Reading through the book of Galatians the other day, I came across this interesting question Paul asks in 3:2:
I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?
Now, Paul’s larger concern here is that this church not be deceived into thinking their salvation or sanctification has anything to do with obedience to the law. They did not enter covenant with Jesus Christ, nor are they sustained in that covenant, because they were/are circumcised.
But the thing that caught my attention in this question has little to do with that larger theological discussion he’s having. Rather, it’s the one he’s NOT having…the one he’s assuming…the one even the Galatians are assuming: That the Spirit’s activity and dwelling among the Galatian church is an objective reality.
When Paul asks this question about the Spirit, his assumption is that the answer will come back unanimously, “by believing what we heard.”
In other words, both Paul and the Galatians are assuming the objective reality of the Spirit in their midst. It is so objective that it is assumed.
This is quite the contrast to the present day church. If someone were to ask the American church, “Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?” we would probably say, “Receive the Spirit? What Spirit? Huh?”
I’m not sure that I have anything theologically profound to say here. I’m in awe of the Spirit’s obvious manifestation to the Galatian church and Paul. And I feel a bit of sorrow that such a manifestation is not nearly as objective in my life…and that so many of us would feel the same way I do.
I would like to be clear here, though. I DON’T think the seeming lack of objective movement by the Spirit in our midst is because we don’t believe the gospel as much as the Galatians did. In fact, quite the contrary, Paul’s problem with the Galatians here is that they don’t believe it like they should…they’ve abandoned it. And yet, even in the midst of it, he can still appeal to the objective reality of the Spirit in their midst.
So why does it seem so different with us? Is the Spirit an objective reality in your life? Your church?
I think this is a huge theological point, and something I have only recently come on board with. I think Protestantism (and particularly evangelicalism) tends to have a very subjective christology and pneumatology, and this can be sharply contrasted with the vast majority of Christians throughout church history. I’m starting to wonder if this recent trend isn’t a result of nominalism, particularly its effect on our understanding of ecclesiology. Christians have traditionally understood the Church as the mystical Body of Christ which is constituted by the partaking of the Eucharist (also the mystical Body of Christ). This was an objective reality. Similarly the Body of Christ (the Church) was animated by the Spirit of Christ (the Holy Spirit). This too was an objective reality for the early Church. One received the Holy Spirit at Baptism, and later, when the rite of Baptism was split into two different rites: Baptism and Confirmation, it was associated more with the latter (via Chrism oil), though no one argued that the baptizand didn’t receive Holy Spirit in Baptism – which would be simply nonsensical (as well as heretical).
Regardless, for someone not nearly as well versed in Scripture, I wonder how feasible it would be to ‘translate’ Paul’s question, though I know my translation will be somewhat anachronistic. If receiving the Spirit (which is associated with Confirmation) is, in some sense, the second part of the rite of entrance into the Church (for one couldn’t partake of the Eucharist without it), is Paul not asking: “How is the Christian Church constituted or how are we brought into it: by the observance of the law or by believing what was handed down . . . by faith?” He seems (at least to me) to be offering a fairly sharp contrast between what constitutes the Jewish and Christian communities, but I’m digressing.
What’s important is that the whole thing is understood to be objective! There is no assumption of some interior subjective experience being the sole legitimizing factor of salvation (or even important to it) or some experience of “the Spirit’s movement” as some mysterious introspective inclination . . . It seems to be a fairly objective matter, an objectivity which everyone (both Paul and his recipients) inherently assumes.
Oh well . . . not sure my thoughts are coherent or even on target.