What I've Learned Since the Writing of the Galatians Commentary

Paul's misunderstanding in Galatians, and how it affects the Church today

Eugene Peterson's The Message

Editor’s prefatory note: When Eugene is right, he’s really right. Not infrequently, he nails the underlying essential meaning of a particular biblical passage.

When I wrote my article on Mark 11, Eugene was the only one to get to the core meaning of what Jesus was talking about: “Embrace this God-life, really embrace it.” What a home-run.

And here, as well, in Galatians 2, he distills the essence of Paul’s viewpoint in a way that has escaped other translators. But, let’s get into it now.

Paul is saying things that later, with clearer head and better understanding, he'll regret

Galatians 2:20 is one of the most beloved verses in the entire New Testament:  “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live” (KJV). I recall, as a young man, new to Galatians, being drawn to this verse. On a certain level, it seems to present an ideal, making us feel closer to God. But, upon closer inspection, there's something unsavory about it.

There is so much to be said here. I actually considered writing a new commentary on Galatians featuring, as central teaching, Paul's heartfelt sentiment expressed in this verse, showing how it colors everything he says in Galatians. However, I no longer have the energy to undertake such a project, and so I will ask you to do some homework, if you’d like to understand what’s really going on here.

rocked! - though I'd been looking at this for a long time

Quite frankly, I am rocked by the insight. On some level, I suppose I knew this, but hadn't been able to accept it. It is now 20+ years since I finished the commentary, and many more years since commencing all of the research. But what I see now modifies all of it. I wasn't ready to accept it back then.

just because you had a mystical experience doesn't mean you're going to understand what happened to you; at least, probably not in the first 50 years

The Galatians commentary was produced during a time in my life when I was still a Christian fundamentalist. As such, I tried hard to harmonize all of Paul’s teachings with orthodox belief. But I now see that Paul, too, in essence, was trying very hard to do the same thing, to retain his Jewish heritage, to some degree, while incorporating new understandings via his then-recent mystical revelations. We might all do well to be reminded of Jesus' comment: "You cannot put new wine into old wineskins" - something's going to burst.

the doctrines of the Nice Young Man at Church have been colored by Paul's misunderstanding 

It can take a long time to fully understand the message of a mystical revelation; many years or decades to fully complete the “harmonizing” - and some of it will take place in the next life. Galatians was not just Paul’s first writing (that survived), but it's also the earliest document of the New Testament canon – written well before the “gospels.” It was Paul’s first effort, first thoughts, on these topics, virtually, as a young man in the faith.

But these were not settled thoughts, not settled convictions. Elsewhere on the Word Gems site, I offer substantial evidence that Paul changed his mind on a number of issues; more and more, he was escaping the bonds of his cultural heritage in favor of "something," as The Wedding Song uses the phrase, “never seen before.”

Here’s what the young Paul did not yet understand. I must offer the following in shorthand fashion, as these topics are discussed at length in many Word Gems articles.

we're not supposed to identify with anything external to ourselves

“I identified myself completely with him.” Eugene really captures the sense of what Paul is trying to say. The problem is, we’re not supposed to identify with anything external – person, place, or idea. Instead, we are to expand our sense of the "made in the image" life within.

one's ego, one's sense of self, is something holy and meant to be central to one's being, because - how can you have a relationship with God if you're not a real or whole person; being a puppet of another won't do

It can be confusing. We might perceive something of the dysfunctional ego's poisonous influence, about its megalomania, but, so much so that we can lose sight of the fact that our very purpose in coming to this world is to become an individualized person, a well-defined sacred ego. See the discussion in many Word Gems articles.

One's sense of self, one's sanctified ego in the sight of God, is not the problem. Paul fails to see this.

“I have been crucified with Christ. My ego is no longer central.” This takes us precisely in the wrong direction, away from sanctified personhood. Paul doesn't understand this; not yet.

As a young person studying the bible, I totally missed what Paul was trying to express: "Surely, it couldn't be that," I subliminally thought. At the time, I believed that the phrase “I have been crucified with Christ” meant that one should adopt, as a life goal, a self-sacrificial fortitude embodied in the example of dying on a cross; after all, there are the words of Jesus which seem to say this, his “take up your cross and follow me.” But this is not what Paul is saying here.

yet not I

Notice the word “ego” of The Message translation. However, the KJV has it, “yet not I.” Eugene Peterson has skillfully rendered the obscurity. Paul is talking about getting rid of his own essential self. This is very troubling.

What is going on here? What is prompting all this self-deprecation? Let us recall the mindset of the writer. Paul had been a hard-core persecutor of the Church. He may have been the cause of torture or even the murder of some Christians. Paul can’t get over this. Even after his mystical experience, he considers himself to be tainted, checkered, not good enough.

Paul is suffering from a lack of self-forgiveness. He is experiencing severe self-loathing. He realizes that it was his base nature that had gotten him into trouble, and now he believes the solution to be a total denial of self; indeed, a denial of very personhood - to the point of expunging it.

But this goes too far. He wants to see himself as “crucified with Christ” - but what he means by this expression is that he hopes to be rid of himself, his essential self, his ego, his sense of personhood, and to replace “Paul” with Christ living in him. But this is very wrong; indeed, a violation of God's very purpose for us. Paul has not yet understood that the “false self” is not the “true self,” and that “denying the self” does not mean denying the “true self.”

so, you're not even allowed to have your own faith in God? - that's weird

See the KJV on this, this is the sense it gives. The KJV suggests that we cannot even have our own faith in God but must borrow it from Christ. This is very off-base. The Message translation tones down this mandate to access Christ's faith as substitute for our own.

Paul’s teaching here is very pathological. But he doesn’t yet see it that way. He believes that the way back to God is to get rid of anything that looks like “Paul,” replacing it with “Christ in me.”

As I sometimes use the expression, there is so much wrong here, one hardly knows where to begin. All of the mayhem at hand is discussed in numerous Word Gems articles.

what Paul doesn't yet know is that there are millions of unbalanced people on the other side who speak just as he does, with empty god-talk, trying to get rid of themselves - and there are spirit missionary teams working to help these confused people

Here’s a core Word Gems article as a place to start: “The 500 tape-recorded testimonies from the other side.” Over there, we find an entire class of people psychologically off-kilter, immersed in self-loathing, assiduously trying to find ways to be rid of themselves. What Paul is doing is just one more effort, on a long list, to excise from oneself a sense of Hoffer’s “spoiled self.” This idea has had a very long run, but Paul thinks this is new.

As I said, I am leaving you with much homework: You will want to read the articles on cultism, the four on spirituality, the true self and false self, and others.

I must end here; however, consider this. In the Galatians commentary, I point out that early Christianity had become a battleground of ideas between Paul and the Jerusalem apostles. Paul’s version of Christianity emerged as victor, and it was Paul’s thoughts that would shape and color the coming Christian movement for millennia.

Note: For those who'd like to think about this more deeply, read Galatians with these insights in mind. For example, when Paul speaks of baptism as a kind of death, now you know what he's really thinking of. For Paul, baptism becomes a ritualistic death of the ego, the death of personal self. This is not good. It's what cults try to do to their victims. Paul was well meaning, but the result of his message, taken at face value, would have been very destructive, not unlike the worst cultish teaching.

a wretch like me - really?

What does this mean, shaping the Church for centuries to come? Well, here's one spin-off effect, a big one. Think of the typical “Christian” song played on the radio or sung in Church - "God saved a wretch like me." Notice the heavy emphasis on “I'm nothing, I'm worthless, I’m a first-class schmuck – saved only by the grace of God.” This dark and dysfunctional sentiment has nothing to do with the authentic teachings of Jesus and, in fact, takes us very wide of the mark. The truth is, we are not "sinners" - not the way they explain it - and we do not require mercy. Why? Because God cannot be offended and has never been surprised by any error that his/her developing children might stumble into.

what does this say about the nature of God

But Paul believed God to be very touchy, very humorless, and very wrathful - and this is Paul’s legacy to the Church. It’s all an echo of the fearfully-minded Paul, the man who could not forgive himself. It is not a healthy way of thinking and, by implication, makes God out to be some kind of weird bad guy or even a psychopath: see the discussion on the "Jesus" page.

The real God would have us know that self-condemnation, self-loathing, attempting to be rid of the self, is exactly the wrong mindset and will do nothing but stunt our growth and set us back in terms of unfolding our awesome human potential.

Paul is like Father Benson who, during his Earth-life, wrote things that later he deeply regretted; but then, in the afterlife, devised a plan to mitigate the effect of his damaging immature teachings.

it's no accident that the most revered sages are dead

The sage whose words are ambiguous you call great.
Those who advocate discipline you shun.
With one, you treat words the way you want.
With the other, you resent having no [private interpretation].

People love ambiguity, especially when it comes to religion. They can interpret things the way they want. If they are unhappy with the cast given to a particular teaching, they invent ways to circumvent it, which is why we have so many authorities, schools, and sects.

It is no accident that the most revered sages are dead. They aren’t around to correct our misguided notions… Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, Lao Tzu – how many of us are actually devoted to the wisdom that they embodied? Or have we made them mere screens upon which we project our own ideas [and prejudices]…

[Y]our goal should be to bring yourself to a state of [personal] independence [rather than a perpetual mode of “follower” or “disciple,” which is the spirit of cultism]. All teachings [even the greatest] are mere references [or signposts, and no substitute for spiritual maturity]. The true experience is living your own life. Then, even the [so-called] holiest of words are only words.

Deng Ming-Dao, 365 Tao

Editor's note: Yes, "it is no accident that the most revered sages are dead." This way, we can put words into their mouths to support whatever cockeyed "infallible, holy" teaching we'd like to sanctify.

In my city, yours, too, there are likely to be schools and churches, of different sects and denominations, dedicated to "Saint Paul this" and "Saint Paul that" -- not only contradicting each other in their "holy doctrines," but, in this charade, putting into the mouth of Paul things that he would never say, things that would make the real Paul spit nails concerning this fake-news misrepresentation.

Religious hucksters have commandeered the prestigious name of Paul -- as they do with "Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, [and] Lao Tzu" -- pressing these stellar ones into service of small and fear-based religious ideas. 

How do I know this? I spent many years, more than a decade, investigating every word, every phrase, and its context, of Paul's earliest writing, the first document of the New Testament, Galatians. And I will tell you this: even the concept of sectarianism, of "hurray for our side," of dogmatic statements of "infallible this" and "infallible that," of elitism, is utterly anathema to Paul.

You will discover that Paul was no fan of any form of legal code; which is to say, any religion. He considered it a temporary necessary evil, a "prison" as it limits our freedom, a kind of moralistic "kindergarten nursery," just "the rudimentary ABCs" of what's important in life. These are Paul's metaphors, not mine, as you will learn when you study Galatians.

In Galatians, we find Paul attacking an empty god-talk religious hoopla, a disingenuous posturing of authority over people's lives, a merchandizing of the crowds, that today paints his name on church buildings. Sometimes Paul, it could be said, strays over the line of civility and propriety. On a bad day, he makes reference to "circumcision," linking it to the suspect manhood of his detractors. And we need not doubt that Paul would be equally pleased with those who misrepresent his words today.

Yes, there's a reason why churches are named after a dead Paul. With this apostle, you'd better make sure the body is no longer warm but good-'n-dead. Much safer not to have to confront the real Paul when you're in the business of deceiving and bilking the unknowledgeable masses.

Editor's last word: