Galatians For You

[Akboy]

Have any of you read or heard of the book Galatians for You by Timothy Keller? Here's the amazon link, http://www.amazon.com/Galatians-You-Reading-Feeding-Leading/dp/1908762578/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398217677&sr=8-1&keywords=galatians+for+you

 

My Bible study group is almost done reading it and we've really enjoyed it. The book isn't anti-Mormon, but the weekly discussions often reminded me of topics I've discussed with Mormons, so I'd like to hear what you guys think about Galatians and what Paul says about the gospel. I've done a few searches for an LDS interpretation on Galatians, but I haven't found anything that's as in depth as Keller's interpretation of the historical context and Greek language. Are there any comparable LDS books on Galatians that examine the context and Greek from a Mormon point of view?

 

For example, how do you read 3:3?

² Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? ³ Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

 

What kind of false gospel is Paul arguing against and what kind of true gospel is he arguing for? The implication from this verse seems to be that those who begin by the Spirit should continue by the Spirit. So what does it look like to continue by the Spirit?

 

On of my favorite parts was Keller's look at chapter 4. Paul's analogy of the 'slave woman and free woman' can be difficult to understand if you're not reading carefully. Notice 4:24-26.

²⁴ Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. ²⁵ Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. ²⁶ But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

 

Mount Sinai isn't mentioned in the Bible until Exodus, well after Abraham's time. I can see how it might be easy to read Galatians and think Paul is just arguing against circumcision and dietary laws, but this verse is saying Mount Sinai, the location of the 10 Commandments, is the slavery we should avoid. Paul never makes a distinction between ceremonial laws and the 10 Commandments. He just says we are free from slavery to the law. Chapters 5 and 6 make it clear Paul isn't saying we can ignore the law, but he says our motivation for following the law should be love, thankfulness and gratitude, not enduring to the end or learning heaven.

 

Anyway, that's enough from me for now. I'd really like to hear how you believe Galatians fits in the LDS doctrine of the Gospel. How is it not a 'different gospel' that Paul warns about in chapter 1?

[The Nehor]

What kind of false gospel is Paul arguing against and what kind of true gospel is he arguing for? The implication from this verse seems to be that those who begin by the Spirit should continue by the Spirit. So what does it look like to continue by the Spirit?

 

Get the Spirit and follow it.

 

 

Mount Sinai isn't mentioned in the Bible until Exodus, well after Abraham's time. I can see how it might be easy to read Galatians and think Paul is just arguing against circumcision and dietary laws, but this verse is saying Mount Sinai, the location of the 10 Commandments, is the slavery we should avoid. Paul never makes a distinction between ceremonial laws and the 10 Commandments. He just says we are free from slavery to the law. Chapters 5 and 6 make it clear Paul isn't saying we can ignore the law, but he says our motivation for following the law should be love, thankfulness and gratitude, not enduring to the end or learning heaven.

 

Yes, that is a better motivation. Not everyone is there yet and it is better to follow the Law until you reach that point. That is why the Law is the schoolmaster to Christ. It leads you there.

 

 

Anyway, that's enough from me for now. I'd really like to hear how you believe Galatians fits in the LDS doctrine of the Gospel. How is it not a 'different gospel' that Paul warns about in chapter 1?

 

Probably because your understanding of the LDS gospel is way off.

[halconero]

 

For example, how do you read 3:3?

² Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? ³ Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

 

What kind of false gospel is Paul arguing against and what kind of true gospel is he arguing for? The implication from this verse seems to be that those who begin by the Spirit should continue by the Spirit. So what does it look like to continue by the Spirit?

 

To start, no, I haven't read the book. 

 

To answer the first question, Paul says that the Galatians received the Spirit by hearing with πίστεως. This Greek word (Pisteos) signifies obedience, devotion, loyalty, and worship. This is consistent with Paul's other writings, in which he portrays the cult members as being in a patron-client relationship with God. They demonstrate πίστις, which is Pistis, and in return for God's freely given Χάρις, which is commonly translated as Grace, but which may be understood better in modern English as "favour." An example of this is the scene in the Godfather where Don Corleone's clients praise him and congratulate him for his daughter's wedding, and in return his provides them protection and aid. The nature of the aid given by God is divine salvation, which aids the follower in both action and belief. In short correct moral action combined with belief is necessary for salvation, but both are enabled by God's favour. Paul never argues that mankind can merit his own salvation, but he also doesn't argue that correct action doesn't play a role in salvation either. He actually warns against this at the end of Galatians, saying that living by the Spirit means sowing good. If one sows evil they reap destruction, but if one sows good they reap eternally life. 

 

In short, Paul is saying that the Galatians first received the Spirit by hearing with loyalty, obedience, love and devotion. In short, they received the Spirit because they acted on it as well.

 

 

On of my favorite parts was Keller's look at chapter 4. Paul's analogy of the 'slave woman and free woman' can be difficult to understand if you're not reading carefully. Notice 4:24-26.

²⁴ Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. ²⁵ Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. ²⁶ But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

 

Mount Sinai isn't mentioned in the Bible until Exodus, well after Abraham's time. I can see how it might be easy to read Galatians and think Paul is just arguing against circumcision and dietary laws, but this verse is saying Mount Sinai, the location of the 10 Commandments, is the slavery we should avoid. Paul never makes a distinction between ceremonial laws and the 10 Commandments. He just says we are free from slavery to the law. Chapters 5 and 6 make it clear Paul isn't saying we can ignore the law, but he says our motivation for following the law should be love, thankfulness and gratitude, not enduring to the end or learning heaven.

 

Anyway, that's enough from me for now. I'd really like to hear how you believe Galatians fits in the LDS doctrine of the Gospel. How is it not a 'different gospel' that Paul warns about in chapter 1?

 

That Paul is arguing against circumcision and dietary laws is evident by the verses preceding and following these verses. This treatise, including the story of Hagar and Sinai, really should be read from verse 21 in Chapter 3 to the end of Chapter 5. Starting in 3:21 he states that the Mosaic law was necessary because of transgression. Verse 25 states that the law is no longer necessary, because Christ makes the believers children of God through their loyalty (remember, faith = pistis which = loyalty and devotion. Our modern translations don't accurately render this). By being baptized the followers are clothed with Christ. Start in chapter 4 verse 1 Paul realizes that he needs to sum up his point. He does so by basically saying "if the israelites needed the law, they were underage children. If they were minors they were essentially slaves because neither has any control over property." He says that while Israel was thus enslaved by the law, they were subject to elemental spirits. By following Christ the Gentiles become adopted children (this refers to social ties and inheritance, not age).

 

He then goes on to say that the Gentiles converts have recently been following those same elemental spirits (versus 8-11). They have begun celebrating Jewish holy days. He then gives the story you related, about Hagar and Sinai, and immediately thereafter says Christ has made you free! "Listen! I Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you!" (5:2). Remember that the original epistles had no chapters, it just kept flowing. So Paul prefaces this allegory by arguing against Mosaic Law, Dietary laws, and Jewish holidays, gives the allegory, and then cries against circumcision. Within that context Paul is clearly addressing Jewish law.

 

You bring up two key points: 1) Abraham predated the law and 2) Sinai also included the 10 commandments. I'll address the second and then the first. 

 

The Mosaic Law is also known as the Sinaitic Covenant. This is because the Torah was also received there along with the 10 commandments. Sinai was a very good symbol for the Mosaic Law. Paul would have known this, being a Pharisee. That doesn't invalidate the 10 commandments. Paul gives a very similar list of sins to avoid in Galatians, including idolatry, fornication, etc. 

 

As for Abraham, Paul actually addresses this in Galatians. Abraham received the covenant of circumcision. According to Ebionite (Jewish-Christian) logic, this covenant could still be entered into only by circumcision. Paul says no, that Hagar being the slave, is symbolic of the slavery of the law Israel is under. He also says that the second covenant of the free, which came through Isaac and subsequently Christ, can be received without circumcision.

 

In short, Paul never preached against doing good. He actually saw it as necessary for salvation. He also preached that being able to do good was a gift from God.

Edited April 23, 2014 by halconero

[Coreyb]

And better question: is Paul's gospel a "different gospel" than the one delivered by Jesus?

[The Nehor]

And better question: is Paul's gospel a "different gospel" than the one delivered by Jesus?

 

Only in some faiths.

 

For example if the "declaration of faith and accepting Jesus saves you" groups are right Jesus was kind of a jerk by not making that clear. The rich man comes and ask what he lacks and instead of telling him to accept the Savior and be immediately saved he asked him to give up his money.

[halconero]

And better question: is Paul's gospel a "different gospel" than the one delivered by Jesus?

 

At least the Jerusalem apostles didn't think so. Despite their clashes with Paul, all the information we have points to either direct ordination under their hands, or at least acknowledgement by them. Take that how you will, but it does same something that Jesus' original followers had communion with him.

 

On then other hand, depending how someone takes the Gospel Matthew, you could view him as being apostate and off base. The Ebionites certainly did. I don't think Paul would run into any issues with the Jesus of the other synoptic Gospels, or the Gospel of John.

Edited April 23, 2014 by halconero

[halconero]

Only in some faiths.

 

For example if the "declaration of faith and accepting Jesus saves you" groups are right Jesus was kind of a jerk by not making that clear. The rich man comes and ask what he lacks and instead of telling him to accept the Savior and be immediately saved he asked him to give up his money.

 

Throw Paul into that jerk category along with Jesus. Salvation bestowed for continuous loyalty, obedience and sacrifice? That's halfway heretical. Oh...wait...that's what Paul taught.

[Gray]

And better question: is Paul's gospel a "different gospel" than the one delivered by Jesus?

 

It does seem to be quite different, yes. 

[David T]

I highly suggest checking out N.T. Wright's material on Paul. His works which are a key part of the New Perspectives on Paul have really brought out the context of Paul's Covenant theology that is very interesting and compatible in deep and fascinating ways with the LDS perspective. Check out the above linked wikipedia page for a good summary of key points of the NPP, which, I believe, specifically address the heart of the questions you raise..

 

For a super indepth treatise in book form and for future research, Wright just released his massive Paul and the Faithfulness of God. (volume 4 of a massive series including The New Testament and the People of God, Jesus and the Victory of God, Resurrection of the Son of God) - but for a much smaller and more to-the-point reference, which might serve as an interesting counterpoint for your group, check out his Galatians for Everyone commentary/study guide, which includes his new translation of the book. Or perhaps in more broad and less detailed terms, Paul: In Fresh Perspective.

Edited April 23, 2014 by David T

[teddyaware]

To start, no, I haven't read the book. 

 

To answer the first question, Paul says that the Galatians received the Spirit by hearing with πίστεως. This Greek word (Pisteos) signifies obedience, devotion, loyalty, and worship. This is consistent with Paul's other writings, in which he portrays the cult members as being in a patron-client relationship with God. They demonstrate πίστις, which is Pistis, and in return for God's freely given Χάρις, which is commonly translated as Grace, but which may be understood better in modern English as "favour." An example of this is the scene in the Godfather where Don Corleone's clients praise him and congratulate him for his daughter's wedding, and in return his provides them protection and aid. The nature of the aid given by God is divine salvation, which aids the follower in both action and belief. In short correct moral action combined with belief is necessary for salvation, but both are enabled by God's favour. Paul never argues that mankind can merit his own salvation, but he also doesn't argue that correct action doesn't play a role in salvation either. He actually warns against this at the end of Galatians, saying that living by the Spirit means sowing good. If one sows evil they reap destruction, but if one sows good they reap eternally life. 

 

In short, Paul is saying that the Galatians first received the Spirit by hearing with loyalty, obedience, love and devotion. In short, they received the Spirit because they acted on it as well.

 

 

That Paul is arguing against circumcision and dietary laws is evident by the verses preceding and following these verses. This treatise, including the story of Hagar and Sinai, really should be read from verse 21 in Chapter 3 to the end of Chapter 5. Starting in 3:21 he states that the Mosaic law was necessary because of transgression. Verse 25 states that the law is no longer necessary, because Christ makes the believers children of God through their loyalty (remember, faith = pistis which = loyalty and devotion. Our modern translations don't accurately render this). By being baptized the followers are clothed with Christ. Start in chapter 4 verse 1 Paul realizes that he needs to sum up his point. He does so by basically saying "if the israelites needed the law, they were underage children. If they were minors they were essentially slaves because neither has any control over property." He says that while Israel was thus enslaved by the law, they were subject to elemental spirits. By following Christ the Gentiles become adopted children (this refers to social ties and inheritance, not age).

 

He then goes on to say that the Gentiles converts have recently been following those same elemental spirits (versus 8-11). They have begun celebrating Jewish holy days. He then gives the story you related, about Hagar and Sinai, and immediately thereafter says Christ has made you free! "Listen! I Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you!" (5:2). Remember that the original epistles had no chapters, it just kept flowing. So Paul prefaces this allegory by arguing against Mosaic Law, Dietary laws, and Jewish holidays, gives the allegory, and then cries against circumcision. Within that context Paul is clearly addressing Jewish law.

 

You bring up two key points: 1) Abraham predated the law and 2) Sinai also included the 10 commandments. I'll address the second and then the first. 

 

The Mosaic Law is also known as the Sinaitic Covenant. This is because the Torah was also received there along with the 10 commandments. Sinai was a very good symbol for the Mosaic Law. Paul would have known this, being a Pharisee. That doesn't invalidate the 10 commandments. Paul gives a very similar list of sins to avoid in Galatians, including idolatry, fornication, etc. 

 

As for Abraham, Paul actually addresses this in Galatians. Abraham received the covenant of circumcision. According to Ebionite (Jewish-Christian) logic, this covenant could still be entered into only by circumcision. Paul says no, that Hagar being the slave, is symbolic of the slavery of the law Israel is under. He also says that the second covenant of the free, which came through Isaac and subsequently Christ, can be received without circumcision.

 

In short, Paul never preached against doing good. He actually saw it as necessary for salvation. He also preached that being able to do good was a gift from God.

This is an excellent presentation; I learned something.

I believe what Paul was teaching the Galatian saints can be distilled down to a very simple Gospel concept, a concept simple enough for a child to understand. While there are many verses in the Book of Mormon that address this point, I'll choose one of my favorites from the Book of Moroni:

24 And now I speak unto all the ends of the earth—that if the day cometh that the power and gifts of God shall be done away among you, it shall be because of unbelief.

5 And wo be unto the children of men if this be the case; for there shall be none that doeth good among you, no not one. For if there be one among you that doeth good, he shall work by the power and gifts of God. (Moroni 10)

 

Moroni's point is that the only way a man can do good is if he possesses the power and gifts of God. In stark opposition to this principle, the Sadducaic and Pharisaic enemies of Christ, who were so fanatically bound to the Mosaic Law, were careful to be zealous in keeping an outward appearance of the observance of that law but were devoid of the Spirit, hence their dead works performed in the name of the Mosaic Law were, in actuality, works of darkness and wickedness. Observing to keep and establish the Law of the Gospel by the power and gifts of the Spirit edifies and provides an encouraging environment for dynamic spiritual growth  

 

Paul was the enemy of dead works -- works putatively performed for and in the name of God but devoid of the presence of the empowering Spirit of God. The preparatory gospel that is administered through law of Moses has a provision for the forgiveness of sins but not the power and authority to bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost. This leaves those who are commanded to live under the strictures of the Mosaic Law in a quandary, because they are commanded to do good but the absence of the gift of the Holy Ghost leaves them spiritually unequal to the task. Paul expresses this quandary thusly, "for to will (to do good) is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not." Verily, it is this perplexing predicament that causes the Law of Moses to become a school master that inevitably leads one to realize the need for a Christ --  the absolute necessity for an empowering and redeeming Saviour.

When in his own life Paul was able to find the Gospel's way out of the spiritual quandary of being commanded to do good but not having sufficient spiritual power to perform that good, Paul was exultantly and triumphantly able to say:

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:2-4)

 

So Paul's great message is in perfect harmony with Moroni's most solemn warning that if one desires to do good, the only way to succeed in that undertaking is to work by the power and gifts of God. It is most certainly not enough to go through the motions of outward performances when doing good, for one must be in possession of the power and gifts of the Spirit of God -- purchased for man by the infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice of the blessed Son of God -- if man is ever going to be able to genuinely succeed in doing that which is good. Moroni ably sums up this great Gospel principle with the following awe-inspiring words:

24 And behold, there were divers ways that He did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; and all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen, and there could no good thing come unto them. (Moroni 7)

Edited April 23, 2014 by teddyaware

[JDave]

I'd really like to hear how you believe Galatians fits in the LDS doctrine of the Gospel. How is it not a 'different gospel' that Paul warns about in chapter 1?

Galations 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

 

Well if the rest of Galations is indeed a "different gospel", at least Paul warned us up front.

[pogi]

Galations 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

 

Well if the rest of Galations is indeed a "different gospel", at least Paul warned us up front.

 

I know that you are just  playing around, but in seriousness, let's not forget that this book is part of our cannon too.  It would be folly to think that Akboy and other evangelicals have the correct understanding of Galatians.  I personally find it to be quite complimentary to the gospel of Christ, just misunderstood by many.

[JDave]

I know that you are just  playing around, but in seriousness, let's not forget that this book is part of our cannon too.  It would be folly to think that Akboy and other evangelicals have the correct understanding of Galatians.  I personally find it to be quite complimentary to the gospel of Christ, just misunderstood by many.

Very true.  In the vein of sobriety, I think that it does behoove us to consider Paul's warning.  Should we not be trying to understand Paul's words within the framework of "that which [the other books of the Bible] have preached"?

[Akboy]

In short, Paul is saying that the Galatians first received the Spirit by hearing with loyalty, obedience, love and devotion. In short, they received the Spirit because they acted on it as well.

Why didn't you mention chapter 2 in your analysis? Paul gives plenty of insight about what kind of faith he's talking about in 2:15-21.

 

¹⁵ We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; ¹⁶ yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

¹⁷ But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! ¹⁸ For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. ¹⁹ For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. ²⁰ 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. ²¹ I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

 

Saving, justifying faith is focused on Christ, not on our own actions. Paul says three times in 2:16, 'faith, not works.' Why do you emphasize us acting? Faith in Christ means it's not us living, but Christ living in us. Shouldn't we carry that model of faith into 3:2-3? Paul makes it clear he's not just talking about a saving, justifying faith we start with. No, that model of faith should be continued our whole lives.

 

In short, Paul never preached against doing good. He actually saw it as necessary for salvation. He also preached that being able to do good was a gift from God.

No one is saying Paul preached against doing good. Why would you even suggest that?

 

Keller responds to the claim that Paul was arguing against circumcision and dietary laws, so I'll refer to what he says. When the Judaizers called the Gentile converts to the works of the law, they were calling them to adopt Jewish cultural identity, but they were also pulling them into a form of self-salvation. Human achievement was becoming the basis for their standing with God.

 

This is seen in how Paul speaks of "works of the law" in Rom. 3:20, 27, 28. On one hand, the term does bear ethnic significance for Jews. It was by works that Israel sought to establish itself in its relationship with God (Rom. 9:30-10:3). But on the other hand, Paul associates the works of the law with "boasting" (Rom. 3:27-28, Eph. 2:8-9).

 

This is key, because throughout the Bible "boasting" is used about what we rely on and have pride in (Jer. 9:23-24, 1 Cor. 1:31). Paul says the boasting in, or trusting in, yourself is what underlies the works of the law. So while works of the law can mean relying on (or boasting in) ceremonial laws, it cannot mean only that. Trusting in ceremonial laws is a form of self-salvation, or legalism. And it is this that Paul means by the phrase "works of the law."

 

So, ultimately, we must still read the book of Galatians as Paul's defense of the gospel of free grace against winning God's favor by human accomplishment or status.

[halconero]

We're probably a lot closer on this than you think. I wrote two exams today, so between studying and writing I'm bushed. I'll respond in full tomorrow, but until then I want to leave this to read so that we can have a good conversation about Paul, Galatians, works, grace, and the law: http://www.truthortradition.com/articles/the-patron-client-relationship-in-the-ancient-world

 

I'd argue that the patron-client relationship is Paul's overall theme throughout all of his epistles. Understanding this social concept is absolutely vital to comprehending the beautiful formulation of Paul's theology on our relationship to God, salvation, and Jesus. It allows for the necessity of works, while denying their efficacy. It makes grace free, but also binds the receiver to action. Without being any more cryptic, I'll peace out to bed for tonight, and formulate something more thorough tomorrow.

[Akboy]

How do you guys read 5:1? For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

 

What did Christ set us free from? Even if it's just freedom from ceremonial and dietary laws, it still doesn't look good for LDS doctrine since you have your own ceremonial and dietary laws (which don't even make sense. Green tea reduces risk of cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinsons, etc., yet your law of "health" is supposed to keep bodies and minds strong). Why would Christ set us free from one set of ceremonial and dietary laws to just put under the yoke of another set?

 

What kind of freedom do we have now? If the Bible made our relationship with Christ sound like a business arrangement, then I could embrace the "patron-client relationship" idea. But look at how Christ talks about the relationship, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments." We are free to truly, purely love Christ. If we are required to live righteous, worthy lives and endure to the end to get eternal life, then what is our motive? Love may be part of it, but all that focus on what we get out of it makes the motive at least a little self serving. It would be like someone promising you $100 million if you marry and love his daughter for 10 years. Is that really love? Or what if Evangelicals somehow proved their 'saved by grace, not works' theology is Biblical and you don't need to endure to the end? Would you still love and obey Christ if eternal life wasn't on the line? If so, what would be your motive for obeying?

 

Verse 5:5 certainly supports the 'saved by grace' assurance, ⁵ For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. The Biblical word elpida, translated "hope," does not have the much weaker meaning that it has in English. In the Bible, "hope" does not mean  "hope so," as in: "I hope it will be sunny tomorrow?" It means a powerful assurance and confidence of something (Heb. 11:1). The word that means "total assurance" in Greek mean "not so sure" in English. The true sense of the word is indicated in 5:5 because Paul says that we simply "wait" this righteousness. We don't work or strive for it. We know it is coming, on it's way.

[teddyaware]

How do you guys read 5:1? For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

 

What did Christ set us free from? Even if it's just freedom from ceremonial and dietary laws, it still doesn't look good for LDS doctrine since you have your own ceremonial and dietary laws (which don't even make sense. Green tea reduces risk of cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinsons, etc., yet your law of "health" is supposed to keep bodies and minds strong). Why would Christ set us free from one set of ceremonial and dietary laws to just put under the yoke of another set?

 

What kind of freedom do we have now? If the Bible made our relationship with Christ sound like a business arrangement, then I could embrace the "patron-client relationship" idea. But look at how Christ talks about the relationship, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments." We are free to truly, purely love Christ. If we are required to live righteous, worthy lives and endure to the end to get eternal life, then what is our motive? Love may be part of it, but all that focus on what we get out of it makes the motive at least a little self serving. It would be like someone promising you $100 million if you marry and love his daughter for 10 years. Is that really love? Or what if Evangelicals somehow proved their 'saved by grace, not works' theology is Biblical and you don't need to endure to the end? Would you still love and obey Christ if eternal life wasn't on the line? If so, what would be your motive for obeying?

 

Verse 5:5 certainly supports the 'saved by grace' assurance, ⁵ For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. The Biblical word elpida, translated "hope," does not have the much weaker meaning that it has in English. In the Bible, "hope" does not mean  "hope so," as in: "I hope it will be sunny tomorrow?" It means a powerful assurance and confidence of something (Heb. 11:1). The word that means "total assurance" in Greek mean "not so sure" in English. The true sense of the word is indicated in 5:5 because Paul says that we simply "wait" this righteousness. We don't work or strive for it. We know it is coming, on it's way.

Christ set us free from the natural man's inability to live the law of God. Trying to live a life of godliness without divine forgiveness and the power and gifts of God -- all given to man through the Spirit by virtue of the atoning sacrifice of Christ -- is an impossibility. Through Christ, men have been blessed and empowered to live the law of God in a natural and joyful way, without the burden of fear that one will never be able to measure up to an impossibly high standard of righteousness. The commandment is to grow in grace and knowledge through God's Spirit, not to outwardly appear to obey God's law without the empowerment of that Spirit. The Book of Mormon Prophet Ammon expresses the concept beautifully:

11 But Ammon said unto him: I do not boast in my own strength, nor in my own wisdom; but behold, my joy is full, yea, my heart is brim with joy, and I will rejoice in my God.

12 Yea, I know that I am nothing; as to my strength I am weak; therefore I will not boast of myself, but I will boast of my God, for in his strength I can do all things; yea, behold, many mighty miracles we have wrought in this land, for which we will praise his name forever.

13 Behold, how many thousands of our brethren has he loosed from the pains of hell; and they are brought to sing redeeming love, and this because of the power of his word which is in us, therefore have we not great reason to rejoice?

14 Yea, we have reason to praise him forever, for he is the Most High God, and has loosed our brethren from the chains of hell.

15 Yea, they were encircled about with everlasting darkness and destruction; but behold, he has brought

them into his everlasting blight, yea, into everlasting salvation; and they are encircled about with the matchless bounty of his love; yea, and we have been instruments in his hands of doing this great and marvelous work.

16 Therefore, let us glory, yea, we will glory in the Lord; yea, we will rejoice, for our joy is full; yea, we will praise our God forever. Behold, who can glory too much in the Lord? Yea, who can say too much of his great power, and of his mercy, and of his long-suffering towards the children of men? Behold, I say unto you, I cannot say the smallest part which I feel. (Alma 26)

 

[halconero]

How do you guys read 5:1? For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

 

Considering that 5:2 says "Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all." I'd read it as Paul saying "Don't get circumcised.

 

 

What kind of freedom do we have now? If the Bible made our relationship with Christ sound like a business arrangement, then I could embrace the "patron-client relationship" idea. 

 

You misunderstand what I mean when I say "patron-client." Toss out any modern notions of those words that you may think. The patron-client relationship went far beyond business transactions, or market ability. It is a deep, abiding, trusting, multi-generational relationship. It was part of the Mediterranean world (including Judea), even being formalized in several city-state constitutions. It extended to activities such as marriage, military protection, medical aid, education, philosophy, and even gospel instruction. What the patron-client relationship came down to was the idea of reciprocity among the haves, and the have-nots, in both the material and spiritual. The patrons were able to provide something that the client lacked, and since the client had nothing with which to compensate the patron, they gave them the only thing they possessed which was of great value: loyalty, devotion, love, trust, obedience, and adherence. A patron-client relationship could even be entered into between humanity and deities. Such was the case with Athens, named after their patron goddess. They remained true to her, and she provided them protection, wisdom and guidance (purportedly).

 

To illustrate how this relationship even extends into Gospel settings, let's look at one of the issues raised by Paul in 1 Corinthians. In the ancient world, if someone gave you sacred instructions, baptized you, or initiated you into a particular cult (not cult in the modern sense. In academia that word just means a religious group limited by theology and geography), they essentially became your patron. They gave you divine help, which you lacked, and in return you became their spiritual client. Paul reproves the Corinthian Christian-cult because they had begun taking on various missionaries as their spiritual patrons for having baptized them:

 

"What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”;another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

 

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?" 

 

Paul ends his chapter saying that God had chosen them from among the weak, and that if they were going to "boast" of anyone, they should boast of God. This word "boast" is actually closer to "praise, glory" in the ancient Greek. What Paul is actually saying is "No, do not take any apostle or missionary as your patron. God is your spiritual patron. He chose you, and so you should praise and glorify him." In the ancient world, when the patron went out into public, his clients would actually follow him or her, shouting their praises, glorifying the person. Paul takes this relationship, and applies it to the followers of Christ. 

 

The other modern notion I'd encourage you to toss out the window, is your conception of faith. I'm not saying to rid yourself of faith or love of Jesus, just your modern conception of the word faith. As I stated in an earlier post, our modern translations of the Bible render the Greek version of this word horribly. "Pistis" should be rendered as "faithfulness," "loyalty," "love," "devotion," "obedience based on trust." In fact, when the English translators such as Tynsdale or the KJV writers translated Pistis as faith or belief, it still carried those connotations in English. Faith in the 16th and 17th centuries was understood as synonymous with "fidelity" or "faithfulness." Belief was not too far removed in meaning from its cousin "Belove," both stemming from the word "Belieben" which carried connotations of love, loyalty and devotion.

 

Verse 5:5 certainly supports the 'saved by grace' assurance, ⁵ For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.

 

Lets look at 5:5 (and also 6 for good measure) - 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

 

Remember what I said about "Pistis" above? It applies here. How does it change the verse if we get rid of our modernistic understanding of faith and read it as the ancient Galatians would have? 

 

5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faithfulness, loyalty, and loving-obedience the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faithfulness expressing itself through love.

 

It changes it significantly doesn't it? Paul says that the Spirit enables the believer to live faithfully, waiting eagerly for righteousness. For even faithfulness doesn't imply the righteousness that Paul teaches. Also, Paul says that the only thing that really has value is "faithfulness expressing itself through love." If you read the rest of the chapter and Galatians, Paul actually teaches how to be faithful. He gives various commandments about avoiding idolatry, and also doing good. He says that sowing good yields eternal life, but doing evil reaps destruction.

 

But look at how Christ talks about the relationship, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments." We are free to truly, purely love Christ. If we are required to live righteous, worthy lives and endure to the end to get eternal life, then what is our motive? Love may be part of it, but all that focus on what we get out of it makes the motive at least a little self serving. It would be like someone promising you $100 million if you marry and love his daughter for 10 years. Is that really love? Or what if Evangelicals somehow proved their 'saved by grace, not works' theology is Biblical and you don't need to endure to the end? Would you still love and obey Christ if eternal life wasn't on the line? If so, what would be your motive for obeying?

 

You misunderstand us. We agree with Evangelicals. We are saved by grace, or divine favour of God and Christ. 

 

As you quoted Jesus, part of loving him involves keeping the commandments. But we cannot do that without his grace. Works without grace is dead. We are spiritual have-nots, and it is by Christ acting as our spiritual patron we are saved. However, part of the patron-client relationship is to be loyal, true, and devoted to the patron's teachings and commandments. If we do not, we cannot say that we love the patron, who is Christ. We break the patron-client relationship. 

 

So do Paul and Christ give certain commandments if the law of Moses is irrelevant? See, Paul's big issue with Mosaic law wasn't that it was bad. He says that it was a school master, a teacher, and a guide to Jesus. His issue is that there is no spiritual patron which saves the have-nots. In the Israelite view at the time of Jesus and Paul, God had given the law, and the Jews were to obey it, divine aid or not. They were attempting to keep the commandments perfectly (something not possible) and any success on their part was for their own boasting. Going back to the multiple teachings on boasting, Paul says that if salvation comes by the law of Moses, then people can boast of themselves, as they have no spiritual patron. But with Christ (as Paul teaches in Corinthians), they have God as a patron, who showers the believer with grace. The believer has no power to trust God, keep his commandments, and love him completely without Jesus. You asked earlier how we can love Christ if we still have to put in effort? I'd answer that by putting in effort we show our love for Christ. Christ himself says that keeping the commandments is loving him. 

 

Perhaps in your view God graciously empowers the individual to the faith which leads to salvation and also to good works, while in my (and if you read good Greek, Paul's) perspective God graciously empowers individuals to the faith and good works, which lead to salvation. With God, nothing is impossible. No charitable act, or good deed is unreachable. When something good is accomplished, we do not boast of ourselves, we boast of God who empowers us through his sacrifice. Christ's death not only saved us from sin, but gives divine strength and power to accomplish much good.

 

In the Bible, "hope" does not mean  "hope so," as in: "I hope it will be sunny tomorrow?" It means a powerful assurance and confidence of something (Heb. 11:1). The word that means "total assurance" in Greek mean "not so sure" in English. The true sense of the word is indicated in 5:5 because Paul says that we simply "wait" this righteousness. We don't work or strive for it. We know it is coming, on it's way. 

 

 

Actually, I just wanted to add this on as a funny anecdote. Despite my efforts to portray the patron-client relationship as extending beyond business, this is one of the few instances where Paul actually portrays it as such.

 

Υποστασις (hy-po'sta-sis), which is translated as "assurance" in Hebrews 11:1 is actually most commonly used on ancient papyrus business documents. If you read the verse thusly "Now (pi'stis) is the (hy-po'sta-sis) of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" then it reads as "Now faithfulness is the title deed of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." In short, devotion and faithfulness are like business title deeds which guarantees salvation. Just a funny anecdote.

[bluebell]

That was an awesome analysis Halconero.  I love learning about the original Greek words used in the scriptures and their original meanings.  It makes the scriptures even better.

[halconero]

That was an awesome analysis Halconero.  I love learning about the original Greek words used in the scriptures and their original meanings.  It makes the scriptures even better.

 

Thank you. 

 

Cultural, historical, and linguistic context open up scripture as if I were reading it for the first time. Having learned ancient Greek, and the social structure of Greco-Roman and Mediterranean Hebrew society has strengthened my faith in surprising ways. (on the other hand it's also given me a much more nuanced view on Paul and the writings of the New Testament).

[Anijen]

I didn't read the book but I did know that the Celtic people of Galatia became “the first non-Jewish people to accept Christianity and to whom Paul wrote a famous epistle.

[SamIam]

How do you guys read 5:1? For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

 

What did Christ set us free from? Even if it's just freedom from ceremonial and dietary laws, it still doesn't look good for LDS doctrine since you have your own ceremonial and dietary laws (which don't even make sense. Green tea reduces risk of cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinsons, etc., yet your law of "health" is supposed to keep bodies and minds strong). Why would Christ set us free from one set of ceremonial and dietary laws to just put under the yoke of another set?

 

 

You are asking the correct question here.  What did Christ set us free from? IS there something far more impacting than a few dietary laws that we might be subject too?  Was there a state after this life that was going to be far more permanent, far more impossible to overcome except that Christ set us free as only he alone could?  I think when you answer that question correctly you'll have answered most of your questions that have thus far been stated.

[Calm]

"What did Christ set us free from? Even if it's just freedom from ceremonial and dietary laws, it still doesn't look good for LDS doctrine since you have your own ceremonial and dietary laws (which don't even make sense. Green tea reduces risk of cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinsons, etc., yet your law of "health" is supposed to keep bodies and minds strong). Why would Christ set us free from one set of ceremonial and dietary laws to just put under the yoke of another set?"

When we accept Christ, do we not accept his yoke? Can it therefore be said we are under the Law of Christ or do you believe we have no law at all now given to us by God?

Matt 11:28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

If the old yoke was a set of laws that were heavy because of the impossibility of success, could not the new yoke be a set of laws that are light because God is there sharing the burden?

Edited April 27, 2014 by calmoriah

[SamIam]

How do you guys read 5:1? For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

 

What did Christ set us free from? Even if it's just freedom from ceremonial and dietary laws, it still doesn't look good for LDS doctrine since you have your own ceremonial and dietary laws (which don't even make sense. Green tea reduces risk of cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinsons, etc., yet your law of "health" is supposed to keep bodies and minds strong). Why would Christ set us free from one set of ceremonial and dietary laws to just put under the yoke of another set?

 

What kind of freedom do we have now?

 

Again you have the correct question.  However until you understand the correct answer as to what LDS theology teaches you will only find yourself concluding with conditions that simply do not apply to the questions you ask.

 

We teach, as a generally common tenant with most Christian religions, that the fall left man in a state of separation from God. We call this spiritual death and there was nothing man could do to alleviate this state of existence.  We were forever bound to be left outside of God the Fathers presence with no remedy we could pursue of our own efforts.  Thus we had no freedom whatsoever to overcome this condition.  We were bound to it eternally and from a theological perspective were to be prisoners to the devil. No works we could do would help us escape from this condition.  However, while we could do nothing, Jesus Christ had the ability to do something about us being bound to eternal death.  Please consider the following: 

 

 

 

2 Nephi 2:26-27

 

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

 

27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

 

Since the claim is that LDS theology doesn't bear up well under the restraints of various and lessor issues, which do not apply directly to the manner in which we are free, we need to be on the same page as to what we are free of.  That being that we had no agency to choose good or evil in any fashion that could alter our final destination.  Prior to the atonement, we could have been the best people in the world.  We could have chosen to love and sustain God and do any manner of goodness and there was no means of escaping the final state of our death being sealed away from the presence of God eternally, all of this as a result of the fall of Adam.

 

However, we became free to exercise the right to choose and have it make a difference ONLY because of Jesus Christ's sacrifice.  Because of what He did in our behalf we could actually grow from learning the lessons of life that teach us concerning good and evil. We could repent and we could select a direction that was different than what we were bound without the atonement.   It gave meaning to the experience of this existence and now we could choose to follow Jesus Christ and strive to become like him and it would make a difference or we could follow Satan in all sorts of immorality and wicked living and we could remain in a state under his captive hold or in a state having no freedom at worst, to varying degrees of freedom based on our commitment, to sharing with Christ in all things as the blessing of eternal life. 

 

Christ cleared the burden of bound to hell and put every person in existence past, present and future, within the grasp of Christ's salvation.  However, while we are all potentially free from the fall, this does not remove the burden of having to make choices that illustrate that we have genuinely chosen Christ.  Words are inadequate - actions speak volumes louder in validating the state of our heart and illustrate our true love of our Savior Jesus Christ. While our works technically pay none of the price it took to make us free in the first place they do enable us to escape the judgment of hypocrisy, wherein we would claim to be followers of Christ but live in opposition to the standard that He represents. Thus in Him only are we truly free, and that only if we obey his commandments.  

Edited April 28, 2014 by SamIam

[boblloyd91]

To echo and add to what Samlam said, the way I understand it is we are saved by grace. At the same time from my reading of the Bible we still are warned to avoid having two masters, not letting sin reign in our minds and bodies, and not rejecting God's grace lest we have condemnation come upon us (in Hebrews I believe). I also have been reading a fair amount of Patristics lately (some of the earliest Church Fathers such as Mathetes, Polycarp, etc.) and it amazes me how often they encourage their readers to keep the commandments and live good lives. I do not believe that we earn our way to Heaven, nor do I believe God is cruel and legalistic. However I do believe the scriptures are clear of the need for faithfulness, and weakening the power of Satan, the world, and the natural man in our life. This isn't just an LDS thing, it's found in Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Patristic literature. Going back to the original post, the work of Tim Keller was referenced. I highly respect Keller and enjoy his work. However he is a Calvinist, and would hold to the doctrine of irresistible grace. I suspect this is where much of controversy in this post is coming from. To argue this doctrine would be cause for a whole different thread.