It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Galatians; Getting the gospel from Christ
page: 1share:
“There’s a great text in Galatians,
Once you trip on it, entails,
Twenty-nine distinct damnations,
One sure, if another fails” – Robert Browning, “Soliloquy of a Spanish cloister”
The dangerous text is never identified, but it’s easy to guess why the study of this letter might have been problematic in a nineteenth-century Spanish cloister.
For among the letters of Paul, Galatians will stand out as presenting the contrast between Faith and legalism.
I propose to survey most of this letter, and I’ll begin by looking at Paul’s comments in the first chapter.
vv1-2 As usual in these letters, Paul announces himself as an apostle.
But this time he makes a point of stressing that his authority doesn’t come from human agency.
He is not an apostle “from men”; that is, he didn’t get his appointment from any man or group of men.
Nor is he an apostle “through human power [DI’ ANTHROPOU].
His authority as an apostle comes directly, not indirectly, from Christ himself and the Father who raised him from the dead.
v4 Paul is a messenger sent by Christ, and his message is about what Christ has done.
So this must be outlined in more detail.
The essential point is that Christ “gave himself”.
Paul then puts forward the different kinds of reason for doing this.
It was HYPER; “on account of”. Christ gave himself “on account of our sins”, this being the immediate circumstance which made the act necessary.
It was HOPOS; “in order that”. Christ gave himself in order to break us loose from, in order to free us from , the present evil AION, this being the purpose of the action.
AION gets translated as “world” or “age”. “Age” is valid, because a contrast is intended between the present age and an age which is to come. But “world” is also useful, because the thought here approaches what John means when he talks about the KOSMOS.
It was KATA; “according to”. Christ gave himself in accordance with the will of the Father, who formed the original intention which gave rise to the action.
Paul has already introduced the point that Christ was raised from the dead, which is the other main plank of the gospel which he teaches
vv6-9 So the Galatians heard a gospel messenger sent by Christ, and the gospel they heard from him also comes from Christ, because it’s the “good news” about what he accomplished.
Which makes it all the more strange, he thinks, that they should allow themselves to be diverted from this message.
He charges them with deserting that God who had called them, through the grace of Christ, into a new relationship with himself.
He charges them with giving their attention to a completely different [HETERON] message.
It cannot be called “another” [ALLO] gospel, because there is no genuine alternative to the gospel of Christ.
There can only be attempts to falsify the true message.
Since the gospel message is God’s message, Paul calls down a curse upon anyone who changes it, and he repeats that emphatically.
They are to be considered ANATHEMA –marked for destruction as hateful to God.
The curse would be appropriate whatever the status of the culprits- even in the extreme and unlikely event that the contradictory message was coming from himself or an angel from heaven.
v10 Evidently someone has accused him of “trying to please men” (we find ourselves in the middle of a conversation here).
This would probably come from the traditional Jews, on the grounds that his treatment of the Law was designed to “please” his Gentile converts.
He turns the charge round by setting out to show that “pleasing men” would have had the opposite effect.
If he had been the kind of person who was anxious to “please men”, he would have been intent on “pleasing” the traditional Jews.
He would certainly not have been calling them ANATHEMA.
And his readiness to please them would not have allowed him to become a Christian, let alone a preacher to the Gentiles.
vv11-24 His life-history confirms that nothing in his gospel teaching came from men, and everything came direct from Christ.
As long as he relied on human teaching, the result was that he advanced in Judaism and persecuted the church.
But God had different plans.
He had already earmarked Paul and “set him aside”, even while he was in his mother’s womb.
He had already “called” Paul through his grace. I see the final speech of Stephen as part of this calling.
Then, at his own chosen time, “he revealed his Son in me”, so that Paul should begin proclaiming him to the Gentiles.
That is, he enabled Paul to recognise Christ for himself, and Christ’s place in himself.
Thereafter, Paul almost evaded contact with the original Christian leadership. He spent three years in Arabia and Damascus instead of returning to Jerusalem. When he did visit Jerusalem, he stayed there fifteen days, and spoke only with Peter and James.
He may have been reluctant to expose himself to retaliation from his previous masters. But whatever his reasons, the effect was that the other leaders could make no claim to have taught him the gospel of Christ.
Nor did the church in Judaea send him to preach to the Gentiles. They did not even know what he looked like, and they learned of his work in that field (and glorified God because of it) only after he had already started.
His teaching and his mission had both come direct from the source.
And that is the point.
Paul’s gospel, he declares, did not come from men, and therefore men cannot rightly interfere with it.
His gospel comes from Christ.
Once you trip on it, entails,
Twenty-nine distinct damnations,
One sure, if another fails” – Robert Browning, “Soliloquy of a Spanish cloister”
The dangerous text is never identified, but it’s easy to guess why the study of this letter might have been problematic in a nineteenth-century Spanish cloister.
For among the letters of Paul, Galatians will stand out as presenting the contrast between Faith and legalism.
I propose to survey most of this letter, and I’ll begin by looking at Paul’s comments in the first chapter.
vv1-2 As usual in these letters, Paul announces himself as an apostle.
But this time he makes a point of stressing that his authority doesn’t come from human agency.
He is not an apostle “from men”; that is, he didn’t get his appointment from any man or group of men.
Nor is he an apostle “through human power [DI’ ANTHROPOU].
His authority as an apostle comes directly, not indirectly, from Christ himself and the Father who raised him from the dead.
v4 Paul is a messenger sent by Christ, and his message is about what Christ has done.
So this must be outlined in more detail.
The essential point is that Christ “gave himself”.
Paul then puts forward the different kinds of reason for doing this.
It was HYPER; “on account of”. Christ gave himself “on account of our sins”, this being the immediate circumstance which made the act necessary.
It was HOPOS; “in order that”. Christ gave himself in order to break us loose from, in order to free us from , the present evil AION, this being the purpose of the action.
AION gets translated as “world” or “age”. “Age” is valid, because a contrast is intended between the present age and an age which is to come. But “world” is also useful, because the thought here approaches what John means when he talks about the KOSMOS.
It was KATA; “according to”. Christ gave himself in accordance with the will of the Father, who formed the original intention which gave rise to the action.
Paul has already introduced the point that Christ was raised from the dead, which is the other main plank of the gospel which he teaches
vv6-9 So the Galatians heard a gospel messenger sent by Christ, and the gospel they heard from him also comes from Christ, because it’s the “good news” about what he accomplished.
Which makes it all the more strange, he thinks, that they should allow themselves to be diverted from this message.
He charges them with deserting that God who had called them, through the grace of Christ, into a new relationship with himself.
He charges them with giving their attention to a completely different [HETERON] message.
It cannot be called “another” [ALLO] gospel, because there is no genuine alternative to the gospel of Christ.
There can only be attempts to falsify the true message.
Since the gospel message is God’s message, Paul calls down a curse upon anyone who changes it, and he repeats that emphatically.
They are to be considered ANATHEMA –marked for destruction as hateful to God.
The curse would be appropriate whatever the status of the culprits- even in the extreme and unlikely event that the contradictory message was coming from himself or an angel from heaven.
v10 Evidently someone has accused him of “trying to please men” (we find ourselves in the middle of a conversation here).
This would probably come from the traditional Jews, on the grounds that his treatment of the Law was designed to “please” his Gentile converts.
He turns the charge round by setting out to show that “pleasing men” would have had the opposite effect.
If he had been the kind of person who was anxious to “please men”, he would have been intent on “pleasing” the traditional Jews.
He would certainly not have been calling them ANATHEMA.
And his readiness to please them would not have allowed him to become a Christian, let alone a preacher to the Gentiles.
vv11-24 His life-history confirms that nothing in his gospel teaching came from men, and everything came direct from Christ.
As long as he relied on human teaching, the result was that he advanced in Judaism and persecuted the church.
But God had different plans.
He had already earmarked Paul and “set him aside”, even while he was in his mother’s womb.
He had already “called” Paul through his grace. I see the final speech of Stephen as part of this calling.
Then, at his own chosen time, “he revealed his Son in me”, so that Paul should begin proclaiming him to the Gentiles.
That is, he enabled Paul to recognise Christ for himself, and Christ’s place in himself.
Thereafter, Paul almost evaded contact with the original Christian leadership. He spent three years in Arabia and Damascus instead of returning to Jerusalem. When he did visit Jerusalem, he stayed there fifteen days, and spoke only with Peter and James.
He may have been reluctant to expose himself to retaliation from his previous masters. But whatever his reasons, the effect was that the other leaders could make no claim to have taught him the gospel of Christ.
Nor did the church in Judaea send him to preach to the Gentiles. They did not even know what he looked like, and they learned of his work in that field (and glorified God because of it) only after he had already started.
His teaching and his mission had both come direct from the source.
And that is the point.
Paul’s gospel, he declares, did not come from men, and therefore men cannot rightly interfere with it.
His gospel comes from Christ.
a reply to: DISRAELI
Why go to the Greek if the English was already clear enough?
Unless you are getting a different meaning from the Greek than your English version was giving you, what is the point of the foreign language. Or are you trying to impress people to show you have some superior knowledge than the English AV and the men who penned it for God.
My AV has said it exactly as it is to be understood no Greek needed.
Why go to the Greek if the English was already clear enough?
Unless you are getting a different meaning from the Greek than your English version was giving you, what is the point of the foreign language. Or are you trying to impress people to show you have some superior knowledge than the English AV and the men who penned it for God.
My AV has said it exactly as it is to be understood no Greek needed.
a reply to: ChesterJohn
Sometimes the English is NOT clear enough.
As a classic example, the AV of vv6-7 says "unto another gospel, which is not another" - a very confusing way of putting it.
In Greek it is obvious that "another" is being used twice to translate two very different words, as I indicated in the OP.
So you see that an English translation, especially an archaic one, isn't always as clear as you think it is.
The scribe who wrote for Paul also penned it for God.
Sometimes the English is NOT clear enough.
As a classic example, the AV of vv6-7 says "unto another gospel, which is not another" - a very confusing way of putting it.
In Greek it is obvious that "another" is being used twice to translate two very different words, as I indicated in the OP.
So you see that an English translation, especially an archaic one, isn't always as clear as you think it is.
The scribe who wrote for Paul also penned it for God.
edit on 8-1-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)
a reply to: DISRAELI
Interesting how Paul makes these declarations of his preaching... and would not listen to those considered "the pillars" of this new religion...
Yet John says specifically...
We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
Also being a "self proclaimed" apostle.... Yet Revelation states there is only 12 not 13
Interesting how Paul makes these declarations of his preaching... and would not listen to those considered "the pillars" of this new religion...
Yet John says specifically...
We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
Also being a "self proclaimed" apostle.... Yet Revelation states there is only 12 not 13
a reply to: Akragon
He says in the next chapter that the "pillars" did not actually disagree with him on essentials. They "added nothing to me... gave me the right hand of fellowship".
To be an "apostle" (by the origin of the word) is to be "sent" (by Christ, understood), so if he believes he has been sent out direct by Christ, it is reasonable for him to apply the word to himself.
He says in the next chapter that the "pillars" did not actually disagree with him on essentials. They "added nothing to me... gave me the right hand of fellowship".
To be an "apostle" (by the origin of the word) is to be "sent" (by Christ, understood), so if he believes he has been sent out direct by Christ, it is reasonable for him to apply the word to himself.
Even in Greek there are the same as English dialects so what may mean one thing will not mean the same to another. So you need to know where the
translation was done and where they came from etc to get an idea of their linguistical base.
The mrs who can speak greek etc finds loads of fun listening to the mainland greek speakers and how they use different words for the same thing as its like the dolmades v's Koupepia as they mean the same thing
The mrs who can speak greek etc finds loads of fun listening to the mainland greek speakers and how they use different words for the same thing as its like the dolmades v's Koupepia as they mean the same thing
a reply to: DISRAELI
Koine Greek is totally dead. Most of your supposed Greek Dictionaries Zoiates (sp?), Vines, and Strongs are basically classical Greek meanings attributed to Koine Greek words, seeing there was never a Koine Greek dictionary ever found in archeology as of yet.
Koine Greek is totally dead. Most of your supposed Greek Dictionaries Zoiates (sp?), Vines, and Strongs are basically classical Greek meanings attributed to Koine Greek words, seeing there was never a Koine Greek dictionary ever found in archeology as of yet.
edit on 8-1-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)
a reply to: ChesterJohn
This is some private definition of your own, so I'm not going to bother.
There is only one gospel message that matters, which pervades the whole testament; viz that Jesus was sent by the Father, died on the cross and rose from the dead, for our salvation.
This is some private definition of your own, so I'm not going to bother.
There is only one gospel message that matters, which pervades the whole testament; viz that Jesus was sent by the Father, died on the cross and rose from the dead, for our salvation.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: ChesterJohn
This is some private definition of your own, so I'm not going to bother.
There is only one gospel message that matters, which pervades the whole testament; viz that Jesus was sent by the Father, died on the cross and rose from the dead, for our salvation.
No it is not. and there are clearly three and if you wont look for yourself then you will remain ignorant of that truth.
the Gospel of the Kingdom
the Gospel of the Grace of God
and the Everlasting Gospel
are three different Gospels even the way they are worded tells you so, and it would help you to know why Paul Wrote Galatians to beware of receiving another Gospel the one he did not preach to them, and why it differs from that of the "pillars" that Akragon mentions.
It is very clear you need only study it out.
edit on 8-1-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
why Paul Wrote Galatians to beware of receiving another Gospel the one he did not preach to them,
The "different message" which Paul warns them about is defined in the next chapter as "you cannot belong to God unless you are circumcised". That is what he is contesting all the way through this letter, as will become clear.
The three that you name are clearly three alternative names for the same thing. When that happens, it is foolish to set about creating artificial distinctions. There is only one Christ, only one message about Christ.
a reply to: DISRAELI
Yes, and well thought out by you as usual. That may go over the heads of the Saul/Paul bashers but to me it confirms my own admiration that I have always had for the man that Jesus chose above most men.
And that is the point. Paul’s gospel, he declares, did not come from men, and therefore men cannot rightly interfere with it. His gospel comes from Christ.
Yes, and well thought out by you as usual. That may go over the heads of the Saul/Paul bashers but to me it confirms my own admiration that I have always had for the man that Jesus chose above most men.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
why Paul Wrote Galatians to beware of receiving another Gospel the one he did not preach to them,
The "different message" which Paul warns them about is defined in the next chapter as "you cannot belong to God unless you are circumcised". That is what he is contesting all the way through this letter, as will become clear.
The three that you name are clearly three alternative names for the same thing. When that happens, it is foolish to set about creating artificial distinctions. There is only one Christ, only one message about Christ.
Circumcision is of the Law, Jesus required many to go to the priest and present themselves with that which pertained to the Law of Moses, the gospel of the kingdom is entwined and connected to the law. the Gospel of the Grace of God is not. The kingdom Gospel was in opposition to the Gospel of the Grace of God.
Kingdom Gospel is connect to the earthly kingdom promise to Israel. Jesus earthly ministry was to Israel only. Once they fully rejected God by Acts 7 God appointed Saul or Tarsus to go to the Gentiles with the Gospel of the grace of God which is synonymous with the Gospel of Christ. The kingdom Gospel and the fulfillment of that kingdom to Israel is set aside for a time until the future.
The third Gospel has nothing to do with any message of Christ except his second coming. The Eternal Gospel spoken of by and Angel. By prophecy Paul wrote about this gospel as well
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Notice he says an angel(the everlasting Gospel) or a man (the apostles Kingdom Gospel) he clearly was speaking of those Gospels which are found in the NT.
All gospels have elements of faith, works and grace.
Kingdom Gospel under John the Baptist and Christ Jesus was faith plus works they would find grace at the judgment.
Gospel of the grace of God was through faith you receive Grace and good works would follow.
Eternal Gospel was by faith, fear (work) God for judgment is at hand if they repent (work), they will find grace at the judgment.
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
The third Gospel has nothing to do with any message of Christ except his second coming. The Eternal Gospel spoken of by and Angel. By prophecy Paul wrote about this gospel as well "Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
Notice he says an angel(the everlasting Gospel) or a man (the apostles Kingdom Gospel) he clearly was speaking of those Gospels which are found in the NT.
You really are not reading the words of that quotation, are you?
Did you not notice the words "let him be accursed"? Why would Paul say that about somebody supposedly preaching "the eternal gospel"?
What Paul is suggesting here is a hypothetical event; he declares that even in the thoroughly absurd possibility that he himself or an angel from heaven should be preaching this false message, the preacher would still be ACCURSED.
And in the previous verse, remember, he declared that there could be NO genuine alternative to the one gospel of Christ.
You are so confident about the clarity the AV is giving you, and yet you haven't even read it closely enough to understand what is going on in this chapter.
edit on 8-1-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)
a reply to: DISRAELI
If they preach it during his time and our time. the Eternal Gospel preaching by an angel is still future.
So let anyone tries to put you under a gospel of the Kingdom saying you must obey the Sabbath, or any other Mosaic law in order to stay saved or go to heaven or get God's grace today, let them be accursed.
p.s. yes everything you taught in the OP I could already clearly see in the AV. many like you have a hard time with it but that is ok.
If they preach it during his time and our time. the Eternal Gospel preaching by an angel is still future.
So let anyone tries to put you under a gospel of the Kingdom saying you must obey the Sabbath, or any other Mosaic law in order to stay saved or go to heaven or get God's grace today, let them be accursed.
p.s. yes everything you taught in the OP I could already clearly see in the AV. many like you have a hard time with it but that is ok.
edit on
8-1-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)
The kingdom of heaven was at hand but then Israel rejected God the Father in the Old Testament, Christ in the Gospels and the Holy Ghost in Acts 7
when they stoned Stephan. Using Scoldfield's term it was the kingdom Age
The Gospel of the Grace of God was given to Saul of Tarsus to take to the Gentiles because of Israel rejection of their promised kingdom. This is Scoldfield's term was the church age which is still ongoing until the gathering.
Then there is the return of the Gospel of the Kingdom to Israel during the Seven years of tribulation yet to come and at the end of that seven years the Angel appears and present one last chance to the inhabitants of earth in that day the Eternal Gospel before Christ returns and sets up his kingdom. Scoldfield called that The tribulation and the Millennial Kingdom Age
The Gospel of the Grace of God was given to Saul of Tarsus to take to the Gentiles because of Israel rejection of their promised kingdom. This is Scoldfield's term was the church age which is still ongoing until the gathering.
Then there is the return of the Gospel of the Kingdom to Israel during the Seven years of tribulation yet to come and at the end of that seven years the Angel appears and present one last chance to the inhabitants of earth in that day the Eternal Gospel before Christ returns and sets up his kingdom. Scoldfield called that The tribulation and the Millennial Kingdom Age
edit on 8-1-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Akragon
Arkragon, again you fail to divide the different Gospels. Right division is important or you will blend everything and dismiss that which you can't explain.
Yeah we've been though this already.., Who was the one that gave instructions to "rightly divide" the word or truth?
You obviously know the answer... Thus you also know my answer to your reply
new topics
top topics
-
Federal law trumps state and local law every time
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 16 hours ago, 17 flags
active topics
-
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3384 • : brewtiger123 -
BIDEN Admin Begins Planning For January 2025 Transition to a New President - Today is 4.26.2024.
2024 Elections • 59 • : WeMustCare -
DOJ Special Counsel Robert HUR Says JOE BIDEN Can Be ARRESTED After Jan 20th 2025.
Above Politics • 30 • : WeMustCare -
On Nov. 5th 2024 - AMERICANS Prevented the Complete Destruction of America from Within.
2024 Elections • 160 • : WeMustCare -
Results of the use of the Oreshnik missile system in Dnepropetrovsk
World War Three • 240 • : 777Vader -
Both KAMALA and OBAMA are on the Nov 5th 2024 Ballot - If One Loses - Both Lose.
2024 Elections • 9 • : WeMustCare -
How many people, in GENERAL, are musically inclined?
Music • 26 • : Huronyx -
Well, here we go red lines crossed Biden gives the go ahead to use long range missiles
World War Three • 395 • : annonentity -
Federal law trumps state and local law every time
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 30 • : ADVISOR -
Elon Says It’s ‘Likely’ He Buys Tanking MSNBC
Political Ideology • 81 • : WeMustCare