JoeWallack

JW:
I have Faith that we need a dedicated Thread regarding the meaning of "Paul's Gospel". Suggested names:

"Praying Gentily On My Mind"

"Is It True That When You Say Noah You Really Mean Yeshu?"

"How To Become Jewish By Going Schmad"

I think the related difference between our positions is less than you think. My emphasis is on Paul's overall belief (Gentile and Jewish salvation). Your emphasis is on Paul's attitude towards Gentiles. We agree that Paul thinks Gentiles are saved based primarily on Faith (the ethical Law was a stumbling block for Paul that he could never figure out. Was it retained or replaced?). We agree that Paul thought Gentiles should not follow the Law. My position is Paul thought Gentiles could not follow the Law and be Jewish. I need a clarification of your position here, you think Paul thought Gentiles could follow the Law and be Jewish if they were not following the Law for Salvation?

The problem for everyone here is implications from Paul's writings are often contradictory. Specifically, when he refers to his "Gospel" it means different things at different times. Sometimes it is used generally and sometimes it is specific to an audience. That's why you can not proof-text an individual usage to conclude what Paul's general beliefs were.



Joseph

Amaleq13

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. It is my understanding that Paul believed Gentiles following the Law, but without faith in Christ, would not obtain the benefits of being born Jewish and following the Law. If that is what you mean, I agree. If they had faith in Christ, following the Law offered no additional benefits and focusing on following the Law as necessary was actually counterproductive to one's salvation in Paul's view.

Yes and I believe that spin's mistake is to assume it means the same thing (ie Christ crucified and raised) every time he uses it.

Yes. Sometimes he means the "good news" that Jesus has risen and faith in him brings salvation but sometimes he means the "good news" uniquely revealed to him regarding what it means to gentiles who believe in Christ.

Rick Sumner

I think you can include the two by copping, with modification, a phrase from NT Wright: Paul's gospel was God's eschatological plan of salvation. (Wright considers it the "eschatological plan to save ethnic Israel," which works in Romans, but not so well elsewhere).

The only real exception to this is 1Cor 15. Wright gets around this by following Joe Wallack's lead, and calling Paul's gospel both (Actually, Wright did it first, so I suppose Joe is following his lead, much, I'm sure, to Joe's chagrin). I'm not sure how well that works. 1Cor 15 looks more curious to me every time I think about it.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

spin

And you know you are misrepresenting what I've said. I'm too lazy to point out what I've said before. You see you're tried this before.

While I accept the notion that when Paul uses the term euaggelion in a fuzzy way, the problem is that though the first is fine and dandy, the second is your feeble way of trying to fit Galatians into your presuppositions. Paul doesn't supply you any evidence for it. That's why you've failed to eke the meaning you want from Gal 1:12. It is eisegesis.

Understand this, there is nothing from the context of Gal 1:12 to suggest that euaggelion is used in any special way, indicating that we should take it to mean what it basically indicates in Paul. Wouldn't you now agree? The use of "gospel" in 1:6-9 should convince you that there is no reason to think that it should be different in 1:11 given the proximity to the earlier passage. Wouldn't you say that a different understanding of "gospel" in 1:11 flies in the face of all linguistic signs in the context? If not, what in this text makes you think differently? You're rather hard to pin down on this, so please don't try to bluster.


spin

6 I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel; 7 which is not another gospel: only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema. 9 As we have said before, so say I now again, If any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema.

10 For am I now persuading men, or God? or am I seeking to please men? if I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.

11 For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. 12 For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.

13 For ye have heard of my manner of life in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and tried to destroy it: 14 and I advanced in the Jews' religion beyond many of mine own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother's womb, and called me through his grace, 16 to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17 neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus.

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. 20 Now touching the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. 21 Then I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was still unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: 23 but they only heard say, He that once persecuted us now preacheth the faith of which he once tried to destroy; 24 and they glorified God in me.

spin

So you've given up trying to redefine euaggelion for Amaleq13 then?


spin

Rick Sumner

None at all. The gospel Paul preaches is being opposed against a gospel someone else preaches. A perverted, or false gospel.

What is the difference between the two? Paul spends the better part of his letter explaining that. Opponents are suggesting salvation comes one way. Paul is saying it comes another. Perverted gospel. Paul's gospel.

That is what it basically indicates, and all the dancing in the world won't get it away from that. Paul makes the other gospel explicit in 2.7--it's the gospel of circumcision. Paul's gospel is the gospel of uncircumcision.

The question, all the way through, is who is saved, and how. It's the substance of the "gospel" Paul is defending, as is made clear by the fact that it's the only point he contests against the "other gospel."

Far from taking it in context, as you so proudly boast of, reading Gal.1 as a standalone unit, or looking for the few verses about your entry is ignoring the context. The entire point of Paul's writing is to define his gospel against the "other gospel," and demand that only one can be taken. The urgency of this is the entire reason he moves so swiftly to his statement of purpose in 1.6. Defining Galatians without the rest of the epistle ignores the entire reason for Paul's writing.

The distinction isn't between "the gospel" and "that gospel," it's between "my gospel" and "their gospel," and Paul spends the rest of the letter explaining what his gospel is, and what makes it his. And you can actually watch Paul employ more and more "revelatory" language to describe it, as he faces more and more opposition to it, culminating in his epistle to the Romans. In his earlier epistles, like 1Thess, he is far less prone to defining his gospel as something so uniquely revealed to him. In Galatians we're starting to see the major steps in that shift.

Paul drives this point home in the conclusion of his epistle. 6.16 carries a rhetorical device intended to devastate his opponents and unify his supporters. Paul writes not to Jews or Gentiles, rather the "Israel of God."

If Paul's "gospel," is what you suggest it is, then that rhetorical ploy is useless (so, for that matter, is most of the epistle). Paul will only say what you want him to be saying through purest prooftexting.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Not at all. Paul's gospel, especially in Galatians, is God's plan of salvation. Which, Paul emphasizes throughout Galatians, concerns how the Gentile population is saved, something uniquely revealed to Paul.

Amaleq13 is right.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

spin

When you want to cite Galatians evidence, I'll listen to you. As is, you've said nothing -- other than confusing musthrion with euaggelion in Ephesians. You've got to deal with text, not people's opinions of them.


spin

Rick Sumner

I just gave it to you. When you want to read Galatians, rather than quote-mine it to support your anachronistic preconceptions, I'll listen to you As it is you've said nothing, except that you'd really, really like it if the text agrees with you.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

spin

Yup.

This is less transparent in implication that you think.

I have identified Gal 2:7-8 as an interpolation for years here. Don't you find it extremely strange that the text suddenly talks of Peter, when elsewhere he talks of Cephas? (Other indications are available.)

If we are to use the implications of Gal 2:9, Paul's gospel would be to the uncircumcized. That doesn't deal with the content of the gospel, merely the target. You are forcing your meaning into the text.

And I have no disagreement with the words, just your implications. Salvation for Paul is through faith, not performance. The law's requirements don't lead to salvation or the receiving of the spirit. The other gospel is therefore not about salvation or spirit and as Paul indicates his gospel is.

You've only got part of the story. Where does salvation come from?? "[N]ot by works but through faith in Jesus Christ." (2:16) That's the nutshell version, Rick. That's the contention in Galatians. Note 5:2, "if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you." The opposition is clear here: law or christ. The other gospel is centered on the law, while Paul's is centered on christ.

This is pot looking for kettle stuff.

Yup.

Sorry, but I can't make out much in this that helps clarify any case you might want to make. Perhaps, you don't understand the position I take. Paul's gospel entails salvation through faith, made possible through the crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus and the crucifixion are at the core of Paul's gospel, as they alone imply salvation, and torah observance is worse than useless because it doesn't bring salvation.


spin