Ben C Smith

It was (and is) irrelevant to my point. I was not talking about the content of the gospel at this stage. I was answering your assertion that the only specific claim regarding the gospel message that is explicitly stated to be in accordance with the scriptures comes in 1 Corinthians 15.3-11.

If it is ritual burial, then a ritual is involved, right?

Water baptism is all those things.

Paul uses the term baptism in a nonliteral way most of the time. But his readers had to know what the literal term meant, and it is clear that Paul actually did baptize people literally. I am saying that the baptism that Paul literally performed was, in fact, exactly what the word itself means (dunking) and exactly what other sources say it was (dunking in water). You seem to be saying that it was a ritual burial (acted out?).

I am quite happy to retain my interpretation, since I see yours as having no evidence to support it besides taking an obvious metaphor (buried with Christ) literally (a reenacted burial).

Ben.

spamandham

Well, if you just want to point out I was in error, that's fine, but I'm more interested in what Paul means by 'gospel'. So we have at least two instances of Paul stating what the gospel he derived from scripture is about. Those two cases are consistent with eachother, and in neither case does it involve a gentile mission.

Paul believes he was chosen specially to spread the gospel to Gentiles, and also believes Gentiles can be saved by his gospel. But I don't see any indication that his gospel was "some jesus stuff + gentiles are saved", it's just "jesus stuff".

Sure, IF it's a ritual burial, then it involves a ritual. The point of the list I gave is to demonstrate that a ritual is not the central theme of baptism to Paul. I doubt he is referring to ritual burial.

I don't know if a ritual was sometimes involved or not, but I don't see anything in Paul that indicates a water baptism ritual - inspite of the literal meaning of 'baptize'.

I'm saying that ritual burial is a possibility from what Paul wrote. But I don't think that's the best interpretation. I think the best interpretation is that to Paul, baptism is all about a spiritual experience/change/commitment which needn't have involved a ritual at all.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that Paul would argue against the rituals of the law, and turn right around and use ritual bathing right out of the law? Paul has internalized the Jewish rituals, not simply modified their exterior form. He does the same thing with circumcision that he appears to me to be doing with baptism. He has reinterpreted the law in a symbolic way and disposed of the literal interpretation altogether.

...another possibility is that early in Paul's career he was indeed engaged in a baptism ritual, and then realized his inconsistent behavior and distanced himself from it later on. Paul does seem to be indicating some kind of prior action involved with baptism that he wishes to distance himself from in 1 Cor 1:13-17. This would explain why he refers to present tense baptisms in ways that seem metaphorical, while referring to a couple of past tense baptisms in a way that seem to have involved a ritual.

I agree it's a metaphor. I think you misunderstood my point. I'm arguing that Paul may well be using baptism as an obvious metaphor consistently. the only thing tying his various usages of baptism together is something spiritual rather than a ritual.

Ben C Smith

I was pointing out that your drum roll comment does not actually add yet another difference between this passage and the rest of the Pauline epistles. That involved pointing out your error, but that was certainly not the sole reason.

I agree that Paul does not usually fill out his gospel statements with the gentile mission; but in Galatians he does. He also does not always fill out his gospel statements with both death and resurrection; sometimes it is only one or the other. That does not mean that the meaning of the word gospel is changing for him from verse to verse; it simply means that the word gospel can refer either to the whole or to any one or more of its related parts.

Actually, you have seen such an indication, but for some reason are not reckoning with the clear meaning of Galatians 3.8.

I am getting confused. I agree that baptism means a lot more to Paul than just the actual rite of passage. But you said you thought his baptism of some of the Corithians was a ritual burial, and now you are saying you doubt he is referring to ritual burial.

Are you agreeing, then, that when Paul baptized the Corinthians he was performing some literal action? Are you simply saying that you do not know what the action of baptism was, and are not convinced it involved water?

What would it have looked like, then, when Paul baptized? When he says that he baptized some but not all, what happened to the some but not to the all?

Baptism is not from the law. And no, this would not seem odd to me. I basically hold to the New Perspective, remember?

When he tells the Galatians not to get circumcised, what does he mean?

Yes. What do you suppose that action was?

Present tense baptisms would be metaphorical because Paul is writing a letter, not baptizing anybody. Past tense could be either, depending on how Paul is using the word.

It does not seem to be a metaphor in 1 Corinthians 1.13-17. It appears to be a concrete action.

Ben.

ETA: Look at Galatians 2.12-14:

For, prior to the coming of certain men from James, [Cephas] used to eat with the gentiles, but when they came he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all: If you, being a Jew, live like the gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the gentiles to live like Jews?

On your interpretation of the Pauline gospel, in what way was Cephas not being straightforward about the truth of the gospel when he began to withdraw from table fellowship with the gentiles? What gospel truth had he violated?

spamandham

I think we're at an impasse. I don't agree with what you're saying, and I think your argument directly contradicts Gal 1. I've reread it over and over, and I still see it as a revelation of Christ from Christ. He doesn't say the gospel revelation included a gentile mission, but states instead he was chosen to spread the message of the Son to the gentiles. The gospel that was revealed to him, is the same gospel he speaks of being revealed by the scriptures - not that plus something else.

That's fine, but we would need to see him saying the gentile mission is part of the gospel before simply assuming it is.

It doesn't say that "All nations will be blessed by you" IS the gospel. It says that God revealed the gospel to Abraham. The blessing is not the gospel, it's the result of the gospel, consistent with Paul's many other claims that the gospel results in salvation.

Paul is using midrash to prove that point by refering to the quoted portion. All who have faith are children of Abraham and thus heirs to the promise made to Abraham - which in Paul's mind, is the promise of salvation. But I don't see reason to think the gospel Paul refers to is the gentile mission.

The revelation of the gospel of Christ to Abraham fits the context just fine, considering that Paul believed that gospel message was hidden in the scriptures just waiting for Paul to be born and find it.

It was not my intent of that list to tell you I thought baptism was ritual burial. The point of the list was to show the wide variety of usages of 'baptism', and point out the common theme, this concluding that it is the common theme itself that Paul refers to when he talks about baptism.

In hindsight, I think I should have put question marks after each of the ellipsed portions. I thought that the inconsistency of the ellipsed portions in the list made that clear, but apparently it didn't.

I agree it's possible a ritual was used at least at times. The distinction is, that when Paul says "baptism", he is generally referring to a spiritual experience/event/change, and not a ritual. That doesn't mean that a ritual was never employed, but it does mean the ritual is nonessential.

Which is why baptism for the dead doesn't fit what I see as Paul's idea of baptism. Baptism of the dead is a pure ritual lacking the part that Paul sees as essential; the spiritual experiecne/event/change.

(I'm getting dizzy, but that's why were discussing baptism...)

I'm going to guess he IS referring to a ritual in that instance. - just a guess though.

You don't think it's directly related to ritual bathing? Well, ok, but it still seems odd to me that Paul would ditch one set of rituals just to latch onto another - unless those rituals were deemed unessential, then it could make sense.


He was being dishonest by adding a Jewish restriction (circumcision in this case) to the gospel.

If he was dishonest by adding Jewish law to the gospel, does it not follow that the gospel was already a message for everyone in Paul's mind? If so, then why would Paul need a special revelation of that?

Ben C Smith

Last try. Galatians 3.8 (a more literal translation, since it may be the addition of the word saying, which is not in the Greek, that is confusing you):

The scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, that all the gentiles will be blessed in you.

The that is odd in English, since in indirect discourse we would expect the gentiles will be blessed in him. But this is not so in koinē Greek; the word that commonly introduces direct discourse.

There is no room for separating the preaching of the gospel from the statement that the gentiles will be blessed. The that connects them. When we say: John said that the sun was shining, the sentence the sun was shining is the content of what John said. Likewise, when we say: The scriptures preached the gospel that all gentiles will be blessed, the sentence all gentiles will be blessed is the content of the preaching of the gospel.

Ironically, a lot of the mainstream translations try to make this clear by adding the participle saying, which sounds like the gospels when they tell us what Jesus said; compare Matthew 13.24:

Jesus presented another parable to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field.

(This time the word saying is in the Greek.) This does not mean that Jesus presented another parable, and on top of that he also compared the kingdom of heaven to a sower. No, it means that the sower is the content of the parable.

It says that the content of the preaching of the gospel was: All gentiles will be blessed through you. When the gospel was preached to Abraham, this is what came out: All gentiles will be blessed through you. It does not mean that the gospel was preached to Abraham, full stop, and oh, by the way, he also mentioned that this was for gentiles, too.

I think someone baptized for the dead would probably say that the dead do experience the spiritual change in some way. Otherwise why do it?

Just as baptism for oneself (living) puts one in a position with Christ to later be raised from the dead (as Paul affirms), so baptism for the dead puts the dead one in a position with Christ to later be raised from the dead.

There is no difference that actually makes a difference. If in all the other instances you find in Paul there is somebody on hand to experience the change, that is because in all other instances you find Paul is talking about the living. Your argument boils down to doubting the reference just because in this case Paul is talking about the dead; back to the invalid rule that an author can never mention anything just once.

I am too.

It is more than a guess. There is evidence from the nature of the reference, the meaning of the word itself, and the nature of baptism in all other sources.

No, I think it is indirectly related to ritual bathing.

This is not odd under the New Perspective.

Yes. It follows. And where did Paul get that idea? From the revelation.

I do not think the original apostles ever said: Our gospel of death and resurrection is for Jews only. I doubt it ever came up. They were Jews living in Judea, as separated from gentiles as they could get. They probably never even considered the idea of taking the gospel to gentiles qua gentiles; what would the resurrection of the Jewish messiah have to do with them? If gentiles wanted to benefit from a Jewish anything, they would convert to Judaism.

Then along comes Paul, with an explicit message from God that this gospel of death and resurrection was also for gentiles. Paul eventually submitted this notion to the apostles for review, and they agreed with him to his satisfaction.

But then, later on, they appeared to go back on that agreement.

Ben.

spin

This seems to be a reference to Galatians, so where in Galatians do you get a situation prior to Paul when non-gentiles had the gospel of death and resurrection?

Isn't Paul's "messianism" in direct contrast with Jewish messianism? The notion of a dying messiah would disqualify the person from being messiah in the eyes of most Jews of the era Jews. Those people who oppose Paul tend to accept Jewish notions, as reflected for example by the law, so it's reasonable that their thoughts on the messiah would be Jewish, while Paul's are not.


spin

Ben C Smith

I think we have been over this before a bit.

You can just mentally insert what Doug is saying on that other thread into this one, if you wish; he is doing a fine job of defending the position that Paul did not innovate the gospel of death and resurrection.

Ben.

spamandham

I don't think inserting "that" here would be valid, because the reference is God speaking to Abraham directly : "All nations will be blessed through you" rather than speaking to us indirectly "All nations will be blessed through him".

Paul is using this midrash of Gen. 12:3 as proof that the gospel was preached by God to Abraham. That's why all who have faith in the gospel become heirs of the promise to Abraham - they share his faith, so they share his blessing.

Just as it was Abraham's faith that results in the blessing, Paul is saying faith in the gospel results in the blessing. But the blessing is the result of the gospel, not the content of it - consistent with what Paul says everywhere else.

The parallel of Abraham's faith in God resulting in the promised gifts God bestows in him, to faith in Jesus resulting in the promised salvation for all ...is screeming to me. All who have faith in the gospel of Jesus receive the promise of salvation - that's what Paul is saying.

Right, but that isn't the way Paul discusses baptism. His baptism is a first person spiritual experience/change/event, not a third party magic incantation, which is what baptism for the dead amounts to.

The rule I'm using is that when an author discusses something totally out of character for that author...raise eyebrows.

Paul's baptism is firsthand spiritual something-er-other, which though may involve a ritual, is not the result of a ritual. It's an individual's faith that is key, and baptism for the dead has the faith of a third party justifying someone else - an idea not only missing from the rest of Paul's message, but in direct conflict with it.

...I'm kind of surprised to see you take the stance you've taken on this one.

Paul tells us God revealed his son to him, so that Paul would preach him to the gentiles. Paul is saying he was selected by God from birth to receive the revelation of the gospel, because God knew Paul would teach it to the Gentiles. Paul doesn't say that God revealed to him that he should preach the son to the gentiles, he says God "was pleased to reveal his Son in me." The revelation is the revelation of the Son.

Ben C Smith

What I am saying is that I am not inserting the that. It is in the Greek [οτι]. But a lot of translations have replaced it with saying, which is not in the Greek.

I am saying that there is a difference between writing something not attested anywhere else in the corpus and writing something out of character.

Not sure why....

Ben.

spamandham

Sorry, I guess I didn't read your last post carefully enough. Okay, I see weak merit to your argument on this point.

...and I'm saying that 3rd party justification is out of character for Paul. His salvation is by personal faith. There is no personal faith on the part of the dead involved in baptism for the dead, so that directly contradicts Pauls' message, as opposed to simply being unique but otherwise compatible.