Galatians 1:11-24
11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. 14 I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. 15 But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; 19 but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord's brother. 20 In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie! 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, 22 and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; 23 they only heard it said, "The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy." 24 And they glorified God because of me.
The theme of
Galatians 1:11-24 describes the authentic gospel that Paul proclaimed, which
stands in contrast to “a different gospel” to which the churches in Galatia
were “turning.” In the context of 1:11-2:21, it constitutes his first defense
of his apostleship and gospel, referring to the divine source of the gospel and
the confirmation he received from the leaders of the church in Jerusalem.
Paul’s anxiety is
obvious, for he is “astonished” by the speed at which they were deserting his
gospel and opting for a perverted gospel. Perhaps even more shocking is that
they were turning to an inauthentic gospel and aligning themselves with orators
who sought “human approval” and desired “to please people” (cf. Galatians
1:6-10).
Tolmie says this
is phase three of the argument, recounting events from his life in order to
prove the divine origin of his gospel. Betz classifies Galatians 1:12-2:14 as narratio, since, in his opinion, it
corresponds to Cicero's definition of a narratio
in De inv. 1.19, namely a narrative
that functions as an exposition of events, which have occurred or are supposed
to have occurred. Furthermore, Betz indicates that one can classify Galatians
1:12-2:14 as the first of three types of narratio
distinguished by Cicero, namely one that contains an exposition of a case of
law. Significantly, Betz states explicitly that exordium and narratio are
only preparatory steps leading to the probatio
that begins in Galatians 3:1. If one is to go with Betz here, one will have
to accept the diminished role of 1:6-10 and 1:11-2:14. Yet, I think an open
reading of the letter will not allow us to move down this path with him. Kennedy
argues that Betz is wrong here because the passage does not offer an account of
the facts at issue. He argues that the point is to contribute to their
understanding of the speaker, which would match his view of Galatians as
deliberative rhetoric. The point is that the passage confirms the authority of
Paul, not present the case. If Paul were making a forensic appeal, one would
expect a description of how the missionary opponents came into being and of
their history of troublemaking in Galatia. Tolmie points out that if this were
narration, this section would be merely preparatory for the real argument,
which then diminishes the passage. In addition, it would be strange, if Paul
were as acquainted with ancient rhetoric as much as Betz thinks, that Paul uses
narration only here in his extant
letters. The point Paul is making in this section is that the gospel is of
divine origin. What Paul means is that here is a decisive eschatological
revelation that made Jesus Christ the foundation and content of his gospel. His
rhetorical argument, then, is the notion of divine authorization. He received
his gospel from God, and therefore it is true. The occurrence of “gospel” seven
times in verses 6-12 demonstrates that it, and not his apostleship, is at
issue. Of course, people use and abuse such arguments frequently. He will need
to substantiate his claim, which he does by recounting events from his life. He
uses biography as proof. He uses hyperbole in this approach, exaggerating his
activities against the church in order to make his case. His point is to show
that his calling by God was a dramatic transformation. He stresses revelation.
He uses language consistent with the prophetic tradition. In making such an
argument, he is “legitimizing” his gospel. Jerusalem, in this case, plays a
different role for him than it apparently did for his opponents. For his
opponents, Jerusalem held the basis for their authority. For Paul, Jerusalem
represented human origins, but that clearly, a divine origin takes priority. He
emphasizes the long period between his call and his first visit to Jerusalem.
When he finally went to Jerusalem, his purpose was to acquaint himself with
them, not to receive their sanction. His fifteen-day stay in Jerusalem, while
significant, has its contrast with the three years in Arabia. The positive
reception of his calling and missionary activity says that they acknowledged
what God was doing, and was not authorization for him, which given the
rhetorical setting would be disastrous. If the churches later change their
mind, it does not change the divine origin they recognized at first.
These are the
primary points that Paul considers and examines in 1:11-24. The gospel Paul
preaches is from God. Consequently, after briefly rehearsing his concerns in
1:6-10, he begins to elaborate on a crucial focus of his letter to the
Galatians. He defends himself and his message. Stated succinctly, Paul develops
the themes he introduces in the letter’s opening.
In verses 11-12,
Paul begins with a claim of divine authorization of his gospel.[1]
11 For I want you to know,
brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human
origin [kata anqrwpon]; 12 for I did not receive it from a human
source [para anqrwpou], nor was I taught it, but I received it through a
revelation of Jesus Christ. First, some think that the criticism of
Paul contained in these two verses shape the structure of the letter, but in
reverse order. Thus, in 1:13-2:21, Paul shows that his gospel does not have a
human source, and in 3:1-6:10 it is not of human origin. Paul thus makes it
clear that the gospel is not a philosophy of human origins, but is rooted in “a
revelation of Jesus Christ.” Second, this use of revelation clearly refers to
experiences of revelation, in contrast to the apocalyptic notion of revelation
we find in verse 16. He becomes aware of the centrality of salvation by grace
and through faith, although he will spend time in the church reflecting upon
the theological implication of this truth. It took a revolution from God to
convince him of its truth.[2] Paul has received instruction from this
revelation alone.[3]
Third, one can compare this account with what Luke says in Acts 9, 22, and 26,
where Luke shows the intertwining of divine and human (Ananias) agency in the
conversion of Paul. Fourth, Martin Luther notes how easily one can depart from
the teaching of justification by faith. He knows how quickly a person can
forfeit the joy of the Gospel. He knows in what slippery places even those who
seem to have a good footing in the matters of faith. In the midst of the
conflict, when we should be consoling ourselves with the Gospel, the Law rears
up and begins to rage all over our conscience. For him, the Gospel is frail
because we are frail. What makes matters worse, he says, is that one-half of
ourselves, our own reason, stands against us. Thus, we have something within us
that wants to depart from the notion of justification by faith. He then urges
that every believer carefully learn the Gospel. Let believers continue in
humble prayer, for mighty foes molest them, foes who never grow tired of
warring against us. These, our enemies, are many: Our own flesh, the world, the
Law, sin, death, the wrath and judgment of God, and the devil himself. He goes
on to refer to a conversation he had with Doctor Staupitz when he first began
preaching justification by faith. “I like it well, that the doctrine which you
proclaim gives glory to God alone and none to man. One can never ascribe too
much glory, goodness, and mercy unto God.” For Luther, such words comforted and
confirmed him. The Gospel is true because it deprives human beings of all
glory, wisdom, and righteousness and turns over all honors to the Creator
alone. For Luther, it is safer to attribute too much glory to God than to
humanity. The problem with such sentiments, however, is that it runs the risk
of denigrating the world God has made, and in particular, the creatures made in
the image of God. Further, we also learn from John 3:16 that God loves this
world. Of course, we need to offer due honor to God, but we do not honor God by
not also honoring the world God has made.
In the rest of this
segment, Paul will now substantiate the claim just made by recounting
events from his life that serve as proof that he received his gospel from God.
He will use biography as proof. These events focus in one way or another on the
decisive role God played in the life of Paul.[4]
In verses 13-14, it seems as if Paul recounts his former life in Judaism
in such a way that he can convey the notion that only divine intervention could
have changed someone as fanatic as he was. We can also identify two supportive
techniques used by Paul in this section: namely reminding them of something
they already know and hyperbole.[5]
13 You have heard, no doubt,
of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God
and was trying to destroy [eporqoun] it. Paul also says he was a persecutor of the church and a
Pharisee seeking righteousness by the Law (Philippians 3:6). As the Jewish leader Saul, he threatened the disciples of
the Lord to the point of murder. He secured letters from the high priest to
seek followers of the Way in Damascus that would give the authority to arrest
them and bring them to Jerusalem for trial. He had participated in the evil
directed toward the saints in Jerusalem and arrested those who invoked the name
of Jesus. After his baptism and conversion, Paul attempted to join the
disciples in Jerusalem, but they were so afraid of him they would not see him.
He acknowledges that he arrested, placed in prison both men and women who
followed the Way, if possible, securing execution. He imprisoned those who
believed in Jesus and approved of the killing of Stephen. He admits to doing
many things against the name of Jesus. He imprisoned the saints and cast his
vote against them when Jewish leaders sought the death of the saints. He punished
them in synagogues, trying to force them to blaspheme the name of Jesus. His
anger was so strong against them that he went to cities outside Jerusalem to
pursue them.[6] Without the revelatory
intervention of God, Paul would not have become a Christian because he was
possessed with such extreme religious fanaticism. 14 I advanced in
Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous
for the traditions of my ancestors. One can
have no doubt
about Paul’s fervor. Paul seems to have been an extreme party member of the
Pharisees. The term “zeal” had assumed
in the Second Temple Judaism a specific meaning related to the preservation of
Jewish religious and ethnic purity by whatever means necessary, including
violence.[7]
An Old Testament example is Phineas in Numbers 25:6-18, a story celebrated in
Sirach 45:23-24, I Maccabees 2:54, and 4 Maccabees 18:12. In this gruesome
story, an Israelite brings a Midianite woman into his family while Moses and
the rest of the congregation watched him do this. When Phineas saw it, he left
the congregation, got a spear, entered the tent, and pierced the two of them
through the belly. At that point, the plague, that had already killed 24,000
people, ceased. The Lord says that the “zeal” he exhibited on behalf of the
Lord averted the wrath of the Lord. Yes, Paul was zealous. Paul may be linking
himself with such “zeal” against those whom he considered enemies of the Law.
Of course, in the history of religion, such zeal is not distinctive of any one
religion, witness what has occurred within the Christian tradition, Islam,
Hinduism, and even Buddhism. In this case, the traditions would include Mosaic
laws, but would also include the oral tradition of the rabbis. Martin Luther compares the statement of Paul
regarding his Jewish tradition to his own early situation with the Pope and the
Roman Catholic Church of his time, which his life in the cloister called him to
depart from Christ.
Let us pause for a
moment. I am holding a baseball bat. How many strikes do you get before you are
out? You remember Take me out to the Ballgame. The song has its origin in 1908,
when Jack Norworth asked out Katie Casey out for a date. He wanted to go to a
show. However, she said she would go, only if he took her to the baseball game.
While on the subway, the words and tune, and the famous chorus, came to him. It
took until 1934 before people sung it during a Major League baseball game. The
part I am interested in is this: “For its one, two three strikes, you’re out,
at the old ball game.” This is true in baseball. Fortunately, this is not true
with God.
If you are a Christian,
you have probably heard and read much about grace. You have probably not heard
as much about zeal.
Live Free Or Die Hard is the name of a Bruce Willis movie that came
out in 2007. The movie is the fourth Die Hard movie since 1988, a series that
made $700 million back then. A USA Today article says Willis will return as
wisecracking police officer John McLane. Willis will attempt to stop a
techno-terrorist determined to shut down the nation’s computer systems on the
Fourth of July. The threat is larger than the threats seen in the earlier
movies. If you liked the Die Hard movies, in my view, this one was quite good.
The villain is very high-tech, ready to bring down the power grid of the United
States and make his millions. Bruce Willis offers a low-tech response. In other
words, he will use his fists. The Bruce Willis character “will be doing what he
does best,” says the director of the movie — “being a huge pain” to the bad
people.
Regardless of how
difficult the situation in which Willis and his partner became, you knew they
were not going to give up. His partner was the thin young man that played “Mac”
in the Mac commercials a few years before. At one point, Bruce says something
like, “This is your country we are talking about.” Eventually, the computer
nerd gets it. For all the desire to hit the “reset” button for this country, it
was worth fighting for. When it looked like they were not going make it, the
young man said to Willis, who was not sure he could save the day this time,
said, “You are that guy.” You are the one who will put your life on the line.
Later in the movie, because now the young man risked his life as well, Bruce
Willis says, “You are that man.” Eventually, the young man would rather “live
free.”
One way to describe this
approach to life is that Bruce Willis had zeal. He would rather “live free” or
“die hard” trying. His young partner, on the other hand, was willing to have a
“whatever” approach to life – that is, until he spent some time with Bruce
Willis.
The apostle was zealous
in his life, no matter what. He was “all-in.” As a Christian, however, what
made him “zealous” was grace.
Verses 13-14 suggest an
answer to what Paul has “crucified,” what he has given up, in order to follow
Christ. He recalls the past in its entire splendor, his life among the Jews,
his persecution of the church, his existence as one known to be zealous for the
traditions of the Jewish faith. He was at home in this world. It was his own.
Only Jesus Christ, the One whom he persecuted, could have uprooted him from it.[8]
Paul was now “zealous” for Christ. We learn this in other statements from Paul
as well. Ministry was not easy for Paul. He takes shots from the enemy as he
stands up to the forces of evil. He gets beat up and bloodied, flogged and
imprisoned. Yet, he never gives up. Here is the way he put it. He received
beatings with rods three times, stoning once, and shipwrecked three times. He
faced dangers from rivers, bandits, the Jewish people, Gentiles, cities,
wilderness, sea, and false brothers and sisters (II Corinthians 11:25-26).
In verses 15-17, Paul
recounts his call on the road to Damascus in such a way that it substantiates
his claim in verses 11-12 in two ways: first, the notion that God called him
dominates the account, and secondly, he claims that he did not consult
"flesh and blood" after it happened. He uses several supportive
rhetorical techniques, namely the fact that he employs words from the prophetic
tradition to describe what happened to him, the use of hypotactic sentence
structure, and antithetic presentation.[9] 15 But when God, who had set me
apart, not for his temporal advantage, but was for him to serve the
Gospel. Jeremiah 1:5 also suggests a similar setting apart. Isaiah 49:1-6 says
the Lord set apart the servant of the Lord in the womb. Paul asserts that God
set him apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was
pleased 16 to reveal [apokaluyai]
his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the
Gentiles. First, note that the story of Paul’s life was not his own. Rather,
God was writing his story. Paul had no choice but to obey “the heavenly vision”
(vv. 15a, 16a; cf. Acts 26:19). This vision set him on an entirely different
trajectory. God did not allow him to continue his hostile pursuit of
Christians. Second, we need to look at the nature of the vocation or calling of
Paul. Verses 15-16 recount what Paul had been until his conversion. He was one
set apart and called by the grace of God from the womb of his mother, like
Jeremiah. What does he become now? He becomes a Christian, of course, among
other things. In particular, it has become his duty to proclaim Christ among
the Gentiles. Therefore, he does not exist except in his function in the life
of the church. On this same assumption, he now addresses his congregation. By
this grace, God forgave Paul’s sins against the church and set him “free from
the present evil age” so that he might “proclaim him [i.e., the Son] among the
Gentiles” (vv. 4, 16). In this, both Paul and the believers in Galatia received
the authentic gospel by grace. Given his own transformation by means of his
encounter with God’s gospel, it is no wonder that Paul expressed such utter
shock that they were deserting his gospel (cf. 1:3-4, 6).[10]
The event of his calling, from which he cannot separate himself, it pleased God
to reveal the Son in him, and to make him a witness of this living One in whose
self-sacrifice God liberates people from their sins and therefore redeems them.[11]
The focus is on what God has revealed, regardless of what one might also say of
the human decision to respond.[12]
Third, we need to consider the importance of this account of the appearance of
the risen Lord to Paul. This account becomes pivotal, for not only do the other
apostles accept sufficient agreement between his experience and their own in
2:9, but it also suggests that their experience was closer to that of Paul than
the form of the narration in the Gospel accounts. What is persuasive on this
point is that Galatians is a far earlier account (around 50 AD) than are the
narratives of the appearances in the Gospels (around 80-100 AD). Thus, the
appearances were “from heaven.”[13] The
apostolic proclamation does not have a constitutive function for the “Christ
event.” The reason is that the Easter message follows the Easter event rather
than constituting that event. In fact,
the event constitutes the message.[14]
Fourth, to return to the theme of this passage, in the case of Galatians 1:1-5,
he claimed divine authorization for his apostleship, but in Galatians
1:11-12 he links divine authorization primarily to his gospel.[15]
I did not confer with any human being, [prosaneqemhn sarki kai aimati ] Jewish
leaders sought to kill him and the disciples in Jerusalem initially refused to
see him. While in the temple in Jerusalem, he fell into a trance and saw a
vision of Jesus. Followers of the Way were afraid of him, so what was he to do?
He was to prepare for his mission to the gentiles. In obedience to the heavenly
vision, he proclaimed to gentiles that they repent by turning to God and doing
have deeds consistent with repentance.[16] 17 Nor did I go up to
Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me Paul did not
even draw the gospel from other apostles. He could not, because to do so would
potentially undermine the legitimacy of the revelation he had received.
Moreover, if he had conferred with human authorities, he would be guilty of
“seeking human approval” and attempting “to please people,” a charge that he
had previously laid against those who were perverting the gospel (v. 10). But I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I
returned to Damascus. Instead, Paul went to Arabia and Damascus,
where King Aretas sought to imprison Paul, but fellow followers of the way let
him down in a basket through a window in the wall (II Corinthians 11:32-33).
In
verses 18-20, Paul recounts his first visit to Jerusalem in such a way that it
cannot weaken the notion of the divine origin of his gospel in any way. He
emphasizes the long period between his call and the visit; he describes the
purpose of his visit as merely to be acquainted; he mentions the relatively
short duration of the visit; he denies meeting any other bearer of the tradition
except James, and he emphasizes the trustworthiness of his account by means of
an oath. 18 Then after three
years, meaning since his conversion and residence in Damascus. This
would be similar to the wilderness period of Moses, although it appears that
here is where Paul went to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.[17]
John Chrysostom thought so as well, as Paul is a man of fervent spirit, ready
to preach to barbarians. He notes that Paul does not boast of his success. I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with
him fifteen days; 19 but I did not see any other apostle except
James the Lord's brother. It at least appears the reason was
acquaintance, a relatively innocent meeting. Chrysostom thinks this to be the
case, and many modern commentators agree. Since people widely knew of the
former reputation of Paul as a zealous Pharisee, it seems likely that people
knew of his travels as a Christian missionary as well. Consequently, he felt
compelled to mention his subsequent journeys to Jerusalem lest anyone
mistakenly conclude that he had later sought human approval. At the same time,
we might suggest that had there been a significant perception among the other
apostles that the experience of Paul was substantially different, they might
have objected. Paul often shows his fidelity to the church in Jerusalem. He
maintained the bonds of fellowship with that church, even with its more Jewish
flavor. 20 In what I am writing to
you, before God, I do not lie! Paul’s testimony is so passionate
that he even takes an oath.
In verses 21-24, Paul recounts his missionary work in
such a way that he conveys two notions to the audience, namely that he had no
contact with Jerusalem during this time, and that the churches in Judea reacted
by acknowledging that God was behind his work. The churches in Israel would not
know Paul because his fifteen days there were private. Tolmie also highlights
Paul's skillful choice of certain words (diwvkwn, ejpovrqei and pivsti). 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, 22
and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. Finally,
and in order to further confirm his self-defense — that is, that he had never
sought human approval nor to please men — Paul refers to his travels into Syria
and Cilicia and the fact that he was unknown by sight to the churches of Judea.
23 They only heard it said,
"The one who formerly was persecuting us [o diwkwn hmaV pote] is now proclaiming
the faith he once tried to destroy [eporqei]." Scholars
will note how early Christians made synonymous “the faith” and “the gospel.” 24 And they glorified God
because of me. Why? For only by the grace of God, a gospel divine in origin, could such a
transformation come to a violent persecutor of God’s church. We also must not
miss the point that Paul was actively preaching the gospel without human
authorization.
Paul makes it clear that
the gospel is not a philosophy of human origins, but is rooted in “a revelation
of Jesus Christ.” When we think of the Word of God, we need to think in terms
of divine communication to human beings. Although we are often confused and
rebellious, God made us in the image of God, and thus with the capacity to hear
and respond to this divine communication. As blinded as Paul was, the
revelation Paul personally received shows him the centrality of salvation by
grace and through faith, although he will spend time in the church reflecting
upon the theological implication of this truth. It took a revolution from God
to convince him of its truth. The truth became clear as he looked away from
himself and people and to Christ.
The story of the life of
Paul was one of fanaticism for his Jewish faith, including willingness to imprison
and kill those whom he saw as dangerous to the faith. His devotion to the Law
was clear, but misguided. No wonder Paul uses the imagery of dying to his
former way of life. It was not easy for him to give it up. He had to die to the
notion that God would save him through his obedience to the Law. Thus, Paul
discovered that God wanted to write another story, one in which Christ would
live in him and through him. He could then present Christ to the world.
Regardless of the story
we have written with our lives, God has a new story to tell in and through our
lives, as we learn to be faithful witnesses for Christ to the part of the world
our lives touch. It can happen as we allow Christ to live in us and through us.
Grace had turned around
the life of Paul, so much so that he had crucified with Christ his former life.
His encounter with Christ changed his life in a dramatic way. His former life
was zealous for the Law. His former life persecuted the church as a threat to
the Law. He crucified that life with Christ, so that he can live by faith,
alive to God, and enjoy a radically transformed life. He now “gets” what God is
doing in the world. It was not about devotion to a Law that separated the world
into Jew and Gentile, but rather, it was about God bringing people together,
reconciling them to God and to each other.
Thankfully, many of us
have not led lives that required such a dramatic turn around. However, people
still need to see the grace of God shine through you. If you have an encounter
with Christ, Christ will show you the worth and meaning of your life.
First, should we think
about our life's purpose? Frankly,
not everyone does. Some of us are just not in tune with such philosophical
questions. We are happy just to take life as it comes. Others are so busy with
family, work and other activities that those things supply more meaning than
they know what to do with! In fact, the question of meaning seldom or never
arises. Nevertheless, for some people, I include myself in this, the matter of
what gives life meaning and makes it worth living is a reoccurring and nagging
query. It is not something we can just Google, as we do with all the other
questions we have. These people agree with the popular sentiment, wrongly
attributed to Mark Twain, "The two most important days in your life are
the day you are born, and the day you find out why." I am not suggesting
that we obsess with this question. If we dwell on it too long, it may make us
unable to enjoy the life we have. However, I am suggesting that such a question
is worth pondering at various stages in our lives.
Second, why are you here?
One psychologist refers to the mania for meaning that some people possess. We
do not know that such a mania ever seized Paul. Paul had found a life worth
living in hearing and responding to the call of God. Consider Dr. Albert Sabin,
the creator of the Sabin polio vaccine. One of the remarkable things about
Sabin is that he never patented his vaccine. Sabin said, "My greatest
satisfaction is to relieve the misery which is part of human life. If each one
can do his part, civilization should be better." Now, what do you think
Dr. Sabin would have said if asked if his life had any meaning? Your life is
worth living.
Third, to believe in
Christ is to believe in the possibility of liberation. To live a life of
Christian freedom is to discover that Jesus Christ is at work inside you. Some
of your translations may have “to reveal his Son to me,” the Greek text
actually suggests that God was pleased to reveal his Son “in” me. God was
pleased to reveal his Son in and through Paul himself.
What does it mean for us
to live this kind of Christian life today?
Maybe you need liberation
from resentment. You remember the story in Les Miserables. If you have not read the book or seen the movie
recently, please do so, paying special attention to the contrast between the
forgiving bishop at the beginning and the legalistic Inspector Javert. Jean
Valjean has stolen from the bishop and knocked him out, but the bishop
forgives. Valjean finally sees something good in this world, and it changes his
life. For the flip side of life, we have the inspector Javert, who hounds
Valjean until his own legalism brings him to his death. He could not accept the
possibility of grace or the reform of a human life. Grace, the second chance,
the third chance, and so on, is often exactly what we need to experience
genuine transformation.
Do you need liberation
from a sinful lifestyle? I want to share a scene from year 2000 movie Jesus, starring Jeremy Sisto. In one
scene (1:20:30 to 1:24:37), religious leaders bring a woman caught in adultery
to Jesus. Jesus is teaching. Moses commands us to stone such women, the man
says, what do you say? Jesus responds,
Let the one without sin, cast the first stone. Everyone is stunned and leaves.
Is there no one to condemn you? Then, neither do I condemn you. He helps her to
stand. He tells her to go and sin no more. Afterward, Jesus sees a prostitute,
and invites her to join him. She said she follows no one, for she is free. He
says, “No, you are not free, but you could be.” As Jesus departs, woman caught
in adultery says, “You treated her like she was worth something.” He responds,
“She is, and so are you.” The point is, the woman caught in adultery need
liberation. Jesus told her to go and sin no more. The religious leaders also
needed liberation from their self-righteousness and judgment of others. Here is
the point: We live free when God
reveals Christ in and through us, who have desperately needed liberation from
what oppresses us, so that we can live free.
Fourth, to believe in Christ is to believe in the
possibility of God calling you. Paul,
in telling his story, in giving his testimony, is saying, "My life as it
has developed after encountering Christ is a testimony to my character and the
believability of the gospel as I have presented it." Briefly: "Christ
gives my life purpose, worth, meaning, and value."
My oldest son told me of a class he decided to take at
Indiana University. It had nothing to do with his major. He had simply heard it
was an awesome class. “History of the Beatles” was the class. When he first
told me, it sounded like a class people would take to get an easy grade.
When I attended Asbury Seminary, one professor in the
department on preaching would have classes such as “cinema and preaching.” You
knew it would be some good theology, some good fun, and a difficult grade. Few
people figured out how he graded.
Rutgers has a class on “Politicizing Beyoncé.”
Skidmore College has a course on the Sociology of Miley Cyrus. You might like a
course in the art of walking or the physics of Star Trek. Time magazine called
them bizarre classes. You can have classes on piercing and tattooing as well.
Then there is the class offered by Yale, and another
one offered by Yale Divinity School. They called them, respectively, "Life
Worth Living" and "Christ and the Good Life." Christians have
long pondered such things. Other religious and philosophical traditions do as
well, but such questions have long been part of our heritage. John Wesley would
give a long list of good things a person might do, but then end with, “Are you
happy?”
So, what makes life worth living? Do we think much
about it? In fact, dealing with this question used to be the whole point of a
liberal arts college education. Do we ponder such a question very much? These
days, some observers say college courses tend to be more neutral and
descriptive. They might look at what a historical figure thought or did, but
without taking the next step of helping students think about values and meaning
for their own lives.
Matthew Croasmun, one of the course teachers,
explained in an interview for The Huffington Post, "The question for the
course for each tradition is, 'What are the truth claims this tradition is making
and, second, but more importantly, if those truth claims are true, how would
your life have to change?'"
"The
courses ... address you as a living being. There's a challenge to think of our
money in terms of how it can literally save lives. Once you think of your money
that way, every decision you make has an incredible weight to it. Whether or
not I see a movie suddenly becomes a moral choice."
Miroslav Volf and Ryan
McAnnally-Linz teach the Yale course on Life Worth Living. They think the
flourishing of our individual lives depends on our ability to ask and answer in
a provisional way such a question. They also think that living in such global
setting as we do, we need leaders and citizens who are capable of deliberating
about a life worth living.[18]
According to one psychology
article, here are some possible answers to the question of what makes life
worth living: (1) nothing; (2) religion; (3) happiness; (4) love, work and
play. The author thinks that evidence from psychology and neuroscience supports
the fourth answer. He refers to “despondent” philosophers Nietzsche,
Schopenhauer, and David Benatar as suggesting that “nothing” makes life worth
living. He describes them as nihilist. Life has no intrinsic meaning. The
author suggests, though, that most people find lots of reason to value their
lives and most people report they are reasonably happy.
He refers to religion as a
potential source for making life worth living. He admits that many surveys
suggest this. To him, however, this is bogus. It may reassure individuals, but
he does not think any evidence could lead to supporting the claims of one
religion over another. I think this skeptical approach is common and wrong. It
lumps all religions into the same category. I think there are ways to evaluate
reasonably the claims of a religion. Of the issues all religions must face,
however, are the various claims within the religion by the differing strands of
tradition.
He considers the possibility
that happiness makes life worth living. He refers to Sonja Lyumbomirsky, The How of Happiness. His objection is
that happiness is the result of a meaningful life, and not what makes life
worth living in itself.
His personal decision is
that what make life worth living are love, work, and play. He makes the case in
his book, The Brain and the Meaning of
Life. When we think about the importance of friendship, vocation or
productivity, and enjoyment in most of our lives, one can understand why the
author goes down this path.[19]
It would not be appropriate
to wrap up such reflections in a nice, neat package that pretended to offer the
perfect solution. I like the way Volf puts it in his book.
We
can be truly ourselves and free if God lives in us. This is what it means to be
God's creature -- not to be a self-made, self-standing individual over against
God, but to exist from God and through God. We are creatures precisely in that
we live in God and God lives in us. We are sinful creatures when we fail to
recognize this and live as if we were self-made, self-standing individuals.
Being a new creature, redeemed from sin, is in this regard similar to being a
creature as God originally created us to be. It is to live in Christ and to
have Christ live in us. United with Christ, we live in God, and God lives in
us.[20]
I leave you with some simple questions: What
makes your life worth living? Why does “it” make your life worth living? How is
your life different because of this belief?
[1]
Tolmie
[2]
Pannenberg (Systematic Theology, Vol
I, 209).
[3]
Barth (Church Dogmatics, IV.1 [61.4],
637).
[4]
Tolmie
[7]
Martin Hengel (The Zealots, 1961).
[8]
Barth (Church Dogmatics, IV.1 [61.4]
638).
[10]
Barth (Church Dogmatics, I.2 [16.1]
212).
[11]
Barth (Church Dogmatics, IV.1 [61.4]
637).
[12]
Barth Church Dogmatics (IV.4, p. 34).
[13]
Pannenberg (Systematic Theology, Vol.
II, 354-55).
[14]
Pannenberg (Systematic Theology, Vol.
II., p. 288).
[17]
F. F. Bruce
[18]
--Miroslav Volf, Ryan McAnnally-Linz, "What makes life worth
living? Take a moment to ask," The Huffington Post. Huffingtonpost.com. August
25, 2014. Retrieved January 4, 2016.
[19]
--Paul Thagard, "What makes life worth living?" Psychology
Today, psychologytoday.com. February 25, 2010. Retrieved January 4, 2016.
[20]
--Miroslav Volf, Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture
Stripped of Grace (Zondervan, 2009), 149.
No comments:
Post a Comment