I began my reflection with the commentation of Gaventa. To summarize what I believe to be her thesis, a traditional understanding of Galatians which subdivides or rigidly outlines the epistle is inadequate being that it exegetically misses the forest for the trees. Whereas most commentators view portions of the letter as transitional or even unrelated, Gaventa proposes that this leads to an unbalanced focus on unnecessary, irresolvable issues that distract from the important theme of the letter as a whole. Her contention then is that Paul’s rich theological discourses are not divorced from his personal testimony, but rather his personal testimony serves as a validation of his rich theological discourse.
The portion of text that is pertinent to this reflection (Gal. 4:11-20) is a keystone proof text to her argument:
“Some commentators deny that this is an instance of the imitation-of-Paul motif. Paul, they insist, surely does not mean that the Galatians are to imitate him as he imitates them… one reason for their imitation of Paul is that Paul has already rejected his zeal for the Law and the tradition (Gaventa 321).”
Following this train of thought, much of the testimony of Paul suggests that the Galatians are picking up the very same lifestyle that Paul has relinquished when Christ laid claim upon his life.
I then proceeded with reading Hays’ commentary, in which I looked for points of intersection and points of deviation from Gaventa. For this reason it is difficult to distinguish Hays’ overarching theme being that our reading was limited to his commentary on this passage. Perhaps from my prejudice being created by reading Gaventa first, I approached Hays’ commentary seeing some of the flaws that she challenged her readers to look for. I praise Hays’ work as being far more insightful into the passages at hand but I begin with some points where the two deviate.
Gaventa states “If we habitually read a text only to learn about matters that exist outside it, then we lose sight of issues within the text that may be of equal importance (312).” I was struck by this quote while reading Hays who states not only in his introduction but also in the body of his commentary:
“This unit is notoriously difficult to interpret. There are three reasons for its difficulty: (1) Paul is emotionally agitated as he writes, and the discussion is somewhat disjointed; (2) he alludes briefly to events well know to the Galatians but unknown to us; (3) he employs rhetorical topoi and conventional expressions that are unfamiliar to us. Taken together, these factors – especially the second – require us to do some guesswork in order to read the passage (293).”
What Hays sees as necessitating guess work, Gaventa sees as either (1) and unnecessary distraction from the over arching message, or (2) Gaventa is providing a more harmonious method of understanding to what Hays calls Paul’s “emotionally agitated… disjointed” writing style. Concerning point three however, Hays and Gaventa are in absolute agreement, and it is on this point that serves as the linchpin for both commentators. Both believe that Paul is using a certain type of rhetoric to communicate his message, and both agree to an extent as to the purpose of that message. Both acknowledge that in a modern context Paul’s discourse (Hays 189) sounds like a self justifying apologetic, and both denounce this as misinterpretation.
In Gaventa’s thesis (as quoted above) and the remaining body of her composition, it does not seem as though she draws the same polarity between the purpose for Paul’s imitation passage as does Hays. For Hays, the imitation passage means “he (Paul) is referring to his own decision to reject the practices of Torah observance and live like a Gentile… For the sake of his mission as apostle to the Gentiles, he ‘tore down’ the barriers between Jew and Gentile (2:18) and adopted, in effect, a Gentile way of life… he ate with Gentiles and took a stand against other Jewish Christians who refused to do so (2:11-14) (Hays 293).”
For Gaventa this is not the intention of Paul’s words. Gaventa sees this statement as being in light of Paul’s personal testimony in chapters one and two. Paul’s narrative as a star of Judaism as well as his persecution of the church gives light not to the fact that Paul became like a Gentile, but rather, the Galatians are becoming what he once was. In so doing, the Galatian church has nullified the Gospel that Paul has preached to them.
I see this as a superior interpretation given that Paul’s intent (which both commentators agree on) is to communicate that the Gospel has torn down the barrier between Jew and Gentile. Paul desires that there be only one table at which Christians gather, not one table of superiority inviting people in, yet excluding them on the basis of distinction, works, rank, or ethnicity.
In the conclusion of Hays’ section however he demonstrates that he conforms to this view as well, stating:
“…Paul’s self-depiction in the first two chapters of Galatians provides the crucial background to the exhortation of 4:12; Paul has modeled a life set free from the Law, a life willing to sacrifice all claims of racial or ethnic privilege for the truth of a gospel that calls Jews and Gentiles together at one table. That is the example he holds before the Galatians eyes 298).”
A similar application is made by Gaventa:
“What the Galatians can imitate is Paul’s single-minded response to the gospel that was revealed to him. When he ‘immediately’ returned to Damascus (1:17) he also discarded his zeal for maintaining the Law and the tradition. He died not only to the Law but also to the traditions and customs he had previously served. It is the reversal of those prior commitments that the Galatians are to imitate, although their commitments may be of a quite different sort (cf. 4:1-11). To become as Paul is means to allow Christ to live in oneself (cf. 2:20) to the exclusion of the Law or of any other tradition or category (cf. 3:27-28) (322).”
While there is much that I could extrapolate from these rich passages and both of these commentators concerning application, the most profound application is the claim in which the Gospel of Jesus Christ lays hold upon one’s life. A friend of mine who was in the Marine Corp would often say “that the church needs to be more like the Marines!” When pressed, my friend would explain that in the Marine Corp, one’s identity was replaced with being a Marine. No longer did he refer to himself as I, but as “this Marine.” No longer did anyone operate from “cultural and ethnic boundaries (Hays 298),” but rather all were one, all were Marines. As Goventa concludes:
Galatians 1 - 2 “presents Paul as an example of the gospel’s singular and exclusive power to overthrow human conventions, commitments, and values and to replace those with ‘the faith of Jesus Christ’ (2:16)… This paradigmatic dimension is accomplished by the repetition of the theme of the gospel’s singularity, the in-breaking of revelation, and the insistence on the gospel’s reversal of prior value-systems… (Gaventa 326).”
Paul’s personal testimony demonstrates the extent to which Jesus Christ laid claim upon Paul’s life. In so doing, Paul challenges the Galatian church in this way to imitate him. For “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” – Amen
No comments:
Post a Comment