Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity

[George88]

3 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But I have no problem with questioning the validity of posts in the absence of concrete evidence. This is how I think all of us should think about most posts here. It's the nature of the media.

I appreciate your acknowledgement that we should scrutinize every post on this platform, placing importance on scriptural support and principles above any biases or allegiances.

6 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

as he continued to work for the Writing Department, remotely via Bro Swingle, and continued to write many of the Watchtower study articles long after he was dismissed from Bethel and given a special pioneer stipend to live on.

It seems like you're mentioning the 80s, a time when there was a purge of disloyal members of the society who did not adhere to scriptural support or biblical principles. I personally knew many individuals from that era, and based on what I observed, there were valid reasons for that purge to take place.

[George88]

7 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Do you think Aaron should have stood is passive support of Moses at the incident of Meribah, just because Moses was anointed by God as His spokesman?

Or, do you think Aaron should have acted to check Moses actions at that incident, despite Moses being anointed by God as His spokesman?

What was Aaron, and who commissioned him? Are we suggesting that we should sit in the chair of Moses?

[Many Miles]

1 minute ago, George88 said:

I appreciate your acknowledgement that we should scrutinize every post on this platform, placing importance on scriptural support and principles above any biases or allegiances.

 

I agree it is essential to scrutinize every post on this platform (or elsewhere), placing importance on scriptural support and principles above any biases or allegiances.

[Many Miles]

Just now, George88 said:

What was Aaron, and who commissioned him? Are we suggesting that we should sit in the chair of Moses?

Aaron was an appointed man too. But Moses was the anointed of Jehovah as His spokesman. So I'll ask you again:

Do you think Aaron should have stood is passive support of Moses at the incident of Meribah, just because Moses was anointed by God as His spokesman?

Or, do you think Aaron should have acted to check Moses actions at that incident, despite Moses being anointed by God as His spokesman?

[George88]

16 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Aaron was an appointed man too. But Moses was the anointed of Jehovah as His spokesman. So I'll ask you again:

Leviticus:

8 12 The anointing of Aaron, and his sons, with the sacrifice concerning the same.

¹ Afterward the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

² Take Aaron and his sons with him, and the garments, and the anointing oil, and a bullock for the sin offering, and two rams, and a basket of unleavened bread,

³ And assemble all the company at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation.

[Many Miles]

22 minutes ago, George88 said:

Leviticus:

8 12 The anointing of Aaron, and his sons, with the sacrifice concerning the same.

¹ Afterward the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

² Take Aaron and his sons with him, and the garments, and the anointing oil, and a bullock for the sin offering, and two rams, and a basket of unleavened bread,

³ And assemble all the company at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation.

So,

Do you think Aaron should have stood in passive support of Moses at the incident of Meribah, just because Moses was anointed by God as His spokesman?

Or, do you think Aaron should have acted to check Moses actions at that incident, despite Moses being anointed by God as His spokesman?

[George88]

43 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

So,

Do you think Aaron should have stood in passive support of Moses at the incident of Meribah, just because Moses was anointed by God as His spokesman?

Or, do you think Aaron should have acted to check Moses actions at that incident, despite Moses being anointed by God as His spokesman?

What significance does the incident on the Meribah rock have? Aaron might have argued with Moses about how the Israelites behaved when he created the image of the Egyptian calf, but God would make Moses' decision, just as Aaron had to accept Nadab and Abihu's fate.

Would Moses have listened to Aaron if he had intervened, given the furious state Moses was in, that he acted on a split second impulse?

[Juan Rivera]

22 hours ago, Many Miles said:

My comments here are not addressing whatever authority the governing body holds. 

My comments here are addressing whether there is a limit to obedience Christians are directed to show to those taking the lead as their teachers, including the governing body (note Paul’s use of “we” in his letter to Galatia)

Though “submit” is an act in relation to an authority, I believe Paul expressed a limitation to submission expected of Christians. 

Back to my contribution in this discussion, of Christians and those taking the lead as their teachers, either 1) there is a rightful limitation to obedience toward those teachers or 2) there is no rightful limitation toward those teachers. 

@Many Miles @JW Insider I think what Paul is teaching in Galatians 1:6-8 is a middle position between a rationalism that tests all claims by one’s own interpretation of Scripture, and a mindless fideism that accepts as infallible whatever those taking the lead say regarding the faith. 

Here Paul is not teaching that individual Christians should test the teaching authority in the congregation to their own interpretation of Scripture. Paul is saying that the Galatians must not abandon the good news which he and all the other Apostles had preached to them. The foundation laid was absolutely true and therefore must never be torn up and re founded on something different. That initial apostolic preaching was an infallible and irrevocable foundation. But the Good News that Paul and the others had preached was not defined as the individual Galatian believer’s own personal interpretation of Scripture. It was something much bigger than that. It was the faith that had been preached throughout the world by the Apostles. There was a communal, historical and personal dimension to the received faith and its identity, it wasn’t limited to the letters written by the Apostles. To see whether someone was teaching a novel teaching, one would compare the message in question to the teaching received from the Apostles throughout the whole Congregation.  The standard by which to measure the message in question was not “my interpretation of Scripture.” Instead, Paul is exhorting the Galatian believers to test the spirits against what had been originally given to them and to the whole world by the Apostles. Otherwise, anyone following his own novel interpretation of Scripture could claim to be following the original Good News.

So, there being a standard by which both acts of the Apostles (Paul, John, Peter, James) and the Governing Body and those who hold the office can be judged (and ought to be judged) is fully compatible with not being our own ultimate interpretive authority. Otherwise it would be worthless test, as each person claim to be listening to the Apostles (and so claims to have the spirit of truth), and yet they all disagree with each other. 

If an elder, Apostle or Governing body member came along  contrary to the Good News that had been taught and believed throughout the Congregation, they were not to follow him because he was a false teacher. But the standard was not their private interpretation of Scripture, rather, the public and communally shared faith received by the whole Congregation from the Apostles was the standard. It was public and communal, not a standard of private interpretation. So the question for us (Jehovah's Witness) is if the Governing Body is requiring anyone to give more obedience to them than Paul because Paul was not teaching that each individual had supreme individual interpretive authority. So the duty to submit to present interpretive authority is not incompatible with a duty to hold to what has previously been given, the two duties go together, and neither nullifies the other. 

On 10/28/2023 at 10:24 PM, Many Miles said:

Of course, back then there were supernatural evidences available to corroborate whose teaching had merit, and departure from those teachings was the litmus test. 

Today, to our knowledge, there are no supernatural evidences corroborating whose teaching to accept. What we have is something that was only building amongst early Christians. We have the Bible. So today the litmus test should be 1) what the Bible expressly states, and 2) what can be deduced from what the Bible says with a conclusion that is subject to known conventions of logical construction (i.e., a demonstrably sound conclusion)

To be blunt, 1) if a teaching is found to be not expressly stated in biblical text, or 2) if a teaching is not a demonstrably sound conclusion (or, worse, a refuted conclusion), then no Christian should be bound to obey that teaching. Such teachings should be left to accept or ignore based on personal conscience.

Or maybe before we can begin to determine who does, and who doesn't, contradict the Apostles' teaching, we have to step back and determine how we know what is the Apostles' teaching, and who has the authority to answer that question, and who has the authority to give Scripture's authentic interpretation. Otherwise, our claim that certain persons contradict the Apostles' teaching might turn out to be, in fact, that those persons simply contradict our own interpretation of Scripture (and that of those who interpret Scripture like we do).

[Many Miles]

55 minutes ago, George88 said:

What significance does the incident on the Meribah rock have? Aaron might have argued with Moses about how the Israelites behaved when he created the image of the Egyptian calf, but God would make Moses' decision, just as Aaron had to accept Nadab and Abihu's fate.

Would Moses have listened to Aaron if he had intervened, given the furious state Moses was in, that he acted on a split second impulse?

The incident at Meribah teaches us something about loyalty, which speaks to obedience in the face of authority.

What difference would it have made? Could have made a big difference based on how God reacted. Whether Moses would have listened to Aaron, we won't know because Aaron stood in support of Moses during that incident. Which brings us back to the questions you avoid answering for some reason.

1) Do you think Aaron should have stood in passive support of Moses at the incident of Meribah, just because Moses was anointed by God as His spokesman?

2) Or, do you think Aaron should have acted to check Moses actions at that incident, despite Moses being anointed by God as His spokesman?

[Many Miles]

52 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

Here Paul is not teaching that individual Christians should test the teaching authority in the congregation to their own interpretation of Scripture.

...

Or maybe before we can begin to determine who does, and who doesn't, contradict the Apostles' teaching, we have to step back and determine how we know what is the Apostles' teaching, and who has the authority to answer that question, and who has the authority to give Scripture's authentic interpretation. Otherwise, our claim that certain persons contradict the Apostles' teaching might turn out to be, in fact, that those persons simply contradict our own interpretation of Scripture (and that of those who interpret Scripture like we do).

First, I've not suggested anyone should apply their own interpretation of scripture.

Today we can 1) read and depend on what the Bible expressly states, and 2) what can see what can be be deduced from what the Bible says with a conclusion that is subject to known conventions of logical construction (i.e., a demonstrably sound conclusion).

I don't see how anyone can disagree with this, unless they don't understand how conventions of logical construction work. Please don't mistake this as disrespect. I intend none. But it is a commonly misunderstood discipline.

One important thing that knowing conventions of logical construction teaches is how to identify logical fallacies. Here's a decent article that talks a little bit about this: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101990365?q=five+common+fallacies&p=par

Applying conventions of logic is an excellent way to avoid conclusions that are biased. If anything, they keep conclusions independent of personal biases.

 

[Many Miles]

2 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

Or maybe before we can begin to determine who does, and who doesn't, contradict the Apostles' teaching, we have to step back and determine how we know what is the Apostles' teaching, and who has the authority to answer that question, and who has the authority to give Scripture's authentic interpretation. Otherwise, our claim that certain persons contradict the Apostles' teaching might turn out to be, in fact, that those persons simply contradict our own interpretation of Scripture (and that of those who interpret Scripture like we do).

In his letter to Galatia Paul said "...even if we..."

With that language Paul included the very ones with authority to teach Christians as being subject to his declaration that if anyone declared something beyond what they had learned, something that was actually a different teaching to hold them as accursed.

This doesn't mean we should attempt to dislodge authority. It only means that our obedience to authority among men (no matter who those men are) is not and should never be absolute. This does not mean we apply personal interpretation. It means we examine what's taught to make sure of all things and then hold fast to that which is fine. To avoid personal bias and/or interpretation we use accepted conventions of logical construction. We have the Bible. We have our Brain. Both are God given. We use them both, and we do so as objectively as we can and make ourselves overcome personal bias by keeping to conventions of logic.

Remember that Moses was given such tremendous authority over Aaron that Moses was told he was "God" to Aaron! But, in the incident at Meribah, Aaron made the mistake of putting loyalty to Moses ahead of loyalty to the One who appointed Moses in the first place. Aaron passively supported Moses ("God") during that incident when he could have acted to check Moses' actions. It was an inappropriate act of passive obedience. He went along when he shouldn't have. There's a strong lesson in that for us today. It's the same thing Paul was trying to convey to Galatia. Obedience to authority has a limit.

[George88]

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

The incident at Meribah teaches us something about loyalty, which speaks to obedience in the face of authority.

What difference would it have made? Could have made a big difference based on how God reacted. Whether Moses would have listened to Aaron, we won't know because Aaron stood in support of Moses during that incident. Which brings us back to the questions you avoid answering for some reason.

The incident at Meribah Rock is an important reminder of the importance of obedience to God, and the consequences of disobeying his commands. It serves as an example to us all, of the importance of trusting in God’s will, and of the consequences of disobeying him.

The illustration of Meribah Rock helps to deepen our comprehension of the contrasting concepts of obedience and disobedience. As I mentioned earlier, it serves as a powerful reminder of the profound significance of wholehearted obedience to God and the potentially severe consequences that can result from disobedience.

Those who dare to alter their preaching or teaching in order to distort, mishandle, or misinterpret the word of God, go against what is stated in Galatians 1:8. This indicates their disobedience towards God.

Although Paul did not explicitly state that you would be excluded from the new system due to your personal actions, he did warn of being cursed, or more simply put, damned. This implies that God will judge individuals, much like he did with Moses.