Reading Galatians with a Hebrew Bible scholar and a Rabbinics scholar

In my last class today we discussed Galatians and Romans.  This was an interesting discussion but before I share the insights some general background is in order.  The class is titled "From Sectarianism to Heresy in 2nd Temple Judaism," and we discuss texts that represent different "Jewish" groups self definition and its insider/outsider portrayals.  Needless to say there has been some great discussions and a lot of reading.

So, for todays class we had to read Galatians and Romans in Greek and secondary articles from Stowers, Gager, and Boyarin.  I had at least read reviews of these scholars general views on Paul and agreed with many of there points they made.  What was really interesting was hearing my professors, one a Hebrew Bible scholar and the other a Rabbinic scholar, talking about Paul.  Whether everyone in class knew it or not, we all generally agreed with the shift in thinking brought on by the New Perspective.  That is to say, we all read Paul as a person wrestling with Judaism in a Roman occupation context, in light of his understanding of Jesus.  However, the agreement did not go much further than that.

I was constantly reminded of the limits of our knowledge of life situation of "Jews" in the first century.  I use the quotes because the term is not easily defined nor does it represent a group with common understandings.  A problem that was overlooked by the "old perspective" and continues to be discussed by students of biblical studies.  Thus, when it comes to Paul, we come across ambiguous phrasing that is not a easily understood by simply reading.  The Christian-Judaism divide is nonexistent at this point.  If you read Galatians before reading Acts, you get a different picture of Paul.  Luke-Acts has already made a distinction between Jews and Christians that is not apart of Paul's writings.  I think I might go back and reread Paul's letters.  Once the semester is over and I have time to read.  Let me rephrase that, time to read what I would like to read.

Religion is not for the dumb and faint of heart!

I have had several conversations recently about worship music.  This is a subject I like to mock, complain about, and often I find it helpful in my pursuit of following Jesus.  On one occasion, I was discussing the  tendency of worship musicians to write love songs about Jesus.  This led to my mocking these people, substituting Jesus for the subject of the song.  I wasted more time with this than I should have but it proves the point that we relate to Jesus in overly simplified terms.

My mocking is not the best response but we should be able to engage Christ with more thought than simply stating our affection for him like teenagers "in love."  This is where worship music is symptom of other issues, mainly an inadequate way of expressing our faith in an educated manner.  Being a student at a seminary, I have heard the complaints of many students.  The most common issue is the feeling that what is taught is not practical knowledge that will help someone lead a church.  I usually respond that it is the students job to relate the material taught to the specific situation in which they find themselves.  What is taught is the methods and means of interpretation, not the interpretation.

It is our job as students/disciples to use these methods and creatively apply them to the act of following Jesus.  This is where worship music fails, when it only recreates teen pop, love songs about/to Jesus.  There is plenty of music out there that addresses the complex, thought provoking, beauty of humanity.  This is not specifically "Christian music."  We follow a thoughtful, complex God who expresses himself in a plurality of ways.  We can apply our own thoughtful complexity to worship, as well as to leading churches, interpreting our traditions and scriptures, and serving others.  I like how one of my professors states this idea,  "Religion is not for the dumb and faint of heart!"