An Atheist Explores the Bible Part 223: Calendars and Impersonators Are Bad. Plus: help each other with burdens, but bear your own burdens (Galatians 1-6)

Galatians 1-6
Calendars and Impersonators Are Bad. Plus: help each other with burdens, but bear your own burdens.

Welcome to another instalment of An Atheist Explores Sacred Texts (Bible version).

In this series I work my way chapter-by-chapter through the King James Bible, commenting on it from the point of view of the text as literature and mythology.

For more detail, see the introductory post http://bit.ly/2F8f9JT

For the online KJV I use, see here http://bit.ly/2m0zVUP

And now:

Galatians 1
“Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father”

As with previous epistles, this first chapter is basically a formula of salutations, “Paul an apostle […] unto the churches of Galatia, Grace be to you” etc.

I’m probably misremembering, but it feels like the quoted passage is the first, or most direct, occasion of Jesus’ sacrifice being stated as being a deliverance for the world’s sins. Which seems like a very fundamental concept of Christianity not to have come up before, so it must have been and I’ve forgotten it amidst all the other stuff I’ve covered.

I mentioned at the end of the gospels about what I call the “Jesus myth”, about how two aspects to Jesus’ story  are the year king myth and the specifically Jewish religious element of sin offerings, so the idea makes sense. In the concept of an omnipotent God, however, it becomes problematic. God curses humanity with sin for performing an action before they gained moral comprehension, and then in order to “cure” them of that curse has to sacrifice himself to himself. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain…

Elsewhere in this chapter we get some more amusing Paul-isms, where he tries to convince his audience of his sincerity because his knowledge of the gospels came directly from God and not from other people –“For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ”. He then owns up that “Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me” and although “after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter”, “But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother”.

So, Paul is saying “I’ve got authority to talk about the Christian faith, but I barely spoke to any of the people that actually knew Jesus, even though I could have done.”

Galatians 2

“But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter”

There’s some interesting subtext here that hints at a disagreement between Paul and Peter as to dividing up the ministry between Jews and Gentiles, and it reads as if Peter was not particularly happy about teaching the gospels to the Gentiles – “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed”, “I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”.

Peter, evidently, would like a non-Jewish Christians to observe Jewish traditions if they are going to call themselves Christians. Paul, however, would appear to disagree. Although Jesus is quoted as saying that He still upholds the old Mosaic Law, here we see a divergence, with Paul arguing that “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ” – faith, not obedience to the laws, are what makes a person a Christian. “For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God”. I wonder why Paul, as a Jew, is so insistent on rejecting the old ways of his own people? Possibly he felt rejected by them and more at home with the Greeks. “Saul” was the traditionalist Jew, “Paul” is a new person who has turned his back on his old life in many ways.

Galatians 3

“O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?”

I missed out in Chapter 1 how Paul warned against false teachers (i.e. not him), and here he does so again. The rest of this chapter expounds on what I gleaned from the last, of Paul using a bit of logical legerdemain to ascertain that Christians do not need to follow the old laws (by which I assume he means the Mosaic laws).

The logic is this – the laws were written for when humanity was bound by sin, to keep them in line. With the sacrifice of Christ, sin is removed (I assume here Paul means for the believer and not for humanity in general until they believe), therefore the need for the laws is removed since people are without sin and no longer need the laws to keep them in line – “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator”.

Paul has to do a bit of logical gymnastics to justify how an omnipotent God doesn’t allow for this in His original plan – “Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law” which doesn’t entirely convince. Paul ends with a message of equality – “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus”, which once again goes against the sudden and inexplicable injunction against women speaking that crops up in Corinthians, making me suspect once more that this isn’t Paul but an insertion from another writer.

Galatians 4

“Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world”

There are two halves to this chapter. In the first, Paul likens the Christians to a young child that has come of age. A minor, even if an heir to a fortune, has no more freedom or rights than a bondsman when he is young, but when he comes of age he is able to inherit his fortune. This, claims Paul, is what the Christians are – they have spiritually come of age and can inherit their birthright from God – “Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ”. What that means, exactly, is left unclear. But you’re just better, alright?

After a bit of admonishment of the Galatians for backsliding to the worship of pagan gods, described as “elements” and “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years” (as if that’s a bad thing), Paul goes onto a second metaphor.

He compares the two sons of Abraham, one by Hagar and one by Sarah, Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael, son of a servant, is doomed to bondage. Isaac, son of a free woman, is the inheritor of Abraham’s birthright. This, somehow, is a metaphor for the Christians as being like Isaac and not like Ishmael (non-Christians). It’s probably best not to look too closely at the next generation, where Isaac, the second son, cheats Esau, the rightful heir, out of his birthright. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain…

Galatians 5

“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage”

Paul continues with his theme – that being a Christian is a matter of faith and not obedience to the old law. In fact he goes further, being a Christian means freedom from the old laws, and not only that but obeying the old laws prevents one from being a “proper” Christian – “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law”. There’s more about circumcision, or not, and this is used, hopefully, as a ,metaphor for obedience to the old laws. Circumcision (actual or spiritual) is a hindrance to being a Christian. One only wishes Paul hadn’t juxtaposed talk of circumcision with the words “I would they were even cut off which trouble you”.

So, if according to Paul Christianity means freedom from the old laws, he then warns that this does not mean freedom to do anything you want. Paul warns against “use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another”. Things to avoid: “Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like”. So, remember. No emulations. Down with impersonators. Things to aim for instead: “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.”

Well that all sounds well and good. I think personally that a little bit of lasciviousness, variance, sedition and revelling would harm no one, and “witchcraft” is a meaningless term. Most notable, though, is Paul’s statement that “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”. Aside from the fact that this isn’t one word, this seems a reasonable way to live.

Galatians 6

“Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.”

Paul’s last words to the Galatians are to remain humble, and to help correct those who become above themselves – “For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself”. There’s a bit of contradictory advice about sharing burdens, on the one hand we are told “Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ” (which seems all well and good, “help each other” has always been the central message of Sesame Street), on the other we are told “For every man shall bear his own burden”. The reason for this is “then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another”. I’m confused here, then. Should people help one another, or should they bear their own burdens so as to get the satisfaction of a job well done?

The rest continues in the same theme about following the old law and being circumcised as not being any guarantee of righteousness. This one is written from Rome and doesn’t mention anyone else being involved, which is possibly why it is thematically more focussed than the previous epistles.

And that’s it for Galatians – from here on until Revelations all the books are short and can probably be tackled in one block, which will be nice for a change. I may, at the moment, owe Paul an apology since I’d always had him pegged as being proscriptive and rules-bound. So far he seems the opposite, especially from this epistle. The more proscriptive comments so far stand out as textual oddities, especially that injunction against women speaking in church from Corinthians, which leads me to suspect that somebody else put them there. We shall see how it goes in future books.