June 6th 2010 Galatians 1. 11- end

Paul is absolutely furious, so angry that he does not even observe formal politeness in letter-writing at the time. He completely omits the usual graceful words of thanksgiving for the recipients—words that in his other letters come after identifying himself and the people to whom he is writing, and then after words of greeting with strong theological overtones. Instead, here he (v. 6) plunges in with ‘I am astonished….’

What seems to have happened is that some people in the Galatian churches are insisting that non-Jewish converts must observe at least the key matters of Jewish Law, such as circumcision. Paul sees this as a turning away from the gospel as he preached it to them. Therefore Paul is driven to defend his own credentials as an apostle. It looks very much as if his opponents were saying that Paul had got his Christianity second-hand, and had got it wrong, unlike people like Peter who had got their commission directly from the risen Christ and had therefore got their ( more Jewish– leaning) Christianity right.

Therefore begins his defence of his understanding of the gospel by defending his credentials. His central contention is that he got his commission and his view of the gospel at first hand, directly from the risen Christ. It may seem a bit strange, but in today’s passage he stresses also how little he has had to do with the apostles, the ‘other’ apostles in his view, or the ‘real’ apostles in the view of his opponents. Clearly, as in Corinthians 9.1 and 15.5-8, he is arguing that his encounter with Christ on the Damascus Road was the last in the series of Christ’s resurrection appearances, just as real and just as good a qualification for his apostleship as theirs. So, were his credentials as good as those of Peter and the rest? It is interesting that the Book of Acts which is so largely about Paul’s ministry activities, almost totally avoids calling him an apostle. The only exceptions are Act 14. 4 & 14, but there he is coupled with Barnabas and it seems unlikely that Paul would have been happy to be put on a level with Barnabas rather than James or Peter.

Paul maintains that he does not need any one else’s endorsement: he has to admit that he has met James, and had spent a fortnight with Peter( who here is called Cephas, which is the Aramaic translation of Peter: (a large hint about Paul’s view of him!). That may seem to us quite a lot, as surely Peter/ Cephas could have informed Paul of a great deal about the life of Jesus. Yet Paul’s aim is downplay his dealings with the others, and to highlight his direct dealings with the risen Christ .To repeat what was said earlier, Paul maintains that he got his Christianity first-hand and got it right.

This chapter reminds us that the early church could have debates as heated as any today, and that the theological and personal could be difficult to disentangle. We may find Paul’s tactics a bit unattractive in all this, but in his determination to argue that one does not have to become a Jew in order to become a Christian, he has made Christians throughout the ages and throughout the world his debtors.

John Ziesler

Colossians 3. 1-11

1st August 2010

As in many other New Testament letters, after a long section about the liberation brought by Christ the Lord, we have come to its practical implications. Thus, in the previous chapter we have been reminded that for Christians many old rules have been abolished, for example about what foods it is not admissible to eat. As always, however, we are also reminded that is does not mean that ‘ anything goes’. The crucial point is that while Christians are still here on earth, they nevertheless share in the risen life of Christ, and to Him is now where they fundamentally belong.

What does that mean in terms of day-to-day living? From verse 4 of this chapter up to Chapter 4.6, we are given a long list of things to do and not to do. Providing such lists was common practise in the then contemporary world, whether Jewish or pagan, and very often the items appearing in these lists were much the same; for example, honesty is honesty whether pagan, or Christian. In fact it is not very productive to concentrate on which items are present in a list and which are not, as the items mentioned may simply be representative of all vices and virtues.

Thus in some ways this list maybe rather too conventional, and especially so from 3.18 onwards where the hierarchies of the world at the time have to be maintained. Thus, for example in 3.22 slaves are told to obey their masters. So we ask ‘What slaves?’

Surely we have been told in 3.11

‘there cannot be Greek and Jew….barbarian, Scythian, slave’ freeman…..’

Presumably the answer to this apparent contradiction lies in the double life of Christians. They live on earth but belong in heaven; they are outwardly conformist but inwardly subversive because’ you have died and your life is hid with Christ in God’( 3.3).

Nevertheless much in Christian moral teaching may be conventional most of the time, yet with certain distinctive emphases, of which the most notable is a heavy stress on love. In Colossians 3 this comes in v. 14, just after today’s lesson:

‘Above all put on love, which joins everything together in perfect harmony.’

We notice the language of ‘putting on’ here and if we look back to v.8 we read of ‘putting off’. This may well be a reference to the removal of old garments in baptism, and their replacement by new. In 3.5 we find ‘putting to death’ rather than ‘putting off’, but this is not surprising as we know from Romans 6 that baptism was understood as dying to the old and a rising to the new, and it is quite evident from this chapter that the leading characteristic of the new life was to be love. Much of life may be limited by the constraints of the societies in which we live, and our freedom to act is by no means total, but for Christians, at least, love for one another can exhibit a foretaste of heaven and the new life

John Ziesler