Galatians Essay

Because I harbort read the whole make interlingual rendition Gorman Galatians Ch9 is at introductory a bit confusing. However, I must say that the reading is rattling 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 exculpated chapter Gorman try to exegesis the whole book of Galatians in his birth understanding and research. Ive founded that there are lacks of evidence of resources, as in not more than of references quote in this chapter, Gorman strong sources for his argument in this chapter would be the book Galatians itself, he kept referring mainstay to Galatians and because of that the arguments seemed to be ingratiatory that at the same time lacks of backing up from others. Many of Gorman explanations in this epistle were unjustified, for prototype the dating of the letter and I quote on page187 although no sozzled conclusion is possible within the mental image of years 49-55, the most probable date, in this writers estimations is 50-55, properly from Ephesus It would be more convince if Gorman could give us more evidence about the date and practice of written. Over all the exegesis of the absolute Galatians in this chapter was not that of rigorous at all.Gorman definitely give us a clear view on Pauls message to the Galatians. Anyone who read this chapter will surely defecate a clear understanding of the gospel, not only to the Galatians but in any case for the churches right away 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 critique with the same question In sum, what does this letter urge the church to believe, to forecast for, and to do?Second critical review is on an clause by Martinus C. de Boer, titled Galatians A Commentary from week 4 reading.To be naive I get under ones skin 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 among Paul and Cephas in Antioch over the issue of The Truth of the Gospel. I agreed with Martinus that this is not only distinguished for Paul and the Christians in the 1st century but as well to all of us today, we odd to understand the message of the loyalty of the gospel (25, 14).Because this is a commentary, it is clear evidence that the Martinus gave a wide range of evidence to his arguments. I also fork up 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 well-nigh the confrontation of Paul and Cephas, I would have looked at Paul reincarnation passage to pro ve more of Paul conviction for his true gospel.Martinus translated Jews who is circumcised as the circumcision party page 133. Im not sure if I would agree with Martinus here, because lacks of evidence in this statement made by Martinus, Im 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, Ive founded that it is very cooperative for churches today to see the historical of Pauls letter by means of Martinus book. Definitely an issue arises for the use of the Bible today in our own context, for workout Paul and Peter relationship. Can two Christians have disagreements that ultimately lead them to different road?The final reading is from Charles H. Cosgrove The Cross and The heart chapter 3 The Logic of the Opposing Theology.Over all I find that this is a truly hard piece to read, the precise and information was great, however, I feel that there are some stuffs that he could have forego out, and that he doesnt 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, Ive 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 abstracted 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 Ive learned in the unit and also other theologians.Later in the chapter Cosgrove also pin point the agitators and one over again its consistent with the unit teaching and also others theologians, example Barclay who conclude 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.