the point of the analogy).

CHAPTER 10

The old sacrifices are still inadequate.  This guy really wants to drill that point into our skulls.  Christ?  Now there is a sacrifice.

We also get one of the nastiest depictions ever of Christ that is supposed to be positive: “now he waits until his enemies are made his footstool.”  The hell? Who envisions Christ that way?  What is he – Genghis Christ?  He’s supposed to be the savior, the king of heaven – not the barbarian king.

CHAPTER 11

OK, I’ll give this book this much: Chapter 11 starts off with a really nice statement on faith: “Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.”  Yeah, that is a mighty nice definition of faith.

Then we get  bunch of examples of Old Testament figures acting on faith – Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses – and then he says he doesn’t have time to discuss all the others. But the point is – they all acted on faith.  OK, fair enough.

Also, we get a depiction of heaven that is much closer to modern times than anything else in the letters of Paul: “But now they desire a better homeland, a heavenly one. Therefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.”

In Paul’s letters, Christ will come HERE soon, and this will become heaven.  In the quote above, heaven is somewhere else, and Christ is readying it for us to come THERE.  That’s closer to our sense of heaven, but it isn’t Paul’s notion of heaven.

CHAPTER 12

This is various stuff about God.  Oh, and don’t disobey.  That’s bad. 

CHAPTER 13

We should love one another.  Also, the person that wrote this treatise then includes a fake-ending that makes it read like a letter – because most of the important Christian documents were other letters and he’s trying to follow the convention.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Yawn.

What a big nothing.  It’s the worst book of the New Testament so far – and I can’t imagine anything else will be this bad.  Even if the remaining letters are this boring, they’ll at least have the decency to be quicker about it. 

This says very little that’s new, and what is new is dull, pointless minutia about theology and the priesthood.  Blech.  

Click here for the next book, the Epistle of James.

Philemon

Click here for the previous book, Titus.


CHAPTER 1

It’s the last of the letters claiming to be from Paul.  (Hebrews is often considered to be from Paul, but it never says so).  This one is believed by Biblical scholars to be a real Paul letter.

It’s the shortest one – just one chapter.  It’s also the latest one, being written while Paul was in Rome; roughly 61-63 AD. 

The topic is a popular one in these shorter Paul letters: slavery. It’s not quite the same message as the other letters have.  The others say if you’re a slave, be a good slave and if you’re a master be a good master.  But this isn’t a generalized statement; it’s about one case. 

Philemon is a slave owner who has a runaway slave named Onesimus.  Paul writes to him saying to accept Onesimus, and be good to him.  Apparently, both slave owner and slave are Christians – and Paul approaches this as an issue between Christians.

Paul doesn’t denounce slavery.  It’s part of the air he breathed.  But Paul also doesn’t defend slavery.  Slave or free – look, that’s not what it’s all about.  For Paul, it’s all about being a good Christian.  So Philemon should accept him “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother, beloved especially by me, but even more so to you, as a man and in the Lord.” 

Paul doesn’t really denounce slavery, but his approach can serve as the basis for the moral attack on slavery.  It’s an interesting letter.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

I do these concluding thoughts for all Bible books, but it sure seems silly doing it for a one-chapter wonder.  Look, it’s a nice letter.  By and large, the letters that scholars believe were written by Paul are better than almost all the others.  Paul comes off like a passionate, sincere, and fairly likable person.  I don’t agree with everything he says, but he’s more likable than his imitators.  

Click here for the next book, Hebrews.

Friday, January 10, 2014

Titus

Click here for the previous book, Timothy II.


CHAPTER 1

Paul gives some guy named Titus advice on how to run a church. It’s pretty similar to Timothy I, and both are widely considered by pretty much all Biblical scholars to be written by someone other than the real Paul.  Issues of how to run churches in the long haul was an issue after Paul.  During his time, people (especially) Paul expected Christ to return soon.

This letter writer tells Titus to act in appropriate manner, and especially be careful of doctrinal differences of Jewish Christians.  Hey!  That’s the James Christ Gang from Jerusalem.  And you better believe that was Paul’s main opponents. 

One weird thing: the letter begins with Paul saying how he left Titus in Crete.  Huh?  Nowhere in Acts of the Apostles does it ever say Paul went to Crete.

CHAPTER 2

This is more general teachings of how people should act in their day-to-day life.  For at least the third time (and I believe at least fourth time overall) we get a Paul letter telling slaves being good slaves.

CHAPTER 3

More general advice.  Don’t slander anyone.  Avoid foolish arguments.  Sound stuff, but nothing massively memorable.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Yawn.  This is a very forgettable letter.

Click here for the next book, Philemon.

Timothy II

Click here for Timothy I.


CHAPTER 1

The second of the pastoral letters is also widely believed by scholars to not really be something Paul wrote.  I forget exactly what the logic behind it is, but I’ll say this for it – of all the letters in the Bible believed to be forged, this is clearly the one that does the best Paul imitation.  I don’t mean it does the best job nailing his theology.  I mean that this letter breathes with raw emotion, just the way that many of Paul’s undisputed letters do.  Whoever wrote this knew what he was doing.

This letter claims to be from Paul when he’s in jail in Rome, so near the end of his life.  The first chapter doesn’t say much more than that, other than to go over some basic points of theology.  The most memorable moment comes near the end, when Paul tells Timothy that, “You know that everyone in Asia deserted me.”  Ouch.  Sounds like rough times for Paul.

CHAPTER 2

Well, I guess this is why it’s considered to be an imitation letter, as Paul gives Timothy rules and lessons for trying to organize his church and conducting himself.  Paul didn’t worry much about those sorts of things because he felt Christ’s return would be imminent. (True, he might’ve shifted his viewpoint near the end).  Paul also opposes false teachings and warns against useless disputes.

CHAPTER 3

I’ve noted plenty of Bible passages that fit better the liberal bent of myself.  So it’s only fair that I note how well Chapter 3 of Timothy II works for a conservative cultural warrior.  Here, Paul writes Timothy, “But understand this, there will be terrifying times in the last days.  People will be self-centered and lovers of money, proud, haughty, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, irreligious, callous, implacable, slanderous, licentious, brutal, hating what is good, traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, as they make a pretense of religion but deny its power.  Reject them.”

There is plenty of End of Times talk now from fundamentalists. (Look at the popularity of the Left Behind novels, for instance).  People see the cultural values shifting noticeably and blame it on the rising tide of irreligion.  Is support for gay marriage going up, why that just shows that the masses have become licentious lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.  So the cultural warriors double down – because they can read passages like this and figure that what they see as the cultural decay of modern society is the beginning of the End of Times.

There is some comfort in thinking you’re living through the End of Times.  It makes the little fights of the current day extremely important.  It means that you live in the most important age of all, fighting the most important battles of all.  This is how a lot of our most popular stories are set.  Star Wars had a republic last for hundreds of thousands of years – but the exciting part is when an empire replaces it and has to be overthrown.  Lord of the Rings had its great age come to an end – that’s the exciting part.  People want to think that’s what they’re living through. 

Paul’s message is also shot through with pessimism.  At one point he even says, “In fact, all who want to live religiously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.”  That’s right – all.  Not some, not many, not most – all.  Thus many cultural warriors are that much more insistent on doubling down.  They know which way the wind is blowing – but that means it truly is nearing the End of Times.

CHAPTER 4

Paul tells Timothy to carry on in Paul’s name, for Paul recognizes that, “the time of my departure is at hand.  I have competed well; I have finished the race.  I have kept the faith.”  That is rather well put.

It ends on a highly personal note: Paul is lonely.  He urges Timothy for companionship, noting how few people he has around him.  In fact, he says he has but one close friend by him – Luke.  And that, I assume, is why Luke is believed to be the authors of the gospel bearing his name and Acts of the Apostles.

Those books are clearly written by the same guy. They both have similar introductions, and in Acts it begins by noting how the author has already written the story of Christ – now for the story of his followers.  So whoever wrote Acts also wrote Luke.  Well, Acts is primarily about Paul.  Also, the Gospel of Luke doesn’t know as much about the land of Judas as the other gospels, and so is believed to be written by a Gentile.  Well, Luke is a Gentile, he’s with Paul – and he’s apparently with Paul in Rome (which is where Acts end).  So Luke is the most likely author of Acts, which means he also wrote the third gospel, which is why it now bears the name The Gospel According to Luke.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

I liked this letter a lot.  It’s my favorite of the disputed Paul letters, easily.  Simply put, the emotions of a real human bleed through it. If it’s a forgery, it’s an excellent forgery.  The Bible is always at its best when it’s at its most human, and this book feels very human indeed.

Thursday, January 9, 2014

Timothy I

Click here for the previous book, Thessalonians II.


CHAPTER 1

Now, for the pastoral letters.  This is the first of three letters from Paul that are different from the rest.  First, they are addressed to individuals instead of congregations.  Second, they are about how to be a good minister to a flock, which wasn’t the point of any of the previous letters.  Finally, these are three letters that Biblical scholars overwhelmingly believe weren’t actually written by Paul.  Oh, there are other ones before now that are of disputed authorship, but with these letters, there really isn’t much dispute in the Biblical scholar community.  They are seen as just plain not Paul.

These letters deal with issues affecting the churches in either the late first century AD or perhaps even early second century AD.  Some people from that era believed that their point of view was right, and the best way to win that argument was to claim Paul was on their side – so they wrote these letters, claiming they were from Paul. 

Much of the first chapter here is generic stuff.  The most interesting part to me was when “Paul” pleaded to be unworthy of the role God assigned to him.  I don’t care if this is an actual Paul letter or not – whoever wrote it was doing some nice work here.  He promoted the grace of God, the Almighty’s willingness to help us out, even when we don’t deserve it.  That’s one of the most beautiful parts of Christianity and one of the big draws to it.

CHAPTER 2

This is where our letter writer really doesn’t sound too much like the actual Paul.  In this chapter, he starts getting down to specifics with Timothy on how to handle a church.  Most notably, “Paul” says that women should be silent and “under completely control.”  This sounds like Paul in Corinthians I Chapter 14 – but modern studies have shown that the anti-woman statements there were not part of the original letter, but something later added in by a scribe. 

In fact, this “Paul” goes even further, saying, “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man.  She must be quiet.”  And then our “Paul” goes back to Adam and Eve to justify this.  Problem: the actual Paul did exactly what this “Paul” claims he didn’t.  Go back to the end of Romans when Paul is giving thanks – the first person he mentions is a female, who Paul says is a minister.  In another letter Paul says there is neither male nor female in Christ.  The actual Paul is typically pretty progressive in gender relations.  It’s the imitation Pauls that give him a bad rap. 

Oh, there is one point of overlap.  The historic Paul did call on women to be veiled in services, and this Paul says women “should adorn themselves with proper conduct, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hairstyles and gold ornaments or pearls or expensive outfits.” 

CHAPTER 3

Now we reach the real problem with Timothy I, the part that most distinguishes this from the actual Paul. This chapter describes how church leaders should act – bishops and deacons, both. (Note: there is no priest, just deacons then bishops.  I guess a deacon then is like what a priest is now.  I guess.  More on that later).  Much of the advice makes sense and sound practical and pragmatic.  Bishops shouldn’t be drunks, for instance.  But there is a central problem in it all: since when did Paul’s churches have any real hierarchy of governance.

Go back to the Corinthians letters for a second.  Now there was a messed up congregation, with all kinds of internal upheaval and dissension, and one man even living with his dad’s wife.  Paul did many things to try to get that group back on path. He spoke of the Holy Spirit.  Paul spoke of his own work there.  He spoke of Christ and all that.  But two words he never mentioned: bishop and deacon.  Those words never came up.

I’m completely taking this from Biblical scholarship by the way.  It’s probably from one of those Bart Ehrman books.  But the point is simple: Paul never appealed to any church hierarchy in those letters, and if you dig into his theology it’s apparent why he didn’t.  Paul thinks Christ will return PRONTO.  Not just soon – but it’s already beginning.  In one of his letters Paul said that this world is already passing away, getting ready for the next one. 

If that’s the case, then there is less need for any elaborate structure to run the community with.  By the time it’s set up, it wouldn’t be needed any more.  So Paul doesn’t talk of any official structure.  Just let the people blessed by the Holy Spirit with the gift of prophecy do the talking, male or female.

But, of course, Christ’s return came later than expected.  You need a structure for the long haul.  People did it – and then wanted to get Paul’s OK for the system created after his death.  So you write letters like this under his name. 

Also, aside from that we learn at least one other telling item – church leaders weren’t celibates.  One rule “Paul” gives in this letter is that a bishop should be able to have his kids under control.  Yeah, that means bishops have sex.  Paul explicitly says deacons can marry, but only once.  (I assume this means a widower is forever a widower, not that others could engage in polygamy). Sure, deacons marry nowadays – but they aren’t the guys directly below bishops in the current Catholic hierarchy.

CHAPTER 4

Hey Timothy – avoid false doctrine and don’t go cussing people out.

CHAPTER 5

Among other rules, Timothy is told how to treat widows, with “Paul” distinguishing between widows and “true widows.”  Huh?  Apparently a true widow is someone with no children or other family to take care of her – she is truly at the mercy of the church and its alms.  Oh.  That said, of the many references to widows so far in the Bible (they’re mentioned all over the place in Leviticus, for example), this is the first time we’ve seen any kind of hierarchy of widowhood brought up.

In fact, “Paul” tells Timothy to exclude young widows from his good work when he can, because “for when their sensuality estranges them from Christ, they want to marry.”  Wow – can you be a bigger dick in describing why someone might want to remarry?  It’s a doubly dick thing to say given that “Paul” has already noted that these widows often have no one to rely on for help.  I don’t know what’s the bigger dick statement – where he blames their sensual nature for their interest in remarriage, or stating that remarriage estranges them from Christ. 

Oh, it turns out that it’s OK for the deacon or bishop or whatever to have some wine sometimes. 

CHAPTER 6

If you’re a slave, be a good slave.  And if you’re a master, be a good one.  That’s the second or third time we’ve gotten that message in Paul’s letters.  No wonder William Lloyd Garrison admitted that the Bible was pro-slavery.

“Paul” also tells us about wealth.  He has to be more pragmatic than Jesus on this matter.  No more camels trying to squeeze through needles.  Instead, he lays down one of the most famous lines in the Bible: “the love of money is the root of all evils.”  The full quote is, “For the love of money is the root of all evils, and some people in their desire for it have strayed from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains.”  That’s nice.  The same chapter that defends slavery also gives one for people who don’t like the high and mighty ruling over them. The Bible is a mixed bag – which is a large part of its appeal.

Being wealthy isn’t the sin here, it’s how you handle it.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

This chapter is a forgery, but I have some sympathy for the forger.  You’ve got to adjust the church to the fact that Paul’s timetable was badly off the mark.  Much of the advice here is just practical, common sense thoughts.  OK, so much of it doesn’t hold up well to modern ears (slavery being the most obvious example).  But this was about keeping a church functioning, not a social revolution.

The author does come off like a dick – just for his views on widows if nothing else.  But people are rarely ever all bad or all good.  There is plenty of common sense in here.

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Second Book of Thessalonians

Click here for the First Book of Thessalonians.


CHAPTER 1

This is another disputed letter.  Many Biblical scholars don’t think that Paul wrote it, either.  It’s also a really short letter – just 47 verses over three chapters.

Reading it myself, it seems like an angrier Paul than normal.  Maybe that’s the wrong way of putting it.  Paul always has his anger, but usually his targets are people who disagree with his theology.  In this letter, the theology itself seems angry.  Paul’s God is mostly a God of uplift, a redeemer and savoir.  The God here is more of a punisher.  Oh sure, there is plenty of happy talk along the way, but the whole worldview is darker.

For example, midway through the first chapter, our letter writer (Paul or whoever else) ells us of “Jesus in heaven with his mighty angels, in blazing fire, inflicting punishment on those who do not acknowledge God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.  These will pay the penalty of eternal ruin.”

Yeah, Paul’s image of divine justice really didn’t focus on people being punished by God.  Paul was more about how God will help those who believe in him.  As near as I can tell, when Jesus returns, the good will be saved, and the good who are dead will rise from the grave and be reunited with Christ.  Paul never really cared about what will happen to the other side.  They’ll be dead, and that’s about it.  None of this “eternal ruin” stuff from him.

CHAPTER 2

In this chapter, Paul warns against people spending too much time trying to figure out exactly when Christ will return.  Ah, so Paul wouldn’t support William Miller, a 19th century American preacher who predicted the exact day Christ would return to earth and the world as we know it would end.  It didn’t happen, earning that day the nickname The Great Disappointment.

And again, the worldview here is dark and angry.  For example, verse 9 talks of Satan (who Paul rarely brings up). Verse 10 tells us of the wicked who are perishing.  Verse 11 says God will send a “deceiving power” to those who believe lies.  You can’t go a half-sentence without finding something gloomy.

Strangely, while the worldview is angrier, the letter itself is more dispassionate.  It’s all theoretical and rhetorical, without much personal emotion.  This flips around Paul entirely.  He is typically a passionate, angry letter writer telling people of a wonderful God.  This letter is a dispassionate letter writer telling of an angry God. 

CHAPTER 3

The letter concludes with the favorite quote of the current US Republican Party: “if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.”  This was used by an actual Congresscritter last year to justify slashing social welfare funs.  Apparently, the only people who get that money are people who refuse to work.  That’s the only reason why anyone is poor.

It’s an all-time great moment in selective reading.  You can find dozens if not hundreds of quotes and lines in the Bible exhorting people to be more giving and be charitable to those on bottom of society.  But the one quote from Paul (and possibly an imitation Paul) is the one brought up to justify the opposite approach.  At the very least, I think the Bible calls on us to have a very tolerant standard of judging who is/not refusing to work, and giving people the benefit of the doubt on that matter.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Well, it’s distinctive.  I’ll give it that.  It’s also a very negative one.  Mark Twain had an old joke – the God of the New Testament is the God of the Old Testament after he gets religion.  Twain’s point was that the often wrath-filled God of the early books became much sunnier in the Christ-era.  Well, call Thessalonians II a throwback Bible book then.  This is a much less inspiring letter. 

I sure hope Paul isn’t the real author.  He comes off a lot more likable than this typically.

First Book of Thessalonians

Click here for the previous book, Colossians.


CHAPTER 1

This is another letter by Paul that Biblical scholars think really was written by Paul.  It’s only five chapters long – and they are some mighty short chapters.  It’s very different from most of his other letters because it is full of good tidings.  This isn’t a dysfunctional group like the Corinthians, or one in revolt like the Galatians.  This is the model Christian community.  That leaves Paul little more to do that congratulate them and focus on the fundamentals.

That opening paragraph was meant to be about the entire book, but really ….there isn’t much more to say about the first chapter.  It’s only 10 verses long; features Paul congratulate them and offer some basic generalities of the faith.

CHAPTER 2

This is more of the same, but with a few notable moments.  First, Paul notes his time building the church among them, how it was filled with “toil and drudgery.”  Yeah, you see plenty of toil in the Acts of the Apostles book, but not much drudgery.

Also, Paul makes a few pen strokes that will help justify centuries of anti-Semitism.  “For you suffer the same things from your compatriots as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and persecuted us; they do not please God, and are opposed to everyone.” 

I wonder how much anti-Semitism would be in Christianity if Paul hadn’t been so upset with Jews for rejecting Christ (and Paul’s message as well).  Sure, there is plenty of it in the gospels with the story of Pilate – but the gospels were written after Paul’s letters, and generally by writers influenced by Paul. 

CHAPTER 3

It’s another short chapter – just 13 verses.  In fact, the entire five-chapter book is just 88 verses. There are single chapters in the gospels about that long.

This one is about travels of Paul’s underlings.  He sent Timothy to the Thessalonians to see how it was going, and he found out things were going great.  Huzzah! 

CHAPTER 4

Paul gives some basic advance.  Avoid immorality – especially in sexual matters.  (Again, we have a lifelong celibate telling others how to manage their sexuality.  There is just something strange about that).  Paul also supports charity.  That’s nice.

Finally, we do have one somewhat interesting note.  Paul has to consul them about what will happen do the believers who have died.  That might sound strange, because we’re used to Christians dying – it’s been happening for centuries now.  But at the time, Paul wasn’t just preaching about God’s return to earth, but about God’s IMMINENT return to earth.  Heck, in one of his letters (sorry – I’m too lazy to track back and see which one it was – probably one of the Corinthians or maybe Galatians) Paul flatly states that this world is ALREADY passing away, getting ready for the new one.  Now that’s an imminent return.

The point is, people became Christians believing that they would live to see Christ’s return and the coming of the kingdom of heaven here on earth.  So what happens to someone who dies before that day happens?  Will they get to see the kingdom of heaven?  Paul says sure they will.  After all, if Christ can rise from the dead, so can his believers, as we’re all one with Christ through the ritual of the Last Supper.

Keep in mind how different that would be from a modern answer.  Now when someone dies, it means they get to go to heaven to be with Christ.  That’s the viewpoint adopted because 2,000 years later, Christ still hasn’t come back.  But that isn’t the viewpoint Paul had.  It isn’t the viewpoint of the early church.  Our modern notion of heaven only came because theirs wasn’t happening on schedule.  So it’s been flipped around over the centuries.  Instead of the kingdom of heaven being when Christ comes to us here on earth, it’s when the faithful go up to him in the clouds above.  But that isn’t how Paul saw it.  There really isn’t much sense of an afterlife at all.  There can’t be – because the time between then and Christ’s return is so quick that there’s no point thinking of an afterlife.

CHAPTER 5

Every once in a while I’ll come across a famous line I had no idea originated from the Bible.  First Thessalonians, Chapter 5, verse 2 is one of those times.  It reads: “For you yourselves well know that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.”

A thief in the night: a Bible quote!  Even better – Paul is comparing the coming of Jesus Christ to the coming of a thief!  Yeah, that’s not the context I would’ve guessed for the formation of that analogy.  It’s a really good line, so I can see why it caught on. But it’s not really a good analogy for God, so I can see why people don’t think of it as a Bible quote.

Aside from that, Paul encourages sobriety.  By and large the Bible isn’t a temperance work at all.  There is wine and booze all over it, from Christ’s first miracle in the Gospel According to John, to the Last Supper’s wine-as-blood, to various parts of the Old Testament.  But every once in a while it goes dry on us. The wisdom books in the Old Testament did so, and now Paul does so here. 

That’s about it.

CONCLUING THOUGHTS

There really isn’t much to it, but recapping the more striking parts, there are some interesting details.  No, there is no great theological thrust to it.  This is one more a grab bag of points; most of which we’ve heard before.  But despite that, some moments do stick out as notable.  Those points aren’t really building to anything, but it’s better than nothing.

Click here for Second Book of Thessalonians.

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Book of Colossians

Click here for the previous book, Philippians.


CHAPTER 1

According to Biblical scholarship I’ve read, this is one of the books that many don’t think Paul actually wrote.  That said, when I read it, this didn’t strike me as very different from the other letters.  If anything, it was too similar – there isn’t much new ground being covered here.  I guess I could look up what grounds the legitimacy of Paul is questioned, but I’m feeling too lazy to do that right now.

Here in Chapter 1, Paul gives greetings, thanks and prayers.  Then he gives us a poem, which is unusual for Paul, but not unprecedented.  (He did likewise in the previous book, Philippians, and everyone agrees that’s a legitimate Paul letter).  It’s a pretty poem, but it’s all about the glory of Christ.  As I noted in Psalms, poems in praise of God just don’t do much for me.  I like the Bible when it focuses on humans, not on any eternal being I don’t necessary believe in. It is a pretty poem, though.

CHAPTER 2

Paul covers more ground that we’ve already gone over.  He warns against false teachers with their, “empty, seductive philosophy according to human traditions .  . .  and not according to Christ.”  Sounds like Paul is upset at people preaching the Mosaic Law again.

CHAPTER 3

If this is a forged letter in Paul’s name, the author sure knows Paul’s previous letters.  In fact, he largely repeats them here.  At one point he tells us about how there is neither Greek nor Jew in Christ. Yeah, that’s Galatians Chapter 3.  Then he tells wives to obey their husbands.  That’s Ephesians Chapter 5.  Oh, and slaves must obey their masters in all things.  That’s Ephesians Chapter 6.  (Actually, this might be a problem for our letter writer, as Ephesians is another letter that’s supposed to be forged – and that one read like a forgery, too.  A completely different style in that one).

The main problem with this letter isn’t if it’s forged or not.  It’s that it’s saying absolutely nothing new so far.

CHAPTER 4

Oh, Paul is in prison when he writes this.  Huh.  He notes that, and then gives his conclusion, where he thanks people.  It reads a little like an Academy Awards acceptance speech – and is about as memorable.

Oh, one random trivia note – we finally get our first mention of Luke: “Luke, the beloved physician sends greetings, as does Demas.” 

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

If this was a letter forged in Paul’s name, I’m not sure why the guy bothered.  All he did was repeat things noted in other letters.  Yawn.

Click here for the next book, Thessalonians I.

Book of Philippians

Click here for the previous book, Ephesians.


CHAPTER 1

Paul wrote this letter while in prison.  OK, we know he was in prison near the end of his day – which would make this one of his last letters.  But we can’t say for sure the letter was written then.  Paul kept running into problems – it might’ve been a more minor, temporary arrest by local authorities.

But it reads like a Paul letter.  The passion and theology both are reminiscent of the Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans.  That said, I didn’t get as much out of this one as those.  In part it’s because we’ve already covered the main parts of Paul’s theology.  Not only have the main points already been noted, but since the letters get shorter as we go along, the points read like less elaborate statements that we’ve already heard. 

In this chapter, Paul does the typical greeting, and talks of faith and all that.  He notes he’s in prison, and thanks the Philippians for their encouragement.  Apparently, his arrest has caused people to rally together instead of splintering apart.  That much be true, for if they hadn’t rallied, there is no way that Christianity, as we know it – a religion heavily influence by Paul – would still be around.

One interesting part is this – Paul writes, “I long to depart this life and be with Christ, for that is far better.  Yet that I remain in the flesh is more necessary for your benefits.”  He sounds pretty depressed in that first sentence – but his sense of mission is stronger than his yearning for death.  Also, this flips the notion of martyrdom on its head.  Sure, he’d rather die – but he’ll go on living for the sakes of those around him.  Paul always has had a strong martyrdom streak – surviving beatings and stonings and ostracism and the like – but it sounds like the bigger act of martyrdom he ever did was ….to just keep on truckin’.

He tells everyone to stay steadfast in faith.

CHAPTER 2

This is just general stuff. Paul advices people to be humble and obedient.  He tells people the travel plans of some of his aids.  Oh, and he breaks into poetry for a bit.  I don’t think it’s a quote of any prophet either.  I think it’s the first bit of non-quoting poetry in any of Paul’s letters so far.

CHAPTER 3

Not-so-great-moments in Bible chapter breaks present – the break between Chapters 2 and 3 in Philippians!  That first verse of this chapter clearly belongs in the previous chapter.  Paul begins by saying “Finally” and gives some closing thoughts; thoughts that go much better if attached to the travel plan stuff at the end of Chapter 2.

Immediately after that, Paul launches on a totally separate tirade.  It seems like the most natural location in the world for a chapter break – but it’s one stinking verse off the actual chapter break.  Go figure.

The tirade reads like it’s coming out of an entirely different letter, though.  In fact, my Bible’s introductory notes say just that – a common theory is that Philippians is actually a combination of multiple letters.  That’s the most sensible thing to me.

In the apparently different letter, an emotionally charged Paul begins, “Beware of the dogs!  Beware of the evil workers!  Beware of the mutilation! For we are the circumcision.”  Yeah, he’s really got his dander up about something.   That’s why I figure this has to come from a separate letter.  If it was all one letter, he wouldn’t idly discuss typical matters and travel plans before launching out here – and he certainly wouldn’t say “finally” midway through (which would be the case if this was one letter).  True, it could be that he was given new info just on the verge of sending the letter and added on a second part, but more likely to me is that multiple letters to one community were combined in the copying and recopying. 

It’s pretty clear what’s going on here.  It’s Paul’s all-time bugaboo – people are being told they must be circumcised (mutilation, as Paul calls it).  It doesn’t sound like the threat comes from the apostles or anyone from the Jerusalem Gang themselves.  If that were the case, the danger to Paul would be more acute and he’d go on longer than he does here.  Paul doesn’t feel the need to justify himself here, just batter down the opposing viewpoint.  Also, “We are the circumcision,” sounds odd when I first heard it, but it grows on me.  It’s makes a nice, if unorthodox, rally cry. 

Paul does go over his personal history for a bit – he persecuted Christians before seeing the light.  Paul notes that when he persecuted Christians, “in righteousness based on the law, I was blameless.” 

That’s a very interesting point – and one that strikes right to the heart of Paul’s entire take on Christianity.  He believes in faith, not the law, as the way to reach holy salvation.  Sure, back in the day when he was about the law, he persecuted those of faith.  Paul’s emphasis on faith is directly tied to his own experience.  Not only was his revelation on the road to Damascus all about faith, not the law, but his persecution of the Christians was about the law, not faith.  Thus Paul prioritizes faith over all else due to his own life experiences.

He flatly calls his old approach “rubbish.”  That’s Paul for you.

CHAPTER 4

There isn’t much going on here.  Paul notes two women who are important in the Philippians congregation. (That’s more evidence that Paul didn’t really write the line in Chapter 14 of Corinthians I about women shutting up in church).  He also thanks the Philippians generosity in giving him aid recently.  Then the book ends.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

This book isn’t one of the Bible’s highlights, but it isn’t really a lowlight, either.  It doesn’t break much new ground, but it isn’t a complete waste of time.  That said, aside from Chapter 3 it damn near is a complete waste of time.

Click here for Colossians

Monday, January 6, 2014

Book of Ephesians

Click here for the previous book, Galatians.


CHAPTER 1

I got to give my copy of the Bible some credit here – the introductory notes to this book notes that modern Biblical scholarship doubts that this epistle was actually written by Paul.  The writing style and words are different.  I don’t have the numbers with me, but a lot of words used in this book aren’t found in other Paul letters.  Also, getting into it, the writing style if very different in two different ways.  First, this is a rather dispassionate writing style, which is unlike the heated emotions in Paul’s other letters. (Hey – where are the rhetorical questions that Paul loves to ask?)  Second, boy are the sentences a lot longer. They aren’t always longer, but they tend to be – that’s for sure.

Upshot: it reads like someone writing like he’s Paul.  My Bible acknowledges that, but then suggests it was written by a secretary of his after he died to encapsulate Paul’s ideas.  Sure, maybe – but Paul Ehrman would call this a forgery.  Saying it’s a secretary is making the best of a bad situation, but there we really have no idea who wrote it if it wasn’t Paul. 

Clearly, the author wanted to think that was Paul.  He begins by saying he’s Paul and keeps writing from the point of view of Paul throughout.  That would give this letter more credibility. 

Much of the theology is the same.  The first chapter notes we’re saved through Christ, and we get it through the Holy Spirit. 

Oh, there is one sentence in this chapter that goes on for four verses: 18 through 21.  Doing a rough, quick count – it’s about 100 words long. 

Oh, one other quick thing: in our oldest copies of this Bible book, it doesn’t say “Ephesus” at all.  That word was later added in.  It was originally written sounding like it was a general letter to believers, with no specific people lined up.

CHAPTER 2

This gives us some standard talk.  It’s a more philosophical, less passionate version of things other letters already said.  God is rich in mercy and great in love, he brought us life with Christ.  We are his handiwork.  OK, all good to know. 

Oh, and Christ abolishes the law of the Old Testament with all of its legal claims.  Well, whoever wrote this – he at least knows the basics of Paul’s theology.

CHAPTER 3

Paul, er, “Paul” begins this chapter by calling himself “a prisoner of Christ.” That just sounds weird.  Again, these letters were written in a very different era. 

Anyhow, whoever wrote this knows Paul’s story and writings.  He again emphasizes the primacy of faith.  He says that he/Paul learned of Christ by divine revelation.   The writer tells us that Christ’s love surpasses knowledge.  That serves as an interesting contrast to the Old Testament focus on wisdom as central to God. The New Testament has a more emotional sense of spirituality – it’s what you feel, not what you know.

Oh, and the chapter ends with the word “Amen.”  I could be wrong, but I don’t think I’ve seen that word yet in the Bible.  I probably have, but I can’t think of when it would be.  (checks online).  Yeah, it’s come up earlier – Jeremiah 28:6, for instance.  But this time it ends a chapter, which gives a sense of closure.

CHAPTER 4

“Paul” again calls himself a prisoner of God.  It still sounds strange.  He calls for people to be humble, gentle, and patient.  Those sounds like nice values.  So far, there is really nothing here that goes against the theology of the actual Paul. 

Oh, and we get some good advice as well: “do not let the sun go down on your anger.”  That’s a nice line to remember.

CHAPTER 5

Well, it finally happened – we finally get some words of wisdom that doesn’t exactly sound like Paul.  Maybe I’ve giving the historical Paul too much credit, but he’s never sounded like the sort of person who would write this: “Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.  For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, him himself the savior of the body.  As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.”

Especially that last bit – “in everything” – doesn’t sound like Paul.  He’s the guy who wrote how in the new community there would be neither male nor female.  He’s the man who thanks a female minister in his letter to the Romans.  Paul has always come off rather progressive on gender relations.  He even said it was OK to divorce your spouse if they are of another faith, but it’s not required.  The one moment of misogyny we’ve seen from Paul before is something a scribe later added into a Paul letter (the admonishment for women to be quiet in church).

Technically, this could reflect Paul’s opinions.  He’s never said the opposite.  But I can’t say for sure.  To be fair, our Paul imitator of a writer then follows it up by repeatedly telling husbands to love their wives, but overall this portion of Ephesians doesn’t sound good to modern ears.

Also, we’re given some general advice in this chapter: avoid immorality, impurity, greed – and obscenity.  Aw man, no obscenity?  This writer is no fun.  In fact, we’re also told to avoid, “suggestive talk.”  OK, that sounds like something Paul – the lifelong proud celibate – might say.  I can’t imagine celibates are known as good flirts.

CHAPTER 6

Last chapter ended with “Paul” giving marital advice.  This last chapter has similar advice for various other people.  He tells children to obey their parents.  He tells slaves to obey their masters.  In both cases, the person in power should be nice to their underling.  There is a theme here.  The author isn’t looking to upend the status quo in day-to-day social relations.  His concern is for the next world. Not this one.

This ends with a weird little note, saying how he’s giving news to some guy named Tychicus, and he’s sending him to the people for whatever purpose.  Well, this does make it sound like the normal letter ending by Paul.  Thus, assuming it’s a forgery (or something by his secretary if you’d rather), the writer is really committing to the role.  He really wants people to think he really is this guy.  That’s a neat trick, but it makes me think this guy is scamming us.  I just don’t think Paul wrote it.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Yawn.  There wasn’t that much new for me in this book.  The only parts I found interesting were the parts that struck me as non-Paul or signs that it’s a forgery.  Those aren’t the best distinctive features for an epistle to have.

Sunday, January 5, 2014

Galatians

Click here for the previous book, Corinthians II.


CHAPTER 1

Paul is a man with a chip on his shoulder in this letter.  We saw some of this in Second Corinthians but this is much more Paul: The Angry Apostle.  He needs to defend himself, and he’s not happy about that.

The letter begins: “Paul, an apostle, not from human beings nor through a human being but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead.”  Paul is so quick to establish his credentials that he doesn’t even say, “Here are my credentials.”  He just slams the damn things on the desk and glares.

Oh, he comes back around to the need to justify himself but quick.  “I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you but the grace of Christ for a different gospel.”  Things aren’t going well, clearly, in Paul-land.  And a different gospel, you say?  Yes: “there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.”  We saw some of this in Second Corinthians – someone is laying down a version of Christianity that is different from what Paul things.  And he makes it no secret what he thinks of his disturbed version: “if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed.”  Man, fuck them other guys, fuck ‘em completely.

So what is this other gospel Paul despises?  He never says.  Why would he want to promote something he opposes?  Besides, the Galatians have already heard it – which is the problem.

Paul makes a big case for his credibility.  No pussyfooting around, ambling back-and-forth like in Second Corinthians.  No, he flatly says, “The gospel preached by me is not of human origins. For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” 

Paul tells us where this gospel of his came from.  At first, it’s the story we know.  He persecuted the Christians, and then had his revelation.  He doesn’t quite say it happened on the road to Damascus, but it looks like it happened on the road there or in Damascus. 

OK, but then the story changes.  So far, everything Paul says lines up pretty well with what Acts of the Apostles said.  But in Acts, we’re told that Paul went directly from Damascus to Jerusalem, where he stayed with the Apostles for a while and was always in their company.  But that’s not the story Paul himself gives.  No, Paul flatly says, “I did not immediately consult flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather I went into Arabia and then returned to Damascus.” 

Interesting.  Paul goes out of his way to specifically tell us that he did NOT deal with the apostles.  This goes back to a point made earlier – his gospel came solely through divine revelation, not through any human intermediaries.  Why would Acts say something different?  Well, there is one obvious reason I can think of.  If you have Paul hang with the apostles, that makes it more clear that they’re all saying the same thing, and they’re all on the same page.  But if what Paul says is true, then there is a better chance that they’re on different pages.  (Besides, if Paul had spent plenty of time learning from the feet of St. Peter, you’d think he’d have a better knowledge of what Christ actually said.  As is, Paul virtually never discusses the teachings of Christ.  Last Supper, crucifixion, resurrection – that’s why Christ matters to Paul. Everything that happened before the last three chapters of the gospels?  Irrelevent).

Also, that brings up a big question – who are these people coming to the Galatians spreading this false doctrine?   And why would the Galatians so readily accept this new approach over the man who first baptized them in the name of the Holy Spirit?  One possible answer Biblical scholars have provided: it’s the Jerusalem Gang. One consistency throughout the New Testament is that Paul and them don’t always see eye-to-eye.  James Christ wanted people to uphold most Jewish laws (except that Gentile believers in Jesus don’t have to be circumcised).  Paul thinks that is bunk. 

Paul’s version has won out over the last 2,000 years, but can you imagine the reaction it would have if around the year 50 AD, a few actual apostles who knew Christ came to town and said “You’re doing it wrong!  Oh, Paul says that’s the way to be?  Well, Paul never met Jesus.  Paul had a vision, and if his vision doesn’t mesh up with what Jesus said when he actually walked around, who will you side with – Jesus or Paul?”  That would explain Paul’s tone here.  That would explain why he feels the need to justify himself so vehemently.  Maybe that explains why he goes out of his way to tell us he didn’t consult with the Jerusalem Gang after his revelation. 

Why wouldn’t he be so vehement with the Corinthians later on?  Well, maybe it wasn’t one of Christ’s actual apostles that came north.  Maybe it was a messenger or someone who knew of the disputes between Paul and Jerusalem to the South.  Maybe.  Or maybe the anger by the community to Paul here was more than in Corinth. 

Oh, Paul says more in this chapter, too.  Paul tells us that he spent three years between his vision and when he finally went to Jerusalem.  So there was contact.  Aye, but Paul was only there for 15 days.  In that time, he only saw Cephas (Paul’s name for Peter) and “James, the brother of the Lord.”

OK, let’s stop here for a second.  This clears up one thing.  In Acts, the big leader of the Jerusalem Gang was James – but it was just James, no other form of identity given.  That’s annoying because the gospels mention three James – Apostle James (brother of fellow Apostle John), James of Alphaeus (also an apostle), and James brother of Jesus.  Which one was the big leader?  Well, it couldn’t have been John’s brother because he died in Chapter 12. Sure, James of A was a minor apostle, but James Christ didn’t get much attention there either.  But this letter from Paul solves the riddle – it was James, brother of Jesus.  That’s who he met with.

Anyhow, Paul tells us that’s all the contact he ever had with the Jerusalem gang – “before God, I am not lying” he adds for good measure.  His back is up against the wall here, people. The meeting went well.  The Jerusalem Gang was apparently tickled to find their former oppressor was now on their side.  They let him go off preaching to Gentiles.

All this – and I almost forgot another point Paul makes.  Paul claims that not only was he spoken to directly by God, not only was his gospel given to him via divine revelation – but this was something God had determined well in advance.  Paul writes how “God, who from my mother’s womb had set me apart.”  Yes, that’s right – Paul was chosen as an apostle even before he was born.  That means he was picked as an apostle before the actual apostles.  Instead of being the Johnny-come-lately apostle who never met Jesus, Paul is the original apostle, certified by God himself.  (Also, this furthers a comparison I made earlier – that Paul is like Jeremiah.  In the Old Testament, we’re told that Jeremiah had been picked by God even before his birth to be a prophet). 

CHAPTER 2

Paul tells us more of his story.  He preached the gospel for 14 years before returning to Jerusalem. (Hmmm..  in Second Corinthians he has a cryptic section about someone Paul knew and there was a “14 years” thing there as well.  Coincidence?  Maybe.  I can’t figure our Chapter 12 of Second Corinthians).

Paul then gives his account of what my footnotes (and Biblical scholars) tell me is the big Chapter 15 showdown).  Paul tells us he didn’t back down, and didn’t submit.  The powers that be in the Jerusalem Gang made Paul’s’ Greek assistant Titus get circumcised, though, but it doesn’t sound like Paul liked that.  Anyhow, Paul refers to “those who were reputed to be important” so it sounds like he doesn’t get along with them that well.  Then again, Paul tells us “James and Cephas [AKA Peter] and John, who were reputed to be the pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.”  So the meeting does end well, and with the apparent agreement that Paul will be apostle to the Gentiles.  So this pretty well lines up with Chapter 15 of Acts of the Apostles.

Then something interesting happens.  Paul refers to an incident involvement Cephas/Peter.  Paul doesn’t quite tell us what happens – he assumes the Galatians already know of it, so he can just refer to it here.  After all, it’s apparently an incident that happened right in front of them.

Anyhow, Paul thinks Peter was in the wrong – and Paul let Peter know it.  He apparently chastised the apostle in front of the Galatians.  It looks like Peter was eating with the Jews and Gentiles all together, and then some more guys from Jerusalem came up.  The other Jerusalemers weren’t down with much Gentile-Jew mixing (even in a Christian Church) and so Peter retreated, eating just with the Jews (and, I assume, in keeping with kosher regulations – something Paul clearly has no use for but James Christ does support).  Paul considers this to be hypocrisy and notes “even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.”

That’s basically the end of the story, but it opens up all sorts of questions.  What would Peter say about this, if he was around to give us his half?  Would Peter admit he was in the wrong, or would disagree?  Remember – Peter is closer to James Christ (even Paul tells us that one chapter ago, referring to them as two of the three church pillars, alongside apostle John). 

Also, is there any relationship between this scene and the problems Paul now has with the Galatians.  Think for a second: Paul upbraids Peter in front of the people for following Mosaic Law, and now (however long later) some people have come to the Galatians spreading a false gospel, and putting John on the defensive.  I don’t know which side Peter took in the kafuffle, but it looks pretty clear news of the incident came back to Jerusalem, and they’re clamping down on Paul’s unorthodox theology.  That would explain why Paul felt the need to mention the Peter incident, and all the more reason why he felt it was necessary to make clear how his theology was a product of divine revelation, NOT the Jerusalem Gang.  (For if the J. G. played any role in mentoring him, then all their words now contradicting his theology would mean they’re right and he’s wrong, for they are the mentors and he the pupil). 

Finally, it’s interesting that Paul says how even Barnabas is going with them.  Folks, let’s go back to Acts of the Apostles for a second.  There, Barnabas and Paul were a team for a while.  In the big Chapter 15 meeting, they’re given the right to go off together with the Gentiles. However – at the end of Chapter 15, they have a disagreement.  It’s such a sharp one, that they break up that old gang of theirs.

In Act, the disagreement was on John Mark (AKA, the reputed author of the second gospel). Barnabas wanted to take John Mark with them and Paul said no.  Well, what else do we know about John Mark?  He was from the Jerusalem crowd, and reputedly Peter’s secretary/flunky. 

Let’s put this together.  In Acts, the breakup occurs after the big Chapter 15 meeting, and here in Galatians, the Peter incident comes right after Paul’s version of the Chapter 15 meeting.  Now we know that Barnabas disagreed with Paul on the question of eating, siding with the Jerusalem crowd – and apparently even wanted to take one member of the Jerusalem Gang with them on their further moves.  (And not just any Jerusalem Gang guy  - but the assistant to the man Paul just publicly upbraided).

Sounds like they had a definite falling out, and a falling out over the question of whether/not to apply the old Mosaic laws in Jew/Gentile eating customs.  It sounds like Barnabas broke with Paul.  Paul went off alone because he had no other supporters – and now Jerusalem is taking his community away from him from behind.

Paul talks about how it’s all about faith, now laws.  And that’s the fundamental difference between him and James Christ’s Jerusalem Gang.  (Paul is the Protestant while James Christ is the Catholic – though Jewish Catholic in this case, while the actual Catholic Church loves them some Paul).

CHAPTER 3

Now that Paul has gone over the entire history of the matter, it’s time for some good old-fashioned personal abuse: “Oh you stupid Galatians” begins Chapter 3.  Later on, he asks, “Are you so stupid.”

Paul mixes his insults with theology.  OK, you guys are questioning me (the man who showed you the way to Christ?) – so be it.  I have a question for you: “Did you receive the Spirit from works of the law or from faith in what you heard.”  It’s a leading question if ever there was one. Of course they got it from faith – that’s what Paul has always preached.  Well, guess what – the Jerusalem Gang is talking a bunch of law stuff, not faith stuff.  

If you think about it, Paul’s entire approach is based on faith. Not just his theology – but how he got into this religion in the first place.  He had a divine revelation directly from God.  And he has faith – as certain as certain can be – that the revelation was God talking to him.  So that’s all that matters.  And he’ll fight tooth and nail for it – even if it means fighting tooth and nail against the Jerusalem Gang for the souls of the Galatians. 

As for the law, Paul tells us it, “was added for transgressions.”  People were shown the path by God, but blew it, so the laws were put in place to keep human conduct in line as best as it could.  But we’re past that now.  We have Jesus Christ now, and if we put our faith in him it nullifies the old law.

Paul puts it like this, “the law was our disciplinarian,” but now that we live in the post-Christ age (AD, not BC), “not that faith has come, we are no longer under a disciplinarian.”  We’re past all that, thinks Paul. 

We’re beyond the law – among other things.  Paul states that in the post-Christ age, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female, for you alone are one in Christ Jesus.” No wonder Paul supported a female preacher in Romans (and no wonder his anti-female line in Corinthians was apparently a later addition by a scribe).

CHAPTER 4

Paul pleads for the Galatians to remain loyal to the gospel Paul gave them, the viewpoint that first brought them to Christ.  Paul does some reminiscing, and it’s a little obscure for us now.  Paul is referring to things that he and the Galatians know – but of course we don’t.  But it sounds like that when Paul first came in the region, he had some kind of disease – he says he had a physical illness.  What was it?  That’s not clear.  The best guess is an eye ailment of some sort, as Paul writes, “Indeed, I can testify to you that if it had been possible, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me.” Paul is trying to rekindle that passion he’s once stirred within the Galatians.

Paul thinks his opponents are looking to kill that level of passion, as: “They show interest in you, but no in a good way; they want to isolate you.”  Paul is playing on the heartstrings here.

Paul also lays down some theology, but it’s stuff he’s already said before in other letters.

CHAPTER 5

Paul makes a full-throated justification for faith over works here.  It’s probably his most starkly laid out case for that point of view so far.  Paul says that if you are circumcised, you will get no benefit from it.  In fact, it’ll hurt you because if you get snipped, then you’re obligated to observe all the old laws.  (Paul never explains why that would be the case – it just is the case).  And that’s bad, for Christ came to earth to free us from the law, so to begin following the law, “You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be justified by law, you have fallen from grade.”

Yep, that’s as stark as it gets – its faith versus the law: you must pick a side. 

That’s different from the message Paul has had in other letters.  In Romans he said circumcision isn’t a bad thing, but it misses the point, for instance.  But Paul needs to take a harder stand here because his personal credibility is at stake.  If he hedges at all, he fears he’ll lose the entire community.  I suppose that’s his point of view, anyway.  The basic fear is that people will focus on being saved through following the law, and that’s not what Paul wants. Along these lines, Paul says a little later on, “But if you are guided by the Spirit, you are not under the law.” 

For Paul, the Mosaic Law came about because people couldn’t follow God’s ways.  Now God has saw fit to redeem us by giving his son as a sacrifice, so the law is now nullified. 

It should be pointed out that this isn’t really the view of Jesus Christ you get in the gospels.  Christ, to be fair, doesn’t follow the laws the same way the Pharisees do.  Christ isn’t a stickler for the details the way the Pharisees were.  Christ did prioritize faith and love, just as Paul did.  But Christ was never so antagonistic to the law as Paul is.  At times Christ would say he just wanted to go further than the laws.  (It’s not enough to not commit adultery, you must also not sin in the heart). 

CHAPTER 6

Paul wraps things up.  He spends a few lines making some standard point and then makes his conclusion.  Most notably, in the conclusion Paul himself is doing the writing.  The end part begins with Paul writing, “See with what large letters I am writing to you in my own hand!”  Most of these letters were written by a scribe, jotting down Paul’s thoughts, but here – in order to help emphasize the personal nature of the letter and Paul’s appeal – he takes the pen himself.  (And why such large letters – did he have eyesight problems?  Who knows?)

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Wow! This letter was something of a tour de force by Paul.  He has had deeper letter and more elaborate discussions of his theology, but rarely has he ever come off with such primal emotional force.  (And mind you, he’s often passionate throughout these letters).  It’s also fascinating if you’re interesting in Biblical scholarship and the relationship between Paul and the other leaders of the primordial Christian church.  It doesn’t look like they always got along so well.

Click here for the Book of Ephesians.