I have found these resources helpful for commentaries. Hans-Dieter Betz
, Francois Tolmie
, James Dunn
, Richard Longenecker
, Frank J. Matera
, J. Louis Martyn
, Richard B. Hayes, and F. F. Bruce. For contact with the Christian tradition, I have also read John Chrysostom (349-407), Martin Luther (1535), and John Calvin (1509-1564). I read John Wesley's notes as well. One of the uniquenesses I often bring to my biblical studies is that I also include some systematic theologians, especially as they may comment upon the text. In this case, I have found most helpful Karl Barth and Wolfhart Pannenberg.Of course, Paul wrote this letter, sometime between around 49-58 AD. From the above resources, I would say that weight of scholarly opinion is on the side of the "south Galatian theory," meaning that Paul wrote to the churches to whom Acts refers. However, most also think that the reference to a meeting in Jerusalem with the leaders of the church there is the same as the meeting to which Luke refers in Acts 15. That meeting would occur around 49-51 AD. The letter would be written soon after this. If so, the letter is among the first of the letters of Paul.
It seems clear that Paul is writing to people with whom he has a relationship. He is agitated that they have so soon allowed another group of missionaries enter their community and lead them away from what he taught. His opponents think that while one begins with faith in Jesus as the Christ or Messiah, Christians need to complete their walk with the Jewish Law, including circumcision of males.
This conflict stimulates Paul to reflect upon salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, apart from the Law. He reflects upon the biblical basis for this Christian teaching, showing that faith is prior to the presence of the Law. He reflects upon the significance of baptism, an act that unites all Christians, rather than separates them into separate camps, as have his opponents. He reflects upon the significance of their experience of the Holy Spirit, especially in terms of making Christians children of God who empowers them to bear the fruit of the Spirit, creating a community of liberation or freedom.
Paul is clearly agitated. Maybe angry is a better word. Many modern authors explore the connections between ancient rhetoric to the way Paul develops his argument. In this connection, Gorgias
, a dialog of Plato, is an interesting read, for Socrates argues that rhetoric is quite useless. Yet, Aristotle, in his little book, Rhetoric
, lays out some of the principles of rhetoric that students of rhetoric still find helpful. For him, rhetoric is the art of using language to communicate effectively and persuasively. Betz thought that the form of rhetoric Paul used was that of a court of law, or forensic rhetoric. For him, his readers are the jury, Paul is the defendant, and his opponents are the accusers. My own judgment is that I cannot imagine Paul viewing anyone, other than God, as his judge. I cannot image Paul looking at his spiritual children as his "jury." However, they are a population group that he hopes to persuade. This would make to a form of deliberative rhetoric. He wants to persuade them of a future course of action, involving their return to the gospel he preached, and the benefits of life in Christian liberty, faith, and life in the Spirit, all apart from the Law.The church today can be grateful that Paul has laid out his vision of salvation by faith in Christ, apart from the Law. Here is how one is made right with God, or justified, in the sight of God. He also maintains a strong ethical connection, for this faith always works through love and bears the fruit of the Spirit. The God of Abraham and Israel, is also the Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and thus, Paul has his version of salvation history.
No comments:
Post a Comment