Ben C Smith

That may well be.

Do you think that Paul, whether rightly or wrongly, is implying that his opponents hold to the crucifixion but not to gentile circumcision?

Ben.

Amaleq13

That is because, once again, the "problem" is only in spin's mind.

Outside of spin's mind, there simply is no conflict between Paul's opponents boasting about getting gentile believers to fully convert and the notion that doing so reduced their fear of being persecuted for the cross of Christ.

They are both proud to successfully convince Paul's gentiles to comply and glad that doing so will reduce their chances of being persecuted for the cross.

The only conflict is between what the text states and what spin wants it to state.

Stopping here in the middle of his sentence when Paul continues his explanation with a reference to their desire to avoid persecution is selective attention to the evidence.

The fear of persecution for the cross and their pride at obtaining gentile compliance is rather obviously contrasted with Paul's pride and lack of fear in the cross and his belief that it does not require compliance.

spamandham

Is it possible? Sure, but I don't think that's the simplest perspective.

I think Gal vss. 3:15-25 best explain the context of Gal 3:1, as Paul has stopped ranting and gone into theological explanation mode by then.

In this section, Paul explains that God originally gave a promise to both Abraham and to his Seed (a specific person, Christ). This is very important, as Paul is telling us there are two sets of heirs to the promise. Followers of Paul are not heirs to Abraham's promise, they are heirs to the promise given the Seed.

The law was set in place as a result of sin as a form of imprisonment for Abraham's heirs, until faith was revealed in the form of the Seed. The idea that those who have faith in Christ also receive the promise was part of Paul's revelation, and results directly from his crucifixion/resurrection gospel. For gentiles to practice the law, is to fall back into the imprisonment associated with Abraham's promise. It is equivalent to Paul of a complete rejection of his dual promise theology - the same as denying the cross altogether, not just to denying that gentiles can be saved without circumcision. That's why he uses such strong language in vs. 1.

spin

Whaddaya know? Once again Amaleq13 is coming to rescue his lame commitment.



Paul might be able to impute the most scurrilous things with a rather incoherent grammar, but its another thing for you to be able to make sense of what he says.

I'm glad you don't make your money trying to analyze text.

How exactly does "only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of christ" attach to the previous finite section of this sentence? Take a look at how some translations have difficulty attaching it, then thrill us with your grammatical prowess.

Then you might take time out to see how Paul's logic really works. Verse 13 flows on closely from v.12a-b. The circumcised -- not just Paul's opponents -- are supposed to follow the law, yet they are inconsistent in following the law. It is of these that want/desire (Qelousin) the Galatians circumcised, the verb being repeated from v.12 to help tie the thought together.

To understand cohesion you have to look at the devices used in the text. Repetition of key words is one such device.

While circumcision and public good show are themes that run through the passage 6:12-15, the notion of persecution isn't used again, although there would be a good occasion for Paul to mention again that he was persecuted as per 5:11. However, it was not used again, indicating that the only thread running through your interpretation is -- as you might put it -- in your mind.

Nice use of bolding by the way.


spin

spin

I can sometimes spend 15 minutes looking.

I think he may be projecting his own warped ideas of messianism onto his opponent messianists.


spin

spamandham

How often do you go searching for Ben's brain?

(no insult meant Ben, just couldn't resist ...)

spin

More often than you might think.


spin