Galatians Commentary

[mpossoff]

Historically, the book of Galatians has misled Christian commentators due largely
to the technical discussions of biblical topics ranging from circumcision, to the
Torah, to freedom in Christ. A contextual study of Galatians will help to unravel
the letter for both Christians and Jews. To be sure, without a proper background
to the book we will forever misread Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles. For this
particular study, allow me to start in B'resheet (Genesis) with Avraham and
circumcision. If we begin to peel back the mysteries surrounding this simple
biblical command we stand a better chance at understanding Rav Sha'ul (Apostle
Paul) and his enigmatic instructions.

[visionary]

Ok.. peel away.... i am interested.

[mpossoff]

Hi vis it's a pretty detailed commentary so I'll post the important snippets:

What brings Paul to use Abraham in his exposition here is the
central promise of the covenant that "in your seed all the nations of the
earth shall be blessed." Paul's argument is that this promise was given to
Abraham before circumcision and that therefore Abraham may rightly be
considered the father of all who participate in the same faith, whether
circumcised or not. In fact, the promise that Abraham would be "a father of
nations" is applied more precisely by the Apostle in the phrase "father of
all who believe."
Paul's argument, while given to prove another point, still confirms
what I have previously maintained about circumcision. The ritual did not
bring something new to the covenant, but rather reinforced righteousness
on the basis of faith, the very hallmark of the covenant from the beginning.
Circumcision required Abraham to continue in the faith that had brought
him from Ur and to direct this faith toward the God Who had promised to
bring a son by Divine intervention. It is on this basis that Paul, in Galatians
4:23, refers to Ishmael as "according to flesh" […] and Isaac as "through
promise" […].
Paul has shown that a primary function of the law was to point to
Christ (Gal. 3:24) and it therefore stands to reason that circumcision has
fulfilled its function, for Christ, the promised Seed, has come. Israel,
worshiping the sign rather than the Seed to which it pointed, had attributed
to circumcision what only God's Son could accomplish. This Paul plainly
asserts in his statement that "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor
uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love"

Marc

[mpossoff]

It has been demonstrated most creditably that the Judaisms of the 1st
century functioned with a serious theologically flaw in regards to their view of
circumcision.

Paul was an outsider to Galatia (4:12-20); in fact, he is the only one
from elsewhere of whom we can be certain. And Paul’s message—to the
degree that it offered inclusion of gentiles as full and equal members while
opposing their participation in proselyte conversion—ran counter to
prevailing Jewish communal norms for the re-identification of pagans
seeking full-membership, at least according to all the evidence now
available to us. Pursuit of this nonproselyte approach to the inclusion of
pagans confessing belief in the message of Christ resulted in painful
disciplinary measures against Paul from the hands of Jewish communal
agents to whom he remained subordinate, but in ways that he considers
mistaken, for he refers to this as “persecution” (5:11; cf. 2 Cor. 11:24). It is
not difficult to imagine that pagans convinced by Paul’s gospel that they
were entitled to understand themselves as righteous and full members of
Jewish communities apart from proselyte conversion, but rather on the
basis of faith in a Judean martyr of the Roman regime, would also, in due
time, meet with resistance from Jewish communal social control agents.
Might not the resultant identity crises of those non-proselyte associates
develop along the lines of the situation implied for the addressees of
Paul’s letter?
I suggest that Paul’s gospel—or, more accurately in this case, the
resultant expectations of the non-Jewish addressees who believed in it—
provoked the initial conflict, not the good news of the influencers that
Paul’s converts can eliminate their present disputable standing as merely
“pagans,” however welcome as guests, by embarking on the path that will
offer them inclusion as proselytes. That offer, on the part of the influencers
in Galatia, rather represents the redressing of a social disruption of the
traditional communal norms resulting from the claims of “pagans” who
have come under Paul’s influence. Thus the ostensible singularity of the
exigence arises not because of a new element introduced by the
influencers, and does not suggest that they represent a single group moving among the addressees’ several congregations. Instead, the
influencers may be understood to be similarly appealing to a long-standing
norm, however independent of each other’s communities they may be
acting, when faced with the same disruptive claim on the part of the new
Christbelieving subgroups within their communities. The conflict arises
because of the claim that their gentile members are to be regarded as fullmembers
of these Jewish groups apart from proselyte conversion.

Covenantal Nomism

"Briefly put, covenantal nomism is the view that one's place in God's plan
is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires
as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while
providing means of atonement for transgression."

This is important because it has huge implications for one's understanding of
first-century Judaism and thus for one's interpretation of how Paul interacted with
it. If covenantal nomism is true, then when Jews spoke of obeying
commandments, or when they required strict obedience of themeslves and fellow
Jews, it was because they were "keeping the covenant" - it was not out of
legalism.

Proponents of the "Lutheran Paul"
understand him to be arguing against a legalistic Jewish culture that seeks to
earn their salvation through works. "On the point at which many have found the decisive contrast
between Paul and Judaism - grace and works - Paul is in
agreement with Judaism... Salvation is by grace but
judgment is according to works'...God saves by grace, but... within
the framework established by grace he rewards good deeds and
punishes transgression."

understand that the prevailing Judaisms that existed in the first century initially
upset the biblical balance by teaching that circumcision was the vehicle by which
a non-Jew could and must enter the covenant made with Isra'el. Shame on
them! To be sure, a whole theological council was formulated to deal with the
problem in the first century. Both in Acts 15:1-35, as well as 21:17-26, the
Yerushalayim Council had to address the issue of “returning to the works of the
law” as opposed to “living in the freedom of Messiah”. And what is the meaning
of “works of the law”? Surely it does NOT refer “correct and true faith-driven
observance of written Torah commands”! No, what this technical phrase is
referring to is a set of halakhic rules that an individual must ally himself with in
order to be received into a specific and exclusive community.

Will be continued

[mpossoff]

"But knowing that a person is not justified from works of law, but through
trust of Messiah Yeshua, even we unto Messiah Yeshua trusted, in order
that we might be justified from trust of Messiah and not from works of law,
because from works of law not will be justified all flesh." [This is a literal
rendering of verse 16 from the Greek. Being declared righteous by
HaShem is the goal of all men who seek HaShem. Righteousness can be
defined in two ways:] "behavioral righteousness", actually doing what is
right, and "forensic righteousness", being regarded as righteous in the
sense (a) that God has cleared him of guilt for past sins, and (b) that God
has given him a new human nature inclined to obey HaShem rather than
rebel against him as before.
Yeshua has made forensic righteousness available to everyone by paying
on everyone’s behalf the penalty for sins which HaShem’s justice
demands, death. Forensic righteousness is appropriated by an individual
for himself the moment he unreservedly puts his trust in HaShem, which at
this point in history, entails also trusting in Yeshua the Messiah upon
learning of him and understanding what he has done. The task of
becoming behaviorally righteous begins with appropriating forensic
righteousness (through Yeshua); it occupies the rest of a believer’s life,
being completed only at the moment of his own death, when he goes to be
with Yeshua. What is important to keep in mind here is the difference
between these two kinds of righteousness. Each time the Greek word
"dikaioo" ("righteousness") or a cognate is encountered, it must be
decided which of these two meanings of the word is meant. In the present
verse and the next, all four instances of "dikaioo" refer to forensic
righteousness. But in verse 21, the related word "dikaiosune" refers to
behavioral righteousness.7
"Works of law", translates the Greek phrase "ergon nomos” e[rgon novmoß.
Since the word "nomos" means "law"8, and is usually referring (from the
Septuagint) to the Moshaic Law, i.e. Torah, most Christians usually
understand "works of law" to mean "actions done in obedience to the
Torah". But this is wrong. One of the best-kept secrets about the New
Testament is that when Sha'ul writes "nomos" he frequently does not
mean "divine law" but "a man-made system of law". This phrase ("ergon
nomos"), Scripturally found ONLY in Sha'ul’s writings, occurs eight times,
and always in technical discussion of the Torah: Gal. 2:16, 3:2, 5, 10;
Rom. 3:20, 28. Two other uses of "ergon" ("works") are closely associated
with the word "nomos" ("law") in Rom. 3:27; 9:32. Even when he uses
"ergon" by itself, the implied meaning is frequently "a man-made system of law-related works", see Gal. 5:19; Rom. 4:2, 6; 9:11; 11:6; Eph. 2:9; 2 Tim.
1:9; Titus 3:5. There are 17 other instances when it is neutral.9

In order to interpret Sha'ul correctly one needs to understand that the phrase
"ergon nomos" does not mean deeds done in virtue of following the Torah the
way HaShem intended, but deeds done in consequence of perverting the Torah
into a set of rules which, it is presumed, can be obeyed mechanically,
automatically, legalistically, without having faith, without having trust in HaShem,
without having love for HaShem or man, and without being empowered by the
Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit). To be sure, in the case of the Galatian
congregation, the specific perversion that was taking place sought to transform
Gentiles into Jews via a man-made ceremony of conversion, performed under
the guise of “covenant inclusion.” To appreciate the consternation that this
halakhah caused Rav Sha'ul, one has to understand that within the 1st century
Judaisms, the prevailing view was that all Isra'el shared a place in the World to
Come. What is more, since Isra'el and Isra'el alone were granted this gift from
HaShem it was necessary in the minds of the proto-rabbis to convert Gentiles
into Jews before they could enjoy the status of “full-fledged covenant member.”
In order to accomplish this task, a ceremony had been invented—a ceremony not
found in the Torah itself. The ceremony included circumcision for the males.
Because of this feature, the entire sociological situation was subsumed under the
label “circumcision”. Thus, “works of law” becomes a sort of “short-hand” way for
Sha'ul to describe this phenomenon.

[mpossoff]

The poison of Ethnocentric Jewish Exclusivism permeated the first century
Jewish society. A careful reading of the Greek of Acts chapter 10 and Kefa’s
conversation with HaShem will show that this simple fisherman was also blinded
by the prevailing halakhah that sought to avoid Gentiles at all costs.

But I thought that the Torah forbade Jews from having contact with
Gentiles. Isn’t that what Kefa explicitly tells his Gentile associates in verse 28? "You are well aware that for a man who is a
Jew to have close association with someone who belongs to
another people, or to come and visit him, is something that
just isn't done. But God has shown me not to call any person
common or unclean (Emphasis, mine)"

The Torah of Moshe never prohibits Jews from “keeping company” or
“coming unto one of another nation.” This statement of Kefa’s reflects the
“ethnocentric Jewish exclusivism” baggage that the Torah communities of
his day had engineered, baggage not uncommon among people groups
who are marginalized. In other words, Kefa was just regurgitating the
standard mantra of his day. This did not excuse his error, which is why
HaShem went through all the trouble to send him the vision in the first
place.
In the end, the message of the Acts 10 vision is crystal clear: Gentiles in
Yeshua are not intrinsically unclean (akathartos ajkavqarton), as the 1st
century Judaisms were professing. They, like all men, have been created
in God’s image, and as such, can be viewed as defiled (koinos koino;n) by
the stain of sin, in need of cleansing (katharizo kaqarivzw). Man, created
clean (katharos kaqara), fell to a state of unclean (koinos koino;n), later to
be declared cleansed (katharizo kaqarivzw) by the blood of the Sacrificial
Lamb of God if he accepted such an offer. To use the language of the
vision: Jews are not lambs while Gentiles are pigs. Rather, Jews and
Gentiles are both lambs! Both have become unclean (koinos koino;n), by sin; both have been cleansed (katharizo kaqarivzw) by Yeshua! No one is
intrinsically unclean (akathartos ajkavqarton)! No one was created sinful!
Born into sin, yes; created sinners, no!14

[visionary]

Why don't we move this thread to the main forum because I do not see any problem with it. I think some aspect may be questioned but for the most part I think it is not going to be something that will turn into a flaming debate. I could be wrong ... but until then, can I move it for you?

[Steve Petersen]

Historically, the book of Galatians has misled Christian commentators due largely
to the technical discussions of biblical topics ranging from circumcision, to the
Torah, to freedom in Christ. A contextual study of Galatians will help to unravel
the letter for both Christians and Jews. To be sure, without a proper background
to the book we will forever misread Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles. For this
particular study, allow me to start in B'resheet (Genesis) with Avraham and
circumcision. If we begin to peel back the mysteries surrounding this simple
biblical command we stand a better chance at understanding Rav Sha'ul (Apostle
Paul) and his enigmatic instructions.

Is this your commentary? I don't need another MJ opinion about Paul. How about some sources from the lofty heights of scholarship.

Nanos, Flusser et al.

[mpossoff]

Is this your commentary? I don't need another MJ opinion about Paul. How about some sources from the lofty heights of scholarship.

Nanos, Flusser et al.

Steve alot of this commentary is quotes from Nanos. The commentary pulls alot from Nanos.

I'm sorry I forgot to post the source of this commentary but it's from graftedin.com

Marc