at the beginning que sera sera of g*d's kingdom{S}
GAL 4:1-7
And because
you are children,
"G*D" has sent the Spirit of his Son
into our hearts,
crying, 'ABBA! Father! IMA! Mother!'
I mean that the heir,
as long as {S}HE is a child,
is no better than a slave,
though he is the owner of all the estate;
but {S}HE is under guardians and trustees
until the date set by the father.
SO with US;
when we were children,
we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe.
BUT when the time had fully come, "G*D" sent forth his Son,
born of a woman, born under the law,
to redeem those
who were under the law,
so that we might receive adoption
as children.
And because we are children,
"G*D" has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "ABBA! IMA! Father! Mother!"
SO
through "G*D"
you are no longer a slave but a child,
and IF a child
then an
heir ...
~*~
Paul develops
and interweaves here
two themes that he has set forth,
the metaphor of the pedagogue and
the Galatians' memory
of their baptism.
He conjoins them
through the slave~freeman antinomy of the baptismal
formula by insisting that the child is alike in status
to the slave.
Further,
the childhood image,
which has until now only been used to explain the status of the Law,
given 430 years after the promise and only temporary,
is NOW used analogously to explain the situation of the Galatians
under paganism.
WE,
ALL OF US,
I as a Jew and you as pagans,
we were ALL under the elemental spirits of the universe:
YOU under the pagan gods
and I under
the Law.
I wonder
if Paul is thinking here of the verse in Deuteronomy 4:19,
which seemingly ordains the stars as the proper worship of "The Nations."
E.T. has, once more, made an attractive and simple
alternative suggestion.
He argues
philologically that 'the elements of the world,'
simply means the world itself, and the reason that Paul uses this 'roundabout' term is that 'elements' is also used metaphorically for the 'elements' as that which a child learns first in school,
THUS effectively continuing Paul's figure of a child's education
and maturity.
BUT
when we had grown up,
THEN "G*D" the Father/Mother/Elder sent forth his 'oldest/youngest' son
to redeem us born under the Law, that WE - and YOU AS WELL -
might receive adoption
as children.
BECAUSE
you are ALSO children,
at the baptismal ceremony "G*D" sent his spirit into our hearts,
and we all cried out
"MY
Father/Mother/Elder!"
~*~
The
explicit citation
of the Aramaic usage alludes,
I think, to two things:
Yeshua's OWN crying out of "ABBA" to "G*D"
and the traditionary pre-Pauline liturgy
of the baptism.
THEREFORE,
through "G*D",
you {and we} have been recognized as a child,
by entering into the spiritual body of the Son, and THEREFORE
no longer a slave but
an heir.
Paul's figure
for the condition of Israel under the Law
demonstrates beyond doubt, I think, that he does not hold the Law
to be 'demonic' or 'evil',
or the commitment to keeping the Law to be contemnable
in the way that the variations of the "Lutheran" interpretation
would have it.
THIS "slavery" is the benevolent and beneficial slavery of the child.
"IT" is for its own good.
ONLY
a FOOL, however - You foolish Galatians -
would prefer to REMAIN in SUCH a state and NOT grow up
into the status of heir.
~*~
In an unpublished paper,
D.H. has analyzed this text
brilliantly:
Significantly,
the elevation of the Christian
to the status of child is not an adoption in the ordinary sense
of a superimposition of a natural title on someone who has no natural claim to the title.
As the metaphor
of the custodian (the paidagogos)
in the preceding verses implies, the apocalyptic moment
is one in which sons (who were always by nature sons, though their contingent historical position obscured this fact)
are recognized and redeemed
by their rightful
father.
The reshuffling
of the lines of genealogy
is presented here as an act of
restoration.
The historical signifiers
that jewish law prescribed to represent a kind of paternal bond with "G*D"
are peeled away and sons are recognized by their father
by virtue of their FAITH,
which is to say
by virtue of the capacity to recognize HIM
as their father.
THIS,
I think, provides the perfect summation of Paul's theology
of Judaism and
the Jews.
THEY and their Law
had literal value at a certain point in human history,
in the childhood of humanity.
HOWEVER,
NOW that maturity has come in the guise of the coming of Christ,
his crucifixion, and his rising from the dead,
the value of the signifier has been
superseded.
There IS no more role for Israel as such in its concrete sense -
except always for the promise of ROM 9-11 that in the end it will not be
abandoned but redeemed by coming to faith in Christ.
At stake is NOT Paul's love for Jews.
I take very seriously his anguish in the beginning of Romans 9 over his
'brothers in the flesh'.
THIS very anguish, however,
is PRECISELY what signifies that as Jews - that is, as the historically
understood concrete community of the flesh -
Israel has no more role to play
in history.
A TRUE parable
may help make the point clearer.
But THAT will probably have to wait till daylight
comes again.
And because
you are children,
"G*D" has sent the Spirit of his Son
into our hearts,
crying, 'ABBA! Father! IMA! Mother!'
I mean that the heir,
as long as {S}HE is a child,
is no better than a slave,
though he is the owner of all the estate;
but {S}HE is under guardians and trustees
until the date set by the father.
SO with US;
when we were children,
we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe.
BUT when the time had fully come, "G*D" sent forth his Son,
born of a woman, born under the law,
to redeem those
who were under the law,
so that we might receive adoption
as children.
And because we are children,
"G*D" has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "ABBA! IMA! Father! Mother!"
SO
through "G*D"
you are no longer a slave but a child,
and IF a child
then an
heir ...
~*~
Paul develops
and interweaves here
two themes that he has set forth,
the metaphor of the pedagogue and
the Galatians' memory
of their baptism.
He conjoins them
through the slave~freeman antinomy of the baptismal
formula by insisting that the child is alike in status
to the slave.
Further,
the childhood image,
which has until now only been used to explain the status of the Law,
given 430 years after the promise and only temporary,
is NOW used analogously to explain the situation of the Galatians
under paganism.
WE,
ALL OF US,
I as a Jew and you as pagans,
we were ALL under the elemental spirits of the universe:
YOU under the pagan gods
and I under
the Law.
I wonder
if Paul is thinking here of the verse in Deuteronomy 4:19,
which seemingly ordains the stars as the proper worship of "The Nations."
E.T. has, once more, made an attractive and simple
alternative suggestion.
He argues
philologically that 'the elements of the world,'
simply means the world itself, and the reason that Paul uses this 'roundabout' term is that 'elements' is also used metaphorically for the 'elements' as that which a child learns first in school,
THUS effectively continuing Paul's figure of a child's education
and maturity.
BUT
when we had grown up,
THEN "G*D" the Father/Mother/Elder sent forth his 'oldest/youngest' son
to redeem us born under the Law, that WE - and YOU AS WELL -
might receive adoption
as children.
BECAUSE
you are ALSO children,
at the baptismal ceremony "G*D" sent his spirit into our hearts,
and we all cried out
"MY
Father/Mother/Elder!"
~*~
The
explicit citation
of the Aramaic usage alludes,
I think, to two things:
Yeshua's OWN crying out of "ABBA" to "G*D"
and the traditionary pre-Pauline liturgy
of the baptism.
THEREFORE,
through "G*D",
you {and we} have been recognized as a child,
by entering into the spiritual body of the Son, and THEREFORE
no longer a slave but
an heir.
Paul's figure
for the condition of Israel under the Law
demonstrates beyond doubt, I think, that he does not hold the Law
to be 'demonic' or 'evil',
or the commitment to keeping the Law to be contemnable
in the way that the variations of the "Lutheran" interpretation
would have it.
THIS "slavery" is the benevolent and beneficial slavery of the child.
"IT" is for its own good.
ONLY
a FOOL, however - You foolish Galatians -
would prefer to REMAIN in SUCH a state and NOT grow up
into the status of heir.
~*~
In an unpublished paper,
D.H. has analyzed this text
brilliantly:
Significantly,
the elevation of the Christian
to the status of child is not an adoption in the ordinary sense
of a superimposition of a natural title on someone who has no natural claim to the title.
As the metaphor
of the custodian (the paidagogos)
in the preceding verses implies, the apocalyptic moment
is one in which sons (who were always by nature sons, though their contingent historical position obscured this fact)
are recognized and redeemed
by their rightful
father.
The reshuffling
of the lines of genealogy
is presented here as an act of
restoration.
The historical signifiers
that jewish law prescribed to represent a kind of paternal bond with "G*D"
are peeled away and sons are recognized by their father
by virtue of their FAITH,
which is to say
by virtue of the capacity to recognize HIM
as their father.
THIS,
I think, provides the perfect summation of Paul's theology
of Judaism and
the Jews.
THEY and their Law
had literal value at a certain point in human history,
in the childhood of humanity.
HOWEVER,
NOW that maturity has come in the guise of the coming of Christ,
his crucifixion, and his rising from the dead,
the value of the signifier has been
superseded.
There IS no more role for Israel as such in its concrete sense -
except always for the promise of ROM 9-11 that in the end it will not be
abandoned but redeemed by coming to faith in Christ.
At stake is NOT Paul's love for Jews.
I take very seriously his anguish in the beginning of Romans 9 over his
'brothers in the flesh'.
THIS very anguish, however,
is PRECISELY what signifies that as Jews - that is, as the historically
understood concrete community of the flesh -
Israel has no more role to play
in history.
A TRUE parable
may help make the point clearer.
But THAT will probably have to wait till daylight
comes again.
05 jul 2005 - bewerkt op 06 jul 2005
- meld ongepast verhaal
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.
- O 14 mei 2011 Ergens
- O 14 mei 2011 't myDiPopulisme i/d VS & 't populisme @ EU ...
- O 14 mei 2011 stomme mydireclames vergeten chaipaswoord & ~shit!
- O 14 mei 2011 Sorry: je zit al aan het maximum van tien mydiers! ( 2 )
- O 21 feb 2011 mydiklandestientje tussen de regeltjes door enzo?!
- O 31 jul 2010 First entry by iPad: even ietwat wennen, instellen ( 1 )
- O 17 sep 2009 mydismikkelsmakkelsmoggordijnen ( 2 )
- O 10 aug 2009 Jungle balls {suck it to me}!
- O 02 jul 2009 Niets menselijks is ons vreemd aan de moederborst!
- O 01 jul 2009 vandeweeromstuitdusook
- O 25 jun 2009 myDiNitWitMadness, Fat Bitches, Skinny Whores aso?
- O 23 jun 2009 Grafgrotkelders spelonken hal[le]lu[ja]cinaties ed
- O 21 jun 2009 spiritual footballgames 1979 jaar geleden & slthat
- O 20 jun 2009 mydivorm & ~inhoud [tussen zusjes & zoo{n}tjes] ( 2 )
- O 17 jun 2009 SjapoVrouwenSjaulPaulDiscriminatiesInAndereTijden?