So..............

I understand i haven't written anything decent recently...or, atleast, remotely interesting to the common 'peep'.  It's difficult really, and perhaps slightly sad to know i have only two followers...sniffles...me and my girlfriend...hmmmm....but i shall persevere.  It would be great if i could get some more followers and then ask other persons what they want to hear me talk about...or whether anyone wants to hear me talk about anything at all.  For the moment though i shall leave with Ravi Zacharias...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wctTgF5vDnE



Galatians

Question:  How far is it possible to discover what was being taught by Paul’s opponents in Galatia, and what arguments does Paul use to respond to them?

The question here concerns our knowledge of the past, methodological approaches for studying that past and exegetical investigation.  In approaching such a complex hermeneutical challenge, commanding such a diverse array of viewpoints (Guthrie,1990,483-485), it would be wise to articulate a logical and efficient way of answering the question.  We must first explore the limits of historical methodology and exegesis and then apply it to the case concerned (Theissen,1982,176).  From this foundation an endeavour to investigate the teaching discernible by Paul’s opponents in Galatia in light of what is found in regard to methodological limitations will be conducted.  This will entail looking at the church context of the Galatians so as to understand the nature of the teaching and congregational setting into which Paul’s opponents were speaking.  Finally, after establishing what type of teaching Paul is responding to, an adequate position will have been carved out from which to understand his polemic as seen in the letter to the Galatians.  It should be made clear, for the purposes of this essay, the idea of historical relativism or the claim that there is no historical truth to be had, shall be dismissed (Bernstein,1985,8-9).  This is justified in that the question assumes historical truth in that a person called Paul existed, that he had opponents and that they were teaching in Galatia.

When engaging with the case set before us we come up against significant hermeneutical problems.  Is it possible to accurately construct the context of the letter to the Galatians and to correctly interpret it?  Being so far from the original context one would do well to agree with Lurhmann(1992,126), that in looking at what was being taught and by whom, “we will be able to get no further than a very general characterization.”.  Further, it would be logical to be light footed in attempting to interpret the text.  For the purposes of Paul, writing Galatians was not to give exegetes information about the subject to which he was speaking (Theissen,1982,175).  Rather, he was responding to a group of churches, in either north or south Galatia and presupposing certain things that people living today are incapable of comprehending (e.g. Gal.4:13) (Marshall,Travis,Paul,2011,228).  On top of this the problem of Paul’s biased understanding of what he believed his opponents were teaching also rears its head , despite Longenecker(1990,291) perceiving that Paul did know of their activities.  Scholars are not sure whether Paul received a letter from the Galatians themselves, or whether he received an aural message from someone troubled by the goings on there (Luhrmann,1992,3).  All there is to be had that speaks into the specific situation of the Galatians is Paul’s letter to them.  Despite all of these problems however, there is still information to be had (Theissen,1982,179).  These limitations do not prevent an accurate interpretation of the letter but they do grant reason for cautiousness and the avoidance of heavy reliance on speculative hypotheses.  Paul’s arguments and their content should be taken into account, for whether it is only a general picture that is attainable or not it seems important to attempt to form such a picture.  Indeed, “Had it not been a question of theology really to be taken seriously [at Galatia], Paul would not have needed to react so pointedly to its proclamation…” (Luhrmann,1992,123).

            Now that certain methodological limitations have been established, approaching the teaching of Paul’s opponents is justified.  To accurately establish what this teaching was the context of the church in Galatia will undoubtedly need to be taken into account.  One might go as far to say that it would be ‘inconceivable’ not to take this into account (Thiselton,1992,261).  From the text a number of facts can be discovered about the Galatian congregations which will be of benefit in understanding opposition to Paul.  The Galatians were predominantly gentile (Gal.4:8), and the gospel came to them via Paul (Gal.4:13-14). They are now to be faced with the confusion of having to understand why their church founder stands  in opposition to the teaching that they are receiving from other teachers, who also proclaim to be in the possession of gospel truth (Gal.1:6-7). They were also deviating from Paul’s teaching only shortly after he had left them (Gal.1:6). These verses alone give some interesting insight into the life of the church at Galatia and give grounds for a number of inferences.  Paul has left them recently, and they are not a mature community of Christians but like children (Gal.4:19), which almost definitely entails no thorough articulation of a systematic theology.  These statements give grounds for concluding that at the churches in Galatia there was ripe opportunity for heresy and manipulation, by false teachers outside of and among the congregation itself.

It is in this context that the Galatians and the teaching by which they were being deceived is to be understood.  But what is this teaching?  What can be deduced given the limitations that have already been outlined in the previous section?   In approaching these ideas it is important that it is understood the agitation that the Galatians were suffering from was what led Paul to write to them in the first place (Roetzel,1998.79).  It should be theoretically possible, therefore, to be able to reconstruct to some degree, what Paul’s opponents were teaching.   Where should clues be found concerning what the agitators were teaching?   Primarily with the letter to the Galatians itself (Martyn,1997,17), and where Paul mentions his opponent’s teaching within that letter.  In a number of passages, the same themes frequently recur within his arguments; distinctive observations can be made from them regarding his opponent’s teaching.   It is clear that the Jewish law (Bruce,1982,20) and circumcision are key to the opponents teaching (Gal 6:12-13) and given Paul’s emphasis on Abraham (Gal 3:6-18) one may also logically conclude that this was also part of the opposing polemic (Longenecker,1998,31) . Indeed, these themes plague the entire book (Gal.5:3-4; Gal.4:21; Gal.3:2; Gal.2:15-6).  Confident inferences that the teaching concerned was focussed on these areas can therefore be made.   Even the most radical scholars do not deny the prominence of the view that the opponent’s teaching is in some way concerned with the law and circumcision, although they do admittedly question the identity of the opponents, their motives and focus (Schmithals,1972,13).  Judging also by Paul’s defence of his apostleship early in the book (Gal.1:10-2:21) one may conclude that his opponents attacked him personally.  It has been suggested that this might be a rhetorical device on the part of Paul (Schreiner,1996,46).  This seems implausible on the other hand, because of the force and thoroughness of these two chapters (Schreiner,1996,47).    The focus of the opponents’ teaching then, seems Jewish in its emphasis, but on coming to this conclusion it is  met with the challenge from Gal.4:10 and Gal.4:3; 4:8-9, which prima-facie, could imply a teaching with subtle ties to cultic/pagan or non-Jewish religious practices (Luhrmann,1992,124).  Scholars such as Munck (1959,87) capitalise on these references and go on to imply some form of gentile Christian-Jewish syncretism or like Schmithals (1972,37) construe Gnostic teaching as present.   To construe these passages as reversing the Jewish focus of the opponents’ teaching, would however, be incorrect. For these passages can also be largely interpreted in the context of Paul’s Judaic worldview (Bruce,1982,29-31).  Furthermore, at Gal. 4:8 Paul is clearly referring to the Galatians’ past and not to a teaching that is presently taking place in the Galatian churches (Bruce,1982,30).  This Jewish focus is to be supported by the Jewish nature of the rest of the letter concerning law, circumcision and Abraham.  Alternate hypotheses that bring this view into question are then to bear the burden of proof.  Indeed, Lutgert’s proposition that there were two different and opposing teachings (Bruce,1982,23) fails almost outright due to its heavy dependence on speculation , and that it multiplies explanations beyond necessity. It is no surprise that Lutgert’s theory has been dismissed by some as ‘untenable’ (Schmithals,1972,16).  It can be deduced then, that those teaching in Galatia were teaching that to be saved one must be “justified by the law” (Gal.5:4). It follows that the theology of Paul’s opposition was directly in contrast to his Christological approach, and that they thought that he was teaching a false gospel.  Allusions to this vehement theological conflict might be seen in Gal.1:20 and undoubtedly at Gal.3:1.  To delve any further beyond these inferences into the teaching of these agitators, the limits of the ‘general characterisation’ available would be breached and so caution is here exercised.  What has been established here however is of great profit for distinguishing the focus of Paul’s arguments, giving solid ground on which to plot the structure of his polemic.

To this opposing polemic the Apostle responds. Paul, who is perhaps at his most daunting in his letter to the Galatians, argues his case fiercely. On initially reading the letter one is met with the lack of a thanksgiving, which appears so often in the other authentic Pauline epistles (Stirewalt,2003,94), clearly indicating the seriousness of the situation. Following on from this his argument is structured by beginning with defence of his apostolic authority, indeed, he defends it from the start (Gal.1:1) and equivocates his ministry to that of Peter’s (Gal.2:8).  All the other sections are subordinate in their relationship to this initial defence.  It is on asserting his authority as an apostle that grants the validity to the rest of his polemic. On doing this he has established the starting block on which to criticise the theological flaws in the arguments of his opponents. Thus he can boldly assert, “You foolish Galatians!” (Gal.3:1), not dwelling on this fiery outburst he endeavours to deal with the allegedly misplaced theology that has led to this foolishness. Indeed, following on from this the Galatians are met with a solid paragraph of questions (Gal.3:1-5) which one can imagine providing much food for thought for the Galatian congregations and also providing a bouncing board for Paul’s following rhetoric. Expanding on what he has just said, Paul articulates his case in accordance with scriptural examples through that of Abraham (Gal.3:6-18) and the allegorizing of the story of Hagar and Sarah (Gal.4:21-31).  Martyn (1997,300) articulates a structural pattern for these examples, showing that Paul attempts to turn his opponents interpretation of that text on its head so as to serve his own purposes, which brings us back to the key issues of interpretation concerning the law and circumcision. Paul writes, “Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law” (Gal.5:3) .  In Judaism the law is an indivisible entity, “…a person or community is not at liberty to pick and choose its practices…” (Longenecker,1998,32).  The law however is also a curse (Gal.3:13).  These statements are what comprise the central premises in Paul’s argument.  His argument might be formulated as follows,

1.         The law is a curse

2.         Those who are circumcised are obligated to obey the law

3.         Therefore those who are circumcised are under the curse of the law

Paul then points out that far from not bringing Christ into question (Luhrmann,1992,125), righteousness cannot be achieved through the law.  Indeed, if his argument is coherent, then the theology of his opponents totally undermines what was done through Christ (Gal.2:21). He eventually goes on to point out that the full obligation of the law is not adhered to by his opposition (Gal.6:13), incriminating the theological foundations of their teaching further and shouting out in frustration that these agitators should, “castrate themselves!” (Gal.5:12).  Having dealt with the theological paradigm of his opponents, so much so in the NIV that he now assumes that the Galatians are in the Spirit (Gal. 5:25), Paul’s argument culminates in urging the Galatians to live by the Spirit and to avoid the sinful nature (Gal 5:16-6:10), finally rebuking his opponents once more (Gal.6:11-18). No one can deny the power of Paul’s rhetoric when it comes to his response to the heresy at Galatia, but as mentioned previously this gives ample reason to be cautious in how much should be read into his polemic and its reflection of his opponent’s teaching.

Having investigated methodological limitation concerning the hermeneutical challenges provoked by the question, looking at the context of the church in Galatia, articulating the basic themes and foci of Paul’s opponents teaching there and finally looking at Paul’s response to them, justification is now provided for drawing a number of conclusions.  It is clear that we can, despite the previously mentioned limitations, gain an understanding of Paul’s Galatian opponents’ polemic statements and that it can be discerned, to some degree the nature and focus of their teaching.  This teaching on inspection is primarily concerned with the Jewish themes of law, circumcision and Abraham. On understanding this, deconstructing Paul’s arguments in response is justified, thus opening up new avenues for personal study and comprehension.   It must be noted that Paul defends his Gospel with his authority as an Apostle and argues by scripture for the falsity of this opposing theology.  Parallels can be seen to the Galatian situation throughout church history, perhaps more so today than ever.  The Christian is faced with a plethora of different theological judgements, all proclaiming to be correct and all commanding allegiance (Stott,1968,186).  Perhaps the Christian community should be agreeing with Stott(1968,187) when he appropriately quotes the Lambeth conference, in that the measuring board for the validity of each of these different teachings, as with those put forward at Galatia must be scripture and apostolic authority, “To that authority…the church must ever bow.”.

Church and Ministry

Question: “Without the church there would be no kingdom, just as without the kingdom there would be no church.” Are both parts of this statement equally defensible?

The question here concerns the relationship between the church and the kingdom.  Ecclesiology and eschatology.  By no means could we say that articulating the nature of this relationship is an easy task (Dulles,2002,97), nevertheless for headway to be made in this area the conquering of such subjects is necessary.  In order to answer the question one is required to investigate the nature of the kingdom, for the whole statement concerned hinges on its definition of ‘βασιλεια’.  It is required then to develop a criteria which, if on further investigation is affirmed then both parts of the statement are equally defensible and if negated are not so. What criteria must be met to affirm equal defensibility? We might formulate the criteria as follows,

1.         The church and the kingdom are synonymous (Which entails 2.)

Or,

2.         The church and the kingdom are equally dependent on each other for their existence 

For if the church and kingdom are neither synonymous nor equally dependent on each other, both parts of the statement cannot logically be equally defensible.  By no means will it be possible to efficiently cover the wealth of ecclesiological material available to fully discern a precise definition of the church in this essay. For the purpose of this essay the church will be defined in a way that might be termed ‘mere ecclesiology’ and so only concerning a definition of church at its most basic level.  The definition of church used in this essay will be that of ‘the community of believers’ or, perhaps more specifically “a communion of holy men and works, in that it submits to sole rule by Jesus Christ” (Barth,1958,141).  Where is the best place to start our investigation?  It seems logical to take the points of the criteria in turn, discussing the varying evidence in support of equal defensibility and against it.

Opening this discussion one is met with the proposition of synonymy of kingdom and church. This view has been put forward by a number of scholars (Chilton,1996,6-7). Indeed a number of parallels can be drawn between the concept of the church and the concept of the kingdom.  The church is a growing entity, as is the kingdom (Lk.13:18-19). Christ is sovereign as he is also the head of the church (Eph.4:15). But this view, despite being a logical possibility encounters difficulty. Indeed, it seems as though the church and kingdom may not be the same entity, but separate.  Chilton (1996,7) points out that an entirely ‘distinct vocabulary’ for both entities is used in the New Testament.  In judging whether church and kingdom are synonymous we need to identify whether Jesus’ eschatology allows for this conception and what in his context would be the kingdom’s most natural definition. 

 Theologians like Schweitzer make it quite clear that there is an unmistakable eschatological aspect to the kingdom that transcends the church (Schweitzer,1954,356). This seems clearly implied in John 18:36. We are looking forward to the kingdom as a purely eschatological reality, not synonymous with our concept of the church (Bultmann,1974,37). If this eschatological theory is true, then the grounds for believing that the church and kingdom are synonymous are destroyed.  This would be the case if we were to concede to Bultmann (1974,37) in saying that the coming of the kingdom is to occur at the end of this age.  The church instead of being one and the same with the kingdom is its forerunner and the proclaimer of its proximity. Thus point one of the criteria cannot be met on this eschatological hypothesis.  But is this eschatological view valid?  Should we be concluding that the kingdom is futurist in its nature?  It seems, on critical reflection of scripture that this view cannot be held.  When studying Mt. 12:28, Lk. 17:20 and Lk. 11:20 the meaning of such passages shows that the coming of the kingdom is not a purely future eschatological event but somehow present in Jesus ministry.  Indeed, despite numerous attempts to harmonize these passages with this ‘futurist’ eschatological viewpoint none appear convincing (Beasley-Murray,1986,75-80). It is as though in the attempt of harmonization the theologian is bound to push these passages into a mould that was not made for them.  This standpoint on the role of the kingdom therefore cannot be a plausible hypothesis in light of scripture.  But then is one justified in going too far in the opposite direction and declaring a ‘realised eschatology’ (Lundstrom,1963,105-106).  Indeed as with a purely ‘futurist’ view of the kingdom this ‘realised eschatology’ also does away with synonymy as a plausible alternative.  How can the church grow, if the kingdom is already fully realised?  How is it that the full reign of God is present yet still there are those who do not consent to its presence and rebel against it? If the kingdom is already realised, then the church is under and within the kingdom of God and not the kingdom itself.  This view is deficient when attempting to adequately explain the futurist aspects of Jesus’ teaching.  We might now be justified in using both the ‘present’ and ‘future’ aspects of kingdom theology in conjunction with each other (Lundstrom,1963,233). If this eschatological tension is affirmed, it seems as though the synonymy of church and kingdom remains a possible option.  Not only does the positing of eschatological tension take into account the varying passages of scripture, but it also allows for the idea of kingdom and church in question. This however does not lend much evidence by way of validating the proposition of equal defensibility.  Indeed, in saying that the kingdom is synonymous with the church is a possible option we are not concluding that it is consequently a plausible option.  If scholars on both sides of the eschatological spectrum agree, or at least imply that church and kingdom are not synonymous, then even if we adopt the eschatological middle ground we have to take into account their judgements on the matter.  Judging on their reactions we should be sceptical.

            When engaging further in trying to understand the kingdom as synonymous we are again met with difficulties, aside from those of eschatological chronology.  In determining the definition of the kingdom in a Christian theology we must understand how Jesus defined it.  How was the kingdom conceived in the society in which Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God?  Of course, if we accept that Jesus meant church and kingdom were the same entity and that his idea of eschatology allowed for such definitions, synonymy remains a plausible option.  But it is not immediately apparent, when placing Jesus in his ‘sitz im leben’ that this definition of kingdom would be natural.  In dealing with this issue we have to place Jesus in his first century context.  Indeed, in the predominantly Jewish culture in which Jesus worked and ministered, the kingdom was “a means of expressing God’s activity in the world” and “God intervening actively on behalf of his people” (Chilton,1996,10-11).  This thoroughly Jewish understanding of the kingdom emphasises what is to be deemed the lordship of creator over creature (Barth,1960,369).  If this definition of the kingdom of God is Jesus’ intended definition then it shows that it is more probable that the conception of the kingdom as synonymous with church is false.  For how is it possible that God’s intervention on behalf of the people are the people?  Perhaps it would be beneficial here to articulate the kingdom as a means of God’s intervention on behalf of his people. For it is clear when God is intervening for Israel in the old testament the kingdom has not come, but it is an event that is yet to occur (Joel.2). It is confusing, for if we define the kingdom purely as God’s intervention on behalf of his people then the kingdom has been active throughout history.  But that cannot be the case if the Jews were looking forward to it as an eschatological event.  Beasley- Murray (1986,11) clarifies this better than Chilton’s (1996,10-11) more general definition as, “God’s intervention in judgement upon the nations … an end to man’s rebellion… initiating the period of God’s saving sovereignty”.  The church however is not to judge the nations and is not the entity that puts an end to man’s rebellion, and as it is understood neither did it initiate the period of God’s saving activity.  These belong not to the church but to the person of Christ.   The judgement of the world is assigned to Jesus (Acts.10:42) as is an end to man’s rebellion by salvation (Heb.3-4) and so is the initiation of the period of God’s dominion (Lundstrom,1963,233).   This justifies us in being inclined to agree with Pannenberg’s theology on the matter, “If the sign and the thing signified are not distinguished … the future hope of Christian faith is compromised” (Karkkainen,2002,117).  It is highly implausible therefore, that church and kingdom are one and the same entity and from this the first point in the criteria fails to be met.

            Having assessed the evidence for and against point one of the criteria we are now obligated to move on to point two.  Point one entails point two but not vice versa. The statement in point two is meant to treat both church and kingdom as separate articles and thus compel us to make a judgement on how they might be connected. In treating church and kingdom as two separate entities how are we to judge their relationship?  If equally dependent on each other, we must conclude that equal defensibility of both parts of the statement should be affirmed.

            No one would deny that the kingdom and the church are intimately linked. But the matter of being equally dependent on each other for their existence may be a step too far. The problem arises then in asking whether the church warrants the existence of the kingdom? For if the kingdom as an entity is only in existence so that people might inherit it, then if those due for inheritance did not exist the concept of kingdom would be made redundant.  But God is king over all. “Lord of heaven and earth” (Acts.17:24). If God is king overall and the church disappeared, God’s kingship would remain intact and therefore so would his kingdom, minus the church. Is it permissible to say that the church is the commander of God’s saving activity in the world? Is God’s will subordinate to the will of the church? If as discussed we adopt the hypothesis that claims the kingdom is God’s saving activity in the world, it seems we would have to deny interdependence between kingdom and church.  For the church did not arise by itself, but was dependent on God’s activity in the world for its origin and Christ in the initiation of the Kingdom (Barth,1976,155).   The eschatological event and the coming of God’s reign on earth is to be conceived of as breaking through in the ministry of Jesus (Lundstrom,1963,233).  The fact that there are temporal moments of God’s saving activity on earth as at conversion indicate that his reign is not fully consummated, but that humans now capable of having that reign bestowed upon them in Christ experience the kingdom in the present (Newbigin,1964,114). And so the church rather than being mutually dependent on the kingdom is subordinate to it. Is that to say that the kingdom and church are not intimately linked? No. For the gift of the spirit “is both a real possession and a foretaste” (Newbigin,1964,115) of the kingdom.  The kingdom discloses itself upon the church and manifests itself through the church. The kingdom is given by God (Lundstrom,1963,235)(Moltmann,1978,107). Its existence is dependent on God and not on the church. For the kingdom, as we have seen, is a separate entity. The church inherits, or walks into it. Therefore point two of the criteria fails to be plausibly met.  There is a hierarchy of dependence. The church is founded on the kingdom and its presence in the life of Christ.

The statement that, “Without the church there would be no kingdom, just as without the kingdom there would be no church.” must now be measured beside our criteria so as to achieve an accurate conclusion to the question.  Are both parts of this statement equally defensible?  The criteria, both points one and two, on critical reflection fail to be affirmed. It can be deduced then, that the kingdom is not equivalent to the church (as we have defined it) and neither are they equally dependent on one another, as has been seen so distinctively through their hierarchical relationship.   With the negation of these criteria one is therefore not justified in concluding that both parts of the statement are equally defensible. In investigating the relationship of ecclesiology and eschatology the church’s existence is found to be dependent on the kingdom’s existence, which itself is dependent on God.  And so, if the kingdom failed to be, then so also would the church fail to be.