Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox Chapter 6

What about Galatians? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Galatians should be where many of the ideas of keeping the law for salvation come to die. Unfortunately, 119 Ministries is convinced otherwise. So what do they have to say? To start, let’s look at how they view the idea that the message of keeping the law was a gospel of men.

However, this is a flawed interpretation. Remember, Paul said that the Galatians were abandoning the heart of the Gospel message (Galatians 1:6-9). He warned against seeking the approval of man, and that the Gospel he preaches is not from man but from God (Galatians 1:10-12). Thus, the “different gospel” being preached to the Galatians by these false teachers was not from God but from men. This is a crucial point! Obviously, the Law of God didn’t come from men; it came from God. And if the false doctrine being pushed on the Galatians was a manmade doctrine, then the false doctrine in Galatians was not the doctrine that believers ought to obey God’s Law!

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 78). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Yes, the Law did come from God, and Paul acknowledges that, but throughout the book he treats the Law as a stepping stone. Going back to the Law when you have faith in Christ is going backwards. That makes that version a gospel of men. If one wanted to observe the Law not for salvation reasons but for traditional reasons, I doubt Paul would have a complaint. His choice not to is for the freedom he has in Christ.

What about Paul challenging Peter in Galatians 2?

Nothing in this passage suggests Peter was breaking God’s dietary laws—that would be reading something into the text that isn’t there. Furthermore, it doesn’t make sense for Paul to rebuke Peter if all he was doing was attempting to get the Gentiles to take on obedience to God’s Law since, again, Paul himself taught observance of God’s Law to his Gentile readers. When Paul accuses Peter of forcing the Gentiles to live like Jews, he wasn’t accusing Peter of forcing them to keep God’s Law; he was rebuking Peter for appearing to side with the Circumcision Party in his refusal of table fellowship with the Gentiles. Peter’s actions gave the impression that he agreed with the Circumcision Party that the Gentiles could not be included as part of God’s people unless they ritually converted.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (pp. 80-81). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

It is not known what was being ate, but Peter living like a Gentile could very well have been eating food that would be considered unclean to the Jewish community. When he backs away from that, then he is creating a wedge between Jews and Gentiles. Gentiles have never been obligated to live like Jews (i.e. Following the Law.) and Peter’s actions would be convincing them that they needed to.

It can also be asked that what difference does 119 Ministries see between ritual conversion and following the Law?

They later on look at Paul talking about the reason for adding the Law and quote James Dunn. (Credit where credit is due. At least he’s a legitimate scholar they would normally disagree with.)

Now In the case of 3.19a the issue centres on the meaning of χάριν [charin]. Here we need to recall that the word is the accusative form of χάρις [charis], ‘grace, favour’, and that its usual meaning as attested elsewhere in usage of the time is ‘for the sake of, on behalf of, on account of.’ This suggests a much more immediately gracious objective for the law than simply ‘to make conscious of transgressions,’ and certainly than ‘to provoke transgressions.’ It suggests, in fact, the purpose of the law as it was generally recognized within the (OT) scriptures and the Judaism of Paul’s time: that is, as a means of dealing with transgressions. In other words, what was probably in mind here was the whole sacrificial cult at whose centre was the provision of means for covering sin and removing guilt, means of atonement. [Emphasis added]2

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 87). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

What this has to do with the price of tea in China is unknown. If they agree with Dunn, then we have to ask why do they not offer up sacrifices? 119 Ministries wants to accuse Christians of not following the Law, but if they believe it should be followed and is eternal and doesn’t change, then why are they not offering up sacrifices?

The next point to look at is in Galatians 5 when it is said that if you allow yourself to be circumcised, you must follow the whole law.

If circumcision itself caused someone to fall away from Messiah, why did Paul circumcise Timothy in Acts 16:3? The traditional interpretation just doesn’t fit when considering all the evidence.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 94). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Why? Because Timothy was Jewish and if they were witnessing to Jews and the Jews thought Timothy wasn’t circumcised, that would mean that they would likely tune out anything Paul said. Let’s suppose hypothetically that that isn’t correct seeing as it is never spelled out. If it is at least plausible, then we already have an answer. Of course, I think it is correct. The point is that there are ways to interpret this that do fit considering the evidence and considering 119 Ministries doesn’t counter such a simple one, how much research are they doing?

So next time, we’ll look at 1 and 2 Corinthians.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Obsessed with Blood Part 2

Is the beginning bloody? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re returning to Barnaby Baker’s book now and we’ll be taking a few chapters on. There’s not much in the second chapter aside from animal sacrifices to provide clothing for Adam and Eve. Next we get to Cain and Abel. Baker insists that the reason Abel’s sacrifice was accepted is that it had blood in it.

As Baker says:

Let’s examine this nasty little scenario a little further. God had favor on Abel’s offering because, you guessed it, blood was involved in his offering! Yet it was Cain who was actually being fully obedient to the deal, but his offering did not involve shedding blood, so God did not respect it.

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (p. 31). Kindle Edition.

Just before this, Baker says that Cain toiled hard the ground. Meanwhile, Abel walked around with some animals and watched them eat grass. Yes. That’s obviously all that there is to shepherding. It’s just walking around with animals and petting them.

He then quotes Matthew Henry speaking about the character of Cain which, yes, seems to make a lot out of little information. Baker says:

Talk about jumping to conclusions! Cain was a wicked man? Living a life where everything he did was an abomination to God? How they surmise all this from this brief Bible passage about Cain is nothing short of miraculous! Sure Cain went on to do a bad thing, but I propose this was actually God’s fault. Rejection causes people to act and do things they never would otherwise.

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (pp. 32-33). Kindle Edition.

It’s wrong to make reactions based on a little information, unless it’s about God and then it’s totally fine. Also, rejection can make people prone to do things they would never do otherwise. It does not cause them or force them. Besides this, when God speaks to Cain in the narrative (He never speaks to Abel), He tells him to do what is right and that sin is crouching at the door.

Cain’s problem was a heart issue. It was not the nature of the offering. We see this because he was the one who killed Abel. What has to be in your heart to murder your own brother?

As we move on, the next chapter talks about Abraham and the origins of circumcision. When the story starts talking about Abraham and Hagar, Baker says this is another case of great family values in the Bible. In this case, slavery and rape.

Except the Bible never endorses this act and no, it was not rape due to Hagar being a concubine. As for slavery, Baker says that is for another book so we will leave it for that. The Bible does not indicate we are to imitate every behavior we see even from the “good guys.” They are recorded for us to learn from just as much as their righteous deeds are.

Baker goes on to say:

Imagine being the first guy to be told about circumcision! I can see it now, Abraham comes home from speaking with God and calls all the guys of the household together and says, guys, I have some good news and some bad news… The good news is that I am going to have another son!

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (p. 45). Kindle Edition.

Baker gives no evidence that circumcision came about here. It’s most certain that it didn’t and instead arose in Egypt. However, as with most instances of internet atheism, never let evidence get in the way of a good tirade.

When he gets to the sacrifice of Isaac, we read

Of course when reading this story you have to put aside the fact that it contradicts what James 1:13 and 1 Corinthians 10:13; which tell us that God does not tempt or test us.

Preacher, Ex; Baker, Barnaby. Obsessed with Blood (The Crazy Things Christians Believe Book 1) (p. 46). Kindle Edition.

So let’s look at these passages.

“No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.” 1 Cor. 10:13

Let’s see. Nothing there that says that.

When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; James 1:13.

Nothing here says God cannot test. It only means that He cannot tempt.

Baker also concludes saying that this is the cause of three major religions warring against one another. Well, last I checked, Christians and Jews aren’t exactly taking up arms against each other that often. It’s more the case of Islam, and considering how poorly many take their faith today, I suspect there’s much more on their minds.

We’ll continue another time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)