Ben C Smith

No, I am saying that Paul preached the same gospel that his predecessors preached, but with the proviso that the message was also fitting for uncircumcised gentiles (who remained uncircumcised gentiles).

What does this have to do with gentile inclusing being or not being the theme of Galatians?

No, because the different audience is the Pauline proviso. IOW, the proviso (this can also be preached to gentiles qua gentiles) and the intended audience (gentiles qua gentiles) are the same thing.

I agree with this! But to preach to gentiles qua gentiles is, for Paul and his contemporaries, an addendum to the gospel itself. It would not be merely assumed without argument that the resurrection of the Jewish messiah would mean anything for gentiles. Paul was the one who made the argument that this Jewish event did mean something for gentiles.

He has to. And who are we to doubt him anyway? Visions and dreams often include elements already well established in other contexts.

Is there a not missing here somewhere?

I am not sure I know how to respond to this. The word baptize means to dunk or to dip. What do you think Paul was doing to his Corinthian converts that he later says that he dunked a few of them (but not all of them)? What do you envision as having happened?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I object to this for the same reasons as I have given to Robert (spamandham). He has every motivation in 1 Corinthians to claim broad saintly support for his gospel; the Corinthians are questioning one of its otherwise noncontroversial points. Contrariwise, he has every motivation in Galatians to claim divine support alone for his gospel; the Galatians are questioning one of its points that not all other saints agree with him, and the most prominent ones among them have waffled on it.

Exactly. Think of a Reformed pastor countering a local heresy that smacks of Arianism. He can quote scripture on the matter, can cite the creeds, go to Calvin and Luther, and can in general claim nearly universal Reformed support for his view. But imagine this same pastor countering the hiring of a homosexual pastor, and imagine that this hiring is part of a growing trend in his particular denomination. Now the creeds are of little use, and he cannot go to the denomination, because it is split on the issue. He goes where he can, to his reading of the scriptures. Even if the Arianism crops up again after this, provided he has not left the denomination entirely, it is still in his best interests to list the widespread historical and denominational support for his view, even if only in the spirit of at least we can still agree on this much.

Likewise, in Galatians, Paul goes where he can, to his original revelation. In 1 Corinthians, he has a lot bigger playing field. And, if (as the total lack of reference in this letter might indicate) the Corinthians were not yet being pestered with the circumcision issue, there would be no reason to bring it up.

Ben.

Rick Sumner

And, that quickly, my previously (and repeatedly) mentioned temptation to consider the creedal statement of 1Cor 15 an interpolation falls by the wayside.

As near as I can see, your reading makes the most sense out of the evidence. I was halfway there, I suppose. Just needed someone to connect the dots for me.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ben C Smith

Let me offer something else here, too, which may serve to counter some of what I wrote.

First, I know that Mark Goodacre suspects that 1 Corinthians does predate Galatians. What I did not recall is that he uses our very issue as one of his supporting points (his main point being the collection for the saints):

The hints provided by Paul's biography for establishing that 1 Corinthians precedes Galatians correlate with other factors of interest in the study of Paul. What is the source of his gospel? Is it through human agency (1 Corinthians 15.1-11) or directly from God (Galatians 1.6-12)?

(Refer also to another post which outlines this in more detail.)

So it seems your observation has also occurred to Goodacre, not an entirely bad situation in which to find yourself, Rick. I am currently rethinking my argument on this aspect.

Cheers.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Thanks, but see my subsequent post!

Ben.

Rick Sumner

Even if you flip the chronology though, it doesn't have to be interpolated. My line of reasoning was, in essence, that "gospel" is used in 1Cor almost anachronistically--it refers to a "gospel" in the sense that the later evangelists wrote one, not in the sense Paul usually uses it.

The reading you suggest makes short work of that argument, no matter how you date the texts.

Cheers,
Rick Sumner

DCHindley

Let's think about this statement.

The cloud is evidently the pillar of smoke that hovered over the Israelites in the wilderness (Exod 33:9), but spoken of as a sort of rain cloud. The passing through the (Reed) Sea is, I think unambiguous, but in that passing I do not think a drop of water touched the Israelites.

Yet he says the Israelites were "baptized into" Moses by these things. The only commonality I can think of would be that in both cases the Israelites passed under the cloud and under the surface of the sea. Here these events are treated as metaphors, which could be related to baptism as a kind of burial.

At the same time, why does he finish his point by stating that they all shared the same spiritual food (apparently referring to the manna, Exod 16:14-31) and spiritual drink (apparently referring to the spring of water that sprung from the rock that was struck by Moses, Exodus 17:6)? This is to look at these events as allegories. The final sentence (which you left out - I have restored it in brackets) clearly interprets the "spiritual rock" as an allegory to Christ. In fact, this seems to be a not-so-veiled reference to the body and blood of Jesus, that is, to the eucharist, not baptism!

It is like the second and third sentences are speaking of something different than the first. Your interpretation might work with the allegory (with the caveat that the eucharist, a ritual, may be implied), but not necessarily the metaphor.

DCH

spamandham

Where are you getting that from? I don't see it in Paul's discussions of what he means by 'gospel'.

Right, but that doesn't mean gentile inclusion is part of Paul's gospel. Where are you getting that from? Paul states over and over that his gospel is the gospel of Christ/God, and spells that out a bit more that he's referring to the resurrection of Christ as his gospel. He also states that salvation comes through the gospel, to both Jews and Gentiles, and he was picked specially to preach the gospel of the resurrection of Christ to the Gentiles.

To say salvation comes through faith in the gospel implies that the gospel is "you are saved through faith in this statement plus some jesus stuff", rather than just the "jesus stuff".

Why does he have to? It's notionally a letter to the Galatians whom he has already previously converted, is it not?

The case I'm exploring does not depend on Paul being dishonest about this.

No. The point is that Paul could plausibly claim (and perhaps believe himself) that he arrived at the gospel of Christ independently of anyone else. So, this counters the argument that he is referring only to gentile inclusion when he states in Gal 1:12 "I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." The gospel he refers to here is the same gospel he refers to everywhere else; that Christ is the resurrected son of God.

You have the advantage of Greek of course, but I don't interpret that passage the same way you do. It isn't that the gospel is gentile justification, but rather, that the scriptures forsee that the Gentiles would be justified by faith.

But faith in what? In YHWH? No. In the law? No. Just the mere existence of faith without a subject? No.

It's referring to faith in the gospel - that same gospel which is said to be in accordance with the scriptures in 1 Cor 15:3-11, also available to Abraham (a gross anachronism, but it seems to be what Paul believes nonetheless), that Christ died and was resurrected.

The only specific claim regarding the gospel message that is explicitly stated to be in accordance with the scriptures (and thus available to Abraham) within the genuine-ish epistles is...(drum roll)..1 Cor 15:3-11.

To Paul, the scriptures preached the gospel of Christ's death and resurrection to Abraham, just as they preached it to Paul, and just as the writer of 1 Cor 15:3-11 indicates. The scriptures forsaw all nations being blessed by the gospel.

A cloudy day counts as baptism? I don't see how that helps anything.

And what does crucify mean? And what does circumcize mean? When Paul says he dies daily with Christ, does he mean he physically dies every day?

Paul uses many words allegorically.

Ben C Smith

Galatians 3.8.

Billy Graham preached the gospel, saying: Repent of your sins and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.

The scriptures preached the gospel, saying: All gentiles will be blessed in [Abraham].

In both cases, the participle saying precedes the content of the gospel. For Billy Graham, the gospel is repenting and believing so as to be saved. For Galatians 3.8, the gospel is that the gentiles would be blessed.

You are correct to note that the scriptures (according to Paul) foresee that the gentiles would be justified by faith. You are incorrect to opine that the gospel is not gentile justification (unless you mean that it is not only gentile justification).

Faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 3.22, 26; 9.33; 10.11, 14; Galatians 2.16, 20, 22, 26; Philippians 1.29; 3.9). Faith in God (Romans 4.3, 5, 17, 24; Galatians 3.6), at least so far as Abraham was concerned. Faith that certain events happened (Romans 10.9; 1 Corinthians 15.11) and or will happen (Romans 6.8).

Romans 1.1-2:

Paul, a bondservant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures....

It is midrash.

Yes, and he uses baptize metaphorically, too. But you did not answer my question about what you think Paul was talking about when he says that he baptized a few, but not all. Just because he can use a word metaphorically does not mean that he always does so. So what does he mean in 1 Corinthians 1.14?

Ben.

spamandham

Fair enough, but you cut off the important part about what the gospel message derived form the scriptues IS:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit[a] of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

The gospel message derived from scriptures is that Jesus Christ is God's son as declared by the resurrection. Nothing here about deriving a gentile mission from the scriptures.

(by the way, the part I placed in yellow is so clumsy that I question it's authenticity as well.)

In answer to your question, I imagine Paul is refering to

...ritual burial

Romans 6:4
We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

...an oath

1 Corinthians 1:13
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?

...some kind of shared spiritual experience/revelation

1 Corinthians 10:2
They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. (even if this is midrash, I think that's what it means)

1 Corinthians 12:13
For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

...or simply a commitment demonstrated by behavior

Galatians 3:27
for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Paul uses baptism in many contexts. The common theme is not water or a ritual, but rather a spiritual change. Whether or not that sometimes involved a ritual akin to what we know as baptism, is not at all clear to me.