Friday, August 03, 2007

Sin in Galatians 3-4

These chapters seem like the top of an iceberg whose base we cannot see. I've wondered if this thick argumentation came from Paul's instruction in the Hall of Tyrannus at Ephesus. How much of this argument did the Galatians actually follow--it seems so minute?

For our purposes, perhaps 3:22 is the best place to begin:

"The Scripture has shut up everything under sin, so that the promise might be given by the faith of Jesus Christ to all who have faith."

What Scripture, we might ask, and what does it mean to be under sin? Is it the law itself, which is part of Scripture? Is it Habakkuk 2:4: "the one who is righteous on the basis of faith will live."

Perhaps it is not just one Scripture. The combination of Deuteronomy 28:58 with Habakkuk 2:4 seem to make Paul's point for him in 3:10-12. Deuteronomy 28:58 reads, "Cursed is everyone who does not remain in all the things that have been written in the book of the law to do them." Paul implies that no one remains in all the things in the law, therefore, all are cursed on the basis of the law and are "under sin."

It would not be clear from 3:22 alone whether Paul was thinking of sin as a power. It seems possible to read the chapter and only conclude that a person's violation of the law--a person's sins--showed them that they were in the category of sinful.

Nor does Paul clarify here what he means when he says that the law was added "because of transgressions" (3:19). Does he mean to control transgressions (unlikely). Does he mean to point out transgressions to those who sinned? Romans is clearer on these questions in that the law told the Jew what sin was and drew attention to their powerlessness to keep it.

The law did point toward the coming of Christ and the coming of faith. So perhaps the law was added to show us our transgressions (parabasis) and thus to show us our need for the promise (3:19).

Chapter 4 probably implies the enslavement dimension of sin that Paul will expand on in Romans 6-8. However, he does not actually mention sin in this chapter. Before Christ came, all were enslaved "under the elements of the world" (4:3). This expression is intriguingly similar to his earlier statement that the law has shut up everything under sin.

Being enslaved in this way is to be "enslaved to things that are not by nature gods" (4:8), presumably these same elements of the world. Paul strikingly equates enslavement to these "empoverished elements" (4:9) with the observance of days, months, seasons, and years in the Jewish law (4:10). Such calendar items of course relate to various heavenly bodies which many ancients considered to be deities. We remember that Paul considered the law to have been delivered through angels, who were thought to inhabit the various layers of heavens. Evil angels and demons were thought to inhabit the lowest sky or heaven.

Getting into Paul's head is very difficult here but let me give it a try. Although he does not develop the line of thinking very much, Paul seems to consider the physical realm, the elements, to be under the power of spiritual forces of some kind, things that are not by nature gods. Angels for Paul are not clearly the good guys, as we see in 1 Corinthians 6:3. It is possible to read Galatians 3:19-20 as Moses mediating between God and the ambiguous angels in the deliverance of the law (Hubner). Difficult to know exactly what Paul was thinking.

Flesh, which Paul will expand on, is of course composed of these elements and is thus susceptible to these powers. Perhaps we should, in the end, see sin as a power in these chapters, a power connected to spiritual forces that currently hold sway in the physical realm and the realm of the lower heavens where the more ambiguous angels dwell.

Summary: These are very difficult chapters!
1. With regard to definitions of sin, two (or three) seem to show up in these chapters. The first is the transgression of the law. But in Galatians 3-4 we also seem to have sin as a power over the elements of the world, the parts of the universe in the lower heavens and on the earth. This is a domain where angels currently function. A third possibility is that sin is a category, "sinful," under which heading all things are located (I'm not going for this one today).

2. All things are "under sin." Before Christ came (4:4), all were under a curse because no one was able to do the things of the law (3:10). All were enslaved to the impoverished elements of the world. All were in the flesh, as Paul will say.

3. The implication is that those who have faith are no longer enslaved to the elements of the world and are no longer under sin. Gentiles believers do not need to observe the feasts and sabbaths of the law. Indeed, we should see the turning of this state of things not just in the individual pilgrimage of a believer. No, in the greatest sense, the change of affairs took place with Christ and the redemption from the curse of the law (3:13).

7 comments:

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Maybe I mis-read your entry, but it sounds like you are saying that "evil" is the physical realm? That this is the realm of "angels"? That sounds like Gnosticism. Then what we "do in the body" is irrelevant, what really matters is motivation? Is that what you are saying? That the power of sin is the law and that those that are walking "under law" are bound to the elements that are enslaving them. Yes, and No. Yes, in the sense that those whose focus is solely on the physical realm, i.e. how we are to judge holiness, for instance, are not walking by faith, but by rules and regulations and are still servants though sons.
No, the physical realm is supposed to be the activity of faith. Whatever you do, do to the glory of God. That is the freedom in which we are called and that is why we are not to judge, as to meat and drink for it is be faith that we stand. On the other hand, we are to judge certain things, whether we put a stumblingblock in a brother's way, etc....so how do we rectify these things...judging by "law" (do's and don'ts always, for all people, for all times) and spiritual judgement? Post-modernity leaves NO option but faith!!!! because reason is limited and we cannot attain to God in the absolute sense. There are ONLY representations of HIM!!!And we are not to worship those representations as absolute, either!

Ken Schenck said...

Important to realize what I'm doing here. I'm asking what the likely original meaning of these texts were--what was Paul thinking. I'm not asking what Christians believe or what I believe.

But Paul is not a Gnostic because he does not believe that the creation itself is evil. He believed that the creation was enslaved to evil powers.

By the way, I think there were two kinds of Gnostic reaction to the evilness of the physical world. Some did think that what was done in the body didn't matter (libertines). Others took an ascetic approach and beat themselves...

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Thanks Ken...indeed it is difficult to get inside Paul's head. But, I am reading "Democracy and Moral Development" and since Paul's education was "GREEK", and his background Judiasm (religion), would his framework be eudaimonistic ethics? He was interested in the moral character, or development of his subjects. Self-chosen goals are best met within the framework of our democracy!!!

Ken Schenck said...

Obviously Jewish/OT ethics played a big role in Paul's thinking, particularly his thinking about sexuality. But you can see the impact of Hellenistic ethics as well, particularly in Philippians and in Paul's virtue and vice lists...

Keith Drury said...

I have not posted many comments on this wonderful series but I want you to know I am reading them all... even while vacationing in Hawaii the last two weeks! Thanks!

They have reminded me how hard it is to “get into Paul's mind" and the snare of limiting ourselves to the “original meaning” of a text—that meaning simply escapes us often and without Christian theology to help us can be taken almost anywhere. I do believe there is an “original meaning” that Paul had in mind, it is just not easily accessible to us (unless we read our own theological meaning into the text).

Someone ought to write a book on that subject—the difference between reading the Bible and reading Scripture. ;-)

Ken Schenck said...

Ha! You mock my pain.

Joel Green has just published a great book with Abingdon called Seized by Truth: Reading the Bible as Scripture that has a lot of ideas similar to mine. I'll be putting it on my book list on the side in a few days, after I finish reviewing Horrell's great book that is there right now.

I've also gone ahead and self-published my Who Decides What the Bible Means? which says a lot of similar things to Green's book--although his book is more helpful than mine and goes deeper than mine.

But hurray! I just got the ISBN in my inbox today. So it should be available on Amazon in a few days as well.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I HAVE to post this, as it really did something in my thinking...(and after all, Ken, you said you've smiled...say Hi back to your Angie!)...
The ethics of "flourishing" was possible in a small community, but when the empire became big, Stoicism took hold and it became intergrated into the peasant class mentality...and possibly the "scapegoat" was useful for the Jews in their "self-understanding" as the chosen of God...they didn't need to "care about their community's actual deeds"...they were chosen and that was that!!!
Paul (understanding that all of humanity was "chosen"), teaching the Gentiles, who "had no power", was teaching them with Stoicism in mind or eudaimonistic ethics??? Or is Stoicism what Christianity became in our understanding of "holiness",i.e. "God is in control, come what may, and we are to submit, as it is the refiner's fire"...etc....Phooey!!! I no longer embrace that!! Man, created in God's image is to be a self-determining agent in this world. Passivity is not self-determination, but asking for crucifixtion!!!