Galatians Essay

Because I haven’t read the whole book reading Gorman â€Å"Galatians Ch9† is at first a bit confusing. However, I must say that the reading is very easy to read and easy to understand. Gorman used very simple terms and easy English for his reader to read and understand. Basically in this short chapter Gorman try to exegesis the whole book of Galatians in his own understanding and research. I’ve founded that there are lacks of evidence of resources, as in not much of references quote in this chapter, Gorman strong sources for his argument in this chapter would be the book Galatians itself, he kept referring back to Galatians and because of that the arguments seemed to be persuasive but at the same time lacks of backing up from others. Many of Gorman explanations in this epistle were unjustified, for example the dating of the letter and I quote on page187 â€Å"although no firm conclusion is possible within the range of years 49-55, the most likely date, in this writer’s estimations is 50-55, properly from Ephesus† It would be more convincing if Gorman could give us more evidence about the date and place of written. Over all the exegesis of the entire Galatians in this chapter was not that of rigorous at all. Gorman definitely give us a clear view on Paul’s message to the Galatians. Anyone who read this chapter will surely get a clear understanding of the gospel, not only to the Galatians but also for the churches today as well. Gorman ended the chapter well with the 10 questions for reflection, these 10 reflections questions are the issue that we are facing right now as a contemporary Christians, especially question 10, and I would like to end this review with the same question â€Å"In sum, what does this letter urge the church to believe, to hope for, and to do?† Second critical review is on an article by Martinus C. de Boer, titled: â€Å"Galatians A Commentary† from week 4 reading. To be honest I find this reading is a bit lengthy, especially the entire article is focus on the exegesis of only 6 verses. Having say that Martinus taking the time out to clearly explained the conflict between Paul and Cephas in Antioch over the issue of â€Å"The Truth of the Gospel†. I agreed with Martinus that this is not only important for Paul and the Christians in the 1st century but also to all of us today, we odd to understand the message of â€Å"the truth of the gospel† (2:5, 14). Because this is a commentary, it is clear evidence that the Martinus gave a wide range of evidence to his arguments. I also have to say that the exegesis in this article is precised, however, if it is to focus on the truth gospel of Christ, I feel that Martinus could have mention more of Paul other letters to back up the topic of the true gospel, instead of a very long exegesis around the confrontation of Paul and Cephas, I would have looked at Paul conversion passage to prove more of Paul conviction for his true gospel. Martinus translated Jews who is circumcised as â€Å"the circumcision party† page 133. I’m not sure if I would agree with Martinus here, because lacks of evidence in this statement made by Martinus, I’m not sure if this is a political view or is it direct translation from its original text? Over all from reading this article, apart from the fact that it is a long article, I’ve founded that it is very helpful for churches today to see the historical of Paul’s letter through Martinus book. Definitely an issue arises for the use of the Bible today in our own context, for example: Paul and Peter relationship. Can two Christians have disagreements that eventually lead them to different road? The final reading is from Charles H. Cosgrove â€Å"The Cross and The Spirit† chapter 3 The Logic of the Opposing Theology. Over all I find that this is a really hard piece to read, the precise and information was great, however, I feel that there are some stuffs that he could have leave out, and that he doesn’t have to go into details as such, for example Cosgrove goes on and talk about the Torah is for Life on page 90 and from there on, I’ve noticed that he kept going back to the Torah for his arguments throughout the rest of the chapter. Cosgrove make it clear to his readers about Paul wanting to hammer us about life in crucified Jesus. Nothing important to Paul than that we have life in Jesus. Cosgrove shared some light about the Christian Jews that are actually after Paul and not the Romans, and this is consistent with what I’ve learned in the unit and also other theologians. Later in the chapter Cosgrove also pin point the agitators and one again it’s consistent with the unit teaching and also others theologians, example Barclay who concluded in his book that Agitators were Christian Jews probably from Jerusalem. Mark D Nanos also suggested the same thing, so over all Cosgrove argument was very persuasive and clear evidence of a large selective of different sources. Finally, Cosgrove really trying hard to explain to his reader the opposing theology between Paul and everyone who are at the Galatians, this would certainly help us today as we read Galatians with a more clear picture of its context and understanding of where Paul and the others are coming from.