With Galatians 5 we reach a crucial chapter for Wesleyan theology. The chapter begins with the theme Paul has strongly been proclaiming: freedom, freedom from the law in particular. What aspects of the Jewish law does he have in mind? Circumcision. If the Galatians get circumcized, Paul says, they will be obligated to keep the entire law. But this is something Paul does not believe they can do, as he has said.
On the one hand, Galatians 5:5 might be taken quite contrary to Wesleyan theology: "For we ourselves expect by means of the Spirit on the basis of faith the hope of righteousness." Does Paul mean we hope to become righteous in the future when we are glorified, but that we are not righteous now?
I don't think so because I don't think Paul uses the word righteousness in reference to human goodness but rather 1) in reference to God's goodness--"the righteousness of God" (e.g., Rom. 1:17) and 2) in relation to human justification (another translation of the word), either at the point of receiving the Spirit or at the final judgment. My inclination is thus to take the hope here as the hope of justification. We can rankle over whether Paul means justification now (initial) or later (final).
I might note that 5:6 says that the only thing that matters is "faith working through love," another indication that Paul does not see faith and works as polar opposites.
At verse 13, however, we get the other side to the freedom coin. After Paul has emphasized their freedom from the law, particularly as it relates to circumcision and observance of the Jewish calendar (Sabbaths, feasts, etc...), Paul now pulls back on the reigns:
"You yourselves were called on the basis of freedom, brothers, only not freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be a slave to one another" (5:13).
Paul is trying to walk a torturous line here. On the one hand, he is arguing freedom from the law. But what he really means is freedom from those parts of the law that were particular to Jewish ethnicity. He is not wanting to ascribe freedom from those aspects of the law dealing with sexual behavior or idolatry.
This fine line apparently got Paul into trouble at Corinth. Their slogan "All things are lawful for me" was probably an echo of Paul's own rhetoric--"not under the law." The same is true here where he speaks so strongly of Christian freedom. But he wishes also to forbid them the indulgence of the flesh at the same time.
The theological feat that Paul is attempting to accomplish here is very difficult. Its complexity is responsible for the spectrum of interpretations on Paul and the law of which Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Wesleyanism are just a small part. Here is the logic as I understand it:
1. In Christ we are no longer under the law (Gal. 5:18).
2. Without the Spirit we cannot keep the law (Gal. 5:17; Rom. 7).
3. Some believers, including Peter, do not keep the Jewish law (Gal. 2:14; 6:13).
4. The Spirit empowers a person to fulfill the law (Rom. 8:3), not to fulfill the desires of the flesh (Gal. 5:16).
5. There is a law that believers keep, the law of love, the sum of the law that is at the same time different from the entire Jewish law (Gal. 5:3, 14).
Very brain twisting indeed.
In the above list, I've mentioned several of the verses of interest in the rest of the two chapters.
Galatians 5:13-15--Paul indicates that loving one another is an adequate keeping of the law. Apparently, however, the Galatians are biting and devouring one another. This is not loving one another :-) Paul certainly expects a believer to be able to do this.
Galatians 5:16-18--"Walk by the Spirit and you certainly will not fulfill the desire of the flesh."
This verse relates both to 5:13, which says not to use Christian freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, and to the previous verse, which mentions biting and devouring among the Galatians. Walk in the Spirit, Paul says, and you certainly won't act like that. It is very similar to what Paul told the Corinthians in relation to their divisions in relation to the flesh (1 Cor. 3:1-3).
The flesh desires against the Spirit. The believer oriented around the flesh will not be able to love. This person is a "double minded person," to use James' imagery. This person wants in a way to do the right thing, but their flesh does not allow them to (Gal. 5:17).
But the person lead by the Spirit is not "under the law" (5:18). This verse alone might lead a person to believe that the standard of the law is simply removed from the equation, even though we continue to sin all the same. But what is Paul talking about? He is talking about loving one another, and he will immediately talk about the contrasting fruit of the flesh and the Spirit--in other words, action oriented things. The Lutheran interpretation of 5:18 thus cannot be correct. Not to be under the law for Paul implies more than simply not being judged by the law. It must imply an impowerment for action.
The fruit of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit contrast. The person with the Spirit loves, has joy, has peace, is patient, is kind, is good, is faithful, is gentle, has self-control. The person who lives from the flesh includes the likes of the sexually immoral, the unclean, the licentious, the idolatrous. They use witchcraft, are hostile, cause strife, are jealous, have rage, sow discord, divide, cause factions, envy, get drunk, carouse, etc. These are all things Paul does not believe should apply to a believer as typical of their lives.
People who do these sorts of things, whether they are in the church or not, will not inherit the kingdom of God (5:21). Those who are "of the Christ" have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires (5:24). This is no legal fiction. Paul is talking about how we behave in this world, as the next verse says: "If we live by the Spirit, let us also conduct ourselves by the Spirit" (5:25). Paul expects Christians not to boast about themselves, provoke one another, or envy one another (5:26).
Galatians 6 begins then by addressing the person who has trespassed (caught in transgression--paraptoma). Loving restoration is the epitome of the "law of Christ" (6:2).
We might close Galatians with a warning from Paul. Those who sow to their flesh will not reap eternal life. It is those who sow to the Spirit who reap eternal life (6:8).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
So you are saying that evil as long as the "utility" is "good" is okay and we are to embrace, submit, and do what those who have "planned" the evil require??? That it would be flishly to resist or not submit to "evil" for God works together all things for good to those called according to His purpose (and since that purpose was the "utility" in mind, why of course, that would qualify for submission, right?)That is the "loving" disciplined thing to do??? So Jacob, who decieved his brother Esau was "more righteous", right? because he wanted God more, right? That means that when a Jewish woman in WWII was working on a scientific project and she was sent away before the project was finished. Later, the project was finished and her work of 20 years gave her no credit??? If you believe that is what love requires then I am walking the other way... because I do not believe that God requires us to submit to other's crucifying us...that was a sin of "Religious" people or those who knew better who would use "utility" or pragmatism in taking advantage of another, all for a "good purpose"...it was injustice...and God is just...I don't believe that "God is the "Blessed" controller of all things". No men in power are,,, and using the "gospel" for profit off of another human being is wrong. I think it is the same as the need of "temple cleansing" in Jesus' day and Luthers resistance to indulgences!!! See, how "fleshy" my heart is??? I'm not about to be wounded again! (For those of you who might be "concerned", thank you for all your concern ALL THESE YRARS!!And your sincere encouragment when I was being persecuted, shunned...or accused!)Please DO restore me, you mature, adult ethical people!!! And do tell me where I've been a "fool"and where I've "messed up" and what I have to do to do "penance" right?...
I can't figure out what you're reacting to in the post. I can't think of a place where I've argued that Paul thought the end justified the means. The crucifixion in the passage is about us crucifying our own flesh rather than that of others. And I assume that the kinds of transgressions Paul had in mind were real wrongs done to others rather than hypocritical judgment.
Again, my goal is to describe the dynamics of Paul's thinking, sticking closely to what he says rather than forcing later theology on him. What we do with Paul is then the theological task...
Images of slavery is NOT what I understood the "Gospel" to be, which in a free society should NOT be.(notice that Paul has mutuality element in the way it is expressed)..the "flesh" means to some believers that grace REPLACES nature...therefore anything natural is "of the flesh, therefore "evil"...human desire is NOT evil, but it is the wrong functioning of that desire that is at issue...Fundamentalists are not far from Nazism in understanding their faith, and "implementing discipline" on those that are not "appropriate in thier judgment" as to outward forms of "worship", everything from what one wears, what one spends, how it is spent, what one does with his time, etc...these are important issues, but need to be handled within the individual's concscience within a supportive community of faith.. Total commitment, or surrender or sanctification means "everything to the cause of Christ" just as Hitler required of those that were non-Aryan...And just as in Islam, submission is key to demonstrating surrender to "God"...
Post a Comment