Biblical Literacy and Galatians 3

[wicklunds]

Upon my own reflection, I guess I didnt feel any more came from the diagramming than just doing a simple and reflective reading of the trouble passage, and then comparing it with other scripture. I think that Paul's work is very tricky in the Greek. One of the tools we learned in Greek exegesis class was the diagramming that you use.

I think I disliked it for several reasons. But the more important one I already shared. See, if we cannot be moved beyond our initial shortcomings with a text by doing a diagram, we might do better just to compare the work with the rest of scripture. Often times I find people wanting to make something out of Paul's work that it ought not be. Antinomians live to quote from Galatians 3, Romans, 2 Corinthians, etc... But this does not mean I would not learn from Paul's work. On the contrary. Could you understand my concern?

[wicklunds]

So how would you then get past the trouble area that seems to remain about the law being defined as the schoolmaster containing both the ceremonial and the moral yet in SOP we are counseled that the moral remains. Some individuals are not comfortable with this because they want to nail all law to the cross not just the sacrificial and ceremonial that supported the sanctuary service.

And James characterizes justification as a formula of faith and works (in James 2:24) yet Paul characterizes justification as solely by faith. How do you get beyond this apparent impasse? Thank you for helping out a man in need.

[there buster]

Although I'm answering your question, please do not assume that I'm aiming this at you.

I've taught many lay people and quite a few students (including other Christians outside the SDA denomination) how to study, including block diagramming. I do understand your concerns. The biggest problem with the technique that I find people have is that they assume that once the diagram is done, their work is done. As I keep saying, this is only one tool, out of many I employ.

I find that difficulties with the text, which do not arise from the text itself (single use Greek words, for example; or phrasess without a context, e.g. "baptizing for the dead."), come from one of several causes in the mind of the student. And here, to be crystal clear, I include myself.

The causes I see in myself and others are:

1) Unwillingness to accept what the text says.

By far and away this is the most common cause. We don't like where the text is going, so we reject it. As a student in Hungary said to me, "I can't accept that interpretation." To which I replied, "Well, you've told me something about yourself, but nothing about the text." He had no textual argument--he just couldn't accept it.

The other form, which I've run into on CA as well as other venues, is the claim, "I'm confused," or "I don't understand." Obviously, there are times when a person is genuinely confused or having trouble understanding; but there are other times, just as obvious, when the evidence leads where they don't want it to go. So rather than following the obvious result, they claim confusion. It's a device used to buy time, and hope the argument (or the expositor) will go away.

2) Lack of inisight. Bible study will never be reducible to a turn-the-crank mechanical endeavor. Most of the fun would go with it. I had one student who got block diagramming down pat--quite efficient. But then she thought she was done, and what resulted was a mechanical running commentary on the passage, not any kind of engaging interpretation. It was all precise, orderly, and dry as dust.

3)Lack of imagination. This is similar to #2, but not quite the same. Insight may result after using the imagination. It really comes down to asking more and more questions of the text, and seeing where the answers come from, and where they lead.

4)I'm guessing this one may have affected you somewhat: Fatigue. None of us is at our best when tired, and college students are often tired. Fatigue affects all three of the others. It stifles imagination, reduces insight, and makes us reluctant to change.

These reasons also apply to instructors. Teachers who use block diagramming unimaginatively, and without insight, could easily turn it into drudgery, jacking up the fatigue factor to the point that simply looking at one could make you tired.

There may be other reasons, but these are the ones that I have observed, and quickly come to mind.

Is that helpful?

[there buster]

Quote:

---

the law being defined as the schoolmaster containing both the ceremonial and the moral yet in SOP we are counseled that the moral remains.

---

Well, I would break this down into several sub-points, and deal with them in turn.

Quote:

---

Some individuals are not comfortable with this because they want to nail all law to the cross not just the sacrificial and ceremonial that supported the sanctuary service.

---

The Bible doesn't commend comfort as a virtue, indeed, it is Laodicea's great vice. So I try not to consult my comfort or anyone else's in these matters. The text says what it says. What it meant is a matter of exegesis. What he intended to signify with it is a matter of Biblical theology, and what it means for us today is a matter of systematic theology. The results of that process often make me uncomfortable.

There's another thread where someone's butchering Col. 2:14 and the χειρόγραφον. The best translation in conveying the sense of the Greek, IMHGO, is the Phillips, which is quite dynamic.

Quote:

---

Christ has utterly wiped out the damning evidence of broken laws and commandments which always hung over our heads, and has completely annulled it by nailing it over his own head on the cross.

---

As I indicated, it conveys the sense, but is far from word-for-word.

I think a fair reading of the Col 2:14 clearly indicates it is not the law that was nailed to the cross, but the indictment against us.

As far as the moral law remaining, I see it as a minor point, depending on how you define your terms.

It's quite clear that "keeping the law" will not save anyone. We are saved by faith. If you like, we can start another thread, where I'll explain why I think the best single word for faith in this context is "trust."

At the same time, no one seriously contends that professing faith in Christ gives one a license to kill. So everyone agrees that the law against killing remains in force. No one would accept the argument, "I'm a Christian, so I can kill and not be held accountable."

And finally, there's the simple fact that real faith produces changes in the life. That's the "works" that James refers to.

So I see no conflict. No one is saved by keeping the law. No one who lives the life of faith will deliberately and intentionally break the law with impunity--we will continually bring this inadequacy to Christ. And this new-found faith will produce changes in our lives.

Any attempt to turn James into a conflict with Paul or with the other NT writers is to superimpose a grid, to give our meaning to their words, or it is a failure to see other ways in which those words might be used.

That's why I title these threads "Biblical literacy." There's a tendency to be hyper-literalistic, linking words without accounting for context, rather than a literate reading of the work, where context reveals meaning.

How's that?

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Although I'm answering your question, please do not assume that I'm aiming this at you.

I've taught many lay people and quite a few students (including other Christians outside the SDA denomination) how to study, including block diagramming. I do understand your concerns. The biggest problem with the technique that I find people have is that they assume that once the diagram is done, their work is done. As I keep saying, this is only one tool, out of many I employ.

I find that difficulties with the text, which do not arise from the text itself (single use Greek words, for example; or phrasess without a context, e.g. "baptizing for the dead."), come from one of several causes in the mind of the student. And here, to be crystal clear, I include myself.

The causes I see in myself and others are:

1) Unwillingness to accept what the text says.

By far and away this is the most common cause. We don't like where the text is going, so we reject it. As a student in Hungary said to me, "I can't accept that interpretation." To which I replied, "Well, you've told me something about yourself, but nothing about the text." He had no textual argument--he just couldn't accept it.

The other form, which I've run into on CA as well as other venues, is the claim, "I'm confused," or "I don't understand." Obviously, there are times when a person

is

genuinely confused or having trouble understanding; but there are other times, just as obvious, when the evidence leads where they don't want it to go. So rather than following the obvious result, they claim confusion. It's a device used to buy time, and hope the argument (or the expositor) will go away.

2) Lack of inisight. Bible study will never be reducible to a turn-the-crank mechanical endeavor. Most of the fun would go with it. I had one student who got block diagramming down pat--quite efficient. But then she thought she was done, and what resulted was a mechanical running commentary on the passage, not any kind of engaging interpretation. It was all precise, orderly, and dry as dust.

3)Lack of imagination. This is similar to #2, but not quite the same. Insight may result after using the imagination. It really comes down to asking more and more questions of the text, and seeing where the answers come from, and where they lead.

4)I'm guessing this one may have affected you somewhat: Fatigue. None of us is at our best when tired, and college students are often tired. Fatigue affects all three of the others. It stifles imagination, reduces insight, and makes us reluctant to change.

These reasons also apply to instructors. Teachers who use block diagramming unimaginatively, and without insight, could easily turn it into drudgery, jacking up the fatigue factor to the point that simply looking at one could make you tired.

There may be other reasons, but these are the ones that I have observed, and quickly come to mind.

Is that helpful?

---

Yes it helped but I still find that I dont readily agree that because a person rejects a certain mode or method of doing study or exegesis that they are lazy or incompetent (you did not necessarily say this but there is a hint of it there). I think that we would all want to believe our way of study is the best thing since sliced bread. I don't say this out of malice toward you. I have had problems dealing with change. I have no problem admitting this. I think the main struggle for me is: where is change necessary and where is change soul-destroying?

We have obvious schism in our church over several critical issues. So do we quell this schism by throwing out SOP and starting from scratch? Many in my neck of the woods are doing this and this is why I feel so hesitant to change. This may be why I have rejected some of the methodology I have been force-fed. Also there are some fairly pointed remarks by EW that counsel against a false reformation where the Sabbath would be lightly regarded.

I do not, by any means, include you into this group but I did notice what you said in your initial post about people leaning too heavily on SOP for Bible study guidance. Is this such a big crime Ed? I just don't see diagramming as yielding more than what we already have in the SOP. Why is this thinking wrong? This is not saying that we shouldnt search for ourselves. I do think it is important for us to understand the Bible on our own cognition without SOP aid in order to be able to explain them to non-SDA's though. Is this what you are doing?

Thanks,

Dennis Wicklund

[benherndon]

Quote:

---

I am a student of SDA ministry

---

>>>I wonder what you mean by being "a student of SDA ministry"? Do you mean you are taking the ministerial course as a major in one of our colleges?

Ben

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I am a student of SDA ministry

---

>>>I wonder what you mean by being "a student of SDA ministry"? Do you mean you are taking the ministerial course as a major in one of our colleges?

Ben

---

Yes Dr. Herndon