**Just a quick note, I did miss two days of my reading/blogging, but I want to stay on track. So I chose to do 3-4 together today and 5-6 together tomorrow. As you may notice, chapter 4 begins in the middle of a thought process, so these two naturally flow into each other.
1. What stuck out to me from these chapters?
I noticed right away how many different analogies Paul uses to explain the gospel message. In the last chapter he very clearly stated that we are saved through faith and not by works. Now to help us understand what happens he uses all kinds of analogies, many of which are still relevant and helpful to us today. Here are just a few:
- Cursed vs. Blessed (curse removed by Christ on the cross) - 3:10-14
- Covenant and Promise - 3:15-22
- Prisoner vs. Freedom - 3:22
- Custody/Guardianship vs. Adoption/Sonship - 3:23-4:7
- Slave vs. Heir - 4:1-7
- Hagar/Flesh vs. Sarah/Promise - 4:21-31
All of these help me understand my sin and need for a Savior, God's grace in choosing me, my identity in Christ, and more. I'm a visual learner, and analogies (while they all fall short at some point) are very helpful for me.
2. How does this passage relate to any other Scripture I know?
There are several things that stood out to me as I made connections with other Scripture. The first is an obvious one as Paul directly references the Hagar and Sarah story. If this section didn't make sense, the original story can be found all the way at the beginning of the Bible in Genesis 16 (and some of the surrounding chapters).
Another one that really caught my attention was Galatians 4:4-6. This is one of the clearest references to the Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit) in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention the word "Trinity". It's a teaching in Christianity, however, that is both mysterious and yet foundational bedrock to understand God's character and his work in the world. These verses contain very clear references to God, "the Son", and the "Spirit of his Son" all very distinctively. Other references are Jesus' baptism (Matt. 3, Mark 1, Luke 3), the great commission (Matthew 28:18-20), and Jesus teaching and prayer in John 14-17. There are other places as well that mention each of the Triune members of God separately, but these verses really pull them all together.
3. So what does this mean for my life?
In 4:8-20, Paul shares some really valid concerns with the Galatians. He's coming back to what he first referenced in Chapter 1, with the father's heart. He reminded the Galatians of their time together, and how close they had become with mutual affection for each other. He's crying out to them as they turn back to their former ways to keep in step with the gospel and the Spirit of God. It would be easy for me to put myself in Paul's position and think of who I need to cry out to that they would turn back to God's truth. But I am humbled as I consider that fact that I first need to discern in my life where I need to turn back to God's grace and truth. It's easy to put ourselves in the hero's role, but first we must put ourselves in the role of the one who is saved, corrected, rebuked and recognize that Jesus is the one who rescues us.
4. What questions do I have about this passage?
What, if anything, gets lost in Galatians 3:23-4:7 when we push for translations that are "politically correct?" Here's what I mean. It is clear from verse 3:28 that neither race, nor social class, nor gender keep anyone from the promise of God which is given to anyone who believes. But using the word "child" or "daughter" instead of "son" may lose some of the meaning of what Paul was actually getting at. If I'm not mistaken, in those days, SONS were the heirs who would receive the inheritance of the FATHER. Daughters, on the other hand, were not typically given the inheritance, but would be provided for through marriage. I'm not saying that's how it should be today, but if Paul would have said, "You are now sons and daughters of God," it may have different connotations. Would the daughters receive an inheritance? But since in the original language, Paul consistently uses the masculine word "son" (even though he knows this letter will be heard by women) he is actually ELEVATING women to the status of full heirs in Christ. I always hesitate, and even get a little turned off when "new" translations or editions are done solely for the purpose of "political correctness" because of situations like these.
No comments:
Post a Comment