Considering church a good thing–or even being a part of one–has been a big issue for me as well, but I’ve also gotten over that…

Yes, I enjoy April’s blog. Unfortunately, I get drawn into NT studies more often than I’d like… I’m much more interested in OT, ANE, DSS, LXX, Tragumim, and Pseudepigrapha.

If you’d like to get together after church sometime, I would enjoy getting to know you as well. Just look for the guy with blue fingerneails.

You may be interested in the last chapter of Seyoon Kim’s book Paul and the New Perspective, entitled, “The Jesus Tradition in Paul.” Beyond just Paul’s Damascus road conversion/call (which Kim emphasizes), he also sees a junk load of “possible echoes” from the Jesus tradition in Paul’s letters. I think that might be closer to what you’re thinking about if I’m reading you correctly.

Also, have you read April DeConick’s Forbidden Gospels Blog yet? It sounds like that might be up your alley. I don’t agree with everything she says, but I like to read it.

So I am arguing that the first major step of hermeneutics is allowing a text to speak on its own. The second major step is comparing the findings of the first step with what can be known historically about the author, the audience, the social environment, etc and with the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels. A third step would be to then apply the findings of the first and second steps to the life of the Church and its mission.

Is it not possible that in order to rightly understand what a text on its own says, one should first understand the general context which formed and informed it–in Paul’s case, Yeshua? Do you suppose that Paul did not take anything for granted about his new-found following of Yeshua’s way and that he was fully capable of showing–and did indeed show–the lens or perspective through which he understood that way, therefore we can come to a clear understanding of the basis of his thoughts simply by looking at them alone?

“canon within a canon…before we deal with things in a broader canonical fashion, I think we need to take each text on its own terms.”

I don’t quite follow what you mean about a “canon within a canon” or dealing with things in a “canonical” fashion… I don’t believe in a “canon”–that is, I do not believe in an inspired list of correct texts…

“it is an entirely different conundrum to think about what Jesus actually “said.”

Which is why I mentioned doing so through a “critical-historical” investigation, if you’ll recall…

“It’s a complicated subject and one I may take up later on the blog“

I hope you do. I am somewhat perplexed at the response I received… Not so much from yourself as from Matt… But I am still perplexed…

To put it a different way, it is my contention that Paul is telling the Galatians in 16-25 that there is a middle ground between the slavery of the Law and unbridled freedom which the flesh desires (v 13). That middle ground is found in “walking in the Spirit.”

** — I think the best evidence that “under the law” and “deeds of the flesh” are not interrelated is found in v13 where freedom and flesh are linked. The flesh does not find opportunity in the Law, the flesh finds opportunity in freedom from the Law. Thus the “deeds of the flesh” must have to do with freedom from the Law, i.e., they are not natural out-workings of the Law.

And even if we did take a look into the Gospels for material on flesh and the law, it really is quite a different situation. I get the sense that “flesh” means something different in the Gospels than it does in Paul (not that Paul uses it the same way every time). Additionally, from the scholarly perspective, it is an entirely different conundrum to think about what Jesus actually “said.” What we have is what the Jesus was remembered as saying, redacted and placed within a larger framework of what Jesus was remembered as doing. I’m not saying that they Gospels are not reliable. I’m not saying that in the least. Rather, I’m saying that we don’t have writings by Jesus himself by which we can do a direct comparison of Jesus’ and Paul’s thoughts on any given issue. It’s a complicated subject and one I may take up later on the blog. Right now, I’m just trying to understand Paul.

Matt, thanks for your thoughts. I was with you for the most part, but then I lost you when you said, “Thus, Dunn’s concern is alleviated.” Dunn is taking into consideration how these things are meant to be directed towards the problem at hand for Paul, namely that Gentiles were being told to get circumcised in order to join the group. Whether you agree with the whole “ethnic identity” bit (which I do think is a little bit forced at this point in the letter), I think that Dunn’s thoughts are helpful. I don’t think that he’s “concerned,” but simply explaining Paul’s argument (I was “concerned” when reflecting on Paul’s implied accusation).

I don’t think I’m convinced that Paul would want to warn against libertine lifestyle in general, when he has been so passionately arguing about the works of the law and circumcision. If Paul is talking about freedom, what is slavery? What are we free from? It seems like Galatians has two enslavements, one bad and one good (from Paul’s perspective). The bad is enslavement to the law. The good is enslavement to one another. I think he’s not just talking about general unethical behavior, but is responding directly to a situation of conflict. The great majority of the works of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit relate somehow to community conflict. That conflict is associated with the “works of the law” somehow, and thus enslavement to one another (as part of walking by the Spirit) is one part of the remedy of enslavement to the law. I think he’s responding specifically to the conflict in the Galatian church, not the generic threat of loose morality. As for the “works of the flesh” that are in regards to sexual morality, idolatry, and sorcery, I think (with Dunn) that Paul is grabbing the attention of the ethically minded (both Jews and Gentiles) with a list which would unite their disgust, then associating it with the work of his judaizing opponents and being “under the law.”

Thus, to understand this passage we have to understand the flow of chapter 5 and we have to understand the relationship between “under the law” and “deeds of the flesh.”

First, the flow. Verses 1-6 highlight that Christians should not put themselves under the Law. Doing so is of no benefit. In fact, being circumcised in addition to faith in Christ could be regarded as an affront to Christ’s grace. Verse 7-12 turn to those who are tempting the Christians to turn to the law, the Judaizers. Paul finds their program so disgusting that he wishes they would be emasculated.

Then there is a major shift in verse 13 from a discussion of the Law to a discussion of Christian freedom. Not only are Christians not to take up the yoke of slavery which is the Law (1), they are also not to abuse their freedom in Christ by attacking one another (13-15). Instead they are to serve one another and love one another, which happens to fulfill the Law.

This same line of thinking is continues in verse 16ff. Walking by the Spirit is how one keeps from misusing Christian freedom. That one can walk by the Spirit is a sign that one is not under the Law, i.e., under its curse and condemnation. But if a Christian is not walking by the Spirit, and thus misusing their freedom, then this will be manifest in the doing of the deeds of the flesh.

Thus, Dunn’s concern is alleviated. Paul doesn’t have in mind Law-observance which leads to these horrible things, but instead a libertine lifestyle, which is an abuse of Christian freedom, that leads to these actions.

In other words, the deeds of the flesh are a sign of the misuse of Christian freedom. It follows then that the fruit of the Spirit are a sign of the reality of walking in the Spirit. And there is no Law or principle which stands against the fruit of the Spirit. The are exemplary in every respect.

This is simply my rendering of this passage. I am sure that my preconceptions about the NPP have crept into my interpretation, but I think that I am being pretty objective in my understanding of “under the Law” and “deeds of the flesh.” The two are very different and do not share the same referent at all.

I don’t know if that was helpful or cogent…but I tried!

Paul may have his own arguments and perspective, but these are likely based on Yeshua’s own witness. Did Yeshua have nothing to say or do about flesh and Torah? What did his actions and words mean?

I suggest that if Paul is in any continuity with Yeshua, then once you begin finding the answers to your questions in the gospels (with critical-historical help from other places), it may be easier to understand not only what Paul thinks, but why he came to that conclusion… It is probably more difficult and dangerous to wrestle with Paul first…and it may lead to conclusions that are out of line with the Fount from which they sprung…