Scriptural Proof - Abraham's Faith - 3:6-14

As I said earlier, Paulo is developing the session called Probation, that is, the moment in which the arguments are presented and the discussion takes on a more intense tone.

If in the previous text Paul began his arguments with an appeal to the Galatian experience, now he moves on to theological reasons, using, in this block, the biblical argument. It should be noted that this step is chosen carefully. Paul stands on the ground of his opponents, who interpreted the Scriptures by emphasizing the validity of the law for Christians. Paul will use the same Scriptures to say just the opposite.

The text can be divided into two blocks and a conclusion. The first, from v. 6 to 9, uses the example of Abraham to discuss justification by faith. The second, from v. 10 to 13, discusses the presence of the Law in the Christian life. And the conclusion, in v. 14, relates to previous discussions with the Holy Spirit.

The starting point is the life of Abraham. The focus is on their experience of faith and the aftermath of it, which will be contrasted with the Galatians' fascination with life under the law.

It may seem, at first, that the apostle uses the example of Abraham to emphasize justification by faith. Not only that. He uses the example of the father of faith to emphasize the presence and action of the Holy Spirit among his readers (v. 14). Therefore, there is an unusual junction between Abraham and the Holy Spirit in this text.

Paul begins the first block with a statement: “Abraham believed in God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.” The topic of justification by faith has been addressed earlier (cf. 2:16). But now it returns on the new connection. The faith that leads to righteousness is presented as a model lived by Abraham, and, in such a way, historically connects all who are saved by faith with the elder (v. 7). In this way, those who believe are children of Abraham. Especially the Gentiles, to whom the gospel was preached already in Abraham (v. 8). Not only that, but it highlights that the blessing experienced by the patriarch falls on those who believe (v. 9).

Obviously, Paul's use of Abraham is intended to emphasize his act of faith rather than the covenantal circumcision made with him (cf. Gen 17) and required of the Galatians by the Judaizers (5:2). In the same way, the apostle intends to deflect the focus of the Mosaic law through the historical argument of the faith that was manifested before the law, and that, consequently, cannot be annulled by it (cf. 3.16-17). The act of faith that makes Abraham righteous not only precedes his other acts, such as the enactment of circumcision but also gives meaning to them. For this very reason, the apostle declares: "Know therefore that they of faith are the children of Abraham" (v. 7). It means, in other words, that circumcision does not make anyone a child of Abraham, as Paul's opponents would argue.

How does Paul argue about Abrahamic sonship by faith? He starts from the expression of Genesis 12.3: "... in you, all the families of the earth shall be blessed", quoted in v. 8b, to confirm the announcement of justification to the Gentiles (v. 8a). In this way, he Christologically delimits the blessing of Abraham. The conclusion is that “those of faith are blessed with believing Abraham” (v. 9). Abraham, who for Judaism is the model of obedience to the Torah, becomes Paul the model of faith for Christians.

The second block, of a negative character, turns to the works of the law. Paulo works with binary thinking. If there are those who are walking in faith, following in Abraham's footsteps, what do the others follow? The law. In that case, if the former is blessed, the latter, by logic, is cursed (v. 10). It seems to be a simplistic and radical thought. Paul, however, again takes the Scriptures as proof of what he says. He quotes Deuteronomy 27:26 to remind him that he who tries to do the Law and fails to do so is cursed. This applies to both Jews and Jewish Christians. It could also include the Galatians.

Paul develops the argument from logic. If justification comes by faith, then no other way is needed. Therefore, the law justifies no one (v. 11). He broadens and deepens the argument by asserting that the Law cannot save because it does not come from faith (v. 12). Now we have not only a question of possibility, but of opposition. Faith and Law are opposites. A space is opened here to discuss themes related to the New Perspective on Paul, particularly with regard to the concept of the Law and its role in Pauline Christianity. Júlio has already addressed this topic in posts at the end of May, so I don't think it's necessary to go back to them.

in v. 13 Paul presents the way to escape the curse to which all who live under the Law are subject – Jesus Christ. In doing so there are two purposes. The first is to show the impossibility of those who profess Jesus Christ living under the Law. Jesus freed Christians from the curse of the Law and the Law itself by fulfilling the Law and dying on the cross. Therefore, the whole Law was fulfilled by him, leaving nothing for the Christians. Wanting to live under the Law means rejecting the fullness of Jesus Christ's sacrifice. The second objective is to prepare the Holy Spirit to enter the discussion (v. 14). Leave the curse and move towards the blessing.

The conclusion builds on what was said above. The blessing for the Gentiles, considered as justification by faith (v. 7-9), is now expanded to indicate that faith also leads to the receiving of the Holy Spirit (v. 14). This is the second great blessing for the Christian. The emphasis on faith as the basis for receiving the Spirit is a criticism of the Judaizers who understood the access or fullness of the Spirit as something that would be achieved through the works of the Law (cf. 3.2). Therefore, Paul is taking up the theme of the previous pericope. In it, he appealed to the experience of the Galatians. There is no doubt that they received the Spirit through the preaching of faith (3:2). Now, this same fact is highlighted from the angle of a scriptural witness. And Paul does it with even greater emphasis: The blessing for all peoples, given to Abraham, comes to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ and is consolidated and fulfilled with the presence of the Spirit in their lives.

As a reflection, I have some thoughts.

In the analysis of the previous text, I already wrote a little about the possibility of living under the Law today. Thinking about the text above, I think we can advance the reflection. The most terrible thing about life under the Law is not just the mistake of feeling safe and the often hidden experience of being disappointed in not being able to live up to the Law's standards. The biggest and main problem is that the search for the Law makes life under the Holy Spirit unfeasible. They are incompatible. All Christians live in this dilemma. Pentecostals, who give centrality to the Spirit, repress it with their many rules and norms that can be of a behavioral nature such as clothing, vocabulary; or even spiritual, such as the tyranny of evidence of spiritual gifts, speaking in tongues, of exercising or receiving healings. The traditional ones, in turn, put the Spirit in the background when they emphasize moral issues, which become moralistic, such as sexual behaviors, which are secretly violated, health issues, such as not smoking, not drinking, while at the same time they submit to the judgments of this world, seeking an aesthetic of masculine and feminine beauty that is not at all Christian; radicalize the tithe, while doing everything in their companies to evade the income tax. And much more.

Abraham's blessing, which is not only salvation by faith but also the gift of the Holy Spirit, was exchanged for the life we ​​have under the Law. Consequence? Again we have no room for faith. We do not worship life of sensitivity to the voice of the Spirit who wants to mold us in holiness and make us return to the world and to our neighbor in love. We do not experience the power of the Spirit, whether in conversions, in sensitized hearts, or in healings and portents. We cannot live as a community of the last times, eschatological, inhabited and filled by the Holy Spirit.

Law, Promise, Faith.

In the last post, I commented on the scriptural argument by which Paul affirms the relevance of the blessing of Abraham to all Christians, through the Holy Spirit, at the same time that he declares the impossibility of the Law to bring such a blessing.

In the text that we are now analyzing, he presents more details, seeking to resolve any doubts that may still exist. There is also a concern not to deny the historic role of the law. Such a theme is sensitive since the Law was central to the Judaizing opponents of Paul in the region of Galatia.

The text can be divided into three segments. In the first (3:15-18), Paul makes use of human logic (“I speak as a man,” v. 15) to develop his argument. In the second (3:19-25), he opens a parenthesis to clarify the role of the law. Finally, he makes an application of the discussion to the lives of Gentile Christians (3:26-29).

The use of logic in the first part is related to the field of laws. Probably the choice is made because it is a terminology known among the members of the Roman Empire and that becomes a basis with a good dose of security for the development of the argument. The reasoning begins in a rather calm way to be intensified in the next block.

Paul uses the terminology referring to testaments. Although the Greek term used in v. 15 is diatheke (covenant), usually translated as “covenant”, as Almeida Updated does, the word also means “testament”. In this sense, it was used several times by Josephus in his writings (cf. Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary, v. 41, Gal. 3:15, CD).

There is a discussion among commentators about the statement that “[...] a covenant/testament [...] once ratified, no one revokes it or adds anything” (v. 15). The point is that Roman legislation allowed the alteration of the contents of a will, as long as it was the will of its proponent. Given this, it seems that Paul bases his logic on the idea that, if it is not the will of the testator, no one can alter the will.

The initial logic is that the contracting parties were God, Abraham, and Jesus Christ, “the” descendant (v. 16). The Pauline interpretation of Gen 12:2-3, 7; 13:15-16ff sounds strange, since the singular term “offspring” that occurs in Genesis, from which Paul derives “seed,” clearly refers to the collectivity, that is, to the many. But Paul takes advantage of grammar to generate a spiritual sense that identifies the descendant with Jesus Christ. This is essential for him. After all, only the parties involved in the will – God, Abraham, and Jesus Christ – could revoke it, which does not happen.

The consequence of this, highlighted by the apostle, is that the Law, important as it was, could not alter the testament. Even because it came four hundred and thirty years after the promise to Abraham (v. 17).

Paul ends his argument with the conclusion: the inheritance does not come from the Law but the promise (v. 18). Of what heritage does he speak? Probably from all the legacy that Abraham's example of faith left for future generations. This is his will. And the origin of the inheritance is the promise made by God to him. The Law failed to do that, the apostle recalls. He repeats, in other words, what he has already said in 3:14, and the emphasis is on the Judaizers, according to whom the Abrahamic heritage was, above all, circumcision, a sign of the covenant and, therefore, necessary for all who believe.

Well, since he again speaks so negatively about the Law, he feels obliged to clarify it. This is the second block of text (3:19-25). It seems that it would be logical to ask: “What, then, is the raison d'être of the law?” Since it was held by Judaism as the foundation on which they built their relationship with God, as a covenant people. Paul's words were shocking to any pious Jew, as well as to Judaizing Christians. He deems it necessary to make some clarifications.

The first is that the Law was “added”, added. Again a shock. That was not how she was conceived. But for Paul, it arose out of a need. It was added because of the "transgressions" of the people. The idea is that, despite the promise and inheritance, the Israelites engaged in practices contrary to what God intended. This made an update necessary, a complement to the heritage that made it possible. But when the descendant came, to whom the promise was made, this addition would no longer make sense and should be taken away.

That is why Paul can answer the question that perhaps still exists: “Is the law contrary to the promises of God? Not at all!" (v. 21). Sure! If it emerged as a compliment, as the viability of the inheritance at another time, it is at the side, it helps the promise, never being its opponent.

He recalls, as he will do in the letter to the Romans, that the Law made sins explicit and evident. In a general way, the apostle affirms that the “Scripture”, the Old Testament, ended everything under sin so that the promise would become valid through faith in Jesus (v. 22).

But historically, before the manifestation of faith, the Law was a kind of tutor (v. 23). She served as a “schoolmaster” (paidagogos in Greek). Perhaps the best translation from the Greek term is teacher, instructor. The Law exercised the function of caring for the faithful and leading them to Christ. This is a very beautiful and positive image of the Law. But once Jesus and faith come, the teacher is no longer needed (v. 25).

in v. 26 the completion of the block begins. If the Law is a teacher, an instructor, only Jesus makes us children of God (v. 26). Obviously, this is a categorization that would not be welcomed by Jews and Judaizers, who used a series of classifications to determine who was spiritual and faithful to God.

Noteworthy is the pronoun change. If in the previous verses Paul used the first person plural – “we” (v. 23-25), therefore, including himself in what he wrote about, now he changes to the second person plural – “you”. Therefore, he excludes himself from his argument, applying what he says directly to the Galatians. Does this mean that what is said does not apply to him? Is he not the son of God? Had he not been baptized into Christ? Of course yes! But the strategy of putting oneself aside, to highlight the readers, seeks to make the application to them clearer.

He wants to make it clear that the Galatians are no longer under the care of a tutor, as they have, by faith, acquired the spiritual majority. They relate to God as children (v. 26). An unmistakable sign of this was they're being baptized into Christ (v. 27). The result is that there are no more categorizations and differences between people (v. 28), a central element of the Jewish religion, and one of the criteria by which Judaizing Christians were trying to convince the Galatians about the need for the Law. Now, in Christ, and through him alone, they become Abraham's descendants and heirs according to the promise (v. 29).

Questions and Friendship - Galatians 4:1-20

In this large block, Paul initially presents a detail, in an explanatory character (4.1-7), about what he had previously spoken (3.23-29). Then, using a question as he did in 3:1-5, he questions his readers again (4:8-11). Finally, the apostle makes use of the friendship argument to try to make himself heard (4:12-20).

In 4:1-7 we have a kind of explanatory note regarding the previous verses. Why is she needed? If he previously stated that, before faith came, everyone was subject to the law, now he complements the reasoning, using legal propositions to say that the heir, when a minor, does not enjoy his rights, being in practice equal to a slave ( 4.1). In the same way, he and the Galatians were also subject to the rudiments of the world (4:3). This situation changed with the coming of Jesus Christ, who allowed those who remained under the law to be adopted as sons by God (4:4-6). The present situation, therefore, is not one of slavery but of sonship (4.7).

Then (4:8-11) Paul becomes more direct and sharp. It focuses on the Galatians' past. Life without God was characterized by servitude to the rudiments of the world (4:8-9). It is interesting to note that Paul refrains from criticizing the listeners' polytheism. His argument does not focus on this aspect. For him, idolatry places the human being under the tyranny of “weak and poor rudiments” (4:9). Therefore, if the Jews were under the bondage of the Law before the manifestation of Jesus Christ, the Galatians were also enslaved. The problem, for Paulo, is that his readers want to submit again to slavery that, for ethnic and religious reasons, not to mention theological ones, did not concern them. Paul is so worried about the situation that he fears he has lost his job (4:11).

It is this concern that leads him to 4.12-20. For some commentators, the use of friendship ties as an argument indicates emotional intemperance on the part of the apostle. But that doesn't seem to be the case. The language is carefully chosen for the intended purpose. Paul is very emphatic. Terms and expressions such as “I beseech you” (4:12), “physical infirmity” (4:13), “you received me as an angel of God” (4:14), “you would have plucked out your eyes to give it to me” (4:15), “I have become is your enemy because he tells you the truth?” (4.16), “my children, for whom, again, I suffer birth pains” (4.19), set the emotional tone that runs through the entire text. What does Paul intend?

Initially, rescue the empathy of the Galatians. For Paul, he and his readers are equal (4:12). The strain on the relationship is evident when the apostle claims not to be offended (4:12). The rest of the pericope is developed in an attempt to rescue the relationship that seems to be almost lost. The terms listed in the preceding paragraph bear witness to this. Both Paul's effort to preach the gospel in the region and the loving welcome he experienced testify to the positive beginning of the relationship. However, the apostle appears to have become their enemy (4:16). This would be happening under the influence of people who wanted to separate Paul from the Galatians (4:17). How does Paul combat such influence? Calling upon herself the privilege of having been the mother of those Christians and being, for love of them, suffering birth pains again (4:19). The ending is not encouraging. Paul is not sure about them. On the contrary, he is “perplexed” (4:20).

I end with a reflection. In the context of the disputes between Paul and the Judaizers that have influenced the Galatians to reject their former mentor and his teaching, this text says a lot. It is a moment when Paul, in a way abandoning theological questions, appeals to what is most profound and true: relationship. In this, there are no masks, excuses, or subterfuges. It is a very intense moment, but it is only possible because of the history that Paulo built together with his readers.

I wonder how many leaders and pastors today would be able to put themselves in the apostle's shoes. I fear that most would be guided by two options. The first, faced with problems, would simply leave the field and migrate to another church where he could be understood and his ministry would be able to progress. After all, why should I continue to “punch a knife?” This is a business vision that is increasingly present in evangelical communities, far from the vision that the apostle Paul had of ministry: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you; and I fill up what is left of Christ's afflictions in my flesh for his body, which is the church” (Col 2:24).

The other possibility would be exactly the opposite of the first. The pastor would assume the role of martyr, of the one who, although right, suffers, in front of a church, according to him, wrong, corrupt, adulterous, that needs to be corrected, disciplined, and “learn who is in charge”. It is the “iron fist” ministry. Such postura.

For Freedom

Two verses in Galatians 5 mention freedom: 1 and 13. I. Before briefly discussing both, let's look at two translations widely used in Protestant churches: ARA (Almeida, Revised and Updated, SBB): For freedom, Christ set us free; therefore stand firm and do not bend again to a game of slavery. (v. 1) For you, brethren, were called to freedom. But do not use your liberty to give occasion to the flesh, but out of love serve one another. (v. 13) ACF (Corrected Bible, Faithful): Stand firm, therefore, in the freedom with which Christ has set us free, and do not put yourselves again under the yoke of servitude. (v. 1) For you, brethren, were called to freedom. Then do not use your liberty to give occasion to the flesh, but serve one another out of love. (v. 13) A. There is no semantic difference regarding v. 13, just different word choices and syntactic order. B. As for verse 1, there is a fundamental difference: ARA translates "for freedom Christ has set us free"; AFC "in the freedom with which Christ has set us free". The Greek preposition is in the dative case, and may indeed be interpreted as instrumental or final; thus, case grammar alone does not resolve the issue. The immediate co-text also does not help to decide the question, it allows for both possibilities. Verse 13, however, is illuminating - and both ARA and AFC miss the translation: "Ὑμεῖς γὰρ ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἐκλήθητε" - the Greek preposition is epi - which Paul constantly uses in the sense of "based on" or "on the basis in". Thus, instead of "you were called to freedom", the more appropriate translation would be "you were called based on freedom (messianic liberation)". If so, then in v. 1 the best option will be "for freedom" (ARA). C. As is customary in the Christian translations of the NT, instead of Messiah we have the word, Christ. This distorts the Pauline sense, as it immediately refers to our post-Nicene/Chalcedonian Christological doctrine, and distances us from Pauline messianism. D. ARA and AFC supply the absent verb from the Greek text in the second part of v. 13; "do not use", I think it would be more appropriate to translate it like this: "do not let this freedom be an occasion/platform for the flesh" (and here Paul follows the same line as Rom 7:8.11, only in Rom it is "sin " which can serve as an occasion/platform for, through the Torah, to enslave us. The link between flesh/sin/Torah is shown in Gal 5:13-14: "be slaves (and not "serve yourselves", very simple) one another in love, for the fullness of the Torah, is found in one commandment - love your neighbor as yourself." The semantic game here is the same as in Romans 6-7: Messianic liberation places us in the realm of freedom, whose nature is bondage in love: to God and neighbor. Points out, in Galatians, that God does not appear in the equation... II. Notes for thinking about me above. More notes for reflection: Kant brilliantly simplified the game of freedom in What is the Enlightenment: Autonomy versus Heteronomy. Simplistic readers reduced freedom to self-satisfaction, losing sight of the Kan sense of autonomy ("I" am the source of the Law that governs me). In Paul, the game is similar: the Messiah frees humanity from heteronomy - from sin (it would be tempting to see here the Freudian drive towards death), from the flesh (the Freudian id), from the Torah (the Freudian superego). But the new freedom in the Messiah is intersubjective autonomy: I am the source of my ethics and morality: being a slave to my neighbor in love. And here we can play with Hegel, who speaks of love as the law of freedom, slavery is freedom... Just notes to think about... Based on the liberating act of the Messiah, we were freed from heteronomy and called to live in messianic autonomy: to be a slave to your neighbor in love.

Allegory – problem or solution? – 4.21-31 – Part II

The pericope is organized. It begins with a question (v. 21) addressed to the Galatians, as Paul has done previously (3:1-5; 4:9, 15-16), identified by the second person plural pronoun (you). Then the apostle himself answers the question (v. 22-30) using the allegory of the biblical text. The conclusion (v. 31) comes in the form of affirmation in which Paul himself includes himself, indicated by the first person plural pronoun (we, implied).

Since the heart of the discussion in the letter is the validity and interpretation of the Law, Paul returns to it with a question. He does not discuss the interpretation of the Law, but its very reason for being and, therefore, its relevance to the present time of its readers. For this, he takes as his starting point the high degree of reverence that the Galatians had for the Law (“those who want to be under the law”). His question is provocative: “Do you not hear the law?”. “Listening” reveals the practice of contact with the Scriptures at that time since there were practically no private copies of the sacred texts. Contact with them took place, as a rule, at meetings where liturgical readings were held. But the idea is also that it is not enough to listen but to understand, and apply.

In answering his question (v. 22-30) Paul enters the field of adversaries. After all, the legalists had taught and convinced the Galatian Christians to submit to the Law. Now the apostle enters this terrain to question the real understanding of the Law by the Galatians. And he does so using allegory. What is her role? Leave aside the argument that aims to convince, since it brings with it the idea that you beat the other (since he has doubts about the validity of this method – v. 20). The objective now is to lure the opponent through another path. It's treating him as an equal, as someone who knows. According to Betz, Paul “leads the Galatians to find the truth for themselves” (Hermeneia, Galatians, p. 240).

For Paul, at this moment “hearing” the Law means understanding its allegorical meaning.

In his exposition, Paul freely quotes the OT. After all, in saying that Abraham had two sons (v. 22) he omits others (cf. Gen. 25:1-6). But these do not matter for his allegory. More important than the children are their mothers: Hagar and Sarah (who are not mentioned but implied). They present the duality: freedom versus slavery, which is a theme developed in the letter (2.4; 3.26-28). Women represent two covenants, two ways in which God deals with human beings.

V. 22 and 23 present the selection of OT themes. From v. 24 Paul introduces the allegorical interpretation. Birth according to “the flesh” in a natural way and birth according to “the promise” supernaturally have meaning for Paul. There's the allegory. You have to understand that it comes out of nowhere. The text allows for this opening. It is as if the text itself asks us: what does what I have said mean? The one that comes from natural birth means the life that Israel had experienced and is experiencing at that moment, which according to Paul is one of slavery. This covenant comes from the slave Hagar and is linked to Mount Sinai, where the Law was given to Moses. Isaac, in turn, is the son of promise, free, before the Law and, therefore, without need to submit to it.

The conclusion that the Galatians are “children of promise, like Isaac” (v. 28) is not new. It was already stated in 3:29 in terms of the relationship with Christ. The novelty is that this fact implies the denial of filiation linked to Hagar and the slavery brought by the Law.

the v. 29 brings another application of the allegory. As in the past, when the one born under the flesh persecuted the one born according to the promise, now it is again. Christians are persecuted by Jews and legalistic Christians. What to do? Deny the slave's son and his covenant (v. 30). The two alliances are irreconcilable. So indirectly Paul is saying that Judaizers should not be part of the fellowship of Galatian Christians.

According to Betz, v. 31 concludes the block of 3.1-4.31 on the theme of freedom, which will be resumed from 5.1.

Paul includes himself in the conclusion (“we are”). He is also the son of the woman/free alliance. Why do you do this? Certainly to seek identification and proximity with the Galatians. By working the OT texts allegorically, developing statements that the Galatians would not only understand but also agree with, the apostle forges bonds of identity and communion.

Allegory – Problem or Solution? – 4.21-31 – Part I

Allegory is a serious hermeneutical problem. And this is from the beginning of the history of Christian interpretation. After all, a method that seems devoid of method or foundations is bound to be a problem. At least for historicist hermeneutics.

Paul concludes the previous section (4:20) by saying that he is “perplexed about you”, an expression that contains a high degree of discouragement. It seems that he has great doubts about his power of persuasion. Even the relational argument developed in 4.12-20 seems to have no effect. What to do? Use biblical allegory. For Paul, at least, it is the last and most important argument to be used. If we remember that he is concluding Probation, the moment in the letter when he tries to prove his position with the use of various arguments, it is surprising, at least to us Christian interpreters, that he has reserved the allegory for the end.

There is no space for in-depth discussions of the allegory in this post, but there is a basic question that we can address.

Historicist hermeneutics/exegesis presupposes the premise that biblical texts must testify to the reality of the events they describe. From this point of view, narrative texts refer the reader to the historical facts that are their foundation. And argumentative texts refer the reader to the historical context that produces the relationship between sender and recipient. Therefore, texts are always and indissolubly linked to the facts to which they bear witness.

Given this theoretical stance, any proposal that sees the text transcend the role of witness is seen negatively. The text must be a servant of history. If not, it becomes dangerous, as it opens up to uncontrollable meanings, as historicist hermeneutics would say. That is why the allegorical interpretation so present in the first centuries of Christianity was denied, mainly by the Protestant Reformation and by contemporary fundamentalist circles.

Is this concern with the liberation of meaning from biblical texts healthy? Perhaps, but the problem is inadequate or at least limiting the conception of text that such a perspective contains. After all, all text transcends. No text ends in itself. Every text is a starting point. And even historicists must agree with this statement. After all, for them, biblical texts are a starting point for historical reconstruction. This means that, for historicist hermeneutics, the text also transcends. The problem is that it is a limited and closed opening. The text leaves itself to immediately become a vassal of reconstructions, hypothetical, by the way, of historical facts.

Every text, from a pragmatic point of view, is unfinished. It brings proposals of meanings linked to its author. But understanding, which involves more than first sense, is open to the reader. This is more than a normal aspect of literary texts. Every reader, during and after reading, reflects on the meaning(s). The degree of approximation to what the author intended depends on numerous factors. Of course, the reader can reach conclusions that are different from what the text presents. But, in general, all reading presents a relationship between text and the constituent aspects of the reader's world that influence its understanding.

Therefore, when we read a work, we are thrown by it into several levels of reflection. In other words, the text transcends itself. And it's good that it is. The biblical text does not escape this process. As we read the Bible, we are also thrown forward, not backward, in search of reflections that make sense to us.

I say all this so that we understand that the allegory widely practiced in the beginnings of Christianity, and Galatians by Paul is part of this process of relationship between readers and texts. With the allegory, the interpreter asks himself about the expansion and deepening of the meaning of several texts. Is the text linked only to the past? Does it only concern narratives of events that occurred with this or that biblical man or woman? Not. Narratives are bridges to connect meanings and experiences.

I conclude by recalling that the allegory does not deny the historical aspect of the biblical text. We are not faced with an option: either the historical sense or the allegorical sense. This aporia is not true. Again, allegory transcends the historical sense but does not deny it.

Life Under Analysis – Law and Grace.

Once the large section of the letter in which Paul seeks to argue in favor of his theological positions is over, a new block begins, now with practical exhortations aimed at new positions on the part of the Galatians.

The block ranges from 5.1-to 6.10. And it can be divided into three units: 5:1-12, with warnings about submission to the Law (which will be covered in this message); 5:13-26, with warnings against the flesh; 6:1-10, with several exhortations of a positive character. From the way I propose the division, it is clear that the first two units have a predominantly negative character, while the last one is guided by a positive perspective.

As Júlio in his last post dealt with the first block, with the discussion about Christian freedom, I will make small notes on the text.

Chapter 5 begins by taking up the theme of the previous one: freedom. In 4:31 the apostle concludes his argument by stating that he and the Galatians, and, consequently, all Christians, are children of the freewoman, that is, of Sarah, children of the covenant of grace. Now he concretely develops this aspect. Unfortunately, given the religious context in which the Galatian Christians lived, Paul initially needs to clarify the price to be paid for them.

The theme of the Law returns. Theme and central point of contention in the letter. Point of support for the Judaizers who were infiltrated among the Galatians. And a subject to be clarified by Paul, which indeed was done in all his reasoning.

Now, however, there are no more arguments. On the contrary, categorical statements are made without fear. A central opposition is constructed: Law vs. grace. The concrete instrument of the Law with the Galatians is circumcision. And the concrete proof of attachment to grace is faith. They are irreconcilable elements and postures. Or live one or the other. Never both at the same time.

Moving from the concrete to the abstract, the fact that the Galatians or some of them were or had undergone circumcision meant, on a theological level, that they were bound by the Law and therefore disconnected from or beyond the reach of grace. With that, they became slaves of the Law, since it demands total fidelity. It is necessary to complete it all.

On the other hand, Paul urges them to live by faith, evidence of a relationship with Christ through grace. And that faith, necessarily, must result in concrete actions of love (v. 6).

Paul takes advantage of the exhortations to lash out at the Judaizers (v. 7-8) and to send a message: such people will suffer condemnation (v. 10), without further specification, letting us see, through the veiled language, that possibly the Galatians and such people knew what it was about.

A question that eludes Paul's argument is in v. 11: "But I, brothers, if I still preach circumcision...". It is not possible to define clearly what this means. Hypothetically one might think that at some point the Judaizers used as an argument to weaken Paul the fact that he was previously a more radical legalistic Jew than all of them. Perhaps one might also think that the apostle's enemies were spreading false information, saying that Paul was still in favor of circumcision.

Thinking contextually, it seems to me that the most important thing in this text is Paul's call to consistency. Or if you are on one side or the other. It is not possible to live on both sides. One cannot submit to circumcision and at the same time claim to live under grace.

How difficult this is, especially in terms of the Christian life. We have a tendency towards inconsistency. With the same readiness with which we affirm that a friend or dear brother, in the face of an error, must be understood by others, in the face of the same error we accuse and judge others with whom we have no affinity.

What is the extent of grace in our lives? In what areas is it present, manifesting itself through faith and love? What is the extent of the Law in us? In what areas does it manifest itself through metaphorical circumcisions?

The Seven Capital Sins

Ponticus (345-399). The purpose of this monk when creating a list of sins was to survey the main vices that get in the way of a routine aimed at spiritual exercise (asceticism).

Therefore, the seven deadly sins did not appear in the Bible, although they are all closely associated with biblical passages. On a careful reading of the Bible, references can be found to each of the seven sins, but nowhere will you find the name “seven sins” or anything like a list of the most serious vices that keep Christians from the grace of God. God.

According to Catholic doctrine, capital sins are the source of all vices. They are at the origin of all known sinful actions. Currently, the following capital sins are recognized: pride, avarice, envy, anger, lust, gluttony, and laziness.

But the list of deadly sins has varied over time. The first list, for example, had eight instead of seven sins, one of which is the addiction to sadness, which is no longer on the current list.

The original formulation by the monk Evagrius Ponticus gained official contours only in the 6th century when Pope Gregory I (540-604) wrote his list. It contained the following sins: envy, anger, avarice, gluttony, lust, sadness, and vainglory.

As can be seen, in Gregory's list the sins are reduced to seven. Two sins that already appeared in the original list remain sadness and vainglory (vanity). The sin of laziness is excluded and envy is added, which continues to this day. Gregory's list is shorter because he decided to exclude pride, elevating it to the rank of "lord" of all sins.

The person responsible for presenting the list we know today is the Catholic friar Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). He reviewed the previous lists and presented the definitive list of the seven deadly sins:

Pride: excessive pride or vanity, pride is the main sin. It is the sin committed by Lucifer, who rebelled against God. Its opposite is humility.

Avarice: is the exaggerated attachment to money and material goods. Its opposite is generosity.

Envy: sadness for the achievements of others. Its opposite is charity, detachment. The first murder, narrated in the Old Testament, is provoked by the envy that Cain felt for Abel.

Anger: it is anger, fury, out of control, which can lead to violence. Its opposite is patience.

Lust: is the excessive pursuit of sexual pleasures. Its opposite is chastity.

Gluttony: is the exaggerated desire to eat and drink. Its opposite is moderation.

Laziness: unwillingness to engage in activities (physical or mental) that require effort. The opposite of laziness is action, effort. Thomas Aquinas used the term acedia (type of sadness, apathy, boredom, torpor). But over time the use of the term laziness prevailed.

The word “capital” comes from the Latin term caput, which means “head”. This means that the deadly sins are the leaders, the heads of all sinful actions. They are at the origin of all faults. That is why it is said that the seven sins are not concrete actions, but human tendencies to vice.

So a person can murder out of anger. Envy can be behind acts of cruelty and cheating. Manifestations of selfishness and lack of charity are the fruit of avarice.

All human defects, from the Christian point of view, are derived from each of the seven sins, which can be seen as tendencies towards addiction. These tendencies, in turn, have to do with the sinful nature of human beings, whose origin lies in the original sin committed by Adam and Eve. Like the fault committed by Adam and Eve in Paradise, all sin can be seen as a transgression of the divine will.

10 Commandments of God (and Their Meanings)

What are the ten commandments of God:

In the Bible, there are the Ten Commandments or Decalogue, which consist of 10 rules that were given by God to His people, so that they would have a happier and more prosperous life. God gave these commandments to Moses, who wrote them on tablets of stone. The 10 Commandments are found in Exodus 20.

The word commandment comes from the verb manda, which means order or rule. A commandment is a voice of command, precept, or mandate.

Ten Commandments of God

You will have no other gods besides me.

You shall not make for yourself an idol, or an image of anything in heaven, on earth, or in the waters under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the sins of their fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who despise me, but dealing kindly to a thousand. generations to those who love me and keep my commandments.

You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not let anyone who takes his name in vain go unpunished.

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall work and do all your work on them, but the seventh day is the Sabbath to the Lord your God. You shall not do any work on that day, you, nor your sons or daughters, nor your male or female servants, nor your livestock, nor the foreigners who dwell in your cities. For in six days, the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and everything in them, but on the seventh day, he rested. Therefore, the Lord blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.

Honor your father and mother, that you may have a long life in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

Thou shalt not kill.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male or female servants, or his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to him.

Meaning of each of the 10 Commandments

1. Thou shalt have no other gods besides me

The greatest of all commandments says that God is unique and must be loved above all. For those who follow this commandment, one should not put God in second place, which means living according to his law and never looking outside of it (either in superstitions or other beliefs) for the answers to the questions of existence.

2. Thou shalt not make for thyself any idol

You shall not make for yourself an idol, or an image of anything in heaven, on earth, or in the waters under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sins of their fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who despise me.

Exodus 20:4-5

This commandment says that nothing replaces God, and therefore idols are not to be worshiped in his place.

There is a divergence here between the Catholic Church and the Protestant denominations which, taking the commandment literally, do not make use of images. Catholics defend themselves by saying that the veneration of images (icons) cannot be confused with the worship of God. The veneration of images of saints, for example, would be a way of accessing God, not its replacement.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.

Exodus 20:7

This commandment calls attention to respect for God and sacred things. Abusing God's name and playing with him are considered disrespectful attitudes.

4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy

This commandment says that one day a week must be kept for rest and for worshiping God. For Jews, the weekly day of inactivity is Shabbat ("rest"). Christianity in general (with rare exceptions) considers Sunday as the Lord's Day because it is the day of Christ's resurrection. In Christianity, the commandment has to do with the importance of rest.

5. Honor your father and mother.

Honor your father and mother, that you may live long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

Exodus 20:12

The commandment that one must honor father and mother is justified by the fact that it is the parents who give life and transmit the knowledge of God. Parents, to some extent, are the figure of the divine presence in the life of the individual.

6. Thou shalt not kill

This commandment, which is found in Exodus 20:13, deals with a fundamental value: life. Therefore, implicit in this commandment is the idea that human life is sacred because it was created by God.

You have heard what was said to your ancestors: 'Thou shalt not kill,' and 'whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.'

But I say to you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Also, whoever says to his brother, 'Rakka', will be taken to court. And anyone who says, 'Crazy!' runs the risk of going to hellfire.

Matthew 5:21,22

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery

This commandment, which is found in Exodus 20:14, speaks of the prohibition of adultery (extramarital relationship) and the protection of marriage, the sacrament that gives rise to the family. For Christians, adultery is a serious offense, as it violates the sacred covenant made before God.

In Matthew 5:27,28, it is seen that sin can exist in thought, even before adultery is committed:

Ye have heard that it was said to those of old, Thou shalt not commit adultery.

But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust after she has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Matthew 5:27,28

8. Thou shalt not steal

This commandment is found in Exodus 20:15. It expressly says that it is wrong to take possession of another's property, which includes any kind of theft, robbery, fraud, extortion, kidnapping, or act of corruption.

In Mark 10:19, some of the commandments are recovered, including the one that forbids theft:

Thou knowest the commandments: Thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt not defraud anyone; honor your father and mother.

Mark 10:19

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor

This commandment forbids accusing a person of what he has not done. Therefore, it can be said that he deals with slander, lying, gossip and slander. Failing the truth is a serious moral fault before God.

10. Thou shalt not covet

This commandment, which is in Exodus 20:17, deals with the sin of envy or covetousness - dissatisfaction with what you have and the desire to have what is not yours. This is what we read in Deuteronomy 5:21:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, and thou shalt not desire thy neighbor's house, nor his field, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.

Deuteronomy 5:21

the most important commandment

The Bible reveals an episode where Jesus is questioned about the most important commandment of all. Jesus replied that the most important thing is, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matthew 22:37). 

The second most important is:

"Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39).

These two commandments are also known as the golden rule because whoever manages to fulfill them will surely also fulfill the 10 commandments expressed in the Old Testament.

The second, which speaks of love among others, is also often described as the new commandment, thanks to the biblical passage in John 13:34.

The Bible

The Bible is a collection or compilation of sacred books, containing the stories, doctrines, codes, and traditions that guide Christians, based on Jewish tradition (Old Testament) and the spread of the Gospel (New Testament).

Bible is a term derived from the Greek word βιβλίον (biblíon), which means parchment, papyrus, or book, and the Greek expression τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια (ta bible ta hágia), which means holy books.

It was written by about 40 men over a period of approximately 1600 years. The first book of the Bible is Genesis which was written around 1445 BC. The last book is Revelation, written around A.D. 90-96. It was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

The Holy Bible (Biblia sacra in Latin) is the best-selling book of all time. It has been translated into over 2,500 languages ​​and is available in different versions, according to traditions and their translations. It is currently also available in digital format.

In a figurative sense, the term bible is also used to refer to an important book, a kind of “guide” that contains all the information relevant to specific areas. Examples are the Java Script Bible, the Business Administration Bible, the Musician's Bible, the Football Bible, etc.

The Structure of the Bible

The Christian Bible is divided into two main parts: the Old and New Testaments. Testament (berith in Hebrew) means covenant, covenant, or contract. Each of them brings together a collection of sacred texts. Let's get to know some essential details.

Old testament

The Old Testament (Tanach for the Jews and Septuagint for the Greeks) is regarded by Christians as the story of creation. This is because it has stories related to the creation of the world and the events of the Hebrew people until 445 BC. about.

There are two versions of the Old Testament, which circulated alternately in the times of Jesus and the apostles:

Hebrew Canon or Palestinian Canon, written in Hebrew, consists of 39 books. This version excludes so-called deuterocanonical books;

Alexandrian Canon, Version of the Septuagint (LXX) or Septuagint Bible. This version was written in Greek and contains the Hebrew canon. In addition, it also has the deuterocanonical books, called apocryphal by the Protestant tradition, such as Tobias, Judith, 1st and 2nd book of Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch.

Both canons have different order, distribution, and titles. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches recognize the Alexandrian Canon or Version of the Seventy. Protestant or Lutheran-inspired churches use the Hebrew or Palestinian canon. For its part, the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria admits other books, such as the book of Enoch and the book of Jubilees.

New Testament

The New Testament contains 27 books and is considered by Christians to be the history of salvation. It includes the Gospels, which represent the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. They cover events during his life, his message, his death, and his resurrection.

In addition, the New Testament contains the narration of the acts of the apostles (which tells of the birth of the early Church), the pastoral letters of the first Christian leaders, and the prophetic book of Revelation.

Learn more about the Gospel and Revelation.

In the case of the Jewish holy book, which corresponds to the Christian Old Testament, copies were made by Hebrew copiers called masorets. They were in charge of copying the Hebrew Scriptures between the 6th and 10th centuries, and they used to check each letter to avoid mistakes.

In the Christian world, translations and copies of the Bible were carried out by monks in monasteries, many of them were also responsible for incorporating illuminations or illustrations of great artistic value.

Monks could copy alone or in groups under the dictation of a brother, which accelerated the production of copies. So it was not surprising that there were some errors in the process.

There are differing opinions about the reliability, preservation, and integrity of the Bible. This is because many years have passed since the first manuscripts and there have also been possible errors in the translations into different languages ​​and differing opinions in the dogmas.

The first vernacular translation of the Bible, and also the first printed version, was the Bible translated by Luther into German in the 16th century.

Archeology has also provided interesting insights into the formation of historical biblical texts themselves.

Torah

What is Torah?

The Torah makes up the first 5 books of the holy book of the Jewish religion and originates from the Hebrew term Yará, which means teaching, instruction, or the law.

It is considered a guide for Jews, with 613 commandments that teach how they should or should not act, whether in the social, family, or religious relationships, for example.

The Torah tells the story of God's creation of the world, the arrival of the Jewish people in Israel, and the death of Moses on Mount Nob. It consists of five books and is equivalent to the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Christian Bible. Are they:

Bereshit, also known as Genesis;

Shemot, also known as Exodus;

Vayikrah, also known as Leviticus;

Bamidbar, also known as Numbers;

Devarim, also known as Deuteronomy.

There are two types of Torah: written, which contains the 613 written commandments, and oral, which is the set of instructions that teach how to fulfill the commandments of the Written Torah.

Among these 613 commandments, 248 are considered positive teachings, which guide the Jewish people to what should be done, and the other 365 are considered negative teachings, which instruct them on what should not be done.

The Jews consider that Moses wrote the Torah through the teachings of the God of Israel, which passed directly to him. This revelation from God to Moses took place 50 days after the liberation of the Jewish people from slavery in Egypt.

Upon leaving Egypt, the Jews wandered for forty years through the desert towards the so-called Promised Land, where Israel is located.

Throughout that time, Moses was responsible for transcribing the teachings received by God and transmitting them to the prophets of the time and the Jewish people. Therefore, the Torah is also called by the Jews Torat Moshe, the Law of Moses, considered the greatest prophet by Jewish tradition.

For public Torah readings, Jews divide the books into small sections and begin reading them in order, starting with Genesis and ending with Deuteronomy.

When dividing the book, the small excerpts are read three times throughout the week, inside the Synagogues, on specific days:

on Mondays and Thursdays, small sections are read,

and the main reading takes place on Saturday mornings, a holy day for Jews called Shabbat by Jewish tradition.

These Torah scrolls, distributed on parchments, are called Sefer Torah and are the holiest objects in Judaism.

The origin and history of the Torah

The teachings that make up the Torah were sent by God to Moses on top of Mount Sinai, during the exodus of the Jewish people, which took place between 1300 and 1250 BC.