In addition to Jews and Gentiles as classes of people that were part of the Galatian group that was defined by meal-gatherings at which Jesus was recognized as God (church), slaves undoubtedly formed a portion of their band. Not only can we draw out this conclusion from the fact of Paul mentioning “Jew… Greek… slave… free… male… female” (3:28), but such is made even more obvious by what we see in the fourth and fifth chapters, with Paul’s references to slaves and slavery. While he is surely employing a metaphor, utilizing the familiar imagery of the slave-market, the metaphor and the imagery would have a more pronounced impact for those that had either been acquired by their master at the slave market, or had purchased a slave at the slave market.
Continuing the “heir” language that closes out the third chapter (as we realize that Paul wasn’t closing out any chapters or writing with verse divisions---always a useful reminder), Paul writes “Now I mean that the heir,” meaning, all that are children of Abraham by faith,” as long as he is a minor, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything” (4:1). Can we read a bit deeper into this text? Does this illuminate another problem within this congregation of believers? Is there a younger member of the church, a relatively wealthy slaveholder who has had the goods of his parents fall to him at a young age, though “he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father” (4:2), who thinks himself better than his slaves or the members of their gathering that were slaves? Though there can certainly be a larger analogy at play, specifically the issue of Jews and the covenant markers of the law versus Gentiles and the covenant marker of belief in Jesus, this may not be an unreasonable proposition. Regardless, Paul takes yet another step to level out the community, writing “So also we, when we were minors, were enslaved under the basis forces of the world” (4:3). The point being, we’re all slaves. It may be appropriate to add “For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself” (6:3).
After making reference to the familiar process of acquiring a slave (“to redeem those who were under the law” 4:5a), Paul continues with the language of slavery, drawing upon the custom of the adoption of slaves as sons, which would serve to demonstrate the great magnanimity of the master that performs such an adoption, adding “so that we may be adopted as son sons with full rights… So you are no longer a slave but a son, and if you are a son, then you are also an heir through God” (4:5b,7). To this Paul adds “Formerly when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods at all” (4:8). Now, there may be some that are not going to like what they are hearing, as it is heavily disruptive of the social order and certainly takes no heed to the all-important sense of honor before the community that is diligently pursued and jealously guarded. Paul understands this, but like Jesus, simply does not care, as it has no place in the pursuit of the kingdom of God. Paul has discarded all honorific attachments, considering it unimportant in relation to what is necessary to embody the kingdom. He’s more than content to take the lowest place, as He understands His Lord to have done and directed His followers to do. So even though Paul understands what makes for true honor, he’s not deluded about the way that this line of thinking is going to be received, but understands it to be necessary if they are going to model out the kingdom of God, through their meal table, in the way that it was demonstrated by the one they call Lord. He writes “So then, have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (4:16)
Considering the language of slavery, and if we are hearing Paul correctly, from within the world in which he lived and the congregation to which he spoke, we understand that when Paul goes into his later analogy, comparing Sinai and the law with Hagar (and Ishmael) and slavery, whereas belief in Christ as the means for the expression of inclusion under the covenant is compared to Isaac (and Sarah), we do not have to hear this as condemnation or an assertion of superiority. Clearly, Paul does not want those who he insists do not need to adhere to the outward marks of the covenant that are associated with the law, to somehow feel superior to those that bear and uphold those covenant markers, while also confessing their belief in Jesus as Lord. This would be antithetical to his purposes. Rather, we are probably better served by holding on to the social dynamic that is at work, seeing Paul’s continual leveling out of the community, with all---be they the wealthy master of a slave, Jewish by birth and therefore a part of God’s originally elected people, or a Judaizing Gentile that has come to believe that they must uphold the covenant markers that were then in place---being slaves at one level or another. For that reason, they should be quite incapable of vaunting themselves over those that were actually slaves.
No comments:
Post a Comment