8th May, 2010

BRUCE C. WEARNE

Read Galatians 5: 2-15

The passage about "bearing one another's burdens" comes in the next chapter. Very often, it is quoted as a basic principle of Christian solidarity. And no doubt it is that. But it should not be read out of its context in this letter. The precept is actually the principle that Paul derives from his entire letter - he unloads his dismay, his "burden", on the churches of Galatia, the Christian believers who were found in that region.

We have to read the much revered passages found in Paul's letters in context. Think of the famous "love" passage of I Corinthians 13, or the humility of Jesus in Philippians 2 or the whole armour of God of Ephesians 6. We also have to try to understand his argument from listening, as it were, to only one end of the telephone conversation he is having with those to whom he is writing.

But we also need to read other New Testament books with care to help us understand the issues he is raising. The book of Acts is a crucial resource for understanding this letter as we have found in Paul's comments about Peter. But at this point in the Galatian church letter, a serious problem arises because the words on their own suggest that circumcision is completely "out". Wouldn't that mean the end of circumcision as a cultural practise for Jewish Christians as well, now that uncircumcised (akrobustia, verse 6) Gentiles are not required to submit to the rite?

Clearly that isn't what Paul was meaning so we have a difficult task in explaining what he is meaning, and why, for instance, he was willing to be party to the circumcision of Timothy. Luke tells us that after Paul and Barnabas separated, Paul and Silas went to Lystra and that was where Paul met Timothy: "A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek" (Acts 16: 1). 

The word "but" is perhaps a to help us understand Paul's ambiguous, if not contradictory, or even hypocritical, stance. "But his father was a Greek." The relationship between Jews and Gentiles came to a peculiar focus in Timothy's family. Luke does not say that Timothy's father did not believe. He says that Timothy's father was Greek. There is a big difference. Timothy's Jewish mother was a believer. Luke suggests that Timothy, if not his father as well, had a good reputation among the brethren of the region. In his letter to Timothy, Paul tells him that his grandmother Lois was God's gift to him. She was the first to have faith in Jesus in that family. She was Jewish and so was her daughter. But the daughter had married a Greek. Had she "floated" around in neutral spiritual gear until she accepted the Christ?

Why do I ask this? It seems possible that the prayers of Lois were not only answered in Timothy but also in Timothy's mother and father. That would suggest that Paul's circumcising of Timothy is told us by Luke because he wants us to see it in the context of the conversion of that Christian family. It would have been quite unfair to the young man, a son of a Jewish mother, if, having embraced Christ, and deciding to go with Paul, he could not then enter into contact with other sons of Jewish mothers and therefore would have exposed himself unnecessarily to attack from the "circumcision party".

As we think through Paul's very strong language to the Galatians, let's reflect upon what Timothy's point of view could have been. It would seem to not only be a matter of "What can I do from my side of my relationships with fellow Jews?" but also "Will fellow Jews be able to relate to me in a synagogue context if I, a Jew, remain uncircumcised like a Gentile?"  This would lead us to conclude that the circumcision of Timothy was indeed a Christian act, performed by Paul, to assist Timothy develop Christian relationships with his fellow Jews. It was not a decision in which concern for Timothy's relationships with Gentiles was uppermost. And so it seems likely that Timothy's Greek father would have understood and approved of this.

There are always anomalies which we cannot fully explain. We should not let them confuse us or distract us from belief in Jesus. But then we shouldn't pretend they are not there, or that we have resolved some issues more definitively than we have been able to explain. We can say that Jesus' disciples are always called to come to terms with complex and confusing social situations. From within our lives the power of the Holy Spirit shines forth as we learn patience, as we realise that God's Love is not hindered by the complex problems which beset us.

So when Paul says "that if you let yourselves be circumcised, then Christ Himself will profit you nothing whatever",

he is referring to a corporate act by which the Galatian gentile believers would participate in a "new rite", which was going to change the basis upon which people could be included into the community of faith. This concerted change in policy is described as nothing less than a complete turn away from the Gospel itself. To start out on the path by which one is justified by adherence to the law is as fallen away as those who have progressed down this same path generation by generation. To take this route is to cut oneself off from Christ. It is the denial of grace.

Can the issue be put more bluntly than that? I doubt it. Appealing back to the promise made to Abraham once more, Paul transcends the entire debate: "Because in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith coming to expression through love".

As noted previously (4: 12-20), when Paul makes his "in-your-face" or "black and white" pronouncement, he immediately rekindles solidarity with those to whom he is writing. His pastoral concern comes to the fore and a change in tone indicates his recognition that these issues are not easily resolved, even if some attempts at resolution are purely and simply a denial of the Gospel itself.

Somehow or other, this adoption of circumcision as a pre-requisite of membership in the Christian community, arose when these Galatians were tempted to think that they had not been obeying the truth as well as they might have been; someone, who had apparently suggested to them that Paul's preaching and conduct proclaimed circumcision, had profoundly unsettled these churches with a solution by which "the offence of the cross [was] removed" (verse 11). But says Paul, even though this misinterpretation about my message had done the rounds, it hadn't prevented him being the object of fierce persecution. Now why was that? But if the misinterpretation was right, he said, then I have departed from the Gospel. But it would be better, he says with full rhetorical candour, that those who are unsettling you, who want you to adopt circumcision, simply cut themselves off completely.

That's not what our freedom in Christ is about, says Paul. It's not a matter of trying to prove how good we are at adhering to the law. The law actually points to the Promise, to the way in which our self-indulgence is completely overthrown. So it is in becoming slaves of one another - rather than making some of you slaves on the basis of the pre-eminence of others - that the law of love will be fulfilled. Otherwise, and here he adds a cautionary note, you will be enslaved to the flesh, trying to outdo each other in proving your righteousness which has forgotten that

"The only thing that counts is faith coming to expression in love." (verse 6).

FOR MORE OPEN BOOK, click here...

Got a verse or a short passage you'd like us to look at? Just send an email to editor@sightmagazine.com.au.