As I read through this it brings together some threads I have been looking at. Reading Chaim Potok's books The CHosen and The Promise give the rich textures of Judiasm and traditions but it doesn't have the thread of grace. Then I have been looking more deeply into legalism and it doesn't have grace.
Now reading this post it brings out how much grace goes beyond the political, beyond racial - beyond and into what only Christ can give in real freedom that removes the box.
Politics still has boxes whether we acknowledge it or not. I very much look forward to the next article that will look at how social distinctions are relativized in Christ. I want to know how this will further explain legalism and performance based life that limits freedom.

That first paragraph had me thinking you were speaking in tongues. I've got it figured out now, though, thanks to your links. Just some thoughts follow.

I'm not sure I see your distinction. (Now I can be slow sometimes, so be patient : )) The Judaizers are saying Gospel + Law, while Paul is saying Gospel + Nothing. My understanding with the Cephaic Confrontation (Just made that up - like it?) is that the Law says Jews cannot eat with Gentiles, and that's why Paul was so upset about Peter's capitulation - he ought not be bound by the Law anymore and he ought not be two-faced about it.

Now the implication - that God's favor no longer rests on a nationality - that's where this whole thing becomes sticky. Are God's promises to the nation of Israel null and void because he's mysteriously transferred them to us? I'm not sure Paul's saying that. Do we want Paul to be saying that? How should we view God's promises to us if he is saying that?

Paul certainly isn't saying that God's promises to Israel are null and void - Romans makes that point explicitly. What has changed, however, is how the nation of Israel is defined. Again, Paul teases this idea out more in Romans where the Gentile-Jew crisis was approaching boiling point: God's chosen people are the children of Abraham, and are (and have always been) justified - made right with God - through faith, not by any other means (such as observing the law). Later on in Romans he goes on to describe Gentiles as being a wild olive shoot grafted into the cultivated vine: the implication being that the definition of God's people is one that, through the gospel and the Kingdom work of Jesus has expanded beyond what it was before. We need to remember that Jesus came for the lost sheep of Israel - though he had other sheep who were not of that herd. So in the work of Christ we see not an abandonment of Israel (though I think we do see clearly pronouncements of judgement against Israel's rejection of God's calling upon them) but rather a fulfilment of God's promises to Israel - both the blessings and the curses - in the faithful remnant, the messiah Jesus. And so, with God's covenant with Israel fulfilled (not abandoned), God makes a new covenant with all those who are in Christ Jesus - by exactly the same means as the first covenant, the means of faith.

Now as for the political ramifications of this... I think it is impossible to overstate the case. That Jesus is King and Lord of all, and that we are called into his kingdom in which each and every Caesar must bow the knee... this needs to radically shake up our understanding of our world and how we ought to live in it. And I think that when we read Paul on this, we need to be mindful that he is expounding the implications as he sees it for first century life in the Roman Empire. We would do well to try and grasp not the individual arguments which he makes, simply about Gentile-Jews, slaves-free, women-men, but rather to try and grasp the vision of the kingdom which is present behind his writings. We must ask ourselves why is there no longer slave or free, male or female, Jew or Greek? What has prompted Paul to say such things - how did he arrive at that conclusion? Because once we grasp that vision, once we have that clear understanding of what this present era of Jesus' kingdom should look like, then that will expose to us those areas where our lives, our conduct, our society is out of line. Then we too shall write letters that challenge our world; but we won't talk of distinctives such as Jew-Greek. Perhaps we will talk about there is no more first world-third world, and that we should dismantle those barriers of politics, trade, and finance which currently reinforce such a divide. But that is, I think, the real question: not so much "what does it mean for us for there to be no more Jew or Greek", so much as "what implication is there for us of the reason that there is no more Jew or Greek?"

Just some first-coffee-of-the-day thoughts...

Man, Ross, I need to start drinking coffee.

Coffee is my friend :-D I probably rely upon it a little too heavily, but there is just nothing like holding a steaming cup of hot, caffeinated beverage in your hands on a cold winter morning and literally feeling your brain kick into gear and start to run on all cylinders!!! Oh, I love my coffee I do!

Stephanie - part of what's been messing with my head a bit lately have been the writings of some of the folks influenced by what has been termed the New Perspective on Paul. NT Wright would be one of those, Scot McKnight another (though I don't think I've heard him refer to himself in those terms). Part of the proposal of those who have been described as the New Perspective is that most followers of Judaism would actually have had an appreciation of the grace of God, and would see His giving the Law to Israel as a working of that grace. Legalism takes on something of a different nuance in that light - I'll try to touch on my understanding of it in an upcoming post.

Scott - Next time, I'll also provide an interpretation ;). I think that the crux of the issue for Paul is that the Judaizers are preaching that, because salvation is from the Jewish people, that anyone who wants to become a Christian must also convert to Judaism. In other words, the Christian faith is only operative within a particular ethnic-religious-national context, to which one must convert in order to follow Christ. Peter, by adhering to Torah and separating himself from fellow believers who were Gentiles, was communicating to the Galatian believers, "I can't eat with you, even though we both follow Christ, because you don't also follow Torah." It binds the gospel to a particular cultural context, calling for two conversions - one to Christ, and the second to Israel. This is very different from the more traditional understanding of "works" and merit-seeking that usually provides the lens through which Galatians is interpreted.

Ross - excellent thoughts, very well said. In my ocntext, unfortunately, we're still working on unpacking the male / female piece, particularly as it relates to male-dominated models of authority. There are countless others, no doubt - first-world/third-world certainly would qualify. In many places in America, we might still need to read this in light of race relations as well. Poor/rich distinctives definitely need to be explored. I could go on...

Maybe one for you might be the caffeinated/decaffeinated distinctive ;).

Took The MEssage with me when I went out for coffee yesterday and sipping soya latte and inhaling Galations was good soul time. Thanks for the nudge to get into it.

I agree, it's what I meant when I say "the law" - that Paul is addressing the addition of the Mosaic law to faith rather than just plain, old, everyday, average-joe good works. (Although the application across the board is obvious and often more relevant to us.) Salvation is solely in Christ, and not found in the law - in fact it has always been salvation by faith and the law has never saved anyone. Just as Ross made clear in his post.

The reason I picked up on "God's favor [no longer] rests on one particular nationality" is my issue with the word "favor" and what that implies concerning God's promises. Obviously God's promises to Israel are fulfilled in Christ and will be fulfilled in Christ - they are not nullified in any way. But my interest is in what you mean by his favor no longer resting on Israel. I believe what you mean is that we are one in Christ and that we do not need to be converted to Judaism to be saved. If so, sweet. I agree.

I also agree on the implication that the gospel relativizes all social distinctions. I think it's problematic, however, to interpret such as the theme of the epistle. Paul's argument throughout the epistle is against the Judaizers adding to the gospel - he never veers from this argument. Indeed it is the reason that we are one in Christ and that social distinctions are demolished - because we all come to God through the cross of Christ.

Thoughts? Clarifications?

My question for you would be what does it mean when you say Judaizers "adding to the gospel"? Faith plus works? Or Jesus plus Moses? I completely agree that his focus is on this concept of adding to the gospel - I think I might have a different take on what's been added. I think it's more about Torah observance as national identity - God's favor is limited to Israel - than it is about Torah observance as what we would typically refer to in modern circles as "works-righteousness". Although the second is in play, it's more centrally about the issue of nationalism at its heart - in other words, the assertion that all Christians must also be Jewish, because Jesus is the Messiah of Israel. That's why I say that social distinctions are at the heart of how Paul is framing the gospel in Galatians - in Christ there are no distinctions. That's why the episode w/ Peter (Cephalic Confrontation, classic!) was absolutely crucial, and why Paul frames it as the climax of his introduction, I think.

When I say the Judaizers are adding to the gospel, I mean the Judaizers are saying "Jesus plus Moses." I think you're right that the Judaizers equate law and national identity, and that they were saying God favors Israel and Israel is the vehicle of his favor. Paul insists, however, that Christ is the fulfillment of the promise that all nations will be blessed through Abraham's seed (not seeds), and thus Christ alone is the vehicle of favor/salvation - being both a "light to the Gentiles" and the "glory of Israel." (I see the "works-righteousness" as a modern application of the epistle's teaching.)

My reading might be a little wonky. But I'm kind of stuck there at the moment. So I'm going to lurk as you go further into your exposition of the epistle, and I'll try to get a better understanding of your position. After a while, I may get a better feel for the different reading and what the implications of such a reading might be.

Actually, you're right where I am then - it may make more sense after I get the next post up, which I'm going to work on tonight.