Thursday 11 October 2012

Background

An important part of Paul's wider argument that Gentiles (nonJews) have been incorporated into the people of God by faith alone,and not by the external imposition of 'Jewishness', is that theirlives have been transformed by the Spirit of God. This was seen asa prophetic sign that the messianic age had come - "Thenafterwards I will pour out my spirit on all flesh" (Joel2:28, quoted by Peter at Pentecost in Acts2:17). So if Gentiles had received the Spirit, through faith inJesus, nothing else was needed. Paul contrasts "the Spirit" with"the flesh" (vv. 16-17), by which he means two things: life withoutthe Spirit, and, more literally, circumcision as the primary focusof Jewish law. In the case of his enemies, of course, they amountto the same thing as far as he is concerned. Remember (from yesterday's passage) that Paul is stillvery angry!

"Spirit" and "flesh" are opposed to each other. The "flesh" (theJewish Christian insistence on circumcision) restricts the freedomthat the Spirit brings to gentile Christ-followers - the freedom tolive as God intends, free from the external demands of the Jewishlaw. Paul goes on to list "the works of the flesh" in verses 19-21,based on a familiar list of vices that would have been recognisedby Paul's gentile readers as typical of the teachings of moralphilosophers. And of course such things were abhorrent to Jews too,especially "fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry andsorcery" (vv. 19-20). But Paul very pointedly adds "enmities,strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions and envy"(vv. 20-21) to the middle of the list. These were precisely thethings he accused his opponents of, and so, quite clearly, theywere not "led by the Spirit" (v. 18) and would not "enter thekingdom of God" (v. 21). This is a very rare reference to "thekingdom of God" in Paul's writings, so is all the more pointedhere.

By contrast, those who are "led by the Spirit" (v. 18) exhibitthe fruit of that in their lives, without the need to live by theexternal aspects of Jewish law. And these qualities, again, afamiliar list of 'virtues', should mark out those who truly "belongto Christ Jesus" (v. 24). These evidently do not include Paul'sopponents.

To Ponder

• Do you think Paul's own attitude here reflects "the works ofthe flesh" or "the fruit of the Spirit"? To what extent does Paul'sown anger undermine the authority of what he writes?

• Christians are often seen as quick to condemn "the works of theflesh" in others, while showing little evidence of "the fruit ofthe Spirit" in their own lives. Is it important that Christiansshould be seen as 'nice people'? Why?

• "And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the fleshwith its passions and desires" (v. 24). What do you think Paulmeant?