Personal thoughts

After the first few posts, I look back and realize I have only really posted my outline notes, and not so much my thoughts, which is probably what some would prefer to read.  Of course, I assume that "some" are interested in even reading these thoughts in the first place.  If you're here, you're either bored, or interested.  Either way I'll share my thoughts, and if you find them interesting, leave a note and let me know what you get out of this.

The journey into Galatians was not one that I was planning.  You'll notice that the overall title of my blog is "Wrestling with Scripture."  I chose this title with the purpose of conveying that I am indeed, wrestling with the scriptures.  Over the last few months, I have come to realize that we should, in some way, feel obligated to wrestle with scripture.  Obligated in the sense that out of a desire to know God, we must, in some way, work at getting to know Him.  That sounds like a circular reference, which it is intended to be.  Getting to know God should feel like work.  But it should feel like the type of work that you look forward to.  I have a friend that says since he started farming several years ago, he has felt like he is on vacation because he loves farming that much.  I am sure at the end of 100 hour work week during harvest, he feels exhausted.  Yet, that exhaustion is in some way something he probably looks forward to every year.  Those of you that enjoy raising a garden, know the work that I mean.  Days of sweat, bugs, weeds, rodents, heat, and wondering how things will turn out are all worth it when you stare at the harvest sitting on your shelves or in your freezer.  We need to be at a point that we work to get to know God.  It will take time, confusion, frustration, u-turns, forks in the road, rabbit trails that lead to more rabbit trails.  There will always come a time that you find the answer you need.  It may not be the answer you were looking for, but it's always the one you need.  You will feel rewarded.

My journey with Galatians started in the middle of the night.  Actually several nights.  I would wake up at 2 or 3am, feeling wide awake, with the idea I needed to study Galatians and teach it for the bible study that I am involved.  For 3 nights, I laid there for hours, usually not sleeping at all, sometimes fighting and sleeping a few minutes at a time.  Every night asking God, "Why Galatians?  Why me?  That letter has too much complexity, and I don't have that knowledge yet.  What if others, much wiser than me, ask questions and I don't know the answer?  Or worse, I give an answer and it's wrong!  Why not another study guide with a DVD that I can just facilitate?  How about a study guide on Galatians?" By the 4th night, I gave in.  I got out of bed, and started reading.  I read through Galatians twice that night.  I spent an hour reading and praying.  I told God I would do it, but was going to need His help.  No study guide.  Just me, Him, and scripture.  Sleep came easily.  It wasn't until after this happened that I realized I wasn't tired that whole week, despite getting no more than 3-4 hours of sleep each night.  

So here I am, heading into week 3 of Paul's letter.  I already have the lesson prepared and posted, and am working on the next segment where we read Paul's brief statement of confronting Peter.  So far, it's been an incredible journey.  I have found things in scripture that I didn't know were there.  I have found concepts that make the letter come alive.  I have even found some items in scripture that don't seem to add up to popular teaching (see my Lesson 3 - Galatians 2:2 about Paul going to Jerusalem because of a revelation).  I won't repeat what is already in the outline.

Here's my whole angle... I want to do justice to Paul's writing.  Some of the last words that Peter left us, which became scripture, is that Paul's letters contain "some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist" (2 Peter 3:16).  The last thing I wanted to do was twist any scripture, intentionally or unintentionally.  

I have decided to not use a specific commentary or study guide.  I wanted to.  God really worked on me to tell me not to.  My approach has been to pray, read Galatians, write my thoughts out, pray more, look for other scripture, and after having what I feel is a solid understanding of what Paul's intent was, then I will search the web for commentary to validate what I've already written.  I do not use any commentary that does not have multiple scripture references to back up their theology logic.  I seem to be drawn to commentary that is approaches from a perspective that incorporates cultural history in their dialogue.  I haven't dug a lot into history at this point, but I anticipate I'm going to have to start reading more.  I hear Josephus is a good resource.  Anyone else?

I decided to approach Paul's letter by getting to know who Paul was.  Paul was a brilliant man.  He was educated, articulate, intelligent, and zealous for God.  He definitely got on the wrong path at one point, but thankfully God corrected that, and used his zeal for good.  

I have found that contrary to what some would believe, Paul did not abandon the Torah (poorly translated into the word law).  Paul did not create a new religion.  I keep finding evidence in scripture that proves just the opposite.  Paul simply opened the existing religion of following the God of Abraham to a world that had no idea who He was.  Paul extended the words of God to the nations.  Never with the intention of segregating into a new religion.  He didn't open new churches and abandon synagogues.  He tried to keep all believers in the Messiah together as one assembly.  He wanted the metaphorical and physical wall between Jew and Gentile torn down (Ephesians 2:14).  

Paul seemed to address three different types of people in his different letters.  Brothers (fellow Jews), Sons of Abraham (proselytes), and Godfears (non-converted Gentiles who believe in the God of Abraham).  Notice the URL of my blog.  I believe that Paul wanted us Gentiles to be able to worship right next to the Jews, in the same assembly, to the same God, praising and believing in the same Messiah.  I believe that was his ENTIRE point.  Not that we are one in the same.  We are two different sets of people.  God separated His chosen, the Israelites, for a purpose, made a covenant with them, and I am fully confident He will make good on His promise to His people.  I pray that I will be one of the many in the Nations allowed to tag along.

Paul, or any apostle, never intended to abandon God's word, the Torah.  Paul, absolutely preached against following the law (which I believe he meant Torah + Traditions) as a means for salvation.  But I do not believe for a second that he intended for God's law to be abandoned or done away with.  I am still weeding through that concept and trying to understand which part of Torah applies to all of us, and which applies only to Jews as part of a covenant.  That's a whole different study that I am taking slowly.  For now, I do the best I can to understand.  

As I read through Acts, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, etc, I see more complete pictures.  I can see how there is one reference after another of the apostles did not abandon their Jewish roots.  They stayed in synagogues and taught.  They participated in the feasts.  They kept the Sabbath. 

Paul did make it very clear that the law was not to be used as a standard for salvation.  He was perfectly clear that faith in Jesus as the Messiah was the only way to salvation.  The water seems to have gotten muddy in the last 2,000 or so years as to whether he was giving instruction to abandon the law.  I will be digging into that during this study, God willing.

This has turned into a long post, but those that know me are not surprised in the least.  My future posts will have a lot more of my complete thoughts.  I will probably still include the outline I'm using for the bible study, but I will be sure to add complete thoughts for those that are interested.  

In Him...

Paul submits to authority - Lesson 3

Paul seeks validation of his teaching (v2:1-10)

·         In the last lesson, I pointed out that Paul seems to show great confidence that his vision was from God.  He makes a very specific point in claiming he did not consult with anyone, or seek out the apostles immediately.  Understanding the cultural context of his statements is critical in order to understand the next point Paul is making.  During my life, I have heard claims that Paul essentially “broke rank” and did his own thing.  I would agree that Paul’s eyes were opened, and he was given a specific understanding of existing scripture, which was radically different than what had been the major Jewish doctrine.  However, I would disagree that he “broke rank” and did his own thing.  Hopefully this segment of what I’ve learned does justice to how I believe we should understand Paul. 

·         Paul writes that he went to Jerusalem because of a revelation – v2:2

o   It is commonly misunderstood that Paul is speaking of his own revelation, and testifying at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. 

§  This does not make sense because if Paul was speaking of his own revelation, why would he have waited 17 years to seek validation with the beit din? If it was a new revelation, why was the new revelation not explained further?

§  Luke records Paul’s visits to Jerusalem

·         First Trip: Acts 9:26-30 – 3 years after conversion he visited Peter (Cephas) for 15 days, and met with James.  (Gal 1:18)

·         Second Trip: Acts 11:27-30 – short trip to bring donations to the poor in Jerusalem because of revelation about a famine. (Gal 2:1-2)

·         Third Trip: Acts 15 – Jerusalem Council

·         Fourth Trip: Acts 21 – Proves Torah observance. Ultimately arrested and sent to Rome

o   Paul’s reference to a revelation lines up with Luke’s record in Acts 11:27-30 about the revelation from the prophet Agabus that a famine was coming.  (same prophet that binds Paul with his belt in Acts 21:10 and warns him about traveling to his last trip to Jerusalem.)

o   If Paul would have been referring to the trip taken to Jerusalem to testify in front of the council in Acts 15, it would only be logical that he wouldn’t need to prove his point independently, through a letter.  He would have been able to present the council’s letter as the official halachic ruling, which would eliminate all question of validation or authority.

·         Although confident, Paul knew that he had to get official authority from “those who seemed influential” (v2:2 and v2:6)

o   Paul has a pattern of submitting to authority.

§  Acts 9:1-2 – Though zealous to do what he felt was right for God, he sought a letter of permission from the high priest (Sadducee) and did not act on his own.

§  Acts 21:17-26 – Rumors were being passed that Paul had abandoned the Torah and was teaching others to abandon.  In order to dispel the rumor, instead of arguing, he proved the rumors false by submitting to James’ directive to perform a ceremonial cleansing in the Temple.

o   There was and still is great significance to getting confirmation of a vision, and also getting approval for what you are teaching.  It was imperative that permission, or a stamp of approval, be given by someone in authority and that it does not conflict with scripture.    Deuteronomy 12:32 – 13:5

o   Was Paul really concerned he could be found “running in vain” v2:2?

§  He knew that the leadership had authority to make legal decisions regarding teaching.  Even though he was fully confident in his vision and his understanding of scripture, he knew that if leadership disagreed, he would be fighting a significant uphill battle, and perhaps would have to re-evaluate his teaching and vision.  I don’t believe he was truly concerned because of his confidence that his revelation was from God.  I believe he is making a point to those listening to his letter that he was willing to submit to authority.

§  Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18 – Jesus issues authority to bind and loose.

·         Jesus was most likely referencing Deuteronomy 16:18-20 regarding the appointment of judges and officers

·         Binding and loosing is a term used regularly to explain authority to interpret scripture in order to forbid or permit certain activities or teaching.

o   Forbidding (binding)

o   Permitting (loosing)

·         Binding and loosing is not the authority to change, add, or remove scripture, but only the authority to interpret scripture.

·         Binding and loosing decisions made by a beit din are referred to as halacha or halachic rulings

o   Beit din (pronounced bait dean) is a council of 3 community elders, Rabbis, or judges, depending on the type of ruling or decision.

o   Halacha (pronounced hall-uh-hah) or halachic rulings (pronounced hall-ah-kick) are similar to legal precedent.  These rulings would be recorded and referred to in future issues of similar nature.

o   Halacha is still the word used for legal rulings in Jewish law.

·         Talmud is the official book holding all of the ancient halachic rulings. 

o   These were orally passed down from one generation to the next, and is what the scripture is usually referring to when speaking of “under the law” or “traditions.”

o   All oral traditions and halachic rulings were written down around 200CE after the destruction of the 2^nd temple threatened the idea that these would not be passed down orally any longer.

o   Talmud is 38 volumes, 6200 pages and is still studied today by Jews, and even used as a beginning foundation Jewish law.

§  v2:9 identifies James, Peter, and John as the beit din, which would make sense considering Jesus seemed to also separate them as leaders in Matthew 17:1, Mark 5:37, & Mark 14:33. 

·         Some speculation whether this is the same James, brother of John or brother of Jesus but the possibility is high since James, brother of John mentioned in these verses, wasn’t killed until after Acts 11.

·         Assuming the timeline I have identified is correct that Paul’s second journey is the trip the trip identified in Acts 11:27-30, then this is before James, brother of Jesus leads the Jerusalem council in Acts 15.

§  At this point he had been teaching his gospel for over 14 years, all over the Diaspora (term used to refer to all of the territories outside of Israel).  He would enter a synagogue, proclaim his gospel and the prophetic evidence in the scrolls (Tanakh), then teach other leaders and leave for the next part of his journey.

§  Because of the controversial content, Paul’s teaching was causing confusion and division in synagogues.  He knew that if his vision and teaching was validated by respected leaders (beit din) those teaching his message in synagogues would have more confidence. 

·         Titus was used as a witness - v2:3

o   Paul brought Titus, a Godfearer (uncircumcised Messiah believing Gentile) with him to this private meeting so he could later serve as a witness to the Diaspora synagogues.

o   Most likely, Titus would have been interviewed by the beit din to determine that Paul had been teaching accurately.  Titus would have been a living witness to the beit din proving Paul was teaching a complete and accurate doctrine.

·         Who are the false brothers and why were they spying? – v2:4

o   The word spying used here could be replaced with investigating.

o   No scriptural evidence is given to who these people are.  Using some logic, I would speculate that these were non-Messiah believing Jews that had been attending synagogue pretending to believe in the Messiah in order to observe what was being taught.  Then taking this information back to Jerusalem as an attempt to dispute that Paul was teaching.  Pretending to believe in Messiah could have been what Paul meant by “false brothers.”

o   Perhaps they did believe in Messiah, but were just in disagreement of the teaching that Gentiles did not require circumcision.  Pretending to agree with all of the teaching, and being friendly, could have been what Paul meant by “false brothers.”

o   Maybe from the “circumcision party” referred to in Acts 11:2

·         Is Paul being disrespectful when referencing the beit din?

o   He uses the terms “those who seem influential” or “seem to be pillars” 4 times in a short period, v2:2, twice in 2:6, 2:9. 

o   v2:6 – “(what they were makes no difference to me: God shows no partiality)”

o   Some speculation is that Paul is showing his status as an educated Pharisee, and in a way dismissing the lesser educated, or non-educated, apostles in a leadership position. 

o   Others speculate that Paul is dismissing the leadership authority of the beit din because he received his mission directly from God, so his only authority, or influence, is God alone.

o   These two ideas seem contradictory to Paul’s later writings,

§  “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.” (Philippians 2:3)

§  “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;” (1 Cor 13:4-5)

§  “For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.” (Romans 12:3)

o   If Paul was being dismissive, then why take the time to travel to Jerusalem at all?  Why not continue to preach, claiming God’s direct influence and mission?  He has already spent plenty of time using scripture to convince thousands that Jesus was the Messiah.

o   In light of Paul’s references to not boast and to not be arrogant in his other letters, combined with the fact that he voluntarily sought a meeting with the beit din, what seems more accurate is to consider the context in which he has used this phrase. 

§  Verse 1:7 references those that are trying “to trouble you and distort the gospel of Christ.”  Could Paul have been phrasing his argument in such a way to make a point to the people making an accusation that Paul’s teaching was inaccurate?

§  Could Paul have been phrasing his argument in such a way to simply point out that he didn’t listen to the distorters or false brothers, but instead took his influence from God and those appointed by God as leaders?

§  Why specify that God shows no partiality (v2:6)? 

§  Perhaps, it is a combination that Paul is annoyed that some are trying to unravel his work, and that the faith of the assembly seems to be so shallow.  A halachic ruling from the beit din seems to pale in comparison to the evidence in scripture that he has been preaching.

§  Perhaps it is Paul’s way of reminding the assembly that everyone is fallible, but to submit to God’s appointed leadership anyway. (Consider that David submitted to King Saul even when he knew King Saul was in the wrong.)

·         Validation is granted – v2:6b-9

o   After presenting his vision, teaching, scriptural evidence, and Titus’ interview, the beit din “added nothing” to Paul’s teaching.  They did not modify his message, and further, gave their official blessing. 

o   The beit din would not have done this without thoroughly reviewing scripture, praying, and more than likely fasting. 

o   More than likely they also considered Peter’s vision and visit to Cornelius (Acts 10-11), especially since he was a member of the beit din. 

·         Remember the poor – v2:10

o   Another reference back to the revelation and reason Paul went to Jerusalem in the first place.  Galatians 2:2 and Acts 11:27-30

o   Also serves as a reminder to the assembly to remember the poor in their giving especially during the famine.

Paul's revelation - Lesson 2

Paul received his teaching through revelation, not man.  (Galatians 1:6-24)

·         v7 – “those who distort” – would most likely have been believers, more than likely either Jewish or proselyte.  Non-believers would not distort the truth, they would deny or refute. 

o   Jews, both those that accepted Jesus as the Messiah and those that did not, believed that salvation was reserved for Jews, either natural born or proselyte.

o   Paul was teaching that conversion was not required.  This was a very radical concept in that day.  Gentiles, of course, loved this message.  Some Jews would hear him and see the proof in his scripture teaching. 

o   After Paul left synagogues, those that didn’t agree, including proselytes that had converted, would try to sway others to back into thinking it was required, thus dismissing Paul’s teaching.

o   At this time, there were very valid reasons to become legally Jewish, mainly to avoid Roman or Greek god worship, by law.  The pull to convert and be circumcised was strong for this reason also.

·         v11-12a – “not man’s gospel” –

o   Refer back to v6-7 to see that Paul is not claiming he is teaching a different gospel or anything contrary to scripture.   

o   He’s pointing out that the typical method of learning the gospel would have been through the apostles or disciples of Jesus. 

o   These eye witnesses to his life, ministry, and resurrection were preaching in synagogues. 

o   Paul is explaining the extraordinary circumstances surrounding him becoming a believer.  Similar to someone today giving testimony about being healed or seeing a vision from God.

·         v12b – Jesus revealed himself to Paul through a vision. Acts 9:1-9

·         Paul was confident in his teaching – Acts 9:22

o   “in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ” – at this point in history there wasn’t a New Testament, so Paul would have been using the Tanakh (what we call the Old Testament) to prove the prophecy that Jesus was the Messiah. 

§  Tanakh (pronounced tuh-knock) is the original Hebrew scripture and is an acronym:

·         T stands for Torah – translation: Teachings or Instructions (not law)

·         N stands for Neviim – translation: Prophets

·         K stands for Ketuvin – translation: Sacred Writings

§  Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Tanakh

o   “increasing in strength” is referring to his confidence and boldness in which he was able to prove Jesus as the Messiah through scripture.

o   Paul was extremely knowledgeable with scripture.  Having studied at Gamaliel’s feet, he would have had most, if not all scripture memorized.  At the very least he would have been intimately familiar with the scripture. 

o   Paul knew the prophet writings, but prior to his revelation, the “light bulb” just hadn’t been turned on that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.  As soon as the light bulb was turned on by God, all of the scripture proof was probably jumping out at him.  This would have continued to just “increase his strength.”

·         Paul was confident his vision was from God

o   Confirmed by Ananias in Damascus. Acts 9:17-19

o   v1:16-17 – “did not immediately consult with anyone” – Implying that he was confident from the beginning that he had been chosen by God to have his eyes opened to Jesus being Messiah and God revealing through scripture this truth.

Who was Paul (aka Saul, Sha'ul, Rabbi Saul, Rabbi Sha'ul, Rav Sha'ul) - Lesson 1

Knowing that Paul wrote the letter to the Galatians, (Galatians 1:1-5), I felt it would be fitting to do a brief biography on who he was.

·         Jewish name was Sha’ul – and would have been referred to as Rav Sha’ul (Rabbi Saul).

o   Paul was the Greek equivalent in the same way Markus is the Scandinavian equivalent to Mark

o   His name was not changed after his vision.  There is no scripture reference to prove his name was changed.

·         Misunderstood, even during his life.  2 Peter 3:15-16

·         Born as a Roman citizen.  Acts 22:28 - Historically, Roman citizenship meant high status.  It could be obtained by being born in a Roman territory of parents that were citizens, serving in their military, or by purchasing the citizenship.  The idea that Paul was born a citizen, and that his parents were Jewish, implies that his parents were probably wealthy and had purchased their citizenship.

·         Israelite, from the tribe of Benjamin.  Romans 11:1-2

o   Potentially named after King Saul, also from the tribe of Benjamin (1 Samuel 9:21)

·         Born into traditional Jewish family. Philippians 3:5

·         Pharisee with a Pharisee father  -  Philippians 3:5 and Acts 23:6

o   According to the historian, Josephus, only approximately 6,000 Pharisees existed around this time

o   Pharisees believed that we have free will, but God knows our choices beforehand.  Sadducees believed in total free will.

o   Pharisees believed in life after death and resurrection.  Sadducees did not believe in life after death or resurrection

o   Pharisees represented more the middle class, common people.  Sadducees were higher society, typically wealthy.

o   Not all Pharisees were bad as commonly portrayed.  Rabbi Gamileal (Sanhedrin) defended the movement of Christ followers (Acts 5). Rabbi Nicodemus (Sanhedrin) tried to befriend and understand Jesus (John 3).  Some Pharisees tried to warn Jesus (Luke 13:31)

·         Skilled worker -  Acts 18:3

o   He was not above working for a living.  He had a skilled trade, which, at that time, he probably learned from his father.

o   The term tent has been discussed a lot throughout the scholar world.  There is a possibility that tent actually meant he worked with leather.

o   The other high probability is that he made tallits (Jewish prayer shawl).  The Hebrew slang for tallit is tent. 

·         Trained under Rabbi Gamileal  -  Acts 22:3

o   “Trained under the feet” – is a term referring to being personally trained by Rabbi Gamileal.  Many Jews could have claimed being followers of Rabbi Gamileal, similar to saying they follow the Pope’s teaching or theology.  By using the term, “trained under the feet,” Paul is saying, “I was personally trained by Rabbi Gamileal.” 

·         Sold out for God, not man’s teaching

o   Galatians 1:10

o   Acts 9:1 & 14 – although a Pharisee, he was so convinced that Christ followers were spreading false teaching, he asked the high priest, a Sadducee, for permission to persecute.  His zeal for God outweighed his loyalty to the Pharisaic sect.  He followed his love for God not the teachings of men.

o   Wanted salvation for all mankind – common Jewish theology then was that only Jews could obtain salvation.

§  Romans 10:1 - prayed for Israel

§  Galatians 1:16 - preached to Gentiles

·         Converted through a vision, not through apostolic teaching – Acts 9:1-9

·         Respected Jewish Rabbi (Torah observant)

o   Romans 7:12, 14, 22-25

o   Acts 24:11-15

o   Acts 20:6

o   Proved Torah observance to apostles and other leaders - Acts 21:17-26

o   Convincingly argues scripture - Acts 18:28

o   Taught in one synagogue for 3 months - Acts 19:8

Galatians - Intro

I am tackling the task of studying Galatians and presenting what I learn to our church adult bible study on Sunday mornings.  I did this after serious contemplation and prayer.  After many sleepless nights of God laying this book on my heart to teach, I gave in to God and started studying.  I have decided to post my week to week findings here for whoever finds them useful.

Please remember, that I am learning as well, and doing my best to allow God to direct me in this study.  I am not using a commentary book or web site.  My approach, so far, has been to read Galatians, and pick apart perplexing or interesting parts of Paul's letter and allow the scripture to guide me.  When I get stuck, I will use Google to dig into as many different commentary's as I can, only seeking scripture cross reference that I can use, not as much the logic another uses.  My fear of using another person's commentary is that I will turn it into an argument rather than just God guiding me.

If you enjoy, stay tuned each week for more information.  If you disagree, feel free to post your discussion, in a kind manner (using scripture reference in your disagreement helps a lot).  I am not opposed to being wrong, as I find that God uses other believers to help us understand.  Please be open minded that perhaps your perception of the scripture is not the only way, and that you could be mistaken or misled as well.  None of us are infallible.

In Him,

Terry