Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary: Galatians 1573128279, 9781573128278

Citation preview

Galatians

Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary: Galatians Publication Staff Publisher & Executive Vice President Keith Gammons Book Editor Leslie Andres Graphic Designers Daniel Emerson Dave Jones Assistant Editors Katie Brookins Kelley F. Land

Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc. 6316 Peake Road Macon, Georgia 31210-3960 1-800-747-3016 © 2015 by Smyth & Helwys Publishing ISBN 978-1-57312-827-8

SMYTH & HELWYS BIBLE COMMENTARY

Galatians Marion L. Soards

and

Darrell J. Pursiful

PROJECT EDITOR R. SCOTT NASH Mercer University Macon, Georgia

OLD TESTAMENT GENERAL EDITOR SAMUEL E. BALENTINE Union Presbyterian Seminary Richmond, Virginia AREA OLD TESTAMENT EDITORS MARK E. BIDDLE Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond, Virginia KANDY QUEEN-SUTHERLAND Stetson University Deland, Florida PAUL L. REDDITT Georgetown College Georgetown, Kentucky Baptist Seminary of Kentucky Georgetown, Kentucky

NEW TESTAMENT GENERAL EDITOR R. ALAN CULPEPPER McAfee School of Theology Mercer University Atlanta, Georgia AREA NEW TESTAMENT EDITORS R. SCOTT NASH Mercer University Macon, Georgia RICHARD B. VINSON Salem College Winston-Salem, North Carolina

advance praise Marion Soards’s and Darrell Pursiful’s work on Galatians should join the worthy list of superlative commentaries that, with careful research that does not burden the reader, unpacks Paul’s arguments with thoughtful insights and, most important of all, unsheathes the swordplay of this letter’s stirring theological power. It is a vital addition to the library of those who want to learn from, to teach, and to preach this electrifying letter. David E. Garland Professor of Christian Scriptures Baylor University

In their Galatian commentary, Soards and Pursiful present a fresh and comprehensive exposition of the epistle. They set forth a careful exegesis of the Greek text that is accomplished in clear language, easily understandable to the non-specialist. Although thoroughly acquainted with the best scholarship, they stick to the text itself and avoid the excessive speculation and over-emphasis on theology so characteristic of many Galatian commentaries. I rank this right at the top of commentaries I have read on Galatians. John Polhill Senior Professor of New Testament Southern Baptist Seminary

Contents AUTHOR’S PREFACE (MARION L. SOARDS)

xiii

AUTHOR’S PREFACE (DARRELL J. PURSIFUL)

xvi xvii

SERIES PREFACE

xxi

HOW TO USE THIS COMMENTARY A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO GALATIANS

1

GALATIANS: AN OUTLINE

9

PART ONE: PAUL’S CAREER AND THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL (GALATIANS 1:1–5:12)

11

Another Gospel

Galatians 1:1-9

13

Called Through Grace

Galatians 1:10-24

29

Implications of the Gospel

Galatians 2

55

Spirit, Faith, and Law

Galatians 3

119

Live as Free People

Galatians 4

187

Stand Firm

Galatians 5:1-12

243

PART TWO: THE SPIRIT AND THE LAW (GALATIANS 5:13–6:10)

267

Life in the Spirit

Galatians 5:13-26

269

Freedom and Responsibility

Galatians 6

305

BIBLIOGRAPHY

343

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

347

INDEX OF SCRIPTURES

349

INDEX OF SIDEBARS AND ILLUSTRATIONS

353

INDEX OF TOPICS

355

Dedication

For Lloyd —MLS

For Connie —DJP



ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS COMMENTARY Books of the Old Testament, Apocrypha, and New Testament are generally abbreviated in the Sidebars, parenthetical references, and notes according to the following system. The Old Testament Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1–2 Samuel 1–2 Kings 1–2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Esther Job Psalm (Psalms) Proverbs Ecclesiastes or Qoheleth Song of Solomon or Song of Songs or Canticles Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah

Gen Exod Lev Num Deut Josh Judg Ruth 1–2 Sam 1–2 Kgs 1–2 Chr Ezra Neh Esth Job Ps (Pss) Prov Eccl Qoh Song Song Cant Isa Jer Lam Ezek Dan Hos Joel Amos Obad Jonah Mic

x

Abbreviations Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi

Nah Hab Zeph Hag Zech Mal

The Apocrypha 1–2 Esdras Tobit Judith Additions to Esther Wisdom of Solomon Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach Baruch Epistle (or Letter) of Jeremiah Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Daniel and Susanna Daniel, Bel, and the Dragon Prayer of Manasseh 1–4 Maccabees

1–2 Esdr Tob Jdt Add Esth Wis Sir Bar Ep Jer Pr Azar Sus Bel Pr Man 1–4 Macc

The New Testament Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1–2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1–2 Thessalonians 1–2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews James 1–2 Peter 1–2–3 John Jude Revelation

Matt Mark Luke John Acts Rom 1–2 Cor Gal Eph Phil Col 1–2 Thess 1–2 Tim Titus Phlm Heb Jas 1–2 Pet 1–2–3 John Jude Rev

Abbreviations Other commonly used abbreviations include: AD

BC

C. c. cf. ch. chs. d. ed. eds. e.g. et al. f./ff. gen. ed. Gk. Heb. ibid. i.e. LCL lit. n.d. rev. and exp. ed. sg. trans. vol(s). v. vv.

Anno Domini (“in the year of the Lord”) (also commonly referred to as CE = the Common Era) Before Christ (also commonly referred to as BCE = Before the Common Era) century circa (around “that time”) confer (compare) chapter chapters died edition or edited by or editor editors exempli gratia (for example) et alii (and others) and the following one(s) general editor Greek Hebrew ibidem (in the same place) id est (that is) Loeb Classical Library literally no date revised and expanded edition singular translated by or translator(s) volume(s) verse verses

Selected additional written works cited by abbreviations include the following. A complete listing of abbreviations can be referenced in The SBL Handbook of Style (Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 1999): AB ABD ACCS ANF ANTC BA BAR CBQ HTR

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture Ante-Nicene Fathers Abingdon New Testament Commentaries Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Catholic Biblical Quarterly Harvard Theological Review

xi

xii

Abbreviations HUCA ICC IDB JBL JSJ JSNT JSOT KJV LXX MDB MT NASB NEB NICNT NIV NovT NRSV NTS OGIS OTL PRSt RevExp RSV SBLSP SP TDNT TEV WBC

Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Journal of Biblical Literature Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament King James Version Septuagint = Greek Translation of Hebrew Bible Mercer Dictionary of the Bible Masoretic Text New American Standard Bible New English Bible New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Version Novum Testamentum New Revised Standard Version New Testament Studies Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae Old Testament Library Perspectives in Religious Studies Review and Expositor Revised Standard Version Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Sacra pagina Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Today’s English Version Word Biblical Commentary

Author’s Preface This is a commentary on Paul’s great letter to his converts in the troubled congregations of Galatia. The letter itself is a document from the first century after Christ. In fact, it is a communication from the first few decades after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Some interpreters have even argued that it may be Paul’s first preserved letter. From the early eras of Christian commentary writing, this letter has attracted no shortage of interpreters. And, later on, Martin Luther, who dearly loved the letter to the Galatians, wrote two independent commentaries on Paul’s correspondence, the first in 1519 and the second in 1535. Recently, in the late twentieth and the early twenty-first centuries, there has been no shortage of fine commentaries on this letter to the Galatians. I shall say what I have tried to do in commenting on Galatians and thereby hope to place this commentary among the many that are already available. It was written with many things in mind, but above all the letter itself and those persons who might be interested enough to read the letter today and who might need some information and assistance in their reading. The simple aim of this commentary is to help clarify the meaning of the letter for twenty-first century readers. Some help seems certainly needed because in many ways the letter is a challenge to understand. Indeed, whole dimensions of Paul’s communication are unquestionably difficult. A significant part of the letter is devoted to describing life experiences of the members of the early churches. Paul’s writing about such incidents is done clearly from a purposeful point of view. Another significant component of Paul’s presentation to the Galatians is made up of biblical references, biblical storytelling, and biblical interpretation. His choice of scriptural materials is sometimes puzzling, and his interpretations of biblical texts are, more times than not, yet more mystifying. Paul’s quite explicitly theological reflections, including several of his rather plain theological statements, are simply hard to understand—and sometimes shocking. In this letter Paul’s tone is sharp and startling although careful attention to the whole letter shows that his situational and theological concerns are pastoral in nature. Interpreters often discuss the relevance of chapters 5 and 6 to the rest of the letter. If the materials in those two chapters, especially the rather straightforward and even seemingly mundane admonitions of chapter 6, are related to the rest

xiv

Author’s Preface

of the writing, then, Paul’s aims are reconciliation and restoration. In commenting on some of the difficult aspects of this letter I hope that I have been able to engage readers in an interpretive conversation among themselves, Paul’s letter to the Galatians, me, and a group of selected scholars who have much to contribute to the discussion. I refer to selected scholars because certainly not everything that has been written, not even everything I have been able to study, is represented here. In reading I found certain interpreters to have a comprehensive understanding and approach to the letter. These scholars usually worked from distinct perspectives in their reading of Paul’s message, often offering innovative interpretive theories. Sometimes these theories helped, but sometimes I found them to get somewhat in the way of the plain sense of the text; even so, the comprehensiveness of the vision that they fostered commended these treatments of Galatians for serious consideration. Concern with comprehensiveness rather than with an interpretive theory led me to select certain commentaries over others. Moreover, I often found that the interpretive theories could almost be set aside without undermining the commentary that was done in such studies. Eventually I limited the pool of primary commentators whom I held in steady conversation. I drew a line several times in several different ways in trying to maintain a focused and concentrated interaction. Had I done otherwise, this commentary would have been longer, perhaps unmanageable, and for me there would have been a danger of losing sight of Paul’s text. Moreover, the reading and writing could have gone on seemingly forever. My experience in this regard called to mind remarks made by a revered scholar who reported after reading the footnote-less magisterial commentaries of J. B. Lightfoot that it seemed to him unnecessary to burden the interpretation of biblical texts with footnotes rather than to produce something rather straightforwardly readable. Many would (will) question this sentiment, but it is not inconsistent with a principal aim to maintain a direct encounter with the text of Galatians. One outcome of choosing to work in this way is that I have not compartmentalized the commentary into separate sections of notes and comments as many excellent commentaries do. The interpretive comments are a running blend of considered details and broader observations. I have tried to let the text itself set the agenda and the pace of the explanation. The attempt to discern the meaning of Paul’s letter requires one sometimes to engage, to observe, to wrestle, or to comment on structure, wording, back-

Author’s Preface

grounds, theological concerns, and even Paul’s whole message. All this effort at understanding must also be made in the context of an ongoing interpretive conversation with other careful readers of the letter. I would like to express my gratitude to the editors of this series, particularly Alan Culpepper and Scott Nash. They have been patient beyond belief, and I wish to thank them for the privilege of having been allowed to work on Galatians. Colleagues at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary not only supported my work but also advanced it by encouraging me to teach Galatians in our MDiv program more than once through the years. For that I am thankful. On a final official note, unless annotated otherwise, all the translations of biblical texts are my own. And now, finally, I want to dedicate this book to my dear friend, close companion, and source of great encouragement, my son, Lloyd. May his Christian faith continue to bear the fruit of the Spirit in his life and, through him, in the lives of others. Soli Deo gloria. Marion L. Soards February 2015 Louisville, Kentucky

xv

Author’s Preface It is an honor to participate in the production of this commentary on Galatians. I pray I will have had some small part toward helping readers appreciate the continued relevance of this important Pauline letter. In his seventh letter to Lucilius, the philosopher Seneca observed that people learn while they teach. Perhaps it should be added that people learn a lot while they try to write biblical commentaries! I certainly know more about Galatians than I did when I was first invited to assist Marion Soards by providing connections and sidebars to illustrate his masterful work. If Seneca is right—and any teacher will bear him out—then it is only fitting that I offer a word of thanks to the Adult Too and Seekers Sunday school classes at the First Baptist Church of Christ in Macon, Georgia. These kind saints bore the brunt of several Galatians lessons from me in 2014. Their insightful questions and keen observations sharpened my sense of how to present the message of this letter to an intelligent and inquiring lay audience. I would also like to thank the friends and colleagues at Smyth & Helwys whom I have now had the pleasure of interacting with in new capacities. I always knew we had fantastic editorial and design teams; it has been gratifying to see them at work from an author’s point of view. Finally, as always, I am grateful to my dear wife, Connie, and my amazing daughter, Rebecca, for putting up with all the nonsense that comes with having a husband and father who rearranges words for a living. Darrell J. Pursiful February 2015 Macon, Georgia

SERIES PREFACE The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary is a visually stimulating and user-friendly series that is as close to multimedia in print as possible. Written by accomplished scholars with all students of Scripture in mind, the primary goal of the Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary is to make available serious, credible biblical scholarship in an accessible and less intimidating format. Far too many Bible commentaries fall short of bridging the gap between the insights of biblical scholars and the needs of students of God’s written word. In an unprecedented way, the Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary brings insightful commentary to bear on the lives of contemporary Christians. Using a multimedia format, the volumes employ a stunning array of art, photographs, maps, and drawings to illustrate the truths of the Bible for a visual generation of believers. The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary is built upon the idea that meaningful Bible study can occur when the insights of contemporary biblical scholars blend with sensitivity to the needs of lifelong students of Scripture. Some persons within local faith communities, however, struggle with potentially informative biblical scholarship for several reasons. Oftentimes, such scholarship is cast in technical language easily grasped by other scholars, but not by the general reader. For example, lengthy, technical discussions on every detail of a particular scriptural text can hinder the quest for a clear grasp of the whole. Also, the format for presenting scholarly insights has often been confusing to the general reader, rendering the work less than helpful. Unfortunately, responses to the hurdles of reading extensive commentaries have led some publishers to produce works for a general readership that merely skim the surface of the rich resources of biblical scholarship. This commentary series incorporates works of fine art in an accurate and scholarly manner, yet the format remains “userfriendly.” An important facet is the presentation and explanation of images of art, which interpret the biblical material or illustrate how the biblical material has been understood and interpreted in the past. A visual generation of believers deserves a commentary series that contains not only the all-important textual commentary on Scripture, but images, photographs, maps, works of fine art, and drawings that bring the text to life.

xviii

Series Preface

The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary makes serious, credible biblical scholarship more accessible to a wider audience. Writers and editors alike present information in ways that encourage readers to gain a better understanding of the Bible. The editorial board has worked to develop a format that is useful and usable, informative and pleasing to the eye. Our writers are reputable scholars who participate in the community of faith and sense a calling to communicate the results of their scholarship to their faith community. The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary addresses Christians and the larger church. While both respect for and sensitivity to the needs and contributions of other faith communities are reflected in the work of the series authors, the authors speak primarily to Christians. Thus the reader can note a confessional tone throughout the volumes. No particular “confession of faith” guides the authors, and diverse perspectives are observed in the various volumes. Each writer, though, brings to the biblical text the best scholarly tools available and expresses the results of their studies in commentary and visuals that assist readers seeking a word from the Lord for the church. To accomplish this goal, writers in this series have drawn from numerous streams in the rich tradition of biblical interpretation. The basic focus is the biblical text itself, and considerable attention is given to the wording and structure of texts. Each particular text, however, is also considered in the light of the entire canon of Christian Scriptures. Beyond this, attention is given to the cultural context of the biblical writings. Information from archaeology, ancient history, geography, comparative literature, history of religions, politics, sociology, and even economics is used to illuminate the culture of the people who produced the Bible. In addition, the writers have drawn from the history of interpretation, not only as it is found in traditional commentary on the Bible but also in literature, theater, church history, and the visual arts. Finally, the Commentary on Scripture is joined with Connections to the world of the contemporary church. Here again, the writers draw on scholarship in many fields as well as relevant issues in the popular culture. This wealth of information might easily overwhelm a reader if not presented in a “user-friendly” format. Thus the heavier discussions of detail and the treatments of other helpful topics are presented in special-interest boxes, or Sidebars, clearly connected to the passages under discussion so as not to interrupt the flow of the basic interpretation. The result is a commentary on Scripture that focuses on the theological significance of a text while also offering

Series Preface

the reader a rich array of additional information related to the text and its interpretation. An accompanying CD-ROM offers powerful searching and research tools. The commentary text, Sidebars, and visuals are all reproduced on a CD that is fully indexed and searchable. Pairing a text version with a digital resource is a distinctive feature of the Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Combining credible biblical scholarship, user-friendly study features, and sensitivity to the needs of a visually oriented generation of believers creates a unique and unprecedented type of commentary series. With insight from many of today’s finest biblical scholars and a stunning visual format, it is our hope that the Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary will be a welcome addition to the personal libraries of all students of Scripture. The Editors

xix

HOW TO USE THIS COMMENTARY The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary is written by accomplished biblical scholars with a wide array of readers in mind. Whether engaged in the study of Scripture in a church setting or in a college or seminary classroom, all students of the Bible will find a number of useful features throughout the commentary that are helpful for interpreting the Bible. Basic Design of the Volumes

Each volume features an Introduction to a particular book of the Bible, providing a brief guide to information that is necessary for reading and interpreting the text: the historical setting, literary design, and theological significance. Each Introduction also includes a comprehensive outline of the particular book under study. Each chapter of the commentary investigates the text according to logical divisions in a particular book of the Bible. Sometimes these divisions follow the traditional chapter segmentation, while at other times the textual units consist of sections of chapters or portions of more than one chapter. The divisions reflect the literary structure of a book and offer a guide for selecting passages that are useful in preaching and teaching. An accompanying CD-ROM offers powerful searching and research tools. The commentary text, Sidebars, and visuals are all reproduced on a CD that is fully indexed and searchable. Pairing a text version with a digital resource also allows unprecedented flexibility and freedom for the reader. Carry the text version to locations you most enjoy doing research while knowing that the CD offers a portable alternative for travel from the office, church, classroom, and your home. Commentary and Connections

As each chapter explores a textual unit, the discussion centers around two basic sections: Commentary and Connections. The analysis of a passage, including the details of its language, the history reflected in the text, and the literary forms found in the text, are the main focus

xxii

How to Use This Commentary

of the Commentary section. The primary concern of the Commentary section is to explore the theological issues presented by the Scripture passage. Connections presents potential applications of the insights provided in the Commentary section. The Connections portion of each chapter considers what issues are relevant for teaching and suggests useful methods and resources. Connections also identifies themes suitable for sermon planning and suggests helpful approaches for preaching on the Scripture text. Sidebars

The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary provides a unique hyperlink format that quickly guides the reader to additional insights. Since other more technical or supplementary information is vital for understanding a text and its implications, the volumes feature distinctive Sidebars, or special-interest boxes, that provide a wealth of information on such matters as: • Historical information (such as chronological charts, lists of kings or rulers, maps, descriptions of monetary systems, descriptions of special groups, descriptions of archaeological sites or geographical settings). • Graphic outlines of literary structure (including such items as poetry, chiasm, repetition, epistolary form). • Definition or brief discussions of technical or theological terms and issues. • Insightful quotations that are not integrated into the running text but are relevant to the passage under discussion. • Notes on the history of interpretation (Augustine on the Good Samaritan, Luther on James, Stendahl on Romans, etc.). • Line drawings, photographs, and other illustrations relevant for understanding the historical context or interpretive significance of the text. • Presentation and discussion of works of fine art that have interpreted a Scripture passage.

How to Use This Commentary

Each Sidebar is printed in color and is referenced at the appropriate place in the Commentary or Connections section with a color-coded title that directs the reader to the relevant Sidebar. In addition, helpful icons appear in the Sidebars, which provide the reader with visual cues to the type of material that is explained in each Sidebar. Throughout the commentary, these four distinct hyperlinks provide useful links in an easily recognizable design.

Alpha & Omega Language

This icon identifies the information as a language-based tool that offers further exploration of the Scripture selection. This could include syntactical information, word studies, popular or additional uses of the word(s) in question, additional contexts in which the term appears, and the history of the term’s translation. All nonEnglish terms are transliterated into the appropriate English characters.

Culture/Context

This icon introduces further comment on contextual or cultural details that shed light on the Scripture selection. Describing the place and time to which a Scripture passage refers is often vital to the task of biblical interpretation. Sidebar items introduced with this icon could include geographical, historical, political, social, topographical, or economic information. Here, the reader may find an excerpt of an ancient text or inscription that sheds light on the text. Or one may find a description of some element of ancient religion such as Baalism in Canaan or the Hero cult in the Mystery Religions of the Greco-Roman world.

Interpretation

Sidebars that appear under this icon serve a general interpretive function in terms of both historical and contemporary renderings. Under this heading, the reader might find a selection from classic or contemporary literature that illuminates the Scripture text or a significant quotation from a famous sermon that addresses the passage. Insights are drawn from various sources, including literature, worship, theater, church history, and sociology.

xxiii

xxiv

How to Use This Commentary

Additional Resources Study

Here, the reader finds a convenient list of useful resources for further investigation of the selected Scripture text, including books, journals, websites, special collections, organizations, and societies. Specialized discussions of works not often associated with biblical studies may also appear here. Additional Features

Each volume also includes a basic Bibliography on the biblical book under study. Other bibliographies on selected issues are often included that point the reader to other helpful resources. Notes at the end of each chapter provide full documentation of sources used and contain additional discussions of related matters. Abbreviations used in each volume are explained in a list of abbreviations found after the Table of Contents. Readers of the Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary can regularly visit the Internet support site for news, information, updates, and enhancements to the series at www.helwys.com/commentary. Several thorough indexes enable the reader to locate information quickly. These indexes include: • An Index of Sidebars groups content from the special-interest boxes by category (maps, fine art, photographs, drawings, etc.). • An Index of Scriptures lists citations to particular biblical texts. • An Index of Topics lists alphabetically the major subjects, names, topics, and locations referenced or discussed in the volume. • An Index of Modern Authors organizes contemporary authors whose works are cited in the volume.

A Brief Introduction to Galatians

Paul’s letter to the churches of Galatia is a fragment of his overall experience of ministry with those congregations. Because Galatians is a historical document, an awareness of certain background information facilitates and enhances appreciation of the letter. In turn, study of the letter can yield understanding of both the situation that Paul faced regarding these churches and the message that he delivered to the members of these congregations through his writing. Issues Related to Interpretation

From the time of the earliest (second century) commentators1 up to the present day, the letter has been regarded as a genuine Pauline epistle. Only with great infrequency has the authenticity of the letter been questioned, and even then those making such a case have met with extreme skepticism.2 The letter is the fourth writing in the canon of thirteen Pauline epistles. It is often regarded and referred to as one of the four Pauline Hauptebriefe (a German term used by scholars to designate Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians as Paul’s “principal letters”). The history of the reception and influence of the letter can be traced through every period of Christian history, not least of all during the time of the Protestant Reformation.3 The place from which Paul wrote to the Galatians is not stated in the letter. Based on readings of the book of Acts in relation to Galatians, most scholars posit one of three settings for the writing of Galatians: (1) Syrian Antioch around AD 49–50 and (2) Ephesus or (3) Macedonia in the early to mid-50s. These dates and places are related to two different ways that these scholars understand the course of Paul’s ministry. In both interpretations, Galatians 2:1-10 plays a key role. And in both interpretations, the identity and location of the Galatians themselves are debated, so that place from which, when, place to which, and those to whom the letter was written are closely related issues. One group of scholars who have promoted their understanding of Galatians since the mid-nineteenth century argue that the account in

2

A Brief Introduction to Galatians

Galatians 2:1-10 is best understood in relation to Acts 11:29-30, so that both Galatians 2 and Acts 11 tell of Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem after his experience on the road to Damascus. In this interpretation, Galatia is understood to be the area of the southern portions of the Roman province of Galatia that, in Paul’s day, had been expanded to include what had previously been portions of other Roman districts, i.e., Phrygia, Lycaonia, Paphlagonia, Isauria, Pamphylia, Pontus, and Pisidia.4 Thus, in Acts 13:4–14:28 Paul visits what has come to be known as the towns of “South Galatia.” In this explanation, the events of Acts 15:1-35, the so-called “Apostolic Council,” had not taken place at the time of Paul’s writing to the Galatians. In turn, the incident narrated in Galatians 2:1-10 is taken to have occurred at a time early in Paul’s ministry, and so it indicates the early date of the letter, which perhaps came from Syrian Antioch about AD 49–50 and was intended for residents of southern provincial Galatia. On the other hand, from the earliest commentators on Galatians up to the present, interpreters have identified Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-35 as two accounts of the same events. This understanding was basically the only seriously considered interpretation of these texts until the late 1800s (although there were a few South and North Galatia Theories

A Brief Introduction to Galatians

3

Ethnic Galatians scholars who offered other interpretations Ethnic Galatians were a Celtic people related to even in the mid-1700s). Here Acts 16:6 the Gauls (Latin Galli). They crossed over into Asia and 18:23 refer to Galatia explicitly, and Minor in 278 BC and, after raiding and plundering the references are understood to be the throughout the region, were finally contained in the region only real mentions in Acts of the area that that bore their name by Attalus I of Pergamon in 230. They Paul himself called Galatia. Thus, Paul’s continued to harass their neighbors for many years, however, until they eventually aligned with Rome. earlier travels and work that are recalled Galatia was organized on the Celtic tribal basis, with in Acts 13 and 14 were carried out in three tribal groups (the Tolistobogii, the Tectosages, and areas that were not referred to by Paul as the Trocmi) occupying territory around their respective capGalatia. Here Galatia is understood to be itals: Pessinus, Ancyra, and Tavium. The Galatians the ancient territorial designation for the maintained their Celtic character throughout antiquity. restricted area of north central Asia When Jerome visited them in the late fourth/early fifth century, they were still speaking a Celtic language. Minor that was populated by ethnic William Moir Calder, “Galatia,” The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. Galatians and included the cities of N. G. L. Hammond and H. H. Scullard (2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1970). 5 Pessinus, Ancyra, and Tavium. [Ethnic Galatians] In this vein of interpretation, not only are Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-35 identified with each other as two different accounts of the same incident, but the events of Galatians 2:11-14 (the conflict at Antioch between Cephas and Paul over the issue of Jews and Gentiles, both Christian, together at table) are understood to have occurred after the Council in Jerusalem, which gives a parEpigonus. Dying Gaul. Marble. A Roman copy of a Hellenistic Greek bronze ticularly unpleasant color to the scene in statue, 3d century BC. The original was commissioned by Attalus I of Antioch. [Paul’s Visits to Jerusalem] Most Pergamon to celebrate his victory over the Celtic Galatians in Anatolia. Capitoline Museums collection, Rome, Italy. (Credit: BeBo86 / Wikimedia scholars who subscribe to this “North Commons, CC-BY-SA-3.0) Galatia” hypothesis see Galatians being written in the same time frame as the Corinthian correspondence, i.e., in the early to mid-50s, perhaps from Ephesus or Macedonia. The debate will continue,6 though a few observations are worth making at this point in favor of the North Galatia interpretation:

1. To reiterate—the North Galatia understanding is the oldest; in fact, it was essentially the only understanding until the late-1800s. 2. The name Galatia occurs in ancient inscriptions only for the northern, ethnic Galatia. 3. Galatians 4:8-9 states that the Galatians were, prior to their conversion to Christ, idolatrous pagans. Remarkably, no Jews are envisaged in Paul’s remarks, whereas there clearly were Jews in South Galatia during Paul’s ministry (see Acts 13:14-51; 14:1-7, 19).

4

A Brief Introduction to Galatians

Paul’s Visits to Jerusalem In Galatians, Paul mentions two visits to Jerusalem prior to the writing of the letter. The book of Acts, however, describes a total of five Jerusalem visits. A number of theories have been proposed to bring the data of Acts and Galatians into alignment. For purposes of clarity, we may adopt Caird’s nomenclature for referring to these various visits. From Galatians, therefore, we may speak of the following visits: • G1: Paul’s first visit, three years after his apostolic call (Gal 1:18-24) • G2: Another visit “after fourteen years” (counting either from the first visit or once again from his apostolic call) (Gal 2:1-10) The five visits reported in Acts can then be designated as follows: • A1: A visit shortly after his apostolic call (Acts 9:26-30) • A2: A “famine-relief” visit (Acts 11:30; 12:25) • A3: A visit to sort out the controversy over admitting uncircumcised Gentiles to the church (Acts 15:1-30) • A4: An apparently brief visit between his second and third missionary ventures (Acts 18:22), after which he ministers in the region of Galatia (Acts 18:23) • A5: A final visit between his third missionary venture and his journey to Rome (Acts 21:17ff.) Caird equates G1 with A1—a position that is not uncontestable. But which of the remaining visits in the book of Acts best aligns with Paul’s report of his second visit? A number of theories have been proposed. 1. Does G2 = A3? This is Lightfoot’s theory. It is the most prevalent theory among contemporary scholars, and the position taken in this commentary. According to Lightfoot, Paul didn’t mention the A2 visit in Galatians because it didn’t involve a meeting with the Jerusalem apostles. Yet there do seem to be differences between these two accounts (Caird, 202–203). To make this equation, at some point we have to impugn the accuracy of either Paul or Luke. 2. Does G2 = A2 and A3? According to Nock, Luke drew on two sources and failed to realize that A2 (from a supposed Antioch source) was the same event as A3 (from a supposed Jerusalem source). This proposal eliminates Lightfoot’s problem of Paul’s silence about A2, but the other problems all remain—and we must acknowledge further evidence of Luke’s inaccurate reporting. 3. Does G2 = A2? Caird affirms that the one great advantage of Ramsay’s theory is that “it provides an intelligible sequence of events” (204). It is perhaps the second most popular theory today. Its greatest disadvantage is how to fit this visit into the allotted time frame. By all

accounts, the famine-relief visit took place around AD 46 or 47. Counting years inclusively, this places Paul’s Damascus Road experience up to seventeen years prior—only very shortly after the crucifixion of Jesus. Even if one counts Paul’s “fourteen years” from his apostolic calling and not from his first Jerusalem visit, this would seem to compress the chronology beyond what it can bear. Furthermore, if this theory is correct, why didn’t Paul mention his A3 visit in Galatians when summarizing his contacts with the Jerusalem apostles? Many argue it’s because that visit hadn’t happened yet, as Galatians was written in AD 48 or 49. This would mean Galatians does not belong chronologically with Romans and 1 Corinthians, the letters with which it has the greatest affinities. Others claim the A3 visit simply didn’t affect Paul’s argument, as his point was simply to list his dealings with the Jerusalem apostles prior to his Galatian mission. 4. Does G2 = only the first part of A3? This is the theory of Weiss, who believes that Acts 15 is a conflation of two distinct conferences, one (A3a) dealing with the issue of circumcision and the other (A3b) with table fellowship. By this theory, A3a took place between Paul’s first and second missionary ventures and followed the dispute with Peter at Antioch (Gal 2:11-14). Paul was not present for A3b, which took place after Paul’s second missionary venture. This theory has the advantage of explaining why the Jerusalem leaders feel the need to reiterate the substance of their decree of Acts 15:28-29 when Paul visits them in Acts 21:25. It falls short, however, on a number of counts. Like Lightfoot’s theory, it fails to explain Paul’s silence about his A2 visit. It furthermore contradicts Luke’s testimony that Paul and Barnabas were both present at the Jerusalem conference. 5. Does G2 = A4? Knox’s proposal is the most drastic (Caird, 207). He essentially discards Luke’s chronology in Acts as totally unreliable and endeavors to reconstruct a new framework exclusively out of Paul’s letters. The key to this reconstruction, he asserts, is the request to be mindful of the poor in Galatians 2:10. This indicates that the G2 visit must have occurred shortly before Paul wrote 1–2 Corinthians, Romans, and Galatians, the only other letters where the collection for the poor is mentioned. Knox then asserts that the A2 and A3 meetings are wholly unhistorical. Obviously, this theory avoids all the difficulties of harmonization between Galatians and Acts, but it does so by ruling Luke’s data inadmissible! G. B. Caird, The Apostolic Age, Studies in Theology (London: Duckworth, 1955) 198–211.

A Brief Introduction to Galatians

4. In terms of the correlation of Acts and Galatians, the fewest problems lie with the North Galatia theory.7 5. Swiss New Testament scholar François Vouga has said, “If one cannot decisively settle the North Galatia/South Galatia debate, perhaps this is a bad question and we need to find another one.”8 The Situation in Galatia at the Time of Paul’s Writing

From the letter itself, using Paul’s remarks in a straightforward fashion, one can be informed about the circumstances in Galatia (at least from Paul’s point of view and understanding). At times scholars use Paul’s comments in order to infer even more than he says explicitly in his various statements. This method of reading the text is often called “mirror-reading.”9 It aims at using what Paul wrote throughout the letter to infer what someone else (e.g., Paul’s so-called opponents) might have said that Paul is either turning to his own purposes or replying to without definitely saying so. Paul’s letter is used to construct from Paul’s own remarks an image of those to whom or of whom Paul is writing and of what they are saying. Then, with that (re)constructed image, one may read Paul’s letter in relation to the inferred image in order to interpret what Paul says in his writing about the situation that he is believed to have addressed in his letter. Different scholars employ the method with varying degrees of skill. Nevertheless, it is circular and frequently shown to be open to unbridled flights of fantasy.10 What follows hereafter is not intended to be a mirror-reading, although there is much to be learned from that method when it is practiced judiciously. It may be that it is impossible to abandon all aspects of mirror-reading, but this commentary will seek to avoid that method or at least to keep its use to a minimum. At Galatians 1:6, Paul states that the Galatians were in the process of deserting God’s calling them and turning to what he refers to as “another gospel.” Clearly this other gospel was being proclaimed by some persons who had come among the Galatians after Paul had departed from them (1:7; 5:10). Paul’s comments indicate that these outsiders were troubling the Galatians. Moreover, Paul’s remarks seem to assume that these outsiders were still among the Galatians and in a position to hear what he had to say in his letter (5:10, 12; 6:17). Thus, Paul called the Galatians “foolish” for having been “bewitched” (3:1) and turning to what he names a misrepresentation of the gospel of Christ (1:7). Paul suggests that the Galatians were now trying to receive the Spirit from works of the Law rather than as they already had, viz., from the proclamation that has the power to elicit faith (Gk. ako∑ pisteøs; lit.,

5

6

A Brief Introduction to Galatians

“hearing of faith”—3:2-3). In other words, as a result of the emphases of those who had come among them, the Galatians were moving toward Law observance (4:21). Paul mentions elements of Law observance, some of which the Galatians seem to have become involved with: celebrating the calendar (4:10), practicing circumcision (5:2), and keeping the whole Law (5:3). There may also be a concern with food regulations (2:11-14). A general focus on Law observance characterizes Paul’s depiction of the situation in Galatia throughout the letter (e.g., 5:2-6). Moreover, Paul makes statements that identify those who had come among the Galatians. He says, 1. they preach another gospel, different from the one that he preached (1:6-7); 2. they cause confusion (1:7) and upset (5:12) the Galatians; 3. they are circumcised (6:13); 4. they would force the Galatians to be circumcised (6:12); and 5. they do not (in Paul’s assessment) observe the Law (6:13). These people whom Paul casts as adversaries (we do not know whether they arrived in Galatia criticizing Paul’s ministry) are almost certainly Christians—they preach a message that Paul does refer to as “gospel.” They are also almost certainly Jewish Christians—they emphasize circumcision, and Law observance seems to be a central issue in their work with the Galatians. (Although Gentile converts to a conservative [with regard to Law observance] form of Jewish Christianity could perhaps conduct such a mission to other Gentiles in order to bring them into the same kind of Law-observant religious life that they led.) Given Paul’s remarks noticing their behavior in coming among the Galatians preaching gospel and promoting Law observance, one seems safe to conclude that these new Paul’s Adversaries preachers in Galatia are Jewish Christians Ambrosiaster, c. AD 375, comments on the new (or, perhaps better, Christian Jews) who are preachers saying, “These were the same engaged in a Law-observant mission to the people who questioned Paul and Barnabas about this Gentiles that somehow relates to Christ. matter, as is contained in the Acts of the Apostles [Acts 15:1-29]. They taught that Gentile believers could not be saved unless they were circumcised according to the law of Moses and became Jews. It is clear that they were doing this in order to pervert the gospel of Christ by changing what had been taught and under cover of the name of Christ turning the Galatians into Jews.” Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on Galatians-Philemon, trans. and ed. Gerald L. Bray (Ancient Christian Texts; Downers Grove IL: IVP Academic, 2009) 4.

[Paul’s Adversaries]

Paul works in this letter to express the inappropriateness and even uselessness of Law observance in the context of Christian community, especially Christian communities composed of former Gentiles. In treating the subject of Law observance in

A Brief Introduction to Galatians

the Galatian churches, Paul not only develops arguments against the desirability of Law observance among members of those congregations but also constructs positive reflections on subjects of significance for Christian thought and life—e.g., Christ, faith, Spirit, freedom, and deliverance and redemption. The letter comprises rich theological insights woven together with personal recollections, biblical interpretations, issues from everyday life, and pastoral directions. Paul’s various forms of deliberation are meant to persuade his readers of the validity of his arguments, both for and against matters related to God’s allsufficient saving work in the Lord Jesus Christ. For Paul, Law observance for Christ’s people (at least for Gentiles) was taking on the patterned practice of religion that was meant to be the method of maintaining a relationship with God—a human enterprise that implied that God’s work in Christ was not adequate for redemption without human assistance. For Paul, the freedom given in Christ, however, was not religious activity at all in that it did not depend on human effort; rather, it was a free and freeing gift of God from God through Christ for the liberation of humanity—a gift that freed Christ’s people to “love your neighbor as yourself ” (Lev 19:18; Gal 5:14) and so to fulfill the Law of Christ (6:2). Whether Paul’s letter turned the tide in the Galatian churches is impossible to say. Some interpreters note that in Romans 15:26, when referring to the collection that he had assembled for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem, Paul names Macedonia and Achaia as contributing to the funds, but he does not report that Galatia had participated in the relief effort. These interpreters frequently suggest that the absence of any mention of Galatia indicates that Paul’s mission in Galatia had failed. (Of course, there are other explanations for Paul’s having not mentioned the Galatians in this context.) However that may be, someone preserved Paul’s letter to the churches of Galatia, which indicates that Paul found at least something of a positive response among the Galatians. Let us turn to the letter.

Notes 1. In particular, Marcion, Justin, Polycarp, Ptolemaeus, and the Muratorian Canon. See James Moffatt, An Introduction to the New Testament (3rd ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1918) 107. 2. Bruno Bauer, Kritik der paulinischen Briefe, 3 parts (Berlin, 1850–52), part 1, The Origin of Galatians, 1850, discussed in Albert Schweitzer, Paul and His Interpreters

7

8

A Brief Introduction to Galatians (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1912) 120–23; Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (New York: Macmillan, 1968; German original, 1906) 157–60. 3. See Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC 41; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990) xlii–lvii. 4. Above all others propounding this understanding, see W. M. Ramsay, A Historical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (New York: Putnam’s, 1900) and St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen (7th ed.; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1903; 1st ed., 1895). 5. William Moir Calder and Stephen Mitchell, “Galatia,” OCD, 621. 6. Moffatt (Introduction, 90–101 [on destination] and 101–106 [on date]) presents in careful detail the problems and evidence related to the two rival hypotheses concerning the identity of the Galatians and the destination of Paul’s letter. 7. Moffatt, Introduction, 100–101; W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (17th ed.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1975; German original, 1973) 301–303. 8. François Vouga, private conversation; see also his commentary on Galatians, An die Galater (HNT 10; Tübingen, BRD: Mohr [Siebeck], 1998) 4–5, 9–12, where he says, “The answer to the question whether the addressees are the so-called SouthGalatians or simply North-Galatians proves itself to be meaningless both for the determination of the time and place of the composition of the letter and also for its interpretation” (p. 11, my translation). 9. John M. G. Barclay, “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case,” JSNT 31 (1987): 79–93, offers a prudent treatment of “mirror-reading” that both weighs its strengths and weaknesses and seeks to set out “ a carefully controlled method of working” in seven logical criteria. 10. For a thorough critique of mirror-reading, see George Lyons, Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding (SBLDS 73; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) 96–105.

Galatians: An Outline

Opening of the Letter: Salutation, 1:1-5 Expression of Dismay: The Situation in Galatia, 1:6-9 Part I: Paul’s Career and the Truth of the Gospel, 1:10–5:12 Paul’s Past and Apostolic Experience(s), 1:10–2:21 Paul’s Challenge and Declaration, 1:10 The True Origin of Paul’s Gospel, 1:11-12 Paul’s Call and Independence, 1:13-24 Paul’s Call and Early Work, 1:13-17 Paul’s Independence vis-à-vis Jerusalem, 1:18-24 Paul’s Past and Apostolic Experience(s), 1:10–2:21 (continued) Paul and Colleagues in Jerusalem, 2:1-10 The Question of Circumcision, 2:1-5 The Affirmation of Paul’s Ministry, 2:6-10 An Incident in Antioch and Its Fallout, 2:11-21 Controversy in Antioch, 2:11-14 Paul’s Explication of the Incident, 2:15-21 Paul’s Polemic against the Galatians’ Accepting Law Observance, 3:1–5:12 An Appeal to the Galatians’ Experience, 3:1-5 Abraham’s Faith, 3:6-9 The Law and Christ, 3:10-14 A Will: Promises and the Law, 3:15-18 The Law and Angels, 3:19-22 Faith and the Law, 3:23-25 All Are Children of God in Christ Jesus, 3:26-29 Paul’s Polemic against the Galatians’ Accepting Law Observance, 3:1–5:12 (continued) The Plight of Humanity, God’s Sending His Son, and Its Consequences, 4:1-7 The Peril of Spiritual Slavery, 4:8-11 An Affectionate Discussion of Paul’s Distress, 4:12-20 The Allegory of Hagar and Sarah, 4:21-31 The Biblical Story, 4:21-23 Explanation of the Allegory, 4:24-27

10

Galatians: An Outline

Application of the Argument from Scripture, 4:28-31 Paul’s Polemic against the Galatians’ Accepting Law Observance, 3:1–5:12 (continued) A Bold Declaration, 5:1 Circumcision and Faith, 5:2-6 Anguished Observations, 5:7-12 Part II: Freedom—The Spirit and the Law, 5:13–6:10 Freedom and Its Opportunities, 5:13-15 Spirit, Flesh, Law, and Christ Jesus, 5:16-24 Life by Means of the Spirit, 5:25-26 Directions and Observations, 6:1-10 Bearing, Boasting, and Sharing 6:1-6 Sowing, Reaping, and Working the Good, 6:7-10 Closing Remarks, 6:11-18 Paul’s “Autograph,” 6:11 A Further Polemic Against Law Observance, 6:12-13 Christ’s Cross, New Creation, and a Benediction, 6:14-16 A Personal Declaration, 6:17 Concluding Benediction, 6:18

Part one: Paul’s Career and the truth of the Gospel 1:1–5:12

Another Gospel Galatians 1:1-9

COMMENTARY Opening of the Letter: Salutation, 1:1-5

Paul’s letter to the churches of Galatia, written in Greek, begins in a manner similar to that of an ancient letter of friendship, naming Paul as sender, identifying the Galatians as recipients, and offering a word of greeting. The usual form of such letters, however, was much simpler than Paul’s elaborated beginning. Normally the sender would be named in the nominative case, the recipient in the dative case, and an infinitive verb would function as a gerund to offer greetings; thus, “Paul to the Galatians, greetings.” Beyond these elementary components, Paul’s “additional” words and phrases express perspectives and introduce themes that are crucial for the entire communication that is to follow. [Greek Letter Format] First, Paul gives his name, Paulos, which is a Latin name simply transliterated into Greek. Nevertheless, from what Paul declares in Galatians (see esp. 1:13-14) and elsewhere (see 2 Cor 11:22; Phil 3:4-7), it is clear that he was a devout, zealous Pharisaic Jew. Thus, this Latin name may seem peculiar until one recognizes that Diaspora Jews (those Jews residing outside of Palestine) regularly adopted a Greek or Latin name that was close in sound to the Hebrew name given at birth. Therefore, there is no need to doubt the accuracy of the early presentation of Paul in Acts, where he is called Saul rather than Paul. Furthermore, Paul identifies himself as “apostle,” a self-designation that is easily misunderstood for different reasons. Paul uses this designation for himself in four of his undisputed letters: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, and Galatians (cf. Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). This is the same term used of the Twelve in Acts, where Peter declares that to be an apostle one must have been an eyewitness to the entire ministry of Jesus; Paul clearly does not meet this criterion for apostleship. In turn, Christian

14

Galatians 1:1-9

Greek Letter Format A typical Greek private letter consisted of three main parts: the introduction, the body, and the conclusion. The Introduction. Greek letters opened with a standard formula naming both the sender and the recipient(s) and including the word “greeting” (chairein). Sometimes the sender expanded either on his or her own name or the name of the recipient in order to identify these parties more fully. In official correspondence, extensive titles were often listed for both parties. The traditional salutation, “greeting,” is found in embedded letters in Acts 15:23 and 23:26 as well as in James 1:1. Paul never used this salutation, however, preferring to wish his recipients “grace” (charis) and “peace.” The word of greeting was often followed by a wish for health or good fortune for the recipient, often phrased as a prayer. Sometimes there is a comment to the effect that the sender holds the recipient in his or her memory. There is also commonly an expression of thanksgiving, which usually involves the sender’s gratitude for divine protection in some difficulty (although Paul generally thanks God for his congregations instead). The thanksgiving section is absent from Galatians.

The Body. Next follows the body of the letter. The Pauline letters are exceptionally long by the standards of ancient Greek letter-writing; Philemon is closer to the customary length than any of Paul’s other writings. The content of an ancient letter obviously depends on the situation it is meant to address. Certain common themes in Paul’s letters are his travel plans, expressions of desire to visit the recipients, references to Paul’s past relationships with a congregation, and moral instruction. The Conclusion. Certain customary expressions were also found in the conclusion of a Greek letter. There might be a note about the writing of the letter itself—whether by a secretary or by the sender. There might be an exchange of greetings involving additional parties. Often there was a wish of health for the recipient. The letter then ended with “farewell” (errøsthe). This customary conclusion is only found once in the New Testament (Acts 15:29). Instead, Paul usually ended his letters by wishing grace upon his recipients (see 1 Cor 16:23; Gal 6:18; Phil 4:23; 1 Thess 5:28). John B. Polhill, Paul and His Letters (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999) 122–26.

usage over many centuries has produced a sense of “apostle” that essentially means “one of the first great and significant saints” of earliest Christianity; so that, in popular usage, “apostle” becomes a title for a position or office held in the early church. Yet, for Paul, neither the definition of Acts nor the usage of later Christianity accurately expresses his own sense that an “apostle” is one who has been called and commissioned by the risen Jesus Christ to preach the gospel according to God’s directions. Normally an “apostle” was one sent with a message and with the authority of the one who sent the apostle, and Paul’s own usage of “apostle” is more functional than titular, indicating someone more akin to a “missionary” than anything else. Paul immediately qualifies his being an “apostle” by adding a striking series of phrases to the word. He insists that he was an apostle “neither from humans nor through a human,” closing off all possible connection between his being an apostle and the activity or intervention of any other person. Here and in subsequent verses (1:10, 20), Paul is adamant concerning his independence, so that one garners the impression that he is clarifying any misunderstanding or potential misunderstanding that he somehow was dependent on others for his apostleship and for what

Galatians 1:1-9

15

A Passionate Prologue he preached, or that he was authorized by [The first verse] is full of great passion someone to preach an approved form of the and strong sentiment; and not the progospel. [A Passionate Prologue] Paul’s own position, logue only but, as it were, the whole letter. For however, is that his ministry—rather than being always to speak mildly to those who are being derivative from a human source—is “through taught, even when they need vehemence, is not the part of a teacher but of a corrupter and an Jesus Christ and God the Father.” Thus, the enemy. (John Chrysostom, Homily on Galatians authority behind Paul’s apostolic work is clearly 1.1-3) divine, not human or indebted to humanity in Mark J. Edwards, ed., Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Ancient any way. Paul’s personal independence is, on the Christian Commentary on Scripture, vol. 8 (gen. ed. Thomas C. Oden; Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 1999) 2. other hand, only related to other persons, since his ministry is clearly dependent on and derivative from Jesus Christ and God. Here, Paul’s reference to Jesus Christ is but one of four regular ways that Paul speaks of this figure: Paul writes of “Jesus,” “Christ,” “Jesus Christ,” and “Christ Jesus.” While the name “Jesus” alone seems to designate the human figure of history, Jesus of Nazareth, the uses of “Christ,” “Jesus Christ,” and “Christ Jesus” seem indistinguishable. Paul, of course, knew that “Christ” means “Messiah,” but at times in antiquity the title “Christ” seems to have been understood as a proper name; it is not impossible that some members of Pauline congregations would have misunderstood “Christ” in this way. Furthermore, while Paul speaks elsewhere of his being an apostle by the will of God (1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1), he does not in those places relate his call to be an apostle to God’s having raised Jesus from the dead. In naming God as “the Father, who raised [Jesus] from the dead,” Paul recognizes the resurrection power of God. That same power, Paul is saying, had intervened in his own life and called him, independent of human agents, to be an apostle. The introduction of this quality of God’s power at this point anticipates further places in Paul’s forthcoming reflections wherein one might wonder how one or another amazing thing occurred independent of human actions (e.g., 1:12, 15-17; 2:1-2). Ultimately in this letter, Paul will argue that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is all sufficient for God’s accomplishing the liberation and redemption of humanity, whereas no other way is sufficient and nothing else can be added to God’s work in Christ. In turn, the idea of God as Father seems important to Paul in this letter. He refers to God as Father explicitly at 1:1, 3, 4, and, by implication, 4:2, 6.1 All of this is part of Paul’s presentation of issues of identity related to himself, Jesus Christ, and God. In essence, God the Father sent Paul—as an apostle—through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was raised from the dead and is the one

16

Galatians 1:1-9

through whom Paul was sent by God the Father, so that Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father; and finally, here, God is “the Father” who raised Jesus Christ from the dead and then through Jesus Christ sent Paul as an apostle of the good news. Paul takes his identity from his relationship with God and Jesus Christ in the same way that God and Christ have their identities in relationship to each other. Moreover, in opening a letter to a church or an individual, Paul’s frequent practice is to name specific colleagues who are cast as co-authors of certain of the letters: Timothy (2 Corinthians; Philippians; 1 Thessalonians; Philemon—cf. Colossians; 2 Thessalonians); Silvanus (1 Thessalonians—cf. 2 Thessalonians); and Sosthenes (1 Corinthians). Although Paul does not name any of his missionary colleagues in opening this letter to the Galatians, he makes general mention of “all” those who were with him at the time of the composition. Thus, while Paul may claim that his apostleship is independent of human mediation, he does not work alone as an apostle; rather, it is in the context of a community of colleagues that Paul performs his apostolic labors. Paul is not merely a contextless advocate of an independently held message. Second, Paul (and his colleagues) addresses “the churches of Galatia.” The plural form “churches” used here shows that Paul had in mind several distinct congregations, not merely one local body of believers. Occasionally Paul writes about “the church,” where the singular form indicates the church universal; but here he is thinking of multiple congregations in some kind of relationship, so that all of these congregations may be addressed at once. This greeting recognizes that churches in the Pauline mission were clustered into networks. Just as Paul himself did not work alone, so the churches brought into existence through the efforts of Paul’s ministry were not established as solitary entities. The word “church” itself is striking in early Christian writings. In secular usage the Greek word, ekkl∑sia, was usually an informal reference to a political assembly. The word had been used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew word, qahal, indicating a “congregation.” The use of ekkl∑sia in early Christian writings seems to show the early Christians finding and using a distinctive vocabulary in contrast to both the synagogue and Gentile religious gatherings.2 Third, Paul’s salutation, “grace and peace,” makes a play on the standard greeting of a typical ancient letter. After naming sender and recipient, a normal letter simply would have said, “Greetings” (Gk. chairein). Paul effectively “theologizes” the greeting by altering

Galatians 1:1-9

it from a strictly secular salutation to a statement that must be understood as the proper work of God, i.e., grace (Gk. charis). Grace for Paul is the summation of God’s good news in Jesus Christ. Thus, the first part of the salutation, “grace,” is a reference to God’s disposition and dealings with humanity; whereas the second part of the greeting, “peace,” seems to be derived from the Hebrew greeting, shalom, and names the results of God’s work in human lives. Peace is not merely the absence of strife. Rather, from the broadly conceived biblical point of view3 that Paul maintains, peace is the condition of health, wholeness, and harmony that God intends for human existence. Peace for Paul is God’s salvation itself. Again, here, Paul indicates something of his understanding of God and Jesus in the way that he speaks of them. God as Father indicates God’s sovereignty and care as well as recalls the manner of addressing God that Jesus employed during his ministry. Jesus as Lord and Christ recognizes that Jesus was God’s chosen and anointed one (Christ) and that he now has dominion, power, and authority as Lord since God has raised him up and exalted him to the right hand of power in heaven (see Phil 2:5-11). By Paul’s time, in early Christian circles, “Lord” was understood to be “the ruler of the cosmos,” thus effectively “God”—though Jesus (Christ) is still clearly God’s Son in Paul’s point of view (see 4:4-7).4 In fact, the exact nature of God’s work in and through Jesus becomes clearer in vv. 4-5. Fourth, building on the phrase “the Lord Jesus Christ,” v. 4 presents what many interpreters consider to be early creedal or confessional material.5 The reasons for this suggestion are (A) the use of “sins” rather than “sin” is not typical of Paul’s style; (B) the formulaic or rhythmic quality of the statements, one after the other; and (C) the “theological” character of the statements, dealing with history, soteriology, eschatology, sovereignty, and providence. Note first that the death of Jesus is remembered in its historical reality: he is the one who gave himself (in death)—cf. 2:20. That death is then understood and interpreted soteriologically as a vicarious occurrence, “in behalf of our sins”—an aspect of the early church’s effort to interpret the significance of Jesus’ death. The purpose of this vicarious death is stated clearly: “so that he might deliver us out of the present evil age.” And, finally, one learns that all of this transpired deliberately and for a decided reason, “according to the will of our God and Father.” Here God’s purpose is for the death of Christ to deal with the sinful condition of humanity, in which humanity is hopelessly rendered helpless. The death not only deals with the sinful condition

17

18

Galatians 1:1-9

but also brings release from the fundamental conflict between God and the powers of this age that have entrapped and enslaved humanity in isolation from God (see 4:8-9). Christ intervenes at God’s direction to do for humanity what humans are in no position to do for themselves (4:4-7). This work is God’s will. Behind this language is an apocalyptic eschatological view of reality.6 In such a worldview, the present age is a time when God’s will is not being done and, indeed, that which is contrary to God’s will is established as the norm of life and human behavior in the world. Yet the hope of those who are not satisfied with the world and its opposition to God is that God will intervene and bring judgment on evil and establish the good. Remarkably, what Paul is saying here at the outset of this letter to the Galatians is that already God’s work of intervention, judgment, and liberation is underway in what God has wrought in Jesus Christ. God’s purposes are being accomplished, although the full work of God’s grace has not yet occurred. Paul’s phrases and statements at this opening point in the letter are already establishing the basic themes to which he will return throughout the letter. It seems too that Paul must be conjuring up familiar material to remind the Galatians, as he challenges them repeatedly in the course of the letter, to remember the gospel that they had first been taught and the Spirit through whom they had their beginning in the faith of Jesus Christ. Fifth, Paul concludes the opening of this letter with a doxological formulation in typically Jewish fashion. He builds on the phrase, “our God and Father,” to declare, literally, “glory unto the ages of the ages—amen.” The language is very Semitic, though the phrase “unto the ages of the ages,” which means essentially “forever and ever,” uses the plural form of the same word for “age” that was previously referred to negatively in its singular form in v. 4 (“the present evil age”). In essence, this word for “age” in Greek (aiøn) has both spatial and temporal dimensions; it is the context that gives the word a positive or negative sense. Perhaps Paul is employing that same word here as a way of speaking of all of God’s future in order to create contrast between that future and the elements of the present evil age that are still in opposition to God, but ultimately already condemned to defeat. Expression of Dismay: The Situation in Galatia, 1:6-9

In these verses one finds explicit reference to Paul’s reason for writing to the Galatians. At this point in a “normal” ancient letter,

Galatians 1:1-9

19

following the opening lines and preceding the beginning of the main body of the letter, one would expect to find a word of thanks or a prayer of blessing. For Paul, in his other letters, these words of thanks take the form of sometimes lengthy prayer-reports that recall Paul’s having given thanks to God for developments in the lives of the communities to which he wrote.7 Remarkably, there is no such thanksgiving prayer-report in Galatians. Instead, Paul declares his astonishment, his extreme consternation, at what has transpired among the Galatians: Paul is not The Gospel thankful, for members of the churches in “Gospel” derives from an Old English Galatia have, according to him, abandoned the word meaning “good story.” This is a message that he had first preached to them and close approximation of the original Greek term euangelion, which might be translated “good in which they began their lives as Christians for message.” The verbal form euangelomai is usually the sake of another message that Paul terms translated “to preach” or “to proclaim.” “another gospel.” [The Gospel] In the context of Christianity, this “good news” Paul states his surprise at the development can involve a body of content. Jesus, for example, among the Galatians using the verb thauused the term with reference to his message mazein—“to marvel” or “to be astonished,” about the coming kingdom of God: “Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, prowhich could be paraphrased here, “I am claiming the good news of God, and saying, “The absolutely shocked.” This expression was a practime is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come ticed part of the rhetoric (judicial and political) near; repent, and believe in the good news” (Mark of Paul’s day.8 It should be understood here as an 1:14-15). The “good news” in which people are offensive weapon in the conflict and struggle in called to believe is precisely the fact that “the Galatia. In short, Paul is set on winning this time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near.” argument; anything less would be unacceptable. Later Christian writers used the term Anything less would amount to deserting the Christocentrically to describe all that Jesus did to call of God. bring about the kingdom of God. As it were, the From Paul’s point of view this abandonment good news Jesus proclaimed became equated of the gospel and turn toward another gospel had with the good news about Jesus and his saving taken place quite “quickly.” How quickly? It is work: his life, death, and resurrection. Paul’s usage of the term likewise focuses on the Christ not possible to determine what kind of time event. We see this, for example, in the summary frame Paul has in mind, though his statement of the good news he proclaimed (eu∑ngelisam∑n) may imply that the Galatians responded posito the Corinthians in 1 Cor 15:1-8. tively to “another gospel” soon after Paul left them or at some point that Paul regards as early in their Christian experience. But, on the other hand, Paul’s words (houtøs tacheøs— lit., “so quickly”) may imply that the Galatians abandoned the gospel they had first heard for the new presentation “quickly” (i.e., soon) after hearing the new version of the gospel. It is probably impossible to decide between these different understandings of “so quickly,” though perhaps one should understand Paul to be saying “both/and” rather than “either/or.”9

20

Galatians 1:1-9

Verse 6 presents a pair of issues for consideration with the phrase that is usually translated “in” or “by” “the grace of Christ.” First, several old and reliable manuscripts either omit “of Christ” (Christou) or read differently: “of Jesus,” “of Jesus Christ,” “of Christ Jesus,” or “of God.” The number and quality of the manuscripts that do read “the grace of Christ” make that reading most likely the original, however. Second, the ambiguous sense of the Greek word, en, which can have the sense of “in” = locative or “by” = instrumental, raises the question of whether Paul wrote “the one calling you in the grace of Christ” or “the one calling you by the grace of Christ.” English versions are divided over the translation of this preposition at this point in v. 6. Paul’s general pattern of usage suggests, however, that “in” is the preferable rendering;10 so that Paul writes that God called the Galatians in the sphere of Christ’s grace. Thus, the Galatians were called to a new place in relation to God as well as a new way of being. Nevertheless, to understand the letter, it is necessary to come to some understanding of what the “different” or “other” gospel was. Paul’s comments throughout the letter in reference to the actions and interests of the Galatians offer sufficient impressions of the situation so that the substance of this “different gospel” becomes clear. According to Paul, some persons who had come among the Galatians after he had preached and established churches in that region proclaimed a “different gospel.” Paul does not call these preachers by name; rather, he refers to them with phrases such as “some” or “certain ones” and even “whoever he may be,” thus avoiding their names in a fashion that was regarded as insulting in antiquity. That these preachers have come among the Galatians and are not from among them seems clear from the way that Paul refers to “those who” in speaking of these preachers, while speaking of “you” in reference to the Galatians themselves. Thus, at this point in the letter, one can see that these preachers of “a different gospel” are outsiders who have made their way into the churches of Galatia when Paul was no longer on the scene. Later in the letter, Paul asserts that the Galatians were “foolish” and “bewitched” (3:1) by these persons. Under the influence of the preaching of these newcomers, the Galatians had moved from their Christian origins in the Spirit to what Paul terms “the flesh” (3:3), i.e., the realm opposite God’s realm of “Spirit.” Paul declares that the Galatians were now seeking to receive the Spirit out of the works of the Law rather than out of the hearing of Faith (3:2), or, in other words, under the influence of those who had come among them, the Galatians were moving toward a

Galatians 1:1-9

religious lifestyle of Law observance. As Paul presents the matter in this letter, the Law that was being promoted (and observed?) among the Galatians was the traditional Jewish Law, a system of religious life with which Paul, the former Pharisee (see 1:13-14; cf. Phil 3:5), was well acquainted. From Paul’s remarks, we learn that the Galatians had become concerned with issues of the religious calendar and its celebrations (4:10), the practice of circumcision (5:2), and perhaps even questions of “the whole Law” (5:3). Thus, from Paul’s letter one perceives that those whom Paul opposes are Christian Jews, not simply Jews, as becomes obvious from Paul’s many remarks in the letter itself. The Law and Law observance are primary matters in the message of those preaching a “different gospel” (1:6) from that which Paul had preached to the Galatians in the first place. Paul does, however, refer to the message of those whom he opposes with the term “gospel,” so that we should not simply understand that the different gospel was sheer Law observance. Rather, the Law seems to be the point of departure or the heart of the preachers’ proclamation (5:1-4). Their message probably spoke of “the Law of Christ” (6:2), for this phrase is not a typical manner of expression for Paul who normally writes of the gospel of Christ. Thus, the “different gospel” probably taught that God’s Law was affirmed and interpreted by God’s Messiah, so that Jesus was the Messiah of the Law. Such a theology offers what J. Louis Martyn has called an additive pattern,11 i.e., the Law is primary and Christ is added to it as its authorized interpreter, so that obedience to the Law of Christ, i.e., the Law as interpreted by Christ, is the substance of true religion. Moreover, by interpreting (or abbreviating) the Law to an essential form, Christ is depicted as having made the Law universally relevant and intended for Gentiles as well as Jews. Essentially, in the message of the preachers who have come among the Galatians, Gentiles must take on the practice of certain formerly exclusively Jewish customs in order to become legitimately or genuinely Christian. Thus, we should envision those whom Paul opposes as being Christian Jews more so than Jewish Christians— for the primary role of the Law in the proclamation of these preachers seems to indicate a self-understanding wherein the preachers’ Jewishness (their commitment to Law observance) exceeds their concern with Christ. After all, if the phrase “the Law of Christ” (6:2) is indeed the language of the preachers, then the Law forms the substance of which Christ is but the modifier or modification.

21

22

Galatians 1:1-9

In describing the move that the Galatians have made from one gospel to another, Paul uses the verb metatithenai, which means “transfer” or “change position.”12 Paul further qualifies such motion as being “away from the one calling you.” God called the Galatians in and through the gospel that Paul preached. For Paul, God and Christ are the ones who call (1:15-16), whereas the apostle is but an obedient emissary. Thus, for Paul the activity of the Galatians is nothing short of deserting God. Moreover, Paul states that as they have turned away from God, they have turned “toward” (Gk. eis) a “different gospel.” In this statement Paul stakes out the fundamental parameters and subject of the controversy as he sees it: the Galatians are moving away from God who is present and powerful in the gospel that Paul had preached and going toward another gospel where God’s presence and power are not to be taken for granted. At issue is the truth of the gospel as Paul knew and preached it and that gospel’s adequacy or inadequacy for human encounter with God that results in God’s grace for humans. The mention of “a different gospel” leads into a denial that there is “another gospel” at all. For Paul, here, “different” and “another” are almost certainly synonyms. His point is that any alteration of the fundamental message that he had delivered to the Galatians is a misrepresentation of the gospel. Paul focuses on those who have preached (who are preaching?) a different gospel and declares that they trouble the Galatians and that they desire to alter the actual gospel (the only gospel from Paul’s perspective). As readers of Paul’s letter today, we must remember that we are only getting Paul’s perspective in this correspondence. Almost certainly those preaching a message distinct from that of Paul did not think of themselves as promoting perversion. In fact, they probably presented themselves as proclaiming a fully adequate message about God’s work for salvation. Nevertheless, Paul’s assessment is quite negative. The difference between Paul and those whom he here criticizes is essentially theological: what constitutes God’s good news about Christ? The phrase “the gospel of Christ” is the designation that Paul offers in reference to his own proclamation. The phrase indicates that the content or the subject of Paul’s proclamation was nothing other than Christ. Christ is a title, not a name, so that Paul is referring to proclamation concerning Jesus the Messiah. For Paul, Jesus as Messiah was the one sent by God to die and to be raised again from the dead. It was in this one and in his work that God accomplished the redemption of humanity (Gal 1:4). God’s accomplishment in Jesus Christ is, from Paul’s perspective, all sufficient. It is not in need of human efforts to bring it to completion or to make it adequate.

Galatians 1:1-9

23

Verse 8 makes it clear that the gospel message, not the preacher, is the ultimate focus of Paul’s concern. The issue is “What is valid evangelization?” Remarkably, Paul moves into the plural firstperson pronoun (“we”) in vv. 8-9, although he speaks very personally (“I”) in vv. 6-7, 10. In any case, Paul separates himself— or even an angel—from the reality and validity of the proclamation and reception of the gospel. It was not the preacher but the message that mattered. Paul’s remarks contend that the gospel as he had preached it among the Galatians was the true gospel of Christ. In turn, any deviation from the message of God’s work in Christ as Paul had preached it was genuinely damnable; so in v. 8 Paul announces the first of two solemn curses on Anathema anyone who would preach anything other than The Greek word anathema occurs six the gospel of Christ. The pronouncing of this times in the Greek New Testament: Acts anathema or curse is a forceful, nearly absolute 23:14; Rom 9:3; 1 Cor 12:3 and 16:22; and Gal action that may indicate the severity of the 1:8 and 9. The word signifies disfavor with God problem that Paul faced. [Anathema] Indeed, if the and is thus commonly translated “accursed.” In Acts 23:14, the word designates binding preachers who had come among the Galatians oneself with an oath inviting a curse if one breaks were successful in persuading (certain?) Galatian it. In that verse, forty men intending harm to Paul men to undergo circumcision, then they had literally state, “We have anathematized ourselves convinced at least some of the Galatians to with an anathema not to taste anything until we submit to a procedure that produced painful kill Paul.” and shameful (from a Hellenistic or pagan point Perhaps this connection to oaths and oathbreaking eventually led to the word’s later of view) results. Thus, they had been successful connotation of ecclesiastical sanction or excomin a remarkable way. munication. Such was not Paul’s intent, however. Verse 9 seems to be a reiteration of the points In the first century, the term seems to refer only made in v. 8, including the declaration of curse. to the fearsome prospect of a curse administered One should note that the curse is not a matter of by God and not to any temporal punishment a personal disagreement between Paul and the assigned by an ecclesiastical court. preachers who have come among the Galatians. The curse is rather a divine judgment that Paul more announces than pronounces. The word for “curse,” anathema, refers to something or someone accursed because of devotion to evil. Paul is stating God’s judgment rather than his own point of view. While it is possible that the phrase “as we have said before” refers to a previous address or letter by Paul or even to a time when Paul had been personally among the Galatians, the close parallels between vv. 8 and 9 and the existence of the entire letter to the churches in Galatia make it more likely that Paul is speaking emphatically and repetitiously in these two verses.13 Paul writes here of “that which you received,” an obvious reference to the gospel that he had preached in Galatia. This manner of referring to the gospel calls to mind a crucial passage in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4:

24

Galatians 1:1-9 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel that I preached to you, which you also received, in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast to that word that I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. . . .

From this parallel passage we can see that the “received gospel” is the message that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and he was buried, and he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” Those phrases together form the thumbnail sketch of the gospel of Jesus Christ as understood and presented by Paul.

CONNECTIONS In for a Bumpy Ride (1:1-5)

Paul is scarcely able to finish this letter’s salutation without addressing some of the pressing matters of contention between him and the Galatian Christians. Although the depth of his frustration with his readers first comes into view with his confession of astonishment in v. 6, already we can see that the Galatians are in for a bumpy ride. As in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 2 Corinthians, Paul identifies himself as an apostle. But his apostleship isn’t a matter of human commissioning, as some in the Galatian church apparently believed. But Paul is no Johnny-come-lately with a derivative, second-rate gospel. Rather, his apostolic authority derives from God the Father and from the risen Christ. More important than his own ministry, Paul would have the Galatians recall the ministry of Jesus. Paul wishes the Galatian believers grace and peace, two powerful words he infuses with deep theological meaning. According to the will of God, Paul says, Jesus “gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age” (v. 4). This is what the gospel is all about. Through Christ’s saving work, everything has changed. The old ways of relating to God, as tried and trusted as they are, shrink to insignificance next to the transforming power of Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Galatians 1:1-9

25

Paul has a clear sense of who he is: an apostle sent from God and therefore answerable to God and God alone (see 1 Cor 4:1-5). More important, he has a clear sense of who Christ is and why Christ and his saving work must be proclaimed unfettered by any worldly accretions. In v. 4, we find Paul’s first mention of The Apostle Paul the theme of freedom: Christ has set us free from the present evil age. As we shall see, freedom is a crucial aspect of everything Paul wants to say to the Galatian believers. Furthermore, this freedom has an eschatological dimension. It is freedom from “the present evil age,” a term that offers us a glimpse into Paul’s apocalyptic mind-set. Paul can write as he does because he perceives that Christ’s resurrection is world-changing. Old things (including even revered things like the Law) have passed away to make way for the new things to come (see 2 Cor 5:17). Fighting for the Gospel (1:6-9) Rembrandt Harmensz van Rijn (1606–1669). The Apostle Paul, 1633. Oil on

Ecumenically minded readers might be canvas, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria. [Credit: Web Gallery of forgiven a twinge of discomfort to read Art / Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)] Paul’s fiery rhetoric in Galatians 1:6-9. Where other Hellenistic letters would offer a prayer or thanksgiving for the recipients at this point, Paul can only muster astonishment that they have so quickly deserted God to embrace “a different gospel.” He not only dismisses this other gospel to which the Galatians seem attracted as no gospel at all but also goes so far as to consign to hell any who would preach such a perversion of the gospel of Christ! Isn’t this just a tad narrow minded? If the essence of the Christian faith is simply for everybody to get along and be welcoming of each other, then a document like Paul’s letter to the Galatians must seem like primitive superstition at best and nasty hate-mongering at worst. For Paul, however, what is at stake is far more crucial than ordination policies or the proper mode of baptism. He writes as he does to defend the gospel itself. Paul believed the gospel was worth fighting for. It was not something he had made up or received through faulty human tradition; it was a revelation from God. It was not just “true for him”; it was

26

Galatians 1:1-9

true, period. And because it was true, he was furious that the Galatian Christians had abandoned it for anything less. We must remember that Paul is not just the hard-nosed curmudgeon of Galatians 1. He is also a culturally sensitive missionary who is more than willing to compromise, to give and take, for the sake of Christian unity (see 1 Cor 9:12, 19-23). Paul does what he must for the sake of Christ, even if it means foreswearing personal privilege (see 1 Thess 2:5-9). The situation in Galatia, however, is different. There are lines that Paul is flatly unwilling to cross. There are compromises he will not make. Reading Galatians poses no less a challenge for those who pride themselves on their doctrinal purity. After all, Paul was contending for the gospel itself. He was fighting mad because somebody had attempted to shore up the simple message of Christ crucified (1 Cor 2:2) with extraneous doctrinal baggage. What, then, about the things that we add to the gospel of Christ, perhaps in anxious fear that we’ll somehow miss out if we don’t? To be sure, circumcision is not a contentious issue in churches today, but the inclination to add things to the gospel still can be. Evelyn Underhill notes two religious approaches that might justly be called “legalism.”14 First, ritualism is an over-valuation of external expressions of religion, believing these expressions in and of themselves to possess transforming power. By contrast, formalism is an under-valuation of external expressions, content simply to “go through the motions” with little thought for their significance. Both approaches deny the proper place of external religious expressions by denying the realities that lie behind them. To the extend the Galatians believed that God supplied them with the spirit on the basis of their doing the words of the Law (3:5), they are guilty of ritualism as Underhill defines it. We must never, however, interpret Paul’s concern as an attack on the Jewish religion. Throughout history, Christians have become fixated on any number of outward religious practices. Galatians provides believers a template for addressing such issues regardless of their origin. Paul was not this worked up over the Galatians having an unorthodox end-times scenario, style of worship, leadership structure, voting record, or pet doctrinal position. If anything, he was enraged because people thought such lesser things mattered far more than they actually did. Such things may, in fact, be good and praiseworthy. What the Galatians failed to realize is that they are counter-productive when we let them become ends in themselves.

Galatians 1:1-9

It is foolish to trade grace for works of the Law. Believers must live by the Spirit, not by their religious rituals and shibboleths. Paul was willing to fight for the central defining tenets of the Christian faith—the saving work of Christ and justification by faith—he did not confuse the core gospel message with secondary matters. Yes, there are absolute truths that we can know and must confess and for which Christians should be willing to fight. But there are only a few.

Notes 1. Elsewhere, for God as “Father,” Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Phil 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; Phlm 3; also Eph 1:2; Col 1:2; 2 Thess 1:2; Titus 1:4; cf. 1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2. See further Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979) 40. 2. Dieter Lührmann, Galatians: A Continental Commentary (CC; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992; German Original, 1978; 2d ed., 1988) 10. 3. Paul’s outlook was formed in relation to the Jewish Scriptures, especially the LXX. 4. J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997) 88. 5. See Betz, Galatians, 41–43; Martyn, Galatians, 88–91; cf. Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC 41; Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990) 7–9. 6. For two complementary but distinct treatments of the apocalyptic perspective from which Paul wrote, see Longenecker, Galatians, 8–9, and Martyn, Galatians, 95–105. 7. Paul Schubert, Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1939); more recently, Peter T. O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul (NovTSup 49; Leiden: Brill, 1977). 8. See Betz, Galatians, 47, esp. nn. 38–40. 9. Ernest DeWitt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920) 18–19. 10. Gordon D. Fee, Galatians (Pentecostal Commentary Series; Blandford Forum, Dorset, UK: Deo Publishing, 2007) 23–24. Fee reads the text in a locative (“in”) sense but recognizes the dynamic quality of Paul’s language and theological vision, so that he even regards the AV translation, “into,” as perhaps preferable to “in.” 11. J. Louis Martyn, Graduate Seminar, Union Theological Seminary NYC, 1980. 12. The verb can signify “alter,” “change,” “desert,” “pervert,” “or “turn apostate” (LSJ, 1117; BAGD, 513). 13. See Betz, Galatians, 53–54. 14. Evelyn Underhill, Worship (New York: Harper, 1937) 34–37.

27

Called through Grace Galatians 1:10-24

COMMENTARY The body of the letter to the Galatians comprises 1:10–5:12. While the first portion of this body is explicitly autobiographical (1:10–2:21), the second portion is predominantly exegetical and hortatory (3:1–5:12). The entire body of the letter with its narrative and expository twists and turns deals with the issue of the relationship between Christian freedom—freedom in Christ Jesus, freedom in faith, and freedom in the Spirit—and the practice of Law observance. At times interpreters of Galatians sharply distinguish the autobiographical and exegetical sections from each other, giving the impression of something less than a unified reflection, but because the focus and style of reflection is basically theological throughout 1:10–5:12 and because it is consistently concerned with the contrast between the gospel Paul preached and the practice of Law observance, in what follows the larger section of 1:10–5:12 is viewed as a whole. Paul’s Past and Apostolic Experience(s), 1:10–2:21

Paul’s Challenge and Declaration, 1:10 This one verse presents multiple issues of interpretation for anyone trying to read and understand this letter. The verse could either go with vv. 6-9 as a kind of conclusion or explanation for what was said in those lines or it could be read with what follows in vv. 11-12 as an introduction to Paul’s remarks about the nature and origin of the gospel that he preached. Since the verse actually is something of a bridge between vv. 6-9 and 11-12, I am treating it separately, though with an eye to its context. In the flow of Paul’s statements, in v. 10, Paul steps back from his opening salvo in order to assess the situation as he had presented it to the Galatians. The context shows (note vv. 6-9 and 11) that Paul perceived the gospel to be at stake, not merely Paul himself.1 As he

30

Galatians 1:10-24

writes he seems to be reacting to something about which he knew and that most likely the Galatians knew too. Later readers can only, at best, infer what Paul knew and imagine what he reacted to by listening carefully to what he says here. The verse comprises two or three rhetorical questions and a subsequent statement that provides a key to answering the questions. The grammar of the lines of this verse is sufficiently ambiguous and the vocabulary Paul chose so nuanced that understanding the verse is challenging. Various translations of the Greek text into English resolve the interpretive issues differently, so readers of English translations should not be surprised at differences in the way the Greek text is rendered. In what follows, every possible angle for translation or interpretation is not pursued; rather, an attempt is made to give one direct, sensible reading of this verse in relation to the passage in which it occurs. First, Paul begins this complex series of lines with the Greek word gar, “for,” which in this instance may be read simply as an emphatic “Indeed.” Subsequent uses of gar in vv. 11, 12, and 13 seem to introduce explanatory (or prefatory) clauses and should be translated “for” (if translated at all), but here the explanatory sense of the word gar is not apparent.2 In turn, Paul asks, “Now, do I persuade [Gk. peithein] humans or God?” (Many translations obscure Paul’s actual question by translating the line to say, “Do I now please humans or God?” Even this translation produces several interpretations. But Paul clearly uses the word persuade, not the word please [Gk. areskein].) Paul’s question (lit., “Indeed, now, do I persuade humans or God?”) can be read as having one or two parts. One way of reading the verse understands this line to say, “Now do I persuade both humans and God?” Here the word “or” (Gk. ∑ ) between “humans” and “God” is read as a copulative conjunction.3 Thus, there is but one question. Another way of understanding the line (perhaps the dominant way) takes the word “or” as a disjunctive conjunction,4 so that Paul’s question is taken to say, “Now, do I persuade humans? Or do I persuade God?” Thus, there are two questions set in juxtaposition to each other. Given that the next words in this verse state another question (“Or do I seek to please humans?”) that has parallels only to the first part of the previous line (“Now, do I persuade humans?”), it seems that the disjunctive use of “or” in the second option for interpretation (i.e., there are two questions, not simply one: “Now, do I persuade humans? Or do I persuade God?”) is preferable. Moreover, the fact is that Paul labors among humans; he does not labor in an effort to win God over to some cause or position. If Paul seeks to persuade, it is certainly humans, not God, whom he

Galatians 1:10-24

31

attempts to convince. But then Paul asks, “Or do I seek to please humans?” This query builds on and beyond the first of the two previous questions (“Now, do I persuade humans?”), asking about Paul’s manner of relating to those humans whom he works to persuade. Thus, the issue here is not whether Paul understood himself to be under an obligation to be considerate of others; rather, the issue is whether Paul behaved in a contrived manner in order to gain an advantage in relation to others.5 Furthermore, the statement that follows the rhetorical questions in v. 10 provides Paul’s answer to the last question regarding the genuineness of his demeanor: “If I were still pleasing humans, I would not be a slave of Christ.” In other words, because Paul served Christ, he acted in obedience to Christ’s direction, not behaving in a manner that was planned to produce sure results among humans through primarily doing that which was pleasing to them. Rather, Paul preached Christ’s message, and that message had its impact on human lives according to the purposes of God, not Paul. In this last part of v. 10, Paul’s use of the Greek word eti, “still” (“if I were still pleasing humans”), indicates another time and way of behaving that he now disavows. Exactly when Paul ever acted in such a fashion is not immediately apparent from this remark alone, although when coupled with Paul’s rhetorical quesTranslation of Galatians 1:10 tion in Galatians 5:11 (“But . . . if I still [Gk. eti] Indeed, now, am I persuading proclaim circumcision why am I still [eti] persehuman beings or God? Or do I seek cuted?), one suspects that Paul the Christian to please human beings? If I were still preacher of the gospel had once been Paul the pleasing human beings, I would not be a 6 slave of Christ. Pharisaic advocate of circumcision and the Law. Though now, Paul clearly had changed both his message and his manner because his preaching of the gospel of Christ was done under the authority and according to the standards of Christ himself. [Translation of Galatians 1:10] Finally, Paul’s use of the expression “a slave of Christ” is especially striking in this letter to the Galatians, for in the letter Paul repeatedly advocates “freedom” as a Christian desideratum (2:4; 3:28; 4:22, 23, 26, 30, 31) while depicting slavery as an inferior, undesirable, even deplorable condition (3:28; 4:1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 25). It is important to keep in mind that slavery was an everyday reality of the world in which Paul lived. Slavery was all too real, so that freepersons—such as Paul—did not lightly refer to themselves as slaves. [Slavery in the New Testament] Slaves typically desired to be free, and Paul held up freedom as good, in contrast to slavery. Yet, to state the degree of his commitment to Christ, Paul cast himself (metaphorically) as a “slave of Christ.” And then, in 5:13,

32

Galatians 1:10-24

Slavery in the New Testament In the NT, the slave (doulos, pais, oiket∑s) is a ubiquitous term appearing both literally and figuratively in all literary genres. Slaves are commonly the beneficiaries of the ministries of Jesus and his followers (Matt. 8.5-13; Acts 8.27-39). Paul wrote an entire letter to Philemon to secure the slave Onesimus as a partner in Christian service (Phlm. 10-21). However, slavery is never prohibited in the NT. Paul encourages slaves who can receive manumission to do so if possible (1 Cor. 7.21). However, throughout the NT slaves are repeatedly encouraged to obey their earthly masters (kyrios) as if their masters were the heavenly Lord (kyrios), despite any maltreatment slaves might receive (Eph. 6.5-8; Col. 3.22- 24). Slavery language is also used figuratively in the NT to articulate one’s devotion to spiritual forces, such as evil spirits and sin (John 8.34-36; Gal. 4.1-9) and God and righteousness (Rom. 1.1; 6–8; Gal. 1.10; Rev. 1.1). Furthermore, slavery figuratively depicts the servile and sacrificial nature of Christian ministry (Mark 10.42-45; 1 Cor. 9.19; Phil. 2.7).

in relation to the Galatians themselves, Paul exhorted his reader/hearers—whom he directed to live as free people in Christ—to use their freedom in service (lit., “slave-service”—Gk. douleuein) to one another. In other words, Paul argued that with Christ as Lord (1:3), Christians render service to one another through love as if they were slaves—though, in fact, in Christ they are truly free.

The True Origin of Paul’s Gospel, 1:11-12 From his spirited protest in vv. 6-9 and 10, Paul moves on to explain briefly his assessment of the situation in Galatia. In vv. 11-12 Paul reiterates and clarifies his objection to the developments in the Galatian congregations. Paul understands the message he preached to be “good news,” which is the literal translation of the Greek word for “gospel” (Gk. euangelion); this news is “good” primarily because it came from God; it did not come from humans. Paul stresses the point that he does not work in a derivative manner from information supplied by another person. Paul makes his point in rhetorical fashion by introducing a thesis7 with the words, “For I want From John K. Goodrich, “Slave,” Dictionary of the Bible you to know, brothers and sisters.” The vocative and Western Culture, ed. Mary Ann Beavis and Michael J. Gilmour (Sheffield UK: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012) 504. address, “brothers and sisters,” salutes the Galatians in the manner of an orator communicating with an audience and calling for an attentive hearing. In turn, the phrase, “For I want you to know” (Gk. Gnørizø gar hymin), is regarded by commentators as an “epistolary disclosure formula” and seems to be a kind of cliché for Paul when he brings some item of basic information (often about the gospel) to the attention of those whom he addresses (1 Cor 12:2; 15:1; cf. 2 Cor 8:1). In this case, what Paul wants the Galatians to know about is “the gospel that is preached by me.” English translation does not usually capture and communicate the nuance of Paul’s remark, for literally he says something like “the gospel that is gospelled by me,” thereby using both the basic noun and verb from the Greek word group, euangeli. Thus, the substance of the gospel determines the manner of the action of proclamation of the gospel; in other words, there is an assumed consistency between what is preached and how it is preached. What God had accomplished in Jesus Christ established, clearly from Paul’s point of view, a reality that determined both the content and the character of Paul’s preaching.

Galatians 1:10-24

In turn, Paul sketches in a series of phrases what he desires the Galatians to realize. The pattern of his rhetorical statement is “not . . . but. . . .” He begins by stating that his gospel is not (1) of human origin, (2) received from a human, or (3) taught to him by a human. But, Paul insists, using “but” for contrast, he received the gospel through a revelation of Jesus Christ. Paul’s point is that the gospel that he preached was divine in both origin and nature— indeed, it is independent of human sources and agents. Again, here, Paul is declaring the independence of his apostolic preaching, though now the emphasis is clearly on the independent character of the gospel that he preached, not merely on his own independence and that of his efforts. Two items merit comment. First, the phrase “of Jesus Christ” is a genitive construction that could mean either (A) that Jesus Christ was the agent who communicated the content of the gospel message to Paul through a revelatory action8 or (B) that through the encounter with Jesus Christ Paul received the content of the gospel he preached, so that it was a message about Jesus Christ.9 The latter interpretation is more likely grammatically and seems to make better sense in terms of Paul’s statements in the rest of Galatians, especially at 1:15-16, where Paul says that God revealed his Son to Paul, so that clearly God acted in a revelatory fashion, not Jesus Christ per se, and Jesus Christ (God’s Son) is the object of God’s revelation; Jesus Christ is not the one doing the revealing in the first place; he is the one who is revealed. Nevertheless, the gospel and Jesus Christ were inseparable for Paul, so that for Paul preaching the gospel was nothing other than preaching Jesus Christ. Second, the word “revelation” (Gk. apokalypsis) is language that is typical of an apocalyptic outlook where one time is divided from another time by an act of divine revelation such as the one to which Paul is referring here. In this instance, given Paul’s attitude toward the Law—past and present (zealous in the past and indifferent [when left alone] in the present)—it is not unreasonable to understand that in this revelatory event, Paul was brought to break with the Law as his means of seeking to maintain a relationship with God as he moved through the event as a point of entry into the time of God’s New Creation in Jesus Christ. Paul’s Call and Independence, 1:13-24 Paul tells of his former life and his apocalyptic call in vv. 13-17, and, perhaps as important as anything in this section, he records his independence from the Jerusalem church from the outset of his ministry. Then, in vv. 18-24 Paul tells of a visit he (finally!) made to

33

34

Galatians 1:10-24

Jerusalem, three years after his call experience. Even here Paul declares and illustrates his simply loosest of connections to the Jerusalem church by saying that he only saw Cephas—from among the apostles—and James. He also recalls that although he “was unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which are in Christ,” the Judean Christians gave thanks to God because of Paul’s transformation. Paul’s Call and Early Work, 1:13-17. Verses 13-17 comprise two lengthy complex sentences in Greek—one in vv. 13-14 and the other in vv. 15-17. Verse 13 begins with gar (“for”), here indicating that what is to follow in vv. 13-14 is explanation for what Paul stated in v. 12, viz., that he received the gospel by way of divine revelation, not from a human. In turn, vv. 15-17 recall Paul’s divine calling and commission as an apostle and recount something of the outset of his ministry. In vv. 13-14 Paul remembers his life prior to the time of his experience of the revelation of Jesus Christ. The way he begins these remarks (“For you heard”) may indicate that he is going over information that was previously available to the Galatians, not introducing new materials to them. The point he is making is to revisit an earlier time in his own life when he was thoroughly engaged in exactly what the Galatians are desirous of doing, viz., observing the Law. Paul’s recollection of his past in Judaism brings to light that as a zealously Law-observant young man, he had acted in his zeal to persecute the church in an attempt to destroy it. [Anti-Semitism?] At this point, Paul’s explicit references to Judaism (Gk. Ioudaïsmos) in vv. 13-14 are remarkable, especially since they are the only two occurrences of that word Anti-Semitism? in the NT. Judaism means the Jewish religion and Paul regrets his persecution of the lifestyle. The word was apparently created sometime church, but he never disparages during the Hellenistic era when the Jews were Judaism itself. He does not fault his experiencing extreme oppression from the Syrians, teachers or the traditions of Judaism for his for it occurs in the LXX only in writings from own misplaced zeal. Neither here nor in Philippians 3:4-9 does that age (2 Macc 2:21; 8:1; 14:38; 4 Macc 4:26). Paul speak negatively about his experience Moreover, Paul uses the cognates Ioudaïzein (“to live within Judaism per se. Rather, what he as a Jew”) and Ioudaïkøs (“in the Jewish manner”) in once counted as “gain” is now “loss” 2:14 in reference to Jewish versus Gentile ways of because of the surpassing excellence of life. These are the only occurrences of these words in Christ. the NT, and their presence in Paul’s argumentation highlights something of the subject of the struggles that were underway in the churches of Galatia.

Galatians 1:10-24

Paul also remembers and writes briefly of his former life at Philippians 3:4-9, though he does not use the word Judaism there. Remarkably, in neither passage (Gal 1:13-14; Phil 3:4-9) does Paul speak negatively about his experience in Judaism. Rather, in Philippians Paul writes of his past life by referring to it as a “gain”; whereas after Paul’s call to his apostolic ministry he says he experienced the “loss” of what he had previously attained in Judaism. At times Paul can express remorse for his persecution of the church (see 1 Cor 15:9), but at no point does he ever disparage Judaism itself. He looks back on his experience in Judaism and believes that his gain became loss “because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus [his] Lord” (Phil 3:8). Nevertheless, the Law-observant Paul had pursued what he considered to be a path of righteousness (Phil 3:9) by attempting to destroy the very church of God. It was, from Paul’s later point of view, opposition in ignorance, but it was opposition to God just the same. Yet neither here nor elsewhere does Paul fault Judaism for his misplaced zeal. In fact, Paul does not approach this topic directly in his letter to the Galatians. To see what Paul thought was the true underlying problem with his own inappropriate behavior and that of the rest of humanity, one needs to consult Romans 7, especially vv. 7-20. One should also note here that Paul refers to the church as “the church of God,” making clear that even though he was Law-observant in an effort to please God, his Law observance had obviously blinded him to God’s own involvement with the church. Paul’s use of “church” here refers to the church universal, which Paul names as “the church of God,” a phrase he uses frequently for the church (both universal and local). As Paul writes about the church, readers should remember that “church” designates a congregation or assembly of believers and not a physical structure or building. Thus, the pre-Christian Paul was not on a campaign against an item of real estate; he “persecuted” and “tried to destroy” congregations of believers—going to extremes by his own admission (here; 1 Cor 15:9; Phil 3:6; cf. Acts 8:3). But why? Paul tells us with his phrase, “being even more a zealot for the traditions of my ancestors.” The traditions of my ancestors is a way of referring to Jewish Law and oral tradition (or Oral Law: interpretation of the [written] Law that passed down from generation to generation and that was only first committed to writing around AD 200; this written form of traditional Oral Law is found in the Mishnah.) This Oral Law was for Pharisees essentially as crucial as written Torah.

35

36

Galatians 1:10-24

But what in the Law would have inflamed Paul to be so vigorous in his persecution of the early church? There are many ways that scholars have undertaken to answer this question, but perhaps Paul himself reveals his own thinking from his pre-Christian period in a remark that he makes in Galatians. At 3:13 Paul writes, “Accursed is everyone who is hung on a tree!” This is a citation of Deuteronomy 21:23. Also in Deuteronomy is another pronouncement that Paul would have known as well: “Cursed be anyone who does not uphold the words of this law by observing them” (Deut 27:26). Thus, for the pre-Christian Paul, the crucified Jesus was under the curse of the Law. By the declaration of the Law, Jesus was cursed, so that for pre-Christian Paul it was an absurdity to think of Jesus as the Messiah. Moreover, to promote belief in Jesus as Messiah was to imply (perhaps “to declare”) that the Law was fallible and powerless. Perhaps in order to uphold the Law, Paul found that he had to oppose the church. In the preaching of the early church, Paul encountered the conundrum of the message about a crucified Messiah. This message, for pre-Christian Paul, was irrational, for no one who was crucified (and thus under the curse of the Law [Deut 21:23; Gal 3:13]) could be the Messiah. For the early Christians to preach about a crucified Messiah and then to relax their observance of the Law and invite others to do the same in the name of this crucified Messiah was incongruous with the reality of the Law, a stark error that lapsed into blasphemy. And so Paul probably persecuted the church of God because of the message about an impossibility— a crucified Messiah—and the early church’s tendency toward a relaxed practice of the Law in the name of the crucified Messiah. Paul continues by emphasizing the degree to which he had “advanced in Judaism” because of his great zeal. Paul had been a zealous, contented, well-placed Jew. He had thrived on devotion to the Law and to the “traditions” of his elders, i.e., the Pharisaic oral interpretation of the Law. [“The Traditions of My Ancestors”] Thus, when he speaks of the Law and Law observance, as he does throughout the chapters that follow, he is speaking from experience and with an authority that was to be given heed. Paul knows the Law and he knows what he is talking about as he writes to the Galatians to warn and to exhort them not to seek to become involved with Law observance. As noted, vv. 15-17 are one long sentence in Greek. In these lines, Paul moves beyond the remembrance of his past life in Judaism to recall and describe his call, an experience that ended his former life and brought the beginning of his new life and work as

Galatians 1:10-24

an apostle. This transforming experience in the life of Paul is often referred to as Paul’s conversion experience, although the way in which Paul tells of God’s work that brought about this change portrays the event more as a prophetic call than as religious conversion. Indeed it is striking to compare Paul’s own statement with the LXX account of the call of Jeremiah (Jer 1:4-5) and Isaiah (Isa 49:5-6): Paul: But when it pleased the one who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me through his grace to reveal his son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles [or nations; the same word in Greek, ethn∑, can be translated either “Gentiles” or “nations”]. . . .

37

“The Traditions of My Ancestors” The existence of an oral Torah alongside the written is selfevident in traditional Judaism. For example, appeal might be made to Deut 12:21: “If the place where the LORD your God will choose to put his name is too far from you, and you slaughter as I have commanded you any of your herd or flock that the LORD has given you, then you may eat within your towns whenever you desire.” Yet nowhere in the written text of the Pentateuch does one find commandments detailing the intricate procedure for kosher slaughter. This and other anomalies have long suggested to the orthodox that there is an oral tradition that is crucial for the proper observance of the written Torah. The opening words of the Mishnah’s tractate Abot reflects this belief: Moses received the Law from Sinai and committed it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets committed it to the men of the Great Synagogue. They said three things: Be deliberate in judgement, raise up many disciples, and make a fence around the Law.” (m. Abot 1:1; Danby, 446)

Here we see the oral Torah deriving from God’s revelation on Mount Sinai and passing from Moses to Joshua and ultimately to the legal experts of formative Judaism. It was militancy over these ancestral traditions that drove Paul’s life prior to his encounter with Christ (v. 14). Herbert Danby, The Mishnah (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987).

Jeremiah: Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations [or Gentiles].” Isaiah: And now says the LORD, who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him, so that Israel might be gathered to him (for I am honored in the sight of the LORD, and my God is my strength), he says, “It is too small a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make you a light to the nations [or Gentiles] so that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

Just as preaching good news was a prominent part of the work of the prophets, especially the preaching of good news to the nations (or Gentiles), so Paul understands his own work as an apostle to have been foreordained, to have come into active practice at the time of God’s call, and to be directed toward those outside the boundaries of Israel.

38

Galatians 1:10-24

As Paul tells his story to the Galatians, several items become clear. First, Paul’s apostolic labors existed because of the will and actions of God. God called Paul and set him apart in a most dramatic fashion. At this point in Paul’s letter, there are some old and reliable manuscripts that name “God” (ho theos) explicitly in v. 15, but this unmistakable reference to God is not an original part of the text; although there is no doubt that Paul is speaking of God when he refers to the one who “set apart” (aphorizein) and “called” (kalein) him (see Rom 1:1). Paul had been “set apart” by God prior to his birth for work related to God’s own purposes. Second, Paul came to his apostolic work at the time of God’s choosing—“when it pleased [God].” Third, the call to Paul came as an act of grace, not because of anything other than God’s planning and electing. The reference here to God’s grace echoes 1:6, where the grace that is mentioned is “of Christ.” Fourth, God’s call to Paul occurred in a highly dramatic way, through God’s revelation to him of God’s Son, Jesus Christ. The Greek phrase en emoi, translated “to me [i.e., Paul]” can also be read as “in me [i.e., Paul].” Commentators debate the merits of both translations, “to me” or “in me,” though the use of the same phrase, en emoi, at 1:24—where it seems plainly to mean “to me”—suggests the better translation for en emoi is “to me” (cf., however, 2:20). Furthermore, here at 1:16 is the first of four times that Paul refers to Jesus as God’s Son in this letter. The identity of the Son is made clearer (A) at 2:20, where God’s Son is identified as the one who loved Paul (and others) and gave himself in his behalf, and (B) at 4:4, 6, where the Son is the one sent by God to be born a human being under the Law in order to redeem those who were under the Law and obviously in need of redemption. Fifth, God’s foreordaining of Paul, God’s gracious calling of Paul, and God’s revelation of the son to Paul all occurred for a distinct purpose: in order that Paul might preach God’s Son among the Gentiles. This statement is noticeable because it says that Paul preached “his Son,” whereas Paul’s normal way of referring to preaching is to mention the preaching of “the gospel.” Essentially what this means is that for Paul the message of the gospel is a message about God’s Son. In turn, we learn here that Paul’s call experience came with the commissioning of him to a particular service, a mission to the Gentiles. Thus, we see how God’s call created a break for Paul between two worlds, the world of Law observance and the world of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Remarkably, God’s revelation of Jesus Christ to Paul brought an end to his practice of Law observance and gave impetus to Paul’s

Galatians 1:10-24

devotion to and promotion of the gospel of Christ. In other words, God’s intervention in Paul’s life had produced the end of his involvement with the Law and the replacement of that involvement with a thoroughgoing involvement with the proclamation of Jesus Christ. Thus, from Paul’s experience of God, for the Galatians, who already had heard and been moved to embrace the preaching of the gospel, to turn toward the Law made absolutely no sense. With regard to Paul’s abandonment of the Law and his turn to the gospel, we must be careful to hear what Paul himself says took place. He did not grow disillusioned with the Law, nor was he wearied by his attempt to be Law-observant. Paul speaks here and in Philippians 3:4-11 in a positive way about his life as a Lawobservant Jew. Paul was content with the Law. He found clarity and security, being “as to righteousness under the Law blameless” (Phil 3:6) and having “a righteousness of [his] own, based on Law” (Phil 3:9), so that he “advanced in Judaism beyond many of [his] own age” (Gal 1:14). No, Paul did not grow sour concerning the Law. Rather, the reality of God’s revelation of Jesus Christ confronted Paul with an alternate certainty that so clearly surpassed the comfort and security of the Law that Paul was moved to abandon the Law in favor of “the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus [his] Lord” (Phil 3:8). Indeed, Paul’s intimate experience with both the Law and the revelation of Jesus Christ put him in a unique position to be critical of those who would turn from Christ to the Law. Verse 17 concludes this lengthy sentence (vv. 15-17) by reporting the outcome and Paul’s actions as a result of his call experience. Paul makes two negative and two positive statements: he did not engage in human consultation (Paul refers to “flesh and blood” [Gk. sarx kai haima], a Hebrew idiom) nor did he go to Jerusalem to have contact with those who were apostles before him; rather, he went to Arabia and, again, he returned to Damascus. In making these remarks, Paul uses the word “immediately” (eutheøs) to qualify his statements temporally. Some translations leave the word “immediately” untranslated, treating it as a kind of particle. Other versions put the word “immediately” at different places among the clauses of the sentence. At times what seems to motivate certain translations is an interest in making Paul’s sequence of actions compatible with Luke’s account of Paul’s conversion in the book of Acts (9:1-22; 22:3-21; 26:9-18). In terms of its actual place in the Greek text, however, the word precedes the negative clauses, so that according to Paul (most literally), “immediately” he did not confer

39

40

Galatians 1:10-24

with other persons and he did not go to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before him (by contrast, see Acts 9:1-31, esp. vv. 26-31). From these statements it is clear that Paul did not seek to have his apostleship legitimized by those in Jerusalem. Here, the mention of “Jerusalem” touches on an interesting pattern of usage in Paul’s letters. Paul, like other NT authors, knows and uses two different forms of the name for Jerusalem. The form that appears here is the more secular or profane word that is typically used by Gentile writers or Jewish writers in a Greco-Roman context, Hierosolyma (see also 1:18; 2:1). The other form of Jerusalem, Ierousal∑m, is more a transliteration that is closer to the sound of the Hebrew and closer to the form found in the LXX; it occurs in Galatians at 4:25-26. The NT uses of these two forms of the name of Jerusalem are essentially equally divided. Paul obviously knows and uses both forms. If there is a difference between Paul’s uses of the two forms in Galatians, it is not unambiguously discernable. Martyn, however, suggests that “Jerusalem” (in both forms) is dominantly a metonym for the Jerusalem church.10 Paul continues with further geographical references, now to “Arabia” and “Damascus.” His purpose with these references is not to provide a travelogue but to illustrate the truth of the claim that he was not dependent in any way on the people, especially the apostles, of the Jerusalem church for the substance of the gospel that he preached. Yet one should also recognize that in this passage, it is not merely his independence that Paul is seeking to assert, but rather the divine origin of the gospel that he preached. For Paul the authenticity of the gospel was of primary importance (see 1:11). Nevertheless, Paul’s explanation of his early (and subsequent) experiences after the revelation of the risen Jesus Christ to him raises questions about when and where he spent his time after that revelatory encounter. Paul states that he went away into Arabia and then returned to Damascus. The length of the period that he assumes for this portion of his early life as a Christian is itself not stated. The subsequent report in 1:18 that after three years he went to Jerusalem does not necessarily mean that Paul was in Arabia and Damascus for the entire three-year period, although that is his possible meaning. Further clarification is made only through speculation. A bit clearer is the identity of Arabia and Damascus. For Paul, “Arabia” probably meant the kingdom of the Nabateans, a large area on the Sinai Peninsula where Paul could have been in one or several places. [Paul in Arabia] Yet, to make the matter less clear, the

Galatians 1:10-24

41

boundaries of the kingdom varied periodically. In some times, Damascus belonged to the Nabateans and would have been a part of Arabia. The exact history of the change of Damascus from Nabatean to Roman hands and from Roman to Nabatean is also not clear because of the historical sources that are available to us. Paul in Arabia To most people in the first-century world, “Arabia” likely meant the Nabatean Kingdom that stretched from south of Damascus to the northwestern quadrant of the Arabian peninsula and adjoining parts of the Sinai peninsula. Its capital was Petra in what is now the kingdom of Jordan. Jewish tradition associates the Nabateans with Nebaioth, the firstborn son of Ishmael (Gen 25:31). According to Isa 60:7, members of this tribe would bring their rams to Zion as an acceptable sacrifice in the messianic age. Shortly after Paul’s Damascus Road experience, he left for Arabia (v. 17). Verse 16 strongly suggests that he went there in order to preach Christ among them. But why go to Arabia? Why not to the cities of the Phoenician plain or elsewhere in the neighborhood of Damascus? Hengel suggests a number of factors that may have influenced Paul’s choice:

Nabatean Kingdom circa 60 BC

1. It was a “new mission field.” In the early post-Easter era, there was not yet thought of a worldwide Christian mission. The earliest missionaries began to preach outside the borders of the land of Israel only reluctantly and in response to being driven out by persecution (Acts 8:1). Paul likely believed—and was probably correct—that no missionaries had yet reached the Nabatean Kingdom. 2. It was the land of Abraham and David. According to contemporary Jewish thought, not only Syria but also Arabia “belonged to the promised land of Abraham and to King David’s greater kingdom, and therefore to the coming Messianic kingdom” (61). 3. The Nabateans were descendants of Abraham. As already discussed, the Nabateans claimed descent from Nebaioth, the grandson of Abraham via Ishmael. The Nabateans were not only close neighbors geographically but were also close kin genealogically. 4. There was a latent monotheistic impulse among the Nabateans. Numerous inscriptions indicate that many in Nabatea and southern Syria worshiped a tribal god, known by various names, who was considered the highest deity, the creator, and not bound by geographical limitations. Hengel notes, “In Palmyra a great number of inscriptions even feature the invocation of an anonymous most high God, ‘whose name be praised forever.’ The one true God of Abraham was not far away from this” (62). 5. The Nabateans practiced circumcision. The Arab practice of circumcision goes back to Gen 17:23-27 and is attested by Herodotus. Practically, this meant Paul could have preached in Nabatea without ever having to address the issue of circumcision, which proved to be so contentious in places like Antioch and Galatia. At the same time, the fact that pagans (or semi-pagans) observed this custom may well have opened his eyes to its irrelevance in salvific terms. It may have been during these first missionary experiences in Arabia (and Damascus) that Paul formulated the basic theological undergirding of his proclamation of Christ. Martin Hengel, “Paul in Arabia,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 12/1 (2002): 47–66.

42

Galatians 1:10-24

Nevertheless, the way Paul refers to returning to Damascus shows him going back after his calling and initial trip to Arabia to the site of his calling itself, viz., Damascus. Here, Acts and Galatians seem to be in agreement that the vicinity of Damascus was the place of Paul’s calling. But Paul’s motivations for visiting these places are unknown. Interpreters often suggest that Paul was engaged in evangelistic work. That may well be the case, but we have no real records of Paul’s activity during this period, and Paul does not give us that information here in Galatians (though see 2 Cor 11:30-33 for the account of an intriguing incident that almost certainly occurred during this period). Paul does not write this portion of the letter to the Galatians to give full information about the history of his calling and life; rather, he writes to emphasize his independence and the divine origin of his calling and the gospel that he preached. Paul’s Independence vis-à-vis Jerusalem, 1:18-24. These verses fall into two parts, vv. 18-20 and vv. 21-24, both of which begin with the word “then,” and both of which give further support to Paul’s claim that the gospel he preached did not have a human origin. In the first set of verses, Paul recalls his first visit to Jerusalem after his experience of God’s revelation of Jesus Christ; in the second set, Paul recalls the news of his personal transformation and of his preaching that brought celebration to the Judean churches. Paul reports that after a period in Arabia and Damascus (1:17), he initiated contact with Jerusalem. The statement here in v. 18 begins with “then,” an adverb that functions as a temporal marker. The word (“then”) is repeated in v. 21 and 2:1. The effect is both to highlight the passage of time and to mark off discrete periods. The “then” at v. 18 signals the next period after the events that are reported in vv. 15-17. Paul gives the impression that he was completely alone during this trip to Jerusalem; whether that was the case is impossible to tell. Again, he is stressing his independence and not attempting to give a full picture of all incidents. Paul does tell the reader, however, that this trip to Jerusalem occurred “after three years” (Gk. meta et∑ tria), a phrase that can indicate activity lasting three years or activity that occurred during each of three calendar years and that does not necessarily indicate three full years. Paul’s point is that a significant amount of time elapsed after his calling, during which period he had never been in contact with Jerusalem. Clearly Paul went to Jerusalem (again, the word is in the more secular form, Gk. Hierosolyma) to become acquainted with Simon

Galatians 1:10-24

43

Peter, whom he calls Cephas. [Simon Peter] The verb he employs in this statement, however, means more than “to visit.” The verb is historein in Greek and indicates “to inquire into something” or “to examine.”11 Thus, Paul visited Cephas for more than casual social reasons. He made inquiry into something, and given that at least according to Acts he had already been preaching and on his own terms understood the gospel he preached to have been given by revelation, it is unlikely that Paul sought to consult Cephas about the basics of the gospel per se. Scholars frequently speculate that the most likely subject about which Paul Simon Peter could have inquired of Cephas was Simon, a the story of the historical Jesus. fisherman from Capernaum in Paul’s reference to Simon Peter as Galilee, was one of Cephas merits attention. Cephas is Jesus’ first discithe English transliteration of the ples (Matt 4:18; Greek K∑phas, which is itself a Mark 1:16; John transliteration of the Aramaic k∑fa, 1:40-41). Jesus which means “rock.” In Greek, rock gave him the nickname “Rock,” most is petra (a feminine form), which has likely in the an alternate masculine form, petros, Aramaic form K∑fa which more nearly means “stone” (Gk., K∑phas) but and is close to the Latin name usually given in the Petrus, or the familiar name, Peter. New Testament in Cephas is a nickname, which its Greek form, Petros. From this according to Matthew 16:17 and latter, we get our John 1:41-42 was given by Jesus to English form Peter. Simon, son of Jonah, a fisherman Peter was one of from Capernaum in Galilee. Exactly the “inner circle” of why Paul uses the transliterated Jesus’ followers. In Aramaic instead of the Greek form the Gospels, he Saint Peter. Encaustic icon from Saint Catherine’s was privy to certain Monastery, Mount Sinai. 6th C. (Credit: Wikimedia of the nickname is impossible to experiences shared Commons, PD-old-100) discern with certainty, although only with James some commentators suggest that the and John, the sons of Zebedee. These include the healing of use of the Aramaic name would Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), the transfiguration heighten the sense of the foreignness (Matt 17:1, 4; Mark 9:2, 5; Luke 9:28, 33), and Jesus’ prayer in of the story as Paul recalls his experiGethsemane (Matt 26:40; Mark 14:37). After the resurrection, Peter continued exercising a leadership ences in Jerusalem. Still, Paul’s role in the nascent church. It was he who initiated the procedure motive in the use of this Aramaic for selecting a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:15), and he nickname is not immediately clear. famously delivered a sermon on the day of Pentecost where more Paul does say with some clarity than 3,000 persons were converted (Acts 2:14-39). The first that he “remained” with Cephas twelve chapters of Acts recount many of his exploits, including while he was in Jerusalem. His lanmiracles, imprisonments, and even an inchoate Gentile mission involving the household of Cornelius, a Roman centurion (Acts guage, employing the verb 10–11). In Paul’s letters, he appears in both Antioch and Corinth.

44

Galatians 1:10-24

epimenein (“to stay” or “remain with someone,” occasionally with the sense of “continuing” or “persisting in something”), gives the distinct impression that he stayed with Cephas, perhaps even as a guest.12 One may wonder what Paul and Cephas could talk about for two weeks. All kinds of suggestions have been made, but they are speculations in the face of silence. Surely they discussed the historical Jesus. Surely they discussed the nature and course of Jesus’ ministry. Surely they discussed “what kind of person” Jesus was. But we do not know any of these things with certainty. What we do get from Paul’s remark that he “stayed with” Cephas is that this visit was rather more personal than official, especially as Paul tells us in the following verse (v. 19) that he did not meet the larger community of Jerusalem Christians on this visit to Jerusalem (see v. 22). During his fifteen-day stay with Cephas, Paul says that he did not see the other apostles, except he states specifically that he met James, the brother of the Lord, James the Just whom he may or may not have In the Gospels, James and the other brothers of Jesus are numbered among the apostles only mentioned in passing in a few in the early church. [James the verses (Mark 6:3; Matt 13:55-56). Just] The issue is that Paul’s Mark 3:31-35 and its parallel in Matt statement at this point in 12:46-50 imply an early resistance to Galatians is actually unclear or Jesus’ ministry on the part of his family at least ambiguous and may (see also John 7:3-5). By the book of Acts, however, mean either (1) that he saw James has risen to a prominent place no other apostles at all, but he in the Jerusalem church. He is did see James; or (2) that he depicted as an active participant in the did not see any other apostle so-called Jerusalem Council of Acts aside from James. The problem 15:13-21, and he receives Paul in an hangs on Paul’s use of the official capacity in Acts 21:18-26. The fullest account of James, the phrase ei m∑, which is brother of Jesus, comes from extracts ambiguous in Greek, as of Hegesippus that are included “except” is in English. This Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History interpretive problem has not 2.23.3-18. There, we learn that leaderbeen solved, and there are sigship of the Jerusalem church nificant scholars on both sides eventually passed to James “together with the apostles.” In later church traof the matter of understanding dition, he is thought of as the first Paul’s remark. Internal factors bishop of Jerusalem. will never provide definitive James the Just, the Lord’s brother. James was nicknamed “the Just” Russian Orthodox icon. Fragment from information for solving this because of the exceeding righteousness the icon “Selected saints.” 1809. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-oldmatter. In turn, the best help of his lifestyle. He is said to have led 100) from a source that is external members of many Jewish sects to become followers of Christ—which caused an uproar especially among to v. 19 is the partial light of the scribes and Pharisees, who eventually conspired to put him to death.

Galatians 1:10-24

1 Corinthians 15:7, where Paul does seem to refer to James as an apostle (though there is ambiguity even in that statement). Considering the grammar of the statement in v. 19 and in light of the report by Paul in 1 Corinthians, the second of the possible understandings seems preferable, i.e., Paul regarded James as an apostle. Moreover, James is a striking figure in his own right. He is called “the brother of the Lord,” a phrase that has generated much discussion. Was he a brother, stepbrother, or cousin? Such issues cannot be resolved from Paul’s statement. Yet we do know that James was not a follower of Jesus during his earthly ministry. He was, however, one of those to whom the risen Jesus appeared (again, see 1 Cor 15:7). He became a key figure in the church in Jerusalem, where he lived and worked until he died as a martyr in AD 62. From the account in Acts, the letter attributed to him in the New Testament, the memory of him in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History (2.23.3-18), and his image in other non-canonical early Christian writings (e.g., the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies), one can discern that James was conservative with regard to Law and Lawobservance. In turn in v. 20 Paul makes a striking statement, a rather startling remark. In this emphatic declaration is the idea of one’s actions being brought “before God” (Gk. enøpion tou theou). Paul seems to use this phrase to imply (or, occasionally, to declare) that human actions will undergo divine judgment (see Rom 3:20; 14:22; 1 Cor 1:29; 2 Cor 4:2; 7:12; 8:21; here). Thus, there is a kind of eschatological quality to the phrase. Paul essentially puts himself forward with these words in such a way that he makes himself liable to God’s judgment. Moreover, Paul avers in v. 20 that he is not lying in telling this story as he is presenting it. The phrase “I do not lie” (Gk. ou pseudomai) is a rhetorical device that one finds here and at Romans 9:1; 2 Corinthians 11:31; cf. 1 Timothy 2:7. It serves to affirm or to confirm a claim made to which exception might be taken. Thus, Paul is quite emphatic that he received the gospel that he preached independently of human agency, that he preached without seeking certification from those who were apostles before him, and that when he did have contact with Jerusalem, it was minimal and unobtrusive. It is possible to “over read” Paul’s statement here, concluding that the preachers in Galatia necessarily accused Paul of some kind of dependence on the Jerusalem church. But the parallel uses of ou pseudomai (“I do not lie”) in Romans and 2 Corinthians may indicate that Paul is bringing great emphasis to a statement

45

46

Syria and Cilicia

Galatians 1:10-24

that he is generating himself without provocation from some adversary. Having completed his informal, brief stay in Jerusalem, Paul declares that “then” he moved on to other places. He mentions a journey to and through Syria and Cilicia. His statement is a telescoping reference that offers no details about his activity, though one should probably assume that Paul was engaged in apostolic preaching. Again, Paul’s presentation, speaking here in the firstperson singular (“I”), gives the impression that he was traveling alone. Syria was a Roman province with a Roman legate in charge. This rather large and important area had its capital in Antioch, a city where there was a large, active Christian community that was made up predominantly of Gentiles. (Paul ultimately became affiliated with that church.) Syria itself extended northward from Palestine and had as its boundaries the Mediterranean in the west, Palestine in the south, the Euphrates in the east, and the Taurus mountains in the north. In turn, Cilicia was located in southeast Asia Minor. Its capital city was Tarsus, the city of Paul’s birth (see Acts 22:3). Remarkably, a strikingly similar statement to the one that Paul makes here occurs at Acts 15:41, “And [Paul] went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches”; though that reference is to a later period than the one Paul has in mind here. Verse 22 makes another statement giving further indication of Paul’s independence or detachment from Jerusalem. He reports that he was “unknown by sight to the churches of Judea in Christ.” This statement is in some tension with the picture of Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem as depicted in Acts 9:26-31. Luke seems to have anachronistically retrojected fuller activity and exposure on Paul’s first visit,

Galatians 1:10-24

whereas Paul himself writes that the Christians in Judea generally did not know him. Some details of Paul’s remarks merit reflection. First, the reference to Judea is somewhat ambiguous in Paul’s statement. Originally Judea had been the heart of the larger Palestinian Jewish world, but at the time of Paul’s writing to the Galatians, Judea had come to include Galilee and Samaria, so that Judea could be used as a designation for the whole of Palestine. Second, less ambiguous is Paul’s reference to the churches being “in Christ.” To say that the churches were in Christ was to speak of their relationship to Christ and to recognize that the churches belonged to Christ. Moreover, Paul’s saying that the churches were “in Christ” may reflect a certain mysticism that characterizes elements of his theology— perhaps he has in mind the notion that believers, here churches, are incorporated into a spiritual union with Christ so that they are in his sphere of influence and power. Verse 23 makes the first mention of “faith” in this letter. Remarkably, Paul says that he preached “the faith.” Previously he stated that he preached God’s Son (see 1:16). Paul usually uses “faith” in a manner that indicates a trusting attitude on the part of the believer; it is most often a word naming a relationship wherein one has a supreme confidence in God. For Paul, “faith” normally is a dynamic word, implying a lively relational quality of existence. Here, however, he employs the word in a more objective sense. “Faith” in this statement by Paul is akin to the content of the proclamation, which elsewhere is clearly defined as Jesus Christ. Commenting on this remarkable usage of “faith,” Dieter Lührmann writes, “[J]ust as for Paul there is no other gospel besides the gospel whose content is Christ, who is the Son of God, so also there is no faith apart from this content.”13 Paul’s reason for speaking about “the faith” at all was to emphasize that as he preached the gospel revealed to him by God, those who did not know him still recognized the merit of his message and offered thanks to God for the work and the message that Paul offered. Language that was touched on in the treatment of earlier verses re-presents itself in vv. 23-24. Paul’s word for “preach” in v. 23 is the same word that he used in 1:8, 9, 11, 16 (see also 4:13). On the other hand, he employs the verb k∑ryssein at 2:2; 5:11 (and thirteen other times in his undisputed letters). Both verbs are used in the LXX. The verb here in v. 23 (euangelizein) means something like “to preach the good news,” whereas the complementary verb, k∑ryssein, seems to mean “to proclaim a message that actively involves both proclaimer and hearer.” Various attempts to draw

47

48

Galatians 1:10-24

fine distinctions between these two words for “preach” and “proclaim” are not persuasive. Finally, in v. 24 Paul writes, “they glorified God en emoi.” The Greek words, en emoi, are the subject of some discussion, for they can be sensibly translated either “because of me” or “in me.” For some interpreters, Paul is the cause for the glorification of God, but for others Paul is regarded as the locus of the glorification of God. Thus, on the one hand, interpreters read “en” to indicate “the ground or basis of an action” as seen in the parallels in Romans 1:24; 9:7 and 1 Corinthians 7:14.14 On the other hand, the second option for translation/interpretation understands the statement here to say that “what God had done in Paul for the sake of the Gentiles . . . is also cause for the Judean believers to give glory to God.”15 A decision is not easy, though the majority of scholars opt for translating en as “because of ” rather than “in.”16

CONNECTIONS The Source of Paul’s Gospel (1:11-12)

Why should anyone believe that Paul’s gospel is, in fact, the gospel? After all, he was never one of Jesus’ disciples. He had never heard Jesus teach or witnessed Jesus’ miracles. He had never even engaged Jesus in religious debate as some of his fellow Pharisees had. No, Paul was anything but a disciple of Jesus. On the contrary, he was infamously a persecutor of the church. Paul was surely sensitive to this line of criticism. We can sense his defensiveness in the first verse of Galatians, where he proclaims himself “an apostle—sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father.” If other apostles claimed a past history with the earthly Jesus as a credential for their ministry (as in Acts 1:21-22), what was Paul to do? What he did was to make a claim to an even higher authority. Paul would probably agree with his detractors that a gospel is only as good as its source. But rather than concede the field to those who might rightly claim continuity with the earthly Jesus, Paul insists that the message he proclaims has an even greater pedigree. Paul’s gospel, in fact, is of no human origin at all! Is Paul boasting of ignorance of the physical details of the life and ministry of Jesus? Surely he had learned factual information about Jesus from Christian informants or detainees before his conversion.

Galatians 1:10-24

If he didn’t know what the followers of Jesus were saying about their Lord, he would never have perceived their movement to be a threat. Nor is there a reason he couldn’t have learned even more from the believers in Damascus after his experience of the risen Christ. He may well, then, have known some facts about Jesus’ life, at least in general outline, but the gospel doesn’t consist of bare historical facts. It also has to do with perspective and meaning.17 Meeting the risen Christ on the Damascus Road opened Paul’s eyes to what the facts he had gathered actually mean. This radical new understanding of what Jesus means is what Paul insists came to him from God alone. What do we mean when we talk about that tricky word “revelation”? Do we think in terms of how God has opened our eyes to see something truly divine that we had missed before? Too often, people of faith seem to use the word to speak of mere propositions that they feel conscience-bound either to affirm or deny based on their doctrinal outlook. But true revelation goes deeper. Though Paul’s faith stance would surely compel him to affirm certain basic ideas about God and God’s universe, the kind of revelation he is describing here is relational, not intellectual. It involves knowing God personally and not merely knowing things about God. This was what changed for him on the road to Damascus. This kind of revelation makes all the difference in the world. What, then, is this gospel for which Paul contends? He outlines its main features throughout Galatians. At this early stage, however, let it suffice to say that the gospel is a message about Jesus Christ and how encountering him makes all things new (see 2 Cor 5:17). Paul argues in these verses for the independence of the gospel. It comes from heaven and it has the Son of God himself for its subject matter. It is thus free from any artificial religious entanglements. Furthermore, Paul insists that there must be consistency between what is preached and how it is preached. An unfettered gospel demands a proclaimer (and a proclaiming community) free from worldly constraints. As adherents of a free and independent gospel, Christians must likewise live in freedom. No matter how appealing the trappings of human religiosity may seem, they are far too provincial and constricting to contain the world-altering grace of God through Christ.

49

50

Galatians 1:10-24 Paul’s Apostolic Call (1:13-17)

In Acts 9, Luke gives us his account of how Saul of Tarsus went from being a persecutor of the church to Christ’s apostle to the Gentiles. In Galatians 1, we hear the story from Paul’s own point of view. While Luke may well be guilty of historical embellishment at points, his account of Paul’s dramatic turnaround tallies reasonably well with what Paul says on his own behalf. In Galatians, we find no Damascus Road, although v. 17 seems to locate this event in or around Damascus. We are not told of blinding lights or voices from heaven. But surely something changed the trajectory of Paul’s life so completely. Finally, the substance of Paul’s commission, namely, to preach Christ among the Gentiles, is also found in Luke’s later version of these events (Acts 9:15). We can be confident that the two writers had the same episode from Paul’s life in mind. As we explore Paul’s testimony, we must bear in mind that the first Christians were all Jewish. This is not, therefore, the story of Paul’s “conversion” as if he switched from following one religion to following a different one. Paul describes what happened to him in meeting the risen Christ not as a conversion but a “call.” Christ called him to be his emissary or messenger (the meaning of the Greek word apostolos) to the Gentiles. In the process, he progressed from being a Jew who denied that Jesus was the Messiah to being a Jew who affirmed that Jesus was the Messiah. Paul owns up to his questionable past as a persecutor of Christ’s followers. There was no point denying what everybody already knew. A good many politicians could stand to benefit from the Apostle’s example of forthrightness about past transgressions. There is no shifting of blame, no weaselly attempt to justify his actions. He knows that his readers know that he once violently persecuted the church in an effort to destroy it (v. 13). Paul perceived Jesus and his followers as a threat to everything he understood Judaism to be. Teachers and preachers might fruitfully explore what can happen when religion brings out the worst in people, with Paul as a case study. It is possible, like Paul, to be so mired in partisan pride and self-assurance that we miss God’s greatest blessings, mistaking them for threats to be quashed at any cost. Some of the bitterest animosity is found between adherents of the same religion. And make no mistake: Paul and the followers of Christ practiced the same Jewish religion. The fact that they practiced it differently, however, was a serious stumbling block for Paul.

Galatians 1:10-24

The Christians were “like us,” but they weren’t enough “like us” to put Paul’s mind at ease about the validity of their movement. All of this changed when God was pleased to reveal God’s Son to Paul (vv. 15-16). Once again, we are reminded that Paul received his gospel through a revelation. It was God’s doing through and through. God set Paul apart to proclaim this message even to the Gentiles, thus demonstrating how the Son of God overcomes the estrangement that drives people apart. For Paul, the message of Christ tore down barriers that separated Jew from Gentile—much less one sort of Jew from another! Inspired by this vision of all people united in Christ, Paul became the church’s most vocal proponent of Gentile inclusion. In obedience to his divine call, Paul worked to eliminate the barriers that kept non-Jews from enjoying an equal footing with Jews in the community of Christ’s followers. In the end, it wasn’t the senior apostles in Jerusalem who posed the greatest threat to strict adherence to the Torah. It was Paul himself. The irony here is delightful. There is one further point about Paul’s encounter with Christ that calls for reflection. As noted above, tradition has often misunderstood Paul’s “Damascus Road” as an experience of conversion. Protestant tradition has additionally often read into this story its own emphasis (some might say, “preoccupation”) with feelings of anxiety over living up to God’s perfect standards. But this is also a misreading of the text. This is no tale of angst or feelings of inadequacy in keeping the Torah. On the contrary, Paul describes himself as quite “advanced” in his Judaism. Elsewhere, in Philippians 3:6, he goes so far as to say that he was “blameless” with respect to righteousness under the Law. He was a paragon of devotion, zealous for the truth, and a faultless adherent of the tradition of his ancestors. When Paul encountered the risen Christ, it was not in a state of fear over not measuring up to God’s expectations. His conscience was quite clear. We must not, therefore, overlay the experience of Martin Luther, wrestling with psychological turmoil over the state of his soul, upon Paul. On the contrary, Paul before his Damascus Road experience had no difficulties with the Torah. He was not disillusioned with the Law or with his ability to keep it. It was not a “problem” in his life for which he needed a “solution.” He didn’t realize the limitations of the Law until the revelation of Christ showed him a better way. How often do the church’s evangelistic efforts fail by assuming that everyone begins their spiritual journey from the same starting point? The pre-Christian Paul didn’t need someone to try to

51

52

Galatians 1:10-24

convince him he had a problem he simply didn’t have. What he needed was an experience of Christ that put his life and his goals in proper perspective. Paul and the Judean Churches (1:18-24)

Paul seems to grow defensive by the end of Galatians 1. He seems especially eager to set the record straight about the history of his dealings with the believers in Jerusalem and in Judea generally. There was likely some degree of confusion on this point among the Galatian Christians, perhaps the result of erroneous information passed on (innocently or maliciously) by the proponents of “another gospel.” After three years in Arabia and Damascus, Paul visited Jerusalem for the first time since his encounter with the risen Christ (1:18). The Apostle insists that his two-week visit with Cephas (Peter) was not a formal summit of any sort but merely an informal meeting. It was certainly not for the purpose of Paul receiving instruction from this “pillar” apostle (2:9). He goes on to explain that he had no further contact with the Jerusalem church—a point he affirms with a solemn oath (1:20). This was apparently a matter of contention. It is possible that Paul is refuting a charge that someone in Galatia raised against him. We can only speculate, however, as to why this fact was in dispute. Acts 9:26-30 describes an early visit by Paul to Jerusalem that is difficult to align with the chronology Paul outlines in Galatians. Might the report of such a visit have been the cause of the confusion? Finally, Paul says that, after meeting Cephas, he went to Syria and Cilicia, apparently for several years (1:21). This extended stay precluded any further contact with Jerusalem. He insists that he remained personally unknown to the Judean churches (1:22). He could not have participated in their meetings or received their instruction. The churches of Judea, therefore, had no firsthand knowledge of Paul or his ministry. They had only heard the rumor that the one who once persecuted them was now proclaiming the faith (1:23) and, hearing this, they glorified God because of him (1:24). Why would Paul take such pains to set the record straight about the time line of his early ministry? The simplest answer may be that churches of Judea, including Jerusalem itself (see 2:12), were the home congregations of the Galatian intruders. The Judean churches would have been the oldest congregations in the Christian movement, and very likely Torah-observant.18 Acts

Galatians 1:10-24

11 describes a dust-up certain “circumcised believers” in Jerusalem instigated over Peter because of his table fellowship with Cornelius, an uncircumcised Gentile (Acts 11:2-3). In time, members of this same faction may well have launched their own missionary activities, which brought them into contact with the Pauline churches of Galatia. In this context, the nature of Paul’s relationship with the churches of Judea could easily become a bone of contention. He is understandably keen to clear up any misconceptions. Paul’s testimony underscores the limited contact he had with the Judean churches. He had not been taught by their apostles (for indeed, the Apostle would insist such training was completely unnecessary!), nor was he known by sight to the churches in the region. And here, perhaps, we find the point of Paul’s chronological discussion. Simply put, if Paul knew next to nothing about the Judean churches, then it stands to reason that the Galatian intruders—sent from those churches—knew very little about him, either. They had no clear understanding of Paul or his mission,19 and therefore whatever charges they were leveling against him were mere hearsay. On the contrary, an accurate report would admit to Paul’s positive reputation among the Judean congregations. These earliest churches found in him reason to glorify God, just as they had praised God for bringing repentance to Cornelius and his household through the preaching of Peter (Acts 11:18).

Notes 1. Even interpreters who do not focus on “gospel” as the point of contention in Paul’s argumentation suggest that something other than Paul himself, e.g., Paul’s call and commission, are the point of contention behind Paul’s remarks. See one of the fountainheads for such interpretation: W. M. L. de Wette, Kurzgefasstes exegetische Handbuch zum Neuen Testaments; Kurze Erklärung des Briefes an die Galater und der Briefe an die Thessalonicher (Zweiter Bandes dritter Theil; Zweite verbesserte und vermehrte Auflage; Leipzig: Weidmann’che Buchhandlung, 1845) 11. 2. BDF §452. 3. Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1920) §897; BDF §446—see George Lyons, Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding (SBLDS 73; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) 138–39. 4. Smyth §§2163C, 2856; 2860. 5. Cf. Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979) 54–56.

53

54

Galatians 1:10-24 6. Betz (Galatians, 85) makes the point that we really do not have information about the content and style of Paul’s preaching during the first years of his ministry. 7. Martin Luther said of vv. 11-12, “This is the central proposition of this chapter, down to the end of the second chapter; it is refutation and defense” (Lectures on Galatians 1535, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Walter A. Hansen, vol. 26 of Luther’s Works [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1963] 61). 8. Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC 41; Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990) 24. 9. Betz, Galatians, 63. 10. J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997) 169. 11. LSJ, 842. 12. Martyn, Galatians, 173. 13. Dieter Lührmann, Galatians: A Continental Commentary (CC; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992; German Original, 1978; 2d ed., 1988) 35–36. 14. Longenecker, Galatians, 42. 15. Gordon D. Fee, Galatians (Pentecostal Commentary Series; Blandford Forum, Dorset, UK: Deo Publishing, 2007) 54. 16. See Longenecker, Galatians, 42. 17. Frank Stagg, Galatians–Romans, Knox Preaching Guides, ed. John H. Hayes (Atlanta: John Knox, 1980) 8. 18. Betz, 80. 19. Ibid.

Implications of the Gospel Galatians 2

COMMENTARY Paul’s Past and Apostolic Experience(s), 1:10–2:21 (continued)

Paul and Colleagues in Jerusalem, 2:1-10 This section of Galatians is one story told in two parts. First, vv. 1-5 recount another trip to Jerusalem that Paul made after fourteen years, this one with his fellow workers in mission, Barnabas and Titus. The issue of circumcision was a prominent matter during this visit, and vv. 1-5 tell of the situation that arose because of it. As Paul tells the story in these verses, his syntax breaks down, so that vv. 3-5 form a parenthesis within the overall account of vv. 1-10. Interpreters sometimes point out that one can read from v. 2 directly to v. 6 and not miss vv. 3-5, although in terms of content vv. 3-5 are important. In turn, vv. 6-10 continue the story of Paul’s visit by telling of the manner in which the acknowledged leaders of the Jerusalem church—James, Cephas, and John—recognized Paul’s ministry among the Gentiles. The Jerusalem leaders extended the “right hand of partnership” to Paul and Barnabas, and Paul reports that the only thing the Jerusalem leaders asked of them was to remember the poor. The narration of this incident takes the form of “one long, complex, and seemingly convoluted sentence.”1 Thus, vv. 6-10 tell a story that is basically clear using language that is somewhat difficult. The Question of Circumcision, 2:1-5. Once again, as in 1:18 and 1:21, Paul begins a sentence with the adverb “then” or “afterwards” (Gk. epeita), thereby further marking the time of the events in his life that he is recalling. This repeated use of “then” shows that Paul is not randomly remembering and telling about incidents that occurred in his past; rather, he is deliberately laying out a chain of events for which sequence is important. Here, with the third use of “then,” Paul marks out a considerable amount of time during which he and the

56

Galatians 2

Jerusalem church apparently had little or no involvement with each other. The word “then” marks that time and also marks a point at which that time came to conclusion. [Outline of Paul’s Life] Having issued a temporal marker (“then”), Paul recalls that the visit to Jerusalem that he is about to report occurred “after fourteen years” (Gk. dia dekatessarøn etøn).2 As with his previous references to segments of time, Paul is ambiguous. Interpreters most often argue that this fourteen-year period could be counted either from the time of his calling or from the end of the time of his previously recalled visit to Cephas.3 The most natural way, however, to read the statements by Paul in these verses is to understand that despite ambiguity Paul was called; immediately he went away into Arabia and later returned to Damascus; then three years later he went to Jerusalem to see Cephas; then he went to Syria and Cilicia; and then fourteen years later he went again to Jerusalem. (Paul’s remark that he went up to Jerusalem “again” [Gk. palin] refers back to the first visit of 1:18.) Thus, most likely at least seventeen years4 had elapsed from the time of Paul’s calling to the time of the second visit to Jerusalem that he reports here (in vv. 1-10). While exact reconstruction of a time line is impossible,5 perceiving Paul’s basic point is not: Paul’s ministry and the gospel that he preached were independent of the Jerusalem Marion L. Soards, “Paul,” Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Watson E. Mills church. et al. (Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1990) 660 (modified). Still another issue related to the time of this visit that Paul refers to in 2:1-10 is whether this “second” visit mentioned by Paul can be correlated with one or another of the stories in Acts regarding Paul’s visits to Jerusalem. Scholars Outline of Paul’s Life Although specific dates may vary by a year or so at several points, the general outline of Paul's ministry can be determined through clues in his letters as well as certain extrabiblical evidence. The following chronology is the one assumed in this commentary. 32 Paul is called by God’s revelation of Jesus Christ (problem of “three” and “fourteen”) 32–35 Missionary activity in Arabia (Gal 1:17) and Damascus (2 Cor 11:32) 35 Paul visits with Peter and James in Jerusalem (Gal 1:18) 35–48 Missionary activity in Cilicia and Syria (Gal 1:21) 48 So-called Apostolic Council in Jerusalem (Gal 2:1-10; Acts 15) 48 or 49 Incident with Peter and others in Antioch (Gal 2:11-14) 49 Missionary activity in Galatia (Acts 16:16) 50 Missionary activity in Philippi, Thessalonica, and Beroea (Acts 16:11–17:14) Late 50 Travel to Corinth via Athens (Acts 17:15; 18:1); writing of 1 Thessalonians Late 50 to May 52 Missionary activity in Corinth (Acts 18:11) Summer 52 Travel to Caesarea; then Antioch; then passing through Asia Minor he paid a second visit to Galatia on the way to Ephesus (Gal 4:13; Acts 18:18-23) Late 52 to spring 55 Missionary activity in Ephesus (Acts 19:1, 8-10, 22); writing of Galatians, 2 Cor 6:14–7:11; 1 Corinthians, and the letters preserved in 2 Cor 8 and 2:14–6:13; 7:2-4 (54) Visit to Corinth (proposed in 2 Cor 13:1) Late 54–55 to early 56 Stay in Corinth; writing of Romans 56 Travel to Jerusalem with the collection; arrest and imprisonment 56–58 Imprisonment in Caesarea; writing of Philippians and Philemon 58 Felix replaced by Festus; Paul appeals to Caesar and is sent to Rome 58–60 Imprisonment in Rome (Acts 28:30) 60+ Martyrdom

Galatians 2

suggest that either Acts 11 or Acts 15 is parallel to the visit that Paul recounts in Galatians 2. At stake here is the question of what motivated Paul and Barnabas to visit Jerusalem: according to Acts 11 it was to bring famine relief from Antioch to the Christians in Judea, but according to Acts 15 it was a controversy (originating in Antioch at the instigation of some Christian Jews from Judea) over whether Gentile Christians had to be circumcised in order to be saved. The majority of scholars work with the understanding that Acts 15 and Galatians 2 are complementary accounts of a series of events in Jerusalem at the time of Paul’s visit there (his second visit according to Galatians, but his third according to Acts 15). It is impossible to harmonize Acts and Galatians completely, so there is no final solution to this debate, but because of the more extensive similarities between the two accounts, it seems best to work with the idea that Galatians 2 and Acts 15 are parallel stories about what is often called “the Apostolic Council.”6 As Paul tells this story, several features stand out—some obviously and others more subtly. Interpreters usually contend that Paul and his companions went to Jerusalem as representatives of the church at Antioch for a conference with leaders of the church in Jerusalem. Remarkably, this understanding of events seems to follow the storyline of Acts 15, but in the account in Galatians 2 Paul does not clearly present his group as delegates from the Antioch congregation, nor does he recall various Christians in Jerusalem in such a way that they appear to be representatives of the Jerusalem church at a conference.7 It is also remarkable that Paul tells this story with the focus primarily on himself rather than on himself and his companions. Paul states that he “went up” (his verb is a first personal singular = “I went up”; Gk. aneb∑n from anabainein) to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking along also Titus. Barnabas, who went with Paul to Jerusalem, was himself well known to the Christians there. “Barnabas” was a nickname that, according to Acts 4:36-37, meant “son of encouragement.” [Barnabas] The moniker had been given to Barnabas, whose real name was Joseph, when he sold property and gave the money from the sale to the Jerusalem church, to be used at the apostles’ discretion. Joseph “Barnabas” was a Levite from Cyprus who early on recognized Paul’s call and commission and subsequently partnered with Paul in ministry. He seems to have gone with Paul to Jerusalem as his colleague in mission, but after this initial mention of Barnabas (2:1), he does not appear again in Paul’s story until v. 9. Paul does not present Barnabas as being under scrutiny at this time; rather he indicates that his own (Paul’s) preaching and practice of ministry were the foci of controversy.

57

58

Galatians 2

Barnabas According to the book of Acts, Barnabas was the nickname of Joseph, a Levite originally from Cyprus who sold land and gave the proceeds to the apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 4:36-37). “Barnabas” is taken to mean “son of encouragement,” although this is almost certainly a folk etymology based in no small part on his reputation as an encourager in the early church. Strictly speaking, the name more likely means “son of a prophet.” It was Barnabas who first helped Paul gain acceptance among the Jerusalem Christians, who did not entirely trust the rumors they had heard of his dramatic conversion from a persecutor of the church to a preacher of Jesus as the Messiah (Acts 9:26-27). We find him later at Antioch, where he is numbered among the “prophets and teachers” ministering there (Acts 13:1). He accompanied Paul on his first missionary venture. Indeed, Luke lists his name first in Acts 13:2, 7; 14:14. Before chapter 15, Paul is listed first only in Acts 14:1. After the Apostolic Council, Luke records a falling out between Barnabas and Paul over John Mark, a fellow missionary and a relative of Barnabas, who apparently abandoned the missionary enterprise (Acts 15:36-41). Galatians hints at another reason for Paul and Barnabas to have gone their separate ways: Barnabas was one of those who gave in to the peer pressure of those sent from James and withdrew from table fellowship with the Gentile believers in Antioch (Gal 2:13). Colossians 4:10 suggests that this rift was eventually healed.

An illustration of Saint Barnabas holding a stone, a symbol of his martyrdom. From A New hieroglyphical Bible for the amusement & instruction of children. English. 1796. (Credit: Pitts Theological Library)

In turn, Paul recalls Titus, another colleague in mission, whom Paul says he (Paul) “took along” to Jerusalem. Paul uses a past tense masculine singular participle (“I was taking along”; Gk. symparalabøn from symparalambanein) to recount his taking Titus to Jerusalem, and by doing this he again highlights his own role in his group’s journey to Jerusalem. Titus will play an important part in the story that follows (v. 3), but still further information can be garnered from a series of references by Paul to Titus in 2 Corinthians (2:13; 7:6, 13, 14; 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18), where one learns that Titus represented Paul in an extremely difficult series of negotiations between Paul and the members of the church in Corinth. Here in Galatians one learns that Titus was a Gentile Christian, possibly of Greek origin, who was uncircumcised, and that in the controversy that Paul and his colleagues faced concerning circumcision, Titus was not required to be circumcised (v. 3). (Cf. The Second Letter of Paul to Timothy and the Letter of Paul to Titus for still further information about Titus.) Strikingly, Titus does not appear in the book of the Acts of the Apostles. [Titus]

Galatians 2 Titus Titus was a Gentile believer and one of Paul’s missionary colleagues. He is nowhere mentioned in the book of Acts. He is named, however, in 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and 2 Timothy. And, of course, he is the addressee of the letter to Titus. Galatians 2:1-10 describes how Titus accompanied Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council. When Jewish believers there insisted that Titus be circumcised, Paul resisted, insisting that circumcision was not required in order for non-Jews to be members of the church in good standing. Titus was apparently a trusted associate of Paul. Second Corinthians describes how Paul dispatched him to that city to deal with the problems plaguing the congregation there. According to the Pastoral Epistle that bears his name, Titus later ministered on the island of Crete.

Titus. From Apostolici or, The history of the lives, acts, death, and martyrdoms of those who were contemporary with, or immediately succeeded the apostles. William Cave (1637–1713). 17th C. (Credit: Pitts Theological Library)

Paul tells his readers that he went to Jerusalem not by any person’s direction or invitation but “according to revelation” (Gk. kata apokalypsin). This is now the third time in the letter that Paul has referred to revelation (1:12, 16; 2:2) as the source or impetus of his activity. He mentions “revelation” even more explicitly in 1 Corinthians 14:6, 26, where it is clear that for Paul revelation is divinely inspired or charismatic communication that is not, however, ecstatic in character. Revelation, in Paul’s understanding, is intelligible communication that originates with God. Thus, Paul referred to his calling and commission as an apostle with the same language of revelation that he uses here, showing that he understood his going to Jerusalem to be according to divine commission. Paul does not, however, explain the exact channel of the divine communication as he reports the revelation here. Having made clear that he went to Jerusalem as a result of divine revelation, or by divine disclosure, Paul tells of his actions once he had reached Jerusalem. His first words are surely nuanced, and they challenge translators and interpreters to render them into plain, accurate English. Put quite literally, Paul says, “I communicated to them . . . the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles.” The main problem for interpretation is the verb “to communicate” (Gk. anatith∑mi), which occurs here in a form (aorist tense middle voice first person singular: anethem∑n) that could connote either “to refer a matter to a deliberative body for consideration” or “to communicate with a view to consultation.”8 Given what Paul says repeatedly

59

60

Galatians 2

and in a variety of ways in this letter, it is not in the least likely that he presented his gospel to those in Jerusalem for their deliberation to reach an opinion concerning the legitimacy or illegitimacy of his message. Paul was not submitting the gospel he preached to a body of authorities in order to gain their approval. Thus, almost all commentators9 conclude that Paul presented his evangelical proclamation with an eye toward conversation rather than debate.10 Paul’s storytelling at this point is somewhat vague, not only because he does not make explicit what he hoped to accomplish by communicating his evangelical message to the Christians in Jerusalem but also because he is not clear about to whom and how he made his presentation(s). Paul simply says that he communicated his gospel “to them,” leaving unspecified whom he addressed. What he presented, however, he says was “the gospel . . . that I proclaim among the Gentiles.” Here his verb (“to proclaim”; Gk. k∑ryssein) is in the present tense, indicating that what he had preached in the past was what he was continuing to preach in the present—there was no change in his gospel.11 And that gospel was preached to the Gentiles, in fulfillment of the commission that he had received at the time of his initial revelatory encounter with the risen Son of God (1:15-16). From what follows in v. 2, we see that in Jerusalem Paul most likely imparted his message initially to the church in general, because he next says that he presented his gospel “privately to those of repute.” Paul seems to say that there were two sessions at which he presented his message, though some interpreters argue that there was only one occasion for Paul’s presentation. The use of the word “but” (Gk. de) in the phrase, “but privately to ‘those of repute,’” however, separates the mention of a first session from the mention of a second session and renders the argument for only a single session essentially improbable. It is hard to tell whether there is or is not sarcasm in Paul’s phrase “those of repute” (Gk. tois dokousin; lit., “those who seem to be something”). Paul will refer to “those of repute” in v. 6 (twice) and to “those reputed to be pillars” in v. 9. This repetition of terminology in such a short span may make it less likely that Paul is being sheerly sarcastic (otherwise he is really hammering a point) than that he has picked up and is using language from the Jerusalem Christians. Thus, many interpreters suggest that “Those of Repute” is the Greek translation of an Aramaic title for certain leaders of the church in Jerusalem. But, even so, there is a modicum of distain registered in v. 6, where Paul sets up a

Galatians 2

juxtaposition between human and divine recognition of special persons saying, “What then they were makes no difference to me; God doesn’t recognize human appearances.” Thus, Paul’s language here—whether picked up from the Jerusalemites or not—may reflect his attitude that is more fully expressed in another context in 1 Corinthians 4:3-4, “To me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or a human court; indeed I don’t judge myself, for I know nothing against myself; but in this I have not been justified. The one judging me is the Lord.” Thus, for Paul, God alone truly judges. And so Paul writes in Galatians 6:3, “For if some think they are something when they are nothing they deceive themselves.” In the final clause of v. 2, Paul states the concern that seems to have motivated his communicating his gospel to the church in Jerusalem and its leaders, saying that he was apprehensive “lest [he] should run or have run in vain.” His language is metaphorical and refers to the competition during Paul’s day that took place in stadiums (Gk. stadia), prominently in such venues as the Olympian, Pythian, Nemean, and Isthmian Games—but also on a smaller scale at the local level. Running was one of five major events performed in the various games.12 Paul’s image of running casts him in the role of a competitor in a race. He uses the same image in Philippians 2:16, where he also recognizes the possibility of running “in vain.”13 Commentators generally agree that Paul’s concern was not the validity of his gospel but rather recognition of that gospel by those in Jerusalem (Christian Jews) in order to assure the unity of the early church universal. F. F. Bruce sums up the argument for this position succinctly: What Paul was concerned about was not the validity of his gospel (of which he had divine assurance) but its practicability. His commission was not derived from Jerusalem, but it could not be executed effectively except in fellowship with Jerusalem. A cleavage between his Gentile mission and the mother-church would be disastrous: Christ would be divided, and all the energy which Paul had devoted, and hoped to devote, to the evangelizing of the Gentile world would be frustrated.14

Given Paul’s perspective throughout this letter concerning the situation in Galatia, one may conclude that in relation to the events in Jerusalem that he recalls, he would have thought it the responsibility of the leaders (and, for that matter, the whole Jerusalem church) to recognize the gospel when he set it before them.

61

62

Galatians 2

Paul opens v. 3 with the strong adversative form of the conjunction “but” (Gk. alla), probably in order to negate the possibility of running in vain that was stated in the previous clause: he says, “lest I should run . . . in vain”—and (to paraphrase) replies, “not so, and here is why.” Then, Paul continues by recalling the situation regarding Titus, who had accompanied Paul to Jerusalem. The incident that Paul recounts illustrates beyond doubt that Paul’s Law-free gospel was unaffected by the church in Jerusalem. Here, Paul speaks of Titus in such a way that he seems to assume that the Galatians would know to whom he is referring. Along with his accompanying Paul, one learns that Titus was a Greek (Gk. Hell∑n), a designation that would also indicate that Titus was a Gentile, and that he was not compelled to be circumcised—the implication being that he was uncircumcised. In the situation that Paul and his companions were facing in Jerusalem, Titus personally became a test case. The strong language of compulsion (Gk. anankazein; lit., “to force” or “to compel”15) that is used here (“Titus . . . was not forced to be circumcised”) will reoccur in 2:14 in Paul’s report of another controversial set of circumstances in Antioch and, then, in 6:12 in relation to the Galatians themselves. Thus, Paul ties together three controversial situations (Jerusalem, Antioch, Galatia) as he works in this letter to resolve the serious problem that he sees himself facing in Galatia over circumcision (itself a prominent issue among other things related to Law observance). He will write again in this chapter of the letter about circumcision (2:7, 8, 9, 12) and then again later in the letter he will return to the topic of circumcision as the sine qua non of Law observance (5:2, 3, 6, 11; 6:12, 13, 15).16 Titus, however, remained uncircumcised, though some interpreters argue that Titus was not circumcised by compulsion, but that he was circumcised voluntarily. The basis of this argument lies in a text-critical problem in v. 5, so for now, in anticipation of v. 5, one may simply observe that if Paul circumcised or had Titus circumcised, it would have defeated his argument in Galatians against the preachers who are attempting to practice circumcision among the Gentile Galatian Christians. Remarkably, Paul’s writing of Galatians indicates that the issue that was taken up originally in Jerusalem had not subsided. Verse 4 continues Paul’s recollections about his second visit to Jerusalem. This verse, however, is a fractured and incomplete sentence (referred to in grammatical terminology as an anacoluthon). [Translation of Galatians 2:3-5] The verse is actually a series of clauses that fit together thematically and relate to the more understandable

Galatians 2

63

vv. 3 and 5, though the phrases of v. 4 are Translation of Galatians 2:3-5 grammatically incomplete. Evidently the (3) But Titus who was with me, who was a Greek, was not forced to be circumcised. (4) disturbing nature of the events that Paul But because of false brothers and sisters who were recalls caused his syntax to become agitated smuggled in secretly, who slipped in to spy out our as well. Nevertheless, Paul remembers freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, in order that certain Christian Jews, whom he calls “false they might enslave us— (5) to them we did not give in brothers and sisters,” who obviously did not for a moment in submission, in order that the truth of go along with the consensus regarding the gospel might still be around for you. Titus’s remaining uncircumcised. These “false brothers and sisters” were part of the Christian community in Jerusalem,17 so that their status as believers was apparently not in question among the members of the Jerusalem church. But Paul on the other hand uses the same terminology for these people (Gk. pseudadelphos; lit., “false brother”) that he used for the troublemakers that he named at one point in his writings to the Corinthians (2 Cor 11:26). In the context of the Corinthian correspondence, the remarks that Paul made about those whom he labeled “false brothers and sisters” indicate that he did not perceive them to be Christian at all. Thus, Paul does not seem to have shared the same opinion of these people that was held by others in Jerusalem. Moreover, commentators often reason that the “false brothers and sisters” named in Galatians and 2 Corinthians may be the same people, though it is impossible to prove that connection. Paul recalls that the false brothers and sisters came into the context of legitimate discussions by stealth. He uses the adjective pareisaktos,18 which means “brought in surreptitiously,” “introduced secretly,” or “smuggled in” to describe these people; thus, they are like spies. Furthermore, Paul writes of these people using the verb pareiserchesthai, which means “to intrude,” “to sneak in,” or “to slip in”—again using language that casts the false brothers and sisters as spies. Thus, it comes as no surprise that Paul uses another verb, kataskop∑sai,19 which means “to view closely,” “to reconnoiter,” or “to spy out” to name the activity of these people. So Paul describes the interlopers who came into the meeting in Jerusalem in such a way that their intentions are clearly ignoble from his point of view. Paul says explicitly that the false brothers and sisters “spied out” the proceedings in Jerusalem because they wanted to bring free believers into bondage (Gk. katadouloun; lit., “to reduce to slavery” or “to enslave”). Then, at this point in the letter, he introduces a major theme of this writing, viz., “freedom,” a theme that he also takes up with force in Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians. References to

64

Galatians 2

this theme occur in Galatians as a noun (2:4; 5:1, 13 [2x]), an adjective (3:28; 4:22, 23, 26, 30, 31), and a verb (5:1). Commentators regularly observe that this theme of freedom is a major part of the overall concern of the letter. Whatever Paul means by “freedom” (and that only becomes clear in the course of the whole letter), it seems at this point to be related to Jesus Christ’s giving himself for sins, so that he might deliver believers from the present evil age (1:4). Thus, later in the letter Paul can say, “For freedom Christ has set us free” (5:1). Here, in v. 4, Paul only qualifies “freedom” by stating that it is “in Christ Jesus” (en Christø I∑sou), a phrase that could either locate the Christians in their relationship to Christ (in mystical union with him) or mark the cause of Christian freedom (because of him). There are perhaps elements of both understandings present in Paul’s remark. But, at this point in the letter, and for that matter in the whole letter, despite the importance of “freedom,” Paul is never truly explicit about what “freedom” means. Therefore, once again, it is helpful to remember that this account is told from Paul’s perspective, so that if these so-called false brothers and sisters were asked whether their aim was to enslave other Christians, they surely would have denied the accusation. Moreover, one should perhaps have understanding for the Galatians themselves who are moving toward Law observance. Why? Because Paul came preaching freedom—for freedom Christ has set us free; but without some definition of freedom, it is difficult to know how to be free. Thus, when the preachers arrived among the Galatians and advocated Law observance, it could easily have appeared to be good news to the Galatians, because now someone was willing to tell them “how to be free” and “what to do with freedom.” Nevertheless, if this were the case, Paul vigorously disagrees with those advocating Law observance. He clearly sees Law observance as antithetical to Christian freedom, which itself may in part even be understood as freedom from Law observance. At this point in his letter, Paul switches back from the first person singular (“I,” “me,” “my”) to the first person plural (“we,” “us,” “our”), writing of “our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, in order that they might enslave us”—thereby identifying with the Galatians as he reflects on the Christian condition of freedom (though his comments here would encompass all Christians). For Paul, here, enslavement means slavery to Law observance. Those who came into the conference in Jerusalem and the preachers who have come among the Galatians all want to make sure that Gentile converts are living a Law-observant lifestyle. Paul wants to make

Galatians 2

(remake!) the point that Law observance is not necessary to Christian life. In fact, Law observance hinders free Christian living because it places a pattern of religious practice between the believer and God and gives the believer the false impression that a good relationship to God is maintained by faithful Law observance. Thus, from the perspective of those advocating Law observance, it is human action that determines the reality of the relationship between humanity and God. For Paul this is not the truth; rather, it is a lie that ensnares humans into a web of religious practice that somehow deceives them into thinking that it is primarily they who carry the responsibility for their relationship to God. This outlook flies in the face of the reality of God’s action in Christ for the liberation of humankind; for in God’s action, God has already done what needed to be done to establish a relationship between God and humanity. Moreover, for Paul, it is not that God acts and, then, humans react. Better said, it is that God acts and humans perceive and, so, believe. In turn, Paul moves on to another choppy sentence in v. 5. But the real problem for reading the statement is that a vexing textcritical problem opens the verse. Verse 5 either does or does not begin with the words, “to them not” (Gk. hois oude). On the one hand, the words are present in all Greek manuscripts except one; but on the other hand, the words are not found in one Greek text, several versions (translations in other languages), and many Latin manuscripts. The absence of the words makes Paul something of a tactician, for without the words the verse says, “we gave in for a moment in submission, in order that the truth of the gospel might still be around for you.” In this reading one finds Paul circumcising Titus to keep the peace. Yet, given the general manuscript evidence (all but one Greek text include hois oude) and given Paul’s clear line of thought and argument in Galatians, almost all contemporary commentators read v. 5 to include the words hois oude. Thus, Paul never gave in to the false brothers and sisters.20 The reason Paul gives for not succumbing to the interlopers in Jerusalem is “in order that the truth of the gospel might still be around for you.” As was the case with “freedom,” one needs to examine the letter to discern Paul’s intention in using the literal language of “truth.” Paul refers to “the truth of the gospel” (Gk. h∑ al∑theia tou euangeliou) here and again in 2:14; moreover, he refers to “the truth” in 5:7 (“who hindered you from obeying the truth?”—Gk. tis hymas enekopsen t∑ al∑theia m∑ peithesthai), and he uses the verb “to tell the truth” (Gk. al∑theuein) at 4:16. Thus, here, “truth” clearly has to do with the gospel—indeed for Paul the

65

66

Galatians 2

gospel is the truth. The “truth” can be obeyed or, by implication, disobeyed. Finally, Paul is one who “tells the truth,” in this case to the Galatians. And so, to create a scenario from this set of statements, Paul preaches the gospel, which itself is the truth. The truth of the gospel is to be obeyed, though it appears that disobedience is an option. Because God is involved in this matter of the truth, for Paul it is not merely a matter of the truth versus falsehood; it is a matter of truth or judgment.21 At this point in the letter, Paul is primarily interested in informing his fellow Christians in Galatia about the previous situation that he (and his colleagues?) faced in Jerusalem. His point is that he did not give in to those insisting on Law observance for Gentile converts then, and in the same manner, with regard to the Galatians, he will not give in to that demand now—all for the sake of obedience to the truth of the gospel. And so he recalls that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised at Jerusalem—thus, Paul cites the precedent set there for the condition of later Gentile believers like those in Galatia who are confronted with the prospect of circumcision. To circumcise or not to circumcise? No, Paul answers, and he relates the incident with Titus to underscore his answer. The Affirmation of Paul’s Ministry, 2:6-10. Paul continues the story of his second visit to Jerusalem in vv. 6-10, verses that form one long, convoluted sentence—which seems strange given that the letter is well composed.22 Reacting to this lengthy sentence that comes in the wake of another such sentence in vv. 1-5, Gordon D. Fee declares “that one ungrammatical sentence calls for another, which in this case is so broken as to require fixing by translators.”23 Yet other commentators remark that even in Translation of Galatians 2:6-10 (6) And from those of repute—whatever this sentence the construction is not careless, they were formerly makes no difference to but complex.24 [Translation of Galatians 2:6-10] me; God does not recognize human appearances— Trying to make sense of this jumble of in fact, those of repute did not add anything to me; verses, interpreters often observe that vv. 3-5 (7) but on the contrary, seeing that I had been are an interruption or a parenthesis that breaks entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just the flow from v. 2 to v. 6—or, perhaps better, as Peter [had been] to the circumcised— (8) for the one who worked in Peter in regard to apostleship as F. F. Bruce has it, v. 6 picks up the thread among the circumcised worked also in me with that was broken off at the end of v. 2.25 Thus, regard to the Gentiles— (9) and perceiving the the references to Titus and the false brothers grace that was given me, James and Cephas and and sisters in vv. 3-5 are seen as somehow John (the ones reputed to be pillars) gave to me and incorporated into Paul’s remarks about “those Barnabas the right hand of partnership, in order that of repute.” we [might go] to the Gentiles, but they to the circumcision— (10) [they asked] only that we might In any case, v. 6 reestablishes the focus on remember the poor, which was indeed something I “those of repute” and leads into Paul’s further was eager to do.

Galatians 2

reflections on his dealings with this group. Remarkably, when Paul comes back to this topic, as was the case when he mentioned the “false brothers and sisters” (vv. 4-5), his syntax suffers, perhaps expressing his mixed feelings about these prominent Jerusalem personalities. At first, Paul merely names “those of repute” as he begins a sentence with the prepositional phrase, “From those of repute.” He does not continue the sentence; rather, he breaks in with a pair of declarations, “what they were makes no difference to me; God does not recognize human appearances.” Hans Dieter Betz suggests that Paul’s initial statement (“what they were makes no difference to me”) is comparable to an expression of the Stoic doctrine of the adiaphora, or “matters of indifference”—so that Paul is explicitly relativizing the authority of “those of repute” at Jerusalem.26 He does so using a philosophical principle. Then, in turn, Paul uses a theological rationale, “God does not recognize human appearances,” which may be seen in texts such as Deuteronomy 10:17 (cf. Lev 19:15; Deut 1:17), to validate the adiaphoron. Thus, Paul seems to have brought together two proverbial statements whereby the theology of the second (“God does not recognize human appearances”) buttresses the philosophy of the first (“what they were makes no difference”).27 Paul’s contemporaries would likely have recognized these statements as proverbial declarations and found Paul’s argument impressive, if not persuasive. Having mentioned “those of repute,” Paul’s phrase, “whatever they were formerly,” raises issues for grasping fully what Paul is saying in his proverbial declarations. The pronoun “whatever” (Gk. hopoioi) means “what kind of ” and refers to someone’s rank or standing. Then, the verb in this phrase is ∑san (“they were”), a past tense verb (imperfect) that in some manner looks back to an earlier time from that in which Paul writes. Complementing this verb is the word pote, translated “then” or “formerly.” Exactly what Paul means by this phrase is debated. On the one hand he may be referring to some status that “those of repute” had in an earlier time (the time before and at the Jerusalem meeting?); but on the other hand Paul may simply be telling a story about the past and referring to “those of repute” who had a certain standing in the Jerusalem community at the time of the events in the story that he is telling (with no concern for identifying their standing at any other time). Interpreters differ in their assessments of this verse, but the simple assumption that Paul is writing about the past and so he used a past tense verb28 will not lead readers of Galatians far astray (if at all). In turn, the final clause in v. 6 (“____ those of repute did not add anything to me”) opens with the postpositive Greek word, gar,

67

68

Galatians 2

which is often read as “for,” as if to provide an explanation of what has already been said. In this instance, however, gar may be better read as a confirmatory adverb rather than a causal conjunction.29 Thus, the final clause of v. 6 should begin with “in fact” or “indeed,” so that Paul’s words function as an emphatic declaration rather than as an explanation: “In fact, those of repute did not add anything to me.” What might they have added? If they had sided with the false brothers and sisters, then they would have “added” the necessity of circumcising Gentile Christians and the imposition of a Law-observant lifestyle on non-Jewish converts to Christianity. Paul’s emphatic denial that the Jerusalem leaders added anything to his message and ministry is striking in comparison with the account of the conference that one finds in Acts 15 and 16, for in the account at Acts 15:19-20, James declares, “ . . . I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.” Is Paul denying that something like the stipulations in Acts 15 were imposed on him? Does he do so because the preachers who have come to Galatia have promoted something like Acts 15 among the Galatians and have claimed that Paul was bound by such conditions? In any case, how is one to understand the difference between Acts 15 and Galatians 2? Many interpreters attempt to harmonize the accounts in Acts and Galatians, usually devising an explanation that has Paul and Acts in agreement, with Paul essentially taking on the position of the Acts story. Still other interpreters note that Paul’s material is a primary source while Acts is a secondary report; these commentators then suggest that the Acts account reflects a decision made at a time when and place where Paul was not a party to the proceedings, so that Paul was not bound by any agreement that imposed nomistic conditions on Gentile converts. Luke (the author of Acts), however, believes that Paul was party to the compromise that produced a position like that expressed by James in Acts 15. Paul himself clearly does not share Luke’s understanding. Indeed, v. 7 begins with the strong adversative conjunction “but” (Gk. alla), which introduces the positive assertion of what had been said negatively in v. 6. Paul says that “on the contrary”—to anything being added to his work—the leaders in Jerusalem saw the validity and distinctiveness of his ministry. This acknowledgment (lit., “seeing”; Gk. idontes) is one of two reasons (the other is the leaders’ “perceiving”; Gk. gnontes) given for the leaders extending

Galatians 2

the right hand of partnership to Paul and Barnabas (see v. 9). What the Jerusalem leaders saw was that Paul had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised. Exactly how they came to see is not given in the text, though the language subtly recognizes God’s hand at work in Paul’s ministry, for Paul states with a perfect passive verb, “I had been entrusted” (Gk. pepisteumai), indicating that God had entrusted Paul with the ministry in the past, but with validity up to the present. Paul refers to his ministry as “the gospel to the uncircumcised” and sets it alongside the ministry of “Peter to the circumcised.” These references to the uncircumcised and the circumcised are clearly references to Gentiles and Jews. But Paul does not state the identity of those to whom he and Peter preached in ethnic terms; rather, he designates them to be “the uncircumcised” (Gk. akrobustia) and “the circumcised” (Gk. peritom∑ ). By speaking of people in this way, Paul makes it clear that Law observance is not a prerequisite for membership in the church, and Gentile believers are to be identified by the distinct characteristics of Christians (see 5:16-18, 22-24). Furthermore, interpreters note the use of the phrases “the gospel to the uncircumcised” and “[the gospel to] the circumcised” because these are not Paul’s normal way of referring to the gospel (Paul usually writes of “the gospel of Christ”; Gk. euangelion tou Christou). Moreover, in these lines (vv. 7 and 8) Paul names “Peter” rather than “Cephas,” as is his practice in the rest of the letter. These seemingly unusual elements together have led certain scholars to argue that behind Paul’s remarks at this point lies an official document that Paul draws from to state his understanding of the results of the conference in Jerusalem. Thus, many commentators contend that Paul’s thought provides the structure and essence of vv. 7-8 and that the language of a document has informed his restatement of the general terms of the agreement from the conference. Even so, Paul draws a remarkable parallel between his divinely empowered ministry to the Gentiles and Peter’s to the Jews. He saw that the gospel that he preached and the gospel that Peter preached differed not in content but in terms of the persons to whom the one gospel was addressed. Verse 8 is quite similar to v. 7, though the wording is sufficiently different that one finds new items that merit study. First, Paul refers to God in this verse by using a participle (Gk. ho energ∑sas; lit., “the one having worked”), that is often translated “the one who worked,” to express an active quality of the divine. To understand “the one who worked” as Christ rather than God would not be

69

70

Galatians 2

consistent with Paul’s understanding of “God as source” and “Christ as agent” of God’s work30 (see 1 Cor 12:6; Phil 2:13). It is God who is at work in the ministries of Peter and Paul. Second, there is something of a noticeable imbalance in the way that Paul refers to his and Peter’s ministries. Paul writes initially of God’s working “in Peter in regard to apostleship among the circumcised” and, then, of God’s working “in me with regard to the Gentiles.” The difference between Paul’s references to God’s work in Peter and in himself leads some interpreters to conclude that the Jerusalem apostles recognized Paul’s gospel as equal to theirs, but that they also did not recognize Paul as an apostle. Yet, before drawing hasty conclusions, one should also notice that there is an imbalance between the clauses of v. 7: “I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised.” Certainly Peter had been “entrusted” (by God) “with the gospel,” though Paul does not fill out that thought in this verse. So perhaps it is only Paul’s economical style that produced the imbalance between clauses in these verses. It is hard to tell, but it is possible to “over interpret” such puzzling details as these. Nevertheless, whatever is the case with these clauses, it is certain that the equality of the two missions is found in a shared soteriological basis, viz., it is the same God who works through both Peter and Paul.31 Third, rather than refer to “the uncircumcised,” as he had done in v. 7, here in v. 8 Paul writes of “the Gentiles.” Perhaps Paul is using language that would conjure up images of the biblical vision of God’s eschatological kingdom where Jew and Gentile will be together as one people (see 3:28). Or perhaps Paul is using the language with which he is most comfortable when speaking of the work that God had called him for and set him to (see 1:15-17). Or perhaps this shift in wording results from Paul’s use of language with which the Galatians would have most easily identified. Verse 9 begins by recalling that “those of repute” perceived (Gk. gnontes from ginøskein)32 the grace that was given Paul. This statement parallels the remark in v. 7 that “those of repute” saw that Paul had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, and together the two participles (seeing and perceiving) explain why James, Cephas, and John were moved to shake hands with Paul and Barnabas. What the Jerusalem leaders perceived, however, was the grace that was given (Paul). They did not work out their approval through church politics, but through the recognition of divine grace in Paul’s ministry. More than a statement of approval, their recognition was a confession of what God had done and was doing.

Galatians 2

71

Paul names “James, Cephas, and John” as he tells of events at the conference in Jerusalem. He states that these three were “those reputed to be pillars.” The image of a “pillar” was a stock metaphor in antiquity, and there are even rabbinic texts that refer to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as the three pillars of Israel on whom was founded the whole world.33 The notion of a “pillar” in support of the eschatological temple was another image that could have influenced the Jerusalem church’s choice of this terminology for referring to its leaders. In any case, Paul names the pillars, indicating that there were three. The order of his naming them is striking, for James is listed first and Cephas only second with another leader named John in third place. Commentators wrestle with this order of names, suggesting that John Son of Zebedee it reflects the rank of influence in the Along with his brother James, John son of Zebedee was one of the first disciples Jesus Jerusalem church, either at the time of called (Matt 4:21; 10:2; Mark 1:19; 3:17; Luke 5:10; 6:14). the conference or at the time of Paul’s By longstanding (but not incontrovertible) tradition, he was writing of Galatians. James’s influence the “Beloved Disciple” whose testimony lies behind the was considerable in the life of the Gospel of John. Jerusalem congregation. As Cephas went John is often named alongside Peter and his brother, afield, engaging in missionary activity as James, as comprising a sort of inner circle of Jesus’ apostles. These three are present for certain events where the is presupposed by this discussion other disciples are absent: the healing of Jairus’s daughter in Galatians (also by 2:11-14; 1 Cor (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), the transfiguration (Matt 17:1; 1:10-17; 9:3-7), apparently James’s influMark 9:2; Lk 9:28), and Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane (Matt ence grew until the point that he was in 26:37; Mark 14:33). fact the primary leader of the Jerusalem John’s role diminishes in the book of Acts, although Paul church.34 reports that he is still considered a “pillar” apostle in Jerusalem in Gal 2:9 along with Peter and James, the The third person named as a pillar of brother of Jesus. By this time, John’s brother James had the Jerusalem church was John. This is already been put to death (see Acts 12:2). the only mention of anyone named John in all of Paul’s writings. Almost certainly this John is the “son of Zebedee,” one of the Twelve whose brother was named James (martyred by Herod Agrippa I in AD 44). [John Son of Zebedee] In the Gospels John is always presented with his brother, James. Later in the stories in Acts, John is depicted with Peter as being active in Jerusalem during the first days of the life of the church there (see Acts 3-4; 8), although John is the silent partner in this arrangement whereas Peter is the vocal member of the duo. Remarkably, John Johann Friedrich Glocker (1718–1780). The Apostle John, 1754. Protestant does not appear in the account of the Church, Wolfschlugen, Germany. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-US).

72

Galatians 2

Jerusalem conference at Acts 15. Still later, this same John became identified with the “Beloved Disciple” of the Gospel according to John, and was believed to be the author of all the Johannine materials, Gospel, Epistles, and Revelation. This is the fourth time that Paul has referred to “those of repute” (Gk. hoi dokountes; see 2:2, 6 [2x], and 9). It may be that the repetition suggests a note of irony, though as was observed above, Paul may have borrowed such language from usage in the Jerusalem community, and the repetition may not be ironic, since to harp on a negative impression of those in Jerusalem may not have served Paul’s case as he makes it in Galatians. But, then again, perhaps irritating certain people in Jerusalem and also Galatia may not have bothered Paul at all (see 1:8-9; 5:12; 6:12-13). In any event, Paul’s remarks neither deny nor confirm the status afforded the “pillars” by their coreligionists in Jerusalem. These “pillars” expressed their recognition of the validity of Paul’s mission by shaking hands with Paul and Barnabas. The Hebrews probably adopted the practice of shaking hands from the Persians or Parthians. It was also practiced in Greek culture. A handshake in antiquity could be a sign of friendship or acknowledge an agreement. Sometimes it could indicate superior/inferior status in a relationship, with the superior party offering the hand. Paul, however, presents the situation as an agreement between two equal parties by saying that the handshake was one of “friendship” or “partnership”—“koinønias defines the compact as one of partnership”35 (cf. Phil 1:7; 4:14). One should notice that Barnabas reappears here in v. 9, so that Paul presents the agreement as being between himself and Barnabas on the one hand, and James, Cephas, and John on the other. There were, however, three parties at the conference: Paul and Barnabas; James, Cephas, and John; and the so-called “false brothers and sisters.” The first two parties formed the compact, but the third party is not shown to be present or to approve of the arrangements devised by the other parties. This third group, the “false brothers and sisters,” almost certainly became Paul’s adversaries, or at the very least they are behind Paul’s opponents. Barnabas, however, is coupled with Paul as one party to the agreement, which implies that he will join Paul as he undertakes his mission to the Gentiles. Also noticeable in v. 9 is the way that Paul refers to the two missions that came to be as a result of the compact. Paul states the parameters of the missions saying (literally), “in order that we to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision.” As is quickly evident, Paul uses no verbs in these phrases. This kind of omission is not

Galatians 2

uncommon in Paul’s writings, especially when he forms a purpose clause after the Greek word hina (“in order that”). But still, translators need to supply a verb in English to make Paul’s statement intelligible. Most often they use “go” or “preach” to express what Paul left unsaid. Yet another matter is inherent in the ambiguity of Paul’s report: is the division of the Gentiles and the circumcision made along ethnic or geographical lines? In other words, are Paul and Barnabas expected to labor among Gentiles or in Gentile lands, and are the pillars supposed to work among Jews or in Jewish regions? Interpreters have noted that ethn∑ (“Gentiles”) and peritom∑ (“circumcision”) designate people rather than places, so it seems to the majority of commentators more likely that the division of the two missions was envisioned along ethnic lines. Some scholars have made a case for a geographical understanding of the division of missions,36 but that way of conceiving of the missions seems less suited to the overall sense of the text, and few interpreters take that line today. In v. 10 Paul concludes his account of his second visit to Jerusalem. Here he reports a request that was made of him and Barnabas and his attitude toward fulfilling the request. Remarkably, in v. 6 Paul declared, “ . . . those of repute did not add anything to me. . . .” And now, he says that there was “only” (Gk. monon) one thing that the pillars apparently asked of him and Barnabas, viz., “that we might remember the poor. . . .” Is there a discrepancy in Paul’s story? Most interpreters do not see a problem here, primarily because in v. 6 Paul is referring to the gospel that he preached, saying that the pillars added nothing to the content of his proclamation, whereas in v. 10 he is recalling a request that was made for aid to those in need. Apparently Paul took this matter of relief to heart, for one sees him at work raising funds as a collection for the “poor” at various places in his letters, e.g., Romans 15:25-29; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8:1–9:15. [“Remember the Poor”] The “poor” to whom Paul refers here are most likely “the poor among the saints at Jerusalem” (Rom 15:26). This name probably designates some of the Jerusalem Christians who have financial difficulties, but less likely is that it may also be metaphorical language that aims to identify pious persons who embody the spiritual condition of dependence on God alone. While many interpreters understand that “the poor” expresses both social and religious realities, all that can be discerned with certainly is that these persons are Jewish Christians in Jerusalem for whom a financial appeal was made.37

73

74

Galatians 2

“Remember the Poor” Paul mentions his collection for the Jerusalem church in all the letters written during his third missionary venture, at the end of which (according to Acts 21) he visited Jerusalem and presumably handed over the moneys he had raised. One can only say “presumably” because this collection is never mentioned in the book of Acts itself. In fact, Paul’s writings are the only source for this collection (in probable chronological order, see Gal 2:10; 1 Cor 16:1-4; 2 Cor 8–9; Rom 15:25-33). There was, of course, a collection mentioned in Acts 11:27-30 (see also Acts 12:25) as part of a faminerelief effort. By any Pauline chronology, however, this collection is far too early to be the one that occupied the Apostle’s attention some ten or more years later. Polhill notes three possible reasons Paul would take up this collection and deliver it in person to Jerusalem (311–12): Charity. The dire need of the Jerusalem church called for a humanitarian response. Eschatology. Paul may have seen his collection as the accomplishment of some sort of end-times scenario in which, in accordance with Scripture, the wealth of the Gentiles flowed into Jerusalem (see Isa 60:5; 66:20). And yet Paul seems to have made long-range plans for even after the collection was delivered, namely, an anticipated mission to Rome and then on to Spain (Rom 15:23-24). Christian unity. Paul was convinced that the Jewish and Gentile churches belonged together in an organic whole (see Rom 11). The plan of God involved not two churches but one, whatever might be said about the differences between the missions to the Jews and the Gentiles. Paul considered his collection to be a symbol of that unity.

Paul remembers that he and Barnabas were asked to “remember” (Gk. mn∑moneuein) the poor. Then, as Paul continues the narrative, a striking twist comes in the story: once again, Barnabas disappears from the account. Paul writes, “we might remember,” but “I was eager to do.” Interpreters puzzle over Barnabas’s disappearance and offer a variety of suggestions as to what it may imply. The most common proposal is that the first statement, “we might remember,” reflects the reality of the circumstances at the conference, but the second assertion, “I was eager to do,” shows the situation at a later time (perhaps the time of the writing of the letter) when Paul and Barnabas were no longer working as partners in mission. But again, it is easy to “over read” the lines of Paul’s account.

An Incident in Antioch and Its Fallout, 2:11-21 Controversy in Antioch, 2:11-14. From Galatians 1:11 through 2:21, Paul writes autobiographically. In the first part of this portion of the letter (1:11–2:10), he makes a case for his independence from both the apostles in Jerusalem and the Jerusalem church. That same emphasis does not hold in the latter portions of chapter 2 (2:11-21); rather, Paul continues to write autobiographically, but now he tells of a difficult John B. Polhill, Paul and His Letters (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999). incident that occurred in Antioch when Law-observant and Law-free Christianity came into conflict with each other. Paul describes the situation and spells out his own role in what happened. Once again, as at 2:5, Paul presents himself as defending “the truth of the gospel”; and so the emphasis of 2:11–2:14 (21?) is on Paul’s faithfulness and the preservation of the “truth of the gospel.” Paul starts this section of the letter with the words, “But when” (Gk. hote de), a phrase that he will repeat at v. 12 and then with modification at v. 14. Interpreters point out that prior to this use of hote de, Paul had employed the temporal adverb, “then”

Galatians 2

(Gk. epeita), to mark the progress of his narrative (see 1:18; 1:21; 2:1). Thus, some commentators suggest that the incident told about in 2:11-21 actually occurred before the events presented in 2:1-10. They reason that Paul did not use epeita (“then”) to introduce this story, so that he is no longer presenting a sequential narrative. Yet the fact that Paul has not abandoned a chronological account seems clear from his use of hote (“when”) as a temporal marker in a sequential story at 2:11, 12, 14. “When” follows “when” follows “when” in 2:11-14 to mark the movement of time, so that it is reasonable to understand that the first occurrence of “when” at 2:11 most likely continues the chronological scheme that Paul has already laid out in 1:11–2:10; although the word “when” should probably be seen as marking a bumpy passage in the progress of the story that is being told. The account that Paul is about to narrate unfolded in Antioch, which is known as Antioch on the Orontes or Syrian Antioch in order to distinguish it from other Antiochs, e.g., Antioch of Pisidia. [Antioch] Antioch was located in the northwest section of the province of Syria. It was the third largest city in the Roman Empire after Rome and Alexandria. A sizeable Jewish population was part of the makeup of the city. According to Acts, Hellenists (Greekspeaking Jewish Christians) from Jerusalem were scattered because of the persecution that came about over Stephen (Acts 6:8–8:3), and they made their way to many places, including Antioch (11:19-26). There they preached the gospel to Jews only, until some people from Cyprus and Cyrene came and preached to the Greeks (i.e., Gentiles). Acts says that a great many of the Gentiles believed and “turned to the Lord.” Acts also says that it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians. Subsequently, the church in Antioch comprised both Jewish and Gentile Christians. With time, the Antioch church grew and became a major force in Christian missionary activity. Paul is presented in Acts as a loyal member of the church in Antioch, and it was from that church that Paul and Barnabas were sent out in missions (Acts 13:1-3). It was to Antioch that Cephas came (on Cephas see 1:18). In this instance, it is not entirely clear why Cephas was in Antioch, although it is possible that he was there to pursue the mission to “the circumcised,” as had been agreed at the earlier conference in Jerusalem (2:7-9). The synagogues of the Mediterranean world provided easy access to a large audience of Jews and Gentiles. The Jewish presence in the synagogues is easily understandable, but that there were a large number of Gentiles who affiliated themselves

75

76

Galatians 2

Antioch Antioch in Syria was founded by Seleucus Nicator in 300 BC. During the time of Paul, it was the third largest city in the Roman Empire behind Rome and Alexandria in Egypt. According to the book of Acts, Antioch was a key city for the spread of the early Christian movement. In fact, it was here that followers of Jesus were first called “Christians” (Acts 11:26). Following the persecution that broke out after the martyrdom of Stephen, believers from Jerusalem scattered as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch (Acts 11:19). Though at first these followers of Jesus only shared the gospel with fellow Jews, certain evangelists hailing from Cyprus and Cyrene preached to the Greeks as well (Acts 11:20). The success of this preaching captured the attention of the apostles in Jerusalem, who sent Barnabas to oversee the work there. He did so, and even brought Paul alongside to help him in teaching these new Gentile converts (Acts 11:22, 25). Antioch was likely the first large-scale community to include both Jewish and Gentile believers. From there, Barnabas and Paul were sent out on the first intentional missionary venture to proclaim Christ among the Gentiles (Acts 13:1-3). Both Barnabas and Paul had a long history with this congregation. To see them taking different stances toward Gentile table-fellowship under peer pressure from “certain people” from James (Gal 2:12) must have created great consternation among them.

with synagogues is striking to many. A remarkable number of Gentiles were attracted to the life of the synagogue because of the monotheism of the Jews and because of the Jews’ high moral standards.38 Thus, for both Peter and Paul the synagogue was a mission field ripe for harvest. The fact was, however, that in preaching to Jews Peter could not avoid being heard by Gentiles; conversely, when Paul proclaimed the gospel to Gentiles in the synagogue, Jews could not help hearing his message. Thus, even with the agreement that was made in Jerusalem (2:7-10), some friction was inevitable in the work of the early church. Moreover, the church at Antioch was set to become a test case for the agreement of the Jerusalem conference. Some interpreters have even called the church in Antioch a time bomb.39

Galatians 2

In Antioch, however, a mixed congregation of Jewish and Gentile Christians that would have been distinct from the synagogue(s) seems to have existed, for the story is told with no depiction of a synagogue setting. Nor does Paul present the church in Antioch as being somehow affiliated with the synagogue(s). Thus, the church in Antioch almost certainly was a religious group that was independent of other non-Christian religious bodies. We cannot estimate the membership of the Antioch church during this period, but it seems to have been one congregation of believers. Thus, whatever happened in the life of the church would be immediately apparent to the members of the church. Therefore, when Cephas came to Antioch, Paul would have been keenly aware of what he was doing. And so, when Cephas withdrew from table fellowship with the Gentile Christians, it was well known to all the believers, for the unity of the church in Antioch was realized in table fellowship. Paul himself believed that a person’s ethnicity made him or her a candidate for evangelization by one mission or the other, but once a person was in the church, for Paul, ethnic identity did not matter. For Cephas—or at least for Cephas when he was under pressure from more conservative Jewish Christians—cultic separation along ethnic lines would have been (was) a primary concern. Commentators often opine that the matter of table fellowship in Antioch (and other churches) was crucial because the participants at table also observed the Lord’s Supper when they ate together. First Corinthians 11:17-34 is often cited in order to show that believers celebrated the Lord’s Supper when they had common meals together. While it is true that such a joining of community meal and Lord’s Supper did occur in Corinth, it is not clear how regularly the Corinthians practiced a formal Eucharist in conjunction with the more mundane meal. Nor is it necessarily the case that the practices of Corinth matched those of Antioch. We simply do not know whether the Lord’s Supper was part of the table fellowship in Antioch. Learning of this action by Cephas, Paul says that he “opposed him to his face.” One should not underestimate the severity of this action. Cephas was not only one of the Twelve but also one of the three pillars of the church in the Jerusalem, and his prominence is clear in Paul and Acts as well as in the four Gospels. Paul’s words, “to his face” (Gk. kata prosøpon), do not indicate an inherent hostility; but the Greek verb, anthistanai, means, “to oppose” in the sense of “to resist.” Thus, some commentators perceive from Paul’s choice of words that Paul sees Cephas as initiating aggression, whereas Paul is offering a counter attack.40 Cephas clearly

77

78

Galatians 2

vacillated, but whether there was some other hostility expressed is impossible to know. Moreover, that Paul confronted Cephas does not indicate a victory for Paul, but rather the failure of the agreement that had been forged in Jerusalem. Paul states that he opposed Cephas “because he was condemned” (Gk. hoti kategnøsmenos ∑n). Paul does not say who condemned Cephas explicitly, but the perfect passive participle, kategnøsmenos (lit., “having been condemned”), assumes the condemnation was done by an unnamed person. The form here is almost certainly that of a “divine passive”; in other words, God is assumed to be the one who acts in relation to the one who is acted upon. Thus, Paul is saying that Cephas was condemned by God—or, to put it in the active voice, God condemned Cephas, whose own inconsistent conduct, as we shall see, brought about his condemnation.41 In turn, Paul continues his account of the unfortunate incident at Antioch by employing the postpositive Greek word gar (“for”) in order to indicate that he is explaining why he opposed Cephas and also why Cephas stood condemned. According to Paul, Cephas was eating with the Gentile Christians in a common table fellowship. Paul uses the Greek verb synesthiein (“to eat together”) in an imperfect form (syn∑sthien; “was eating”) to state what apparently was Cephas’s habitual practice at this time. While Cephas was engaging in common table fellowship with the Gentile Christians in Antioch, some people from James arrived in that city. Commentators debate whether or not James sent these persons, but the simple, straightforward manner in which they are identified (lit., “certain ones from James”) leaves little room to doubt that these people are envoys sent by James to Antioch. When they came to that city, they found Cephas (and other Jewish Christians) sharing a common table with the Gentile Christians of Antioch. In fact, it may have been the case that word of this mixed table fellowship had reached Jerusalem, and James reacted by sending a delegation to Antioch to examine the situation, although the text itself does not give us such detailed information. Nevertheless, to give Cephas himself the benefit of the doubt, he probably found mixed table fellowship when he came to Antioch and then simply adopted that practice. Thus, what Cephas did actually went beyond the parameters of the Jerusalem agreement, for his actions confirmed the practice in Antioch of Jewish and Gentile Christians eating together, and so he behaves as if Jewish Christianity were Law-free on dietary matters.42 (The same Law-free position does not necessarily follow on circumcision.) What Cephas did and the response that his actions drew seem to indicate that this incident in

Galatians 2

Antioch occurred after the Jerusalem conference, since if it happened before that meeting the issue of dietary restrictions would have been a leading issue at the conference. Paul recounts further that when the people from James arrived, Cephas “withdrew” (Gk. hypostellein43) and “separated” (Gk. aphorizein44) himself from the mixed table fellowship. Both verbs, “to withdraw” and “to separate,” are presented in the imperfect tense, thereby indicating ongoing processes; so Paul seems to indicate that Cephas gradually backed out of his participation at the mixed table. Paul’s choice of words is remarkable. The Greek word hypostellein (“to withdraw”) is vocabulary from military and political life indicating a tactical maneuver to bring one into a sheltered position for motives of caution; in turn, the Greek word aphorizein (“to separate”) is a technical term from Judaism indicating cultic separation from that which is ritually unclean. Some scholars interpret this behavior to be the antithesis of what Paul names in v. 14, viz., “the truth of the gospel.”45 Along with telling what Cephas did that brought him condemnation, the last portion of v. 12 specifies why he acted as he did. Those from James came with a certain authority and apparently a persuasive argument. James was the brother of the Lord who appears to have become the chief figure in the leadership of the Jerusalem church. The Acts account seems to indicate that James emerged as the foremost member of the church of Jerusalem when Peter “departed and went to another place” at the time when Herod Agrippa tried to destroy him (Acts 12:17). James remained in authority in Jerusalem from sometime in the late 40s until his martyrdom at the hands of Jewish radicals in AD 62. Thus, when James (most likely) sent representatives from the Jerusalem church to Antioch in order to express the concerns of the Jerusalem Christians regarding practices of members of the Christian community at Antioch, Cephas reacted to the arrival of those from James by withdrawing from mixed Jewish and Gentile Christian fellowship at table. At issue in this instance was whether Jewish Christians were obligated to keep the Law (not whether Gentile Christians were under such an obligation). In these circumstances, Paul says that Cephas withdrew from fear—“fearing those from the circumcision.” It seems that Cephas withdrew to reestablish the old boundaries between Jews and Gentiles. Having participated as a Jewish Christian in fellowship that was free from dietary restrictions, Cephas sought to return to the practice of refusing to eat with Gentile Christians because they did not observe the dietary prescriptions and proscriptions of the Law. His stance was an

79

80

Galatians 2

abandonment of his previous attitude and actions; moreover, his withdrawal had the potential to produce a schism in the church between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Paul contends that Cephas sought separation and shelter from the situation because of fear.46 What, according to Paul, did Cephas fear? “Those from the circumcision.” [“Those from the Circumcision”] Precisely what that means, however, is ultimately impossible to tell. Are “those from the circumcision” present in Antioch, or are they there only by representation? Should one understand that “certain people from James” and “those from the circumcision” are the same group? Should one infer an association between “those from the circumcision” and the “false brothers and sisters” of the Jerusalem conference? Whatever Cephas feared, Paul saw it as ridiculous and irrelevant. And so Paul’s criJames D. G. Dunn, The Acts of the Apostles, Narrative Commentaries tique was of Cephas—not of James or of (Valley Forge PA: Trinity Press, 1996). James’s representatives. Having told of Cephas’s withdrawing and separating himself from the table fellowship with the Gentile Christians in Antioch, Paul continues by recalling what happened with the rest of the Jews (Gk. hoi loipoi Ioudaioi) at the time of Cephas’s action. First, Paul’s reference to “the rest of the Jews” should remind the reader that Greek-speaking Jewish Christians founded the church in Antioch. The initial preaching that was done in Antioch was to the Jews of that city; only later was the gospel proclaimed to the Gentiles directly. Second, in all likelihood there was a significant percentage of Jews among the Christians in Antioch, and, given that they were the founding group of the congregation, many of the leaders of the Antioch church were likely Jewish Christians (see Acts 11:19-26; 13:1). Cephas’s action, then, would have had a remarkable impact on the church, so that his separating himself from the Gentile Christians at table became something of an example to the rest of the Jewish Christians. Thus, Paul reports that “the rest of the Jews” joined Cephas in his withdrawal. Paul calls the withdrawal and separation of the Jewish Christians from the Gentile Christians an act of hypocrisy. He says that the rest of the Jews “joined in the hypocrisy” (Gk. synypekrith∑san). The verb employed here (Gk. synypokrinesthai) comes from language

“Those from the Circumcision” Peter withdrew from table fellowship with Gentile believers because he feared “those from the circumcision” (tous ek peritom∑s, Gal 2:12). A similar group of “those from the circumcision” (hoi ek peritom∑s) criticized Peter in Acts 11:2 after he ate at the house of Cornelius the centurion. Older translations rendered this phrase “the circumcision party” or “the circumcision group,” but it was not likely a well-defined faction or interest group operating either in Jerusalem or Antioch. At the same time, these believers did place great stock in circumcision. Dunn is surely right in stating that “their circumcised state was fundamental to their identity—hence, literally, ‘those of/from circumcision.’ They were some of ‘the apostles and the brothers’ but not necessarily all of ‘the circumcision’ . . . . They should not be demonized or caricatured: Peter had shared their viewpoint and only been changed by extraordinary signs of God’s will!” (149) Of course, Galatians 2 suggests that this change on the part of Peter took somewhat longer to crystallize than the narrative in Acts would lead us to believe.

Galatians 2

used to name the activity of actors on a stage.47 The verb refers to the process of making something appear to be different from how it really is.48 From Paul’s point of view, the other Jewish Christians were play-acting. Paul contends that Cephas and those who joined him do not believe in dietary restrictions but pretend to do so out of fear of those who came from James.49 They had been at table with the Gentile Christians but had then withdrawn for reasons that Paul judged to have no integrity. The outcome was that people went Cephas’s way, not Paul’s. Persuasive and powerful reasons must have been given to result in the rest of the Jewish Christians taking Cephas’s side in this matter. Paul’s language here is polemical and hard to translate. Yet, despite his protests, in fact, the rest of the Jewish Christians agreed with Cephas, not Paul. Paul did not persuade them, and this development was a political (in terms of church politics) victory for Cephas.50 In turn, having stated what happened—for the benefit of the Galatians—Paul gives further outcomes from the controversy in Antioch. Writing using the form of a “result clause” (Gk. høste; lit., “so that”), Paul makes the striking statement that “even Barnabas [Gk. kai Barnabas] . . . was carried away by their hypocrisy.” Paul expresses his profound disappointment, but he gives this information using language and forms of words that imply that Barnabas was swept away by irrational emotions (Gk. synap∑chth∑; from Gk. synapagesthai;51 lit., “to be carried away by irrational emotions”). Thus, Paul casts Cephas as the leader and Barnabas as one who was only following along with others. Nevertheless, what Barnabas did shows how difficult this issue really was. In turn, Acts reports that shortly after this time (perhaps also in relation to another matter— see Acts 15:36-41), Paul and Barnabas parted ways, though at 1 Corinthians 9:6 Paul sounds a more positive note regarding Barnabas than he does at this point in his letter to the Galatians. Paul directs his real vituperations, however, not at Barnabas and not even at those who came from James, but at Cephas whose reversal in behavior implied that the truth of the gospel could be reduced to matters of table fellowship. He explains the situation created by Cephas and the others’ actions and then explains why he intervened. Paul opens v. 14 with the strong adversative conjunction “but” (Gk. alla), which is coupled with the relative adverb “when” (Gk. hote); together they translate as “but when,” setting the following sentence in marked contrast with what has been stated previously. Thus, having commented on the behavior of Barnabas (and others), Paul registers a stark new line in his story-

81

82

Galatians 2

telling by recalling what happened next in the course of events that he is reporting. Paul observed the behavior of Cephas and those who joined him in withdrawing from or refusing to enter into mixed table fellowship between Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians. He has already referred to this behavior as hypocrisy, but now he is even more theologically explicit in his analysis of what was happening in Antioch. Paul says that “they did not live in a straightforward way regarding the truth of the gospel.” He uses striking language that spells out his interpretation of their behavior. The Greek word orthopodousin comes from the rare Greek verb orthopodein, and it is most literally translated “they make progress” or “they go straight forward.”52 The word does not have moral implications; rather, it signifies right thought and right action, so that one sees that Paul is critiquing attitude and behavior, not morals. He says that Cephas and the others did not do the right thing; they went in the wrong direction. What Paul says the Jewish Christians in Antioch failed to move toward was nothing other than “the truth of the gospel.” This phrase occurs here as it did at 2:5, where Paul was dealing with the issue of circumcision. Now, however, the concern before Paul is conformity to Jewish dietary restrictions. Obviously, the way Paul understood “the truth of the gospel” was not the way everyone else understood it. Perhaps the phrase was a Pauline locution that did not even register with others in the mix of early Christian thought and life. Whatever it meant to other people in the early church and whatever its origin, for Paul the phrase “the truth of the gospel” meant the freedom that God had brought into being in Jesus Christ—a freedom that made human manners of distinction irrelevant (especially religious practices), a freedom that came into being in Jesus Christ and that affected the lives of people as they heard the good news of what God does in Jesus Christ and as they believed. The truth is that the gospel is not about finding and doing the right religious practices. The gospel for Paul was that humans do not effect or maintain a relationship to God through various kinds of ritual, for God in Christ has gone beyond rituals to create a vital form of relationship between God and humankind. Paul would certainly fill out this sketch of the truth of the gospel, but in essence it means that persons of faith have a relationship with God in Jesus Christ that sets believers free from the necessity of attempting to use religious ritual as a way to establish and maintain such a relationship with God.

Galatians 2

83

In the context of this controversy, Paul says that he confronted Cephas “in front of all” (Gk. emprosthen pantøn). [Paul’s Public Rebuke] Whether this public reprimand was the first word that had passed between Paul and Cephas is impossible to tell. Paul’s Public Rebuke Readers of Galatians often notice, however, the That he rebuked him before all was necseeming inconsistency between what Paul essary, in order that everyone might be reports here and what he tells the Galatians to bettered by his rebuke. For it was not expedient to correct in secret an error that was doing public do at 6:1, which is to restore anyone who blunharm. It should be added that in his steadfastness ders “in a spirit of gentleness.” But here in the and charity Peter, to whom the Lord had said public setting, Paul is not so gentle as he is three times, Do you love me? Feed my sheep, was direct. Cephas’s actions had already taken the very ready to bear this rebuke from a junior shepsituation into the public sphere, and Paul reacts herd for the salvation of the flock. For the one in that setting as well. who was being rebuked was himself more remarkable and more difficult to imitate than the Paul recalls that he put a question to Cephas: one rebuking. For it is easier to see what one “If you . . . ?” How much of what Paul actually should correct in others than to see what ought to said is unknown. The remarks reported here be corrected in oneself. It is easier to correct almost certainly make up a summary of his others by admonishing and rebuking than to be complete comments. Moreover, one does not corrected readily even by yourself, let alone by find out from Paul’s report what Cephas said to another, still less if you add another and before all. (Augustine, Epistle to the Galatians 15 Paul, but it seems that the outcome was that [1B.2.11-16]) Paul’s speech did not carry the day and the body From Mark J. Edwards, ed., Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, of Jewish Christians agreed with Cephas. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, vol. 8, gen. ed. Nevertheless, the way that Paul states his quesThomas C. Oden (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 1999) 28. tion to Cephas is worth noticing: he casts the question in the form of a conditional sentence/question: “If . . . how . . . ?” The portion of the sentence that states the condition, “If you, being a Jew, live as a Gentile and not as a Jew . . . ,” assumes the reality of the condition that is stated—i.e., Cephas was living as a Gentile (before those from James came, though Paul’s language [present tense verbs] implies that such a lifestyle was Cephas’s ongoing manner of living). Given the reality of this supposition, Paul asks a forceful question that even implies shock at the developments: “How can you force the Gentiles to become Jews?” The implied answer is that he cannot do so. Paul’s language is striking throughout this section as he reports his remarks in confronting Cephas. While it is clear where Paul’s comments to Cephas begin in v. 14, it is not so clear where the reader is to understand that the statement to Cephas ends. Most translations and commentators judge that Paul’s question to Cephas in v. 14, “If . . . how . . . ,” makes up the actual extent of his words to Cephas, although it is not entirely clear that vv. 15-21 are not also part of what Paul said to Cephas. The difficulty in identifying the exact scope of Paul’s direct remarks to Cephas is the

84

Galatians 2

result of Paul’s moving from report to explication, i.e., from the report of his words to Cephas to his intended remarks to the readers in Galatia. Nevertheless, the majority of interpreters regard v. 14b as Paul’s report of his actual words to Cephas, while understanding vv. 15-21 to be further explanatory reasoning done in relation to the statement in v. 14b for the sake of his readers. Paul confronts Cephas because the implication of his withdrawal from table with the Gentile Christians is that these Gentiles should take on dietary purification practices in order to establish or maintain fellowship with observant Jewish Christians. Gentile Christians could protest, on one hand, that they were being forced to take on Jewish practices; but on the other hand—a problem that is often ignored—observant Jewish Christians could also protest that they were being forced to take on a Gentile lifestyle if they were to come to table fellowship while giving up their traditional purity laws. Clearly in the controversy in Antioch, the Jewish Christians went with Cephas and those from James in refusing to lay aside traditional religious practices for the sake of unity at the community table. Apparently the Jewish Christians were insisting that the Gentiles change their customary practices for the sake of community unity, not the other way around. Paul’s question to Cephas takes up this problem in explicit terms. Paul recognizes and confronts Cephas because he (Cephas) had been or even was living like a Gentile. Paul presents his comments as having been made to Cephas directly; the pronoun “you” is in the singular form as are the present tense verbs (“you live,” Gk. z∑s; and “you force,” Gk. anankazeis). Paul also refers to the distinct lifestyles that he is contrasting using colorful terminology. He employs two striking adverbs to note that Cephas was living “as a Gentile” (Gk. ethnikøs; lit., “Gentile-ly”)53 and not “as a Jew” (Gk. Ioudaïkøs; lit., “Jewish-ly”).54 Even the word “not” is remarkable in that Paul uses an emphatic form of “not” (Gk. ouchi) rather than the more usual form of “not” (Gk. ou).55 Paul contrasts these lifestyles, emphasizing that behind these different ways of life is the matter of Law observance. Paul’s contention is that Cephas is not living an observant lifestyle (note the present tense verb, “you live as a Gentile and not as a Jew”!), so that he accuses Cephas of dissembling and prevaricating. Nevertheless, whether one judges that hypocrisy was behind Cephas’s actions or not, Paul states that effectively what Cephas did in withdrawing from table fellowship was to “force the Gentiles to become Jews.” The language again is striking and seems deliberately chosen for the situation. First, for Paul to say that Cephas was

Galatians 2

85

trying to “force” (“you force,” Gk. anankazeis; from anankazein) the Gentiles to live like Jews is striking because the verb “to force” has already occurred at 2:3, where Paul reported that Titus was not “forced” to be circumcised at the conference in Jerusalem—though the implication is that the “false brothers and sisters” at the conference would have forced that circumcision if it had been possible. Then, in turn, the verb “to force” will recur at 6:12 when Paul writes of the preachers in Galatia wanting “to force” the Galatian Christians to submit themselves to being circumcised. Thus, for Paul, “to force” (Gk. anankazein) is to impose issues of Law observance—circumcision, dietary regulations, and calendar observance—on those who are not Jews. And so Paul employs another striking word to report his confrontation with Cephas: he says that he upbraided Cephas for what he was doing because it amounted to forcing the Gentiles “to Judaize” or “to become Jews” (Gk. ioudaïzein). [“Judaizers”] “To become a Jew” ultimately is more than merely taking on Jewish practices,56 but in that moment, at a minimum, for the Gentile Christians “to become Jews” would have meant that they would practice circumcision, “Judaizers” follow the dietary codes, and observe the Sabbath Scholars sometimes refer to those and other festivals. This use of ioudaïzein is the who insisted on circumcision for only New Testament usage of the term. The word Gentile converts as “Judaizers.” If we follow occurs rarely in other places such as Esther 8:17 the original Greek usage, this is not quite right. The term ioudaïzø found in Galatians 2:14 and Josephus’s J.W. 2.454, 46, where it has the ring (also [Greek] Esther 8:17; Magnesians 10:3) of artificiality, i.e., Gentiles acting like Jews but should be translated “to live as a Jew” or “to without conviction from the heart.57 live according to Jewish customs.” The word Paul does not report Peter’s reply to him, though thus designates not the act of compelling as commentators often observe, Paul does tell of others to uphold the Torah but simply the act the outcome of the conference in Jerusalem, while of following the Torah oneself. he does not state what happened after this confrontation in Antioch. Thus, interpreters argue that things did not go well for Paul in this encounter, because his silence seems to imply that he lost the debate. Was Paul, then, expelled from Antioch? It is not likely, since in a matter of decades both Luke in Acts and Ignatius in his letters present a positive impression of Paul and even look to him as somehow setting the standard by which the church in Antioch continued into the second century and beyond. It is of course possible that Paul’s words to Cephas turned the tide and that only Paul’s modesty kept him from giving specific information about the final outcome in Antioch. It is also possible that the Christians in Galatia knew the rest of the story of Antioch and had no need for Paul to go over the outcome again, once he had made his point about the illegitimacy of forcing Gentile

86

Galatians 2

Christians to take on Jewish practices. It is possible, though, that Paul did lose face in Antioch as the outcome of this conflict and that he was only later rehabilitated and remembered as an important figure for the Christians in Antioch. It is simply impossible to know or to say what the situation in Antioch was exactly, for we do not have the data we would need to develop a complete picture. Paul’s Explication of the Incident, 2:15-21. These verses constitute some of the most difficult lines in Paul’s letter to the churches of Galatia in terms of history, grammar, and theology. Paul’s biblical exegesis, which is challenging to follow in the rest of the letter, is about the only element of his writing here that is actually clear. These verses have been called a précis of Paul’s overall argument by several commentators, and they (the verses) are often seen as summarizing Paul’s points and argument in 1:11–2:14; moreover, interpreters have suggested that these verses both anticipate and lead into the passages that follow, especially in 3:1–4:11.58 The first issue that demands attention is the question of where Paul’s remarks to Cephas, already seen in 2:14, end. Does Paul conclude his words to Cephas after v. 14, v. 16, v. 17, or v. 21? A case can be made for any one of these (and perhaps other places as well). But in considering this problem, one should not forget that wherever Paul’s statement to Cephas ends, the verses being considered are intended for the Galatians, even if the verses report what was first said to Cephas. The first-person plural pronoun “we” opens v. 15, seemingly reporting what Paul said to Cephas in Antioch that would have been relevant to the two of them, as well as to the other Jewish Christians involved in the controversy that had arisen there. This focus on “we” continues clearly through v. 17, so that if one understands v. 15 or vv. 15-16 to be a report of what Paul said to Cephas, then there may be every reason to think that Paul’s report of his remarks continues at least through v. 17. In turn, v. 18 employs the first-person singular pronoun “I.” This change of pronouns probably indicates a rhetorical strategy whereby Paul speaks of himself as the paradigmatic “I,” thus taking the brunt of his remarks to himself and not aiming them directly at Cephas or others. Paul’s use of “I” runs through v. 21, so that he either shifts his language in speaking to Cephas, meaning that he recalls his statements to Cephas in vv. 14-21, or that he concludes his report of past statements somewhere prior to v. 21 and takes a new direction in the ensuing verses. In this case, not all of vv. 14-21 is to be taken as what Paul said originally in Antioch, but rather some lines are to be understood as Paul’s words to the Galatians.

Galatians 2

Most commentators conclude that Paul ends the report of his speech to Cephas after v. 14, although some interpreters contend that v. 21 is the most likely place where Paul ends his report of his statement in Antioch. The issue cannot be resolved with certainty. Nevertheless, it is imperative to remember that wherever the report of Paul’s remarks ends and his further epistolary statements begin, all the verses in Galatians are intended for the Galatians and their situation, not merely as a memory of Antioch. Paul is not simply rehearsing the past; he is using the past to illustrate and articulate his argument with those in Galatia who are advocating Law observance. The incident in Antioch foreshadowed the kind of problem that Paul was facing with the Galatian churches. In v. 15 Paul recognizes an “us/them” split between Jews and Gentiles. The references to Jews and Gentiles are made from a Jewish (or here, Jewish Christian) point of view. As Paul states the matter, Jews are Jews by birth (lit., “by nature” in Gk. physis), so that their identity is racially or ethnically determined. On one hand, Jews understood themselves to have the benefits of the Sinai covenant (the Law); but on the other hand, Gentiles were born outside the covenant and so were considered “sinners” (i.e., without the Law and thus not Law-observant) from a Jewish point of view.59 Paul’s use of traditional Jewish terminology at this point seemingly puts him on a common footing with other Jewish Christians (in Antioch or Galatia), who would still maintain the old distinctions between Jews and Gentiles in the life of the church. But v. 16 shifts the focus by referring to what Paul says Jewish Christians knew in the context of their life in Christ. Specifically what Paul says they knew, and should have been willing and able to agree on, was 1. a person is not justified by works of the Law, 2. a person is justified through the faith of Jesus Christ, 3. Paul and the other Jewish Christians believed in Jesus Christ in order to be justified by the faith of Christ and not by works of the Law, 4. because “nobody will be justified by works of the Law.” This set of beliefs, foundational to Christian life, is complicated and requires a careful reading. If vv. 15-21 are a précis of Paul’s letter, then v. 16 is effectively Paul’s understanding of the gospel (especially in relation to the situation in Galatia) in a telegraphic form. This verse is full of theological language and concepts that demand attention for comprehension. Practically every word of the

87

88

Galatians 2

verse merits close exegetical analysis; indeed a detailed treatment of the verse would be extensive beyond the scope of this commentary. Rather than refer to “Jews” and “Gentiles,” now Paul writes about “a person” (Gk. anthrøpos), a way of identifying a human being that transcends racial or ethnic designations (an anticipation of Gal 3:28). Thus, what Paul is about to say is applicable to anyone or to every person. His focus is on a person’s being “justified” (Gk. dikaioun). This remark, however, introduces one of the key word groups in Paul’s theological reflection, a word group that is essentially impossible to translate from Greek into English while preserving the original relationships between the Greek words. The Greek words and the English words that are usually used to translate them are as follows: dikaioun (verb). to justify; to rectify; to make righteous dikaiosyn∑ (noun), justification; rectification; righteousness dikaios (adjective), just; righteous; innocent Confusion sets in because the verb is most often translated “to justify”; the noun “righteousness”; and the adjective either “just” or “righteous.”60 Readers of English translations of the Greek New Testament should be aware of this situation and keep in mind that the English words given above represent the translation of a cluster of words in Greek that share a common stem and, therefore, a common basic sense of meaning in their usage. In summary, the language in this passage (2:15-21), in English translation, alternates between “to justify” and “righteousness,” but one should recognize that “to justify” (dikaioun) and “righteousness” (dikaiosyn∑) are from the same word group in Greek. Paul’s language regarding “to justify” and “righteousness” is at the heart of his theological vision of God and humanity (and all creation for that matter): God justifies or makes right (i.e., makes righteous) the human being by the power of God’s grace through faith. [The Social Dimension of Justification] “To justify” a person means to set that person into a right relationship, here in Galatians (as elsewhere in Paul’s letters), to God. For a person to be set in a right relationship to God is for the person to experience righteousness, so that by virtue of God’s setting right what is wrong, the person is justified.61 Commentators debate whether “justification” is being pronounced “not guilty” (now and on judgment day) or whether “justification” is the transformation of the believer through grace now and on to perfection in the future. Texts in Romans

Galatians 2

89

(e.g., 4:1-8, esp. 6-8) are used to bolster The Social Dimension of Justification the “forensic” view that believers are essenThough Paul’s teaching clearly has direct meaning for the individual sinner who wants to know how tially pronounced “not guilty”; while to become acceptable to God, the context in which Paul 2 Corinthians (5:16-21, esp. 19 and 21) developed his teaching regarding justification by faith was can be cited as indicating that God’s work the conflict in the first-century church between [those] with believers has begun in God’s for- who insisted that gentile converts should be circumcised giving trespasses and transforming and obey Jewish food laws and those who did not so believers to become God’s righteousness in believe . . . . In brief, Jews and some Christians argued that gentiles Christ in the present. may become part of God’s chosen people by becoming Pitting a forensic understanding of justipart of the Jewish people. Since circumcision was a sign fication against a transformational of God’s covenant with his people, gentile Christians comprehension of righteousness (with should therefore be circumcised. Paul argued in Romans “justification” and “righteousness” being and Galatians that Christ makes salvation available for two ways to translate dikaiosyn∑) seems everyone who has faith, whether Jew or gentile. Gentile ultimately shortsighted. Insisting on one Christians therefore do not need to become Jews. The of these facets rather than the other misses teaching of justification by faith enabled Paul to affirm the the beauty of the complementarity of the universality of the gospel. Unfortunately in the history of the church, the social context in which Paul developed his two aspects of Paul’s thought when taken teaching was forgotten once the church became a gentile together. church. The doctrine of justification by faith has become What sets a person right with God— limited to personal religious experience and salvation. A forensically or transformationally? Paul careful study of Paul’s Letters in their historical setting writes in a way that gets at the answer to reveals an often neglected social dimension in the docthat question in v. 16. Here, he juxtaposes trine of justification by faith. Roger L. Omanson, “Justification,” Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, ed. two phenomena, both of which he pres- From Watson E. Mills et al. (Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1990) 483. ents as claiming to be the key to being set right with God: first, Paul mentions “works of Law” (Gk. erga nomou, which may be translated into English more elegantly as “works of the Law”); second, he refers literally to “faith of Jesus Christ” (Gk. pistis I∑sou Christou, which may also be translated “faith in Jesus Christ”). We will take these two items one at a time. First, three times in this verse Paul refers to “works of the Law,” and each time he uses a preposition, ek in Greek, which can be translated primarily as “from” or “by” (though several other words are also possible as English translations). Almost all, if not all, interpreters of Galatians agree that in the instances of Paul’s use of ek with ergøn nomou, “works of the Law,” he intends to indicate that the claim has been made that justification occurs “by means of works of the Law.” The preposition “by” (Gk. ek) can be used in a wide variety of ways, one of which in this instance is a striking genitive of means, best translated “by” or “by means of.”62 When “by” is used in this manner in v. 16 (in conjunction with “works of the Law”—see 2:16 [3x]; 3:2, 5, 10), Paul states that one way some people claim that a person is

90

Galatians 2

justified is by means of the Law. Simply stated, Paul means “Law observance,” or keeping the statutes and precepts of the Mosaic Law (or the Sinai covenant—this becomes quite clear in chs. 3 and 4). Paul tells his readers in the Galatian churches what they already know, viz., that there are those in the early church who insist that it is necessary for Gentile converts to Christianity to follow and keep the Law as it was given by God to Moses on Sinai. Exactly how the Law functioned in first-century Judaism (and apparently among certain Christian Jews) is remarkable, since for centuries Christianity attempted to relate to Judaism while working with a distorted caricature of Jewish belief and practice. Ancient Judaism is often cast as a structured legalistic religion wherein adherents to the religion tried to keep the Law, granted at Sinai through Moses to Israel, in an effort to achieve sufficient merits in order to obtain salvation. In this endeavor, obedience was rewarded and violations of the Law were punished with salvation being ultimately at stake in the enterprise. While some scholars still labor with this understanding of ancient Judaism, others have moved away from this paradigm to another appreciation of said Judaism. The groundbreaking work of E. P. Sanders63 helped bring new insight into the scholarly understanding of ancient Judaism (unfortunately, at certain levels much misunderstanding of ancient Judaism still exists), bringing about a new appreciation of the nature of Judaism in antiquity and also of factions of Jewish Christianity (or, sometimes better, Christian Judaism), probably including some of those with whom Paul contested on the mission field of the Mediterranean world. The Law functioned in ancient Judaism in a broad pattern of practiced religion. Judaism itself was understood to rest on the twin pillars of election and atonement. The origins of Judaism were seen in God’s choice or election of Israel as the people of God. This election began with Abraham and extended to and through Abraham’s heirs down through the centuries. From a Jewish point of view, it was in relation to this election that God had granted the Law to Israel. In turn, Israel kept the Law as a covenantal response to God’s gift of election. It is crucial to see that Israel’s (the Jews’) keeping of the Law was a response to God’s election and gift of the Law; it was Israel’s response to God’s election, which was itself the source of Israel’s salvation. Ancient Judaism taught that God chose Israel and gave Israel the Law as the norm of Israel’s response to God’s election (and also gift of the Law). Keeping the Law, Law observance, was Israel’s participation in the covenant that God had made with Israel. In the

Galatians 2

91

context of this covenant, the Jews believed that they were rewarded for obedience and punished for disobedience. Yet in Judaism there was (in the Law itself ) provision for Jews to make amends for whatever transgressions of the Law occurred. The Law prescribed for the Jews certain means of repentance that were effected through established acts of penitence. For those who practiced or observed the Law faithfully, certain acts of contrition were available that assured the practitioners of God’s forgiveness. Herein, Law observance was a means to maintain one’s relationship to God—it was not a way to win salvation. Thus, when Paul writes of “works of the Law,” referring to the practice of Law observance, he refers to the method of maintaining—not obtaining—a relationship to God. Second, Paul writes twice in v. 16 of “faith of Jesus Christ/faith in Jesus Christ,”64 the first time using the preposition dia, which can be translated in a variety of ways but primarily as “through” with a genitive object, or “because of ” with an accusative object. Paul uses the genitive form, pisteøs, here in Galatians. Paul’s phrase in Greek, dia pisteøs I∑sou Christou, translates into English literally as “through the faith of Jesus Christ” or “through faith in Jesus Christ.” Paul’s second use of a form of the phrase pistis I∑sou Christou is in conjunction with the preposition ek, which we have seen is usually translated with “from” or “by” (with the genitive form, pisteøs, as Paul writes here); so that Paul’s phrase, which is slightly distinct in form from the first usage, is ek pisteøs Christou, which can be rendered literally as “by the faith of Christ” or “by faith in Christ.” How is one to understand these phrases? Does Paul say that a person is justified (1) “through the faith of Jesus Christ” and “by the faith of Christ” or (2) “through faith in Jesus Christ” and “by faith in Christ”? [Pistis Christou] Some clarity is gained in noting that in this same verse Paul writes another (a third) prepositional phrase related to Christ65 that is part of a larger clause, “indeed we ourselves believed in Christ Jesus” (Gk. kai h∑meis eis Christon I∑soun episteusamen), that has Pistis Christou One of the loudest debates in recent Pauline studies involves the translation of a single Greek phrase, pistis Christou. This phrase is found in Gal 2:16 (2x), 20; 3:22; Rom 3:22, 26; and Phil 3:9 (see also Eph 3:12). Pistis may be translated as either “faith” or “faithfulness.” Christou is the genitive form of Christos, meaning “Christ” or “anointed.” The thrust of the debate is whether this word should be interpreted as an objective or a subjective genitive. An objective genitive would make Christ the object of faith: “faith in Christ.” This is how the phrase has been tradi-

tionally understood. If, however, Christou is understood to be a subjective genitive, then Christ’s own faith (or faithfulness) is under consideration: “the faith(fulness) of Christ.” A growing number of New Testament scholars have advocated this interpretation. But which is correct? Each side would seem to offer compelling evidence. In support of the traditional interpretation, for example, the following should be noted: 1. In other passages, a genitive Christou refers to Christ as the object. For example, see Phil 3:8 (“knowledge of Christ

92

Galatians 2

Jesus”) and 1 Thess 1:3 (“hope of our Lord Jesus Christ”). In both verses, Paul is clearly not describing Christ’s own knowledge or hope but rather the believer’s knowledge of or hope in Christ. 2. It is sometimes said that the traditional reading creates a redundancy in Rom 3:21-22 (see below). But this is not as big a problem as it appears. If Paul intended to place the emphasis in these verses on the “all”—that God’s righteousness is for all who trust in Christ—then the repetition is likely intended for rhetorical effect. 3. Finally, though the subjective genitive reading may be theologically attractive, theological attractiveness is not a valid criterion for doing proper exegesis. One cannot do exegesis with an eye toward what appears to support one’s prior theological inclinations. The key question should not be “How does this support my position?” but rather “What did the biblical author mean?” 4. None of the early church fathers read the phrase as a subjective genitive. It isn’t that they explicitly reject this reading. On the contrary, they display no awareness of the option at all. In favor of the newer interpretation, however, one might say the following: 1. Translating pistis Christou as “the faithfulness of Christ” avoids redundancy in key passages (see point 3 above). Reading pistis Christou objectively, Rom 3:22 would read, “the righteousness of God through faith in Christ for all who have faith.” Read subjectively, however, the verse would say, “the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Christ to all who have faith.” Why should the faith of Christians matter before God? Because it is grounded in Christ’s own faithfulness. Similarly, Gal 2:16 with the objective genitive reading would say, “We have come to have faith in Christ, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law.” With a subjective genitive, the passage reads, “We have come to have faith in Christ, so that we might be justified by the faithfulness of Christ, and not by doing the works of the law.” 2. The reference to “the faithfulness of Abraham” (pistis Abraam) in Rom 4:16 provides a parallel to “the faithfulness of Christ.” 3. The subjective genitive reading highlights the contrast between Israel’s unfaithfulness and Christ’s faithfulness in key passages in Galatians. 4. The faithfulness of Christ leading to his death is an early theme in Christian preaching. See, for example, Phil 2:8:

“[H]e humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross.” 5. The subjective genitive reading highlights the theme of union with Christ, a key aspect of Pauline theology, and also highlights the Christocentric nature of salvation. Ultimately, the faithfulness of human beings—which clearly figures into Paul’s theology by anyone’s estimation—is meaningless without Christ’s own prior faithfulness to God in fulfilling his salvific mission. In short, this reading can be said to give greater glory to Christ. For Further Reading Markus Barth, “The Faith of the Messiah,” The Heythrop Journal 10/4 (October 1969): 363–70. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle, eds., The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (Grand Rapids MI: Baker, 2010). David W. Congdon, “The Trinitarian Shape of pivsti~: A Theological Exegesis of Galatians,” Journal of Theological Interpretation 2/2 (2008): 231–58. Matthew C. Easter, “The Pistis Christou Debate: Main Arguments and Responses in Summary,” Currents in Biblical Research (October 2010): 9:33–47. Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11 (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2002). Morna D. Hooker, “PISTIS CHRISTOU,” New Testament Studies 35/3 (July 1989): 321–42. Luke Timothy Johnson, “Rom 3:21-26 and the Faith of Jesus,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44/1 (January 1982): 77–90. D. W. B. Robinson, “‘Faith of Jesus Christ’—A New Testament Debate,” The Reformed Theological Review 29/3 (September-December, 1970): 71–81. Greer M. Taylor, “The Function of PISTIS CHRISTOU in Galatians,” Journal of Biblical Literature 85/1 (March 1966): 58–76. Trevin Wax, “’Faith in Christ’ or ‘Faithfulness of Christ,’” The Gospel Coalition, 23 May 2011, . Joel Willitts, “Pistis Christou—A Working Hypothesis,” Euangelion, .

Galatians 2

some relationship to how one understands Paul’s two references to “faith of Jesus Christ/faith in Jesus Christ.” In this third phrase one finds that the preposition eis (which takes its object in the accusative case) is to be translated “in” in relation to its object “Christ Jesus” (Gk. Christon I∑soun). Thus, in the form of this third prepositional phrase, there seems to be a clear reference to “in Christ Jesus” in conjunction with the verbal expression “we believed” (Gk. episteusamen); so that in this third instance Paul writes about believing in Christ Jesus “in order that we might be justified.” Many interpreters argue that this clear statement, “indeed we ourselves have believed in Christ Jesus,” provides the key to understanding the other prepositional phrases (one with dia and one with ek) that deal with “faith” and “Christ.” These commentators contend that when read in conjunction with one another, all three phrases should be understood as making pronouncements about “faith in Christ.” Other interpreters, however, notice the distinct forms of the phrases and conclude that Paul writes the clauses distinctly and deliberately, so that the genitive constructions with dia and ek refer to “the faith of Jesus Christ/the faith of Christ” and the accusative phrase with eis makes a statement about “believing in Christ Jesus.” In this understanding, the three prepositional phrases are to be read in relationship to one another as follows: “a person is . . . justified . . . through the faith of Jesus Christ; indeed we ourselves believed in Christ Jesus, in order that we might be justified by the faith of Christ. . . .” Here, then, “the faith of Jesus Christ” brings about the justification of human beings, who, in that justification, come to “believe in Christ Jesus”; so that the three prepositional phrases are related, but not to be read as saying the same thing. Interpreters on both sides of this debate marshal a striking number of additional arguments for each of the readings of the genitive constructions (“faith of ” or “faith in”),66 while nearly everyone seems to agree that this interpretive issue is still yet to be resolved.67 Beyond the grammatical issues—i.e., asking whether the genitive phrases are subjective genitives (“faith of Jesus Christ” and “faith of Christ) or objective genitives (“faith in Jesus Christ” and “faith in Christ”)—one theological matter seems (to me) to overshadow the whole discussion of these phrases. In matters related to “justification,” Paul’s focus is primarily on God’s work in Jesus Christ, not on the human reaction to that work. J. Louis Martyn points out that the two understandings (the faith that Christ had and enacted or the faith that human beings have in Christ) produce very different readings of the theology of the entire letter. He asks whether the faith that God has chosen as the means

93

94

Galatians 2

of setting things right is that of Christ himself or that of human beings. Martyn insists that when 2:16 is taken with 2:21 in the context of Paul’s overall theological outlook, one sees that Paul speaks of “the faith of Christ, meaning his death in our behalf.” Furthermore, Martyn contends that in a decidedly secondary place, Paul does write of placing one’s trust in this faithfulness of Christ; this, Martyn states, is a matter no less significant for being secondary.68 Thus, when theological considerations are added to the grammatical issues, it seems best to understand that Paul writes of “the faith of Jesus Christ” rather than “faith in Jesus Christ.” It is the faith of Jesus Christ that brings faith in Jesus Christ into being. These two (“faith of ” and “faith in”) exist together, but one is theologically prior to the other in Paul’s vision of God’s justifying work with humanity in and through Jesus Christ. Two brief grammatical issues regarding v. 16 merit attention before taking up the last major matter in this verse. First, as noted above, Paul juxtaposes “works of the Law” and “faith of Jesus Christ” in his discussion of the justification of believers. Paul’s contrasting of these two phrases is striking because of the conjunction that he uses to relate the phrases to each other. He writes (in part), “. . . a person is not justified by works of the Law ean m∑ through the faith of Jesus Christ. . . .” The conjunction, ean m∑, is usually “exceptive” in force and so translated “except,” “if not,” or “unless”—though it can be “adversative” and translated “but” or “but rather.” Interpreters who argue for the exceptive reading tend to understand Paul to say, “A person is not justified by works of the law except/unless by faith in Jesus Christ”; so that Paul is understood to be saying that a person may be justified by works of the Law if those works are accompanied by or are in conjunction with faith in Jesus Christ. Other commentators, however, read ean m∑ as “adversative” and conclude that Paul is excluding works of the Law completely from justification, which comes only “through the faith of Jesus Christ” (or “by faith in Jesus Christ”). Taking into account what Paul says in the rest of Galatians (and in the rest of his letters), the adversative understanding of Paul’s ean m∑ seems, rightly, to have the majority of supporters today, though there are notable exceptions.69 Second, “justification”: the three uses of the verb “to justify” (dikaioun) in v. 16 are all in the passive voice. “Justification,” then, is something that human beings experience as a result of action taken by someone other than themselves. In the NT, the unnamed actor in a passive construction is usually taken to be “God,” so that

Galatians 2

Paul seems to assume (and to say) that it is what God does that brings about justification, not what human beings do themselves. Finally, in v. 16 Paul writes a concluding clause, “. . . because nobody will be justified by works of the Law.” At the outset of the verse, Paul presented two phrases that register a sharp contrast in how a person is justified. Negatively, he says, “a person is not justified by works of the Law,” and in juxtaposition, he says positively, “a person is justified through the faith of Jesus Christ.” In turn, two further clauses follow that deal with justification and contrast the faith of Christ and the works of the Law. Then, in the last clause of v. 16, in a slightly different form, Paul emphatically repeats the negative half of this equation: “(because) nobody will be justified by works of the Law.” This final statement is repetitious and creates emphasis for Paul’s remark, which now explains why nobody will be justified in any way other than faith in/of Christ. Interpreters almost universally recognize this final clause of v. 16 as a quotation, albeit modified, from Psalm 143:2 (142:2 LXX). Paul apparently found this psalm text helpful, for he presents it again in a slightly modified form in Romans 3:20. In both Galatians and Romans, Paul uses the quote from the psalm to support his argument in the letters. It is helpful to compare Paul’s “citations” with the text of the LXX: LXX: hoti ou dikaiøthm∑setai enøpion sou pas zøn, “because everyone living will not be justified before you” Galatians 2:16: hoti ex ergøn nomou ou dikaiøthm∑setai pasa sarx, “because by works of the Law all flesh will not be justified” Romans 3:20: dioti ex ergøn nomou ou dikaiøthm∑setai pasa sarx enøpion autou, “for by works of the Law all flesh will not be justified before him” The “because” (hoti) is causal, indicating why “not by works of the Law” (ouk ex ergøn nomou) is true. In the quotation that follows the hoti, Paul’s alterations change the plain sense of the psalm text in order to use the psalm citation (or at least its modified form) in support of his argument that no one is or will be justified by works of the Law. In working his changes on the quotation from the psalm, Paul adapts the citation to the situation. Rather than “everyone living” (LXX; Gk. pas zøn), Paul writes, literally, “all flesh” (Galatians and Romans; Gk. pasa sarx)—perhaps speaking of

95

96

Galatians 2

“flesh” because of the emphasis on “circumcision” in the Galatian controversy. He also adds the words “by works of the Law” (Galatians and Romans; Gk. ex ergøn nomou) to make the LXX text more pertinent to the situation he faces. And finally, in Galatians Paul has omitted “before you/him” (LXX and Romans; Gk. enøpion sou/autou), a change that softens the more judgmental tone of the citation as it occurs in the psalm and Romans. What does all this accomplish? As Betz observes, now Paul has introduced two different kinds of evidence in support of his argument: first, eyewitness evidence (“we ourselves believed” in v. 16b), and second, proof from Scripture (the psalm text with its adaptations).70 Verse 17 presents a grammatically complicated statement that is rendered variously in English versions. Translated into English with as few alterations as possible from Greek, the verse reads, “But if while seeking to be justified in Christ we ourselves were also found to be sinners, then, is Christ a servant of sin? Absolutely not!” This verse has three parts: 1. But if while seeking to be justified in Christ we ourselves were also found to be sinners, 2. then, is Christ a servant of sin? 3. Absolutely not! The first two clauses form a question in the form of a “real” conditional sentence, i.e., the form of the sentence assumes that the condition stated in the protasis (the first clause forming the “if ” statement) is true. In other words, Paul states (A) that he and other Jewish Christians sought to be justified in Christ71—this much is without doubt; but he continues to say (B) that they were found to be sinners, a remark that could itself be true or false, although the grammatical form of the sentence seems to indicate that the statement is true and not merely a false allegation against Paul and others like him who have ceased Law observance.72 What do these two assertions mean? Paul seems to say that he and other Jewish Christians placed their trust for justification in Christ (see v. 16), and so they were judged by others to be “sinners.” In this context, “sinner” means one who is not Law-observant, normally Gentiles (see v. 15), but in this instance Paul refers to Jewish Christians who ceased Law observance in the mixed community of Christian Jews and Gentiles. These Jewish Christians turned away from Law observance and became the same as Gentiles who were not Law-

Galatians 2

97

observant; therefore, they were regarded as “sinners” from the point of view of Law-observant Jews and Christian Jews. The second clause of the conditional sentence that Paul writes is itself a question. The Greek interrogative particle ara and the utterly negative phrase “Absolutely not!” (Gk. m∑ genoito) show that Paul’s words form a question and answer. Moreover, Diatribe the answer “Absolutely not!” indicates—as it does at Diatribe is characterized by rhetormany points in Paul’s letters—that he has formed a ical features of a dialogical nature, question that has rhetorical force. Paul achieves this including the introduction of imaginary oppovigor in part because he shaped the question and nents or interlocutors, and hypothetical objections and false conclusions. Introducing answer in the style of a diatribe,73 a rhetorical techan imaginary interlocutor can take the form nique that his readers would have been familiar of a series of questions and answers with. [Diatribe] Paul probably could not have made a between the author and the interlocutor, with stronger negative statement, and it is his practice either one leading. Hypothetical objections after making such negative declarations to offer a and false conclusions are also commonly logical refutation to the statement or question that placed on the lips of the interlocutor, allowing the author to introduce and clarify typical he is denying. objections or possible misunderstandings of But what does it mean to suggest that Christ is “a the arguments at hand, and to move to a servant of sin”? Apparently those who moved away new phase in the argumentation as a whole. from Law observance were seen by others to be These objections and false conclusions are acting in such a way that they were themselves rejected by the author, often beginning with giving the impression that Christ was promoting a phrase like “by no means!” (m∑ genoito). sin. For Law-observant believers, to cease observing Duane F. Watson, “Diatribe,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne et al. (Downers Grove IL: the Law was to become a “sinner,” and if those who InterVarsity, 1993) 213. gave up Law observance were “sinners” as a result of their relationship to Christ, then it appeared that Christ was working in sin’s behalf. It is impossible to tell whether Paul’s question and answer are sheer rhetoric in the face of controversy or whether they are an actual accusation by others and a response from Paul’s experience in the early church. Paul’s concern to uphold the Christians’ freedom from Law observance “in Christ” is, however, quite clear. In v. 18 Paul shifts from the first-person plural (“we”) to the firstperson singular (“I”). Commentators discuss whether Paul is writing actually about himself or using the “I” as an ideal impersonal figure that could apply to any and all Jewish Christians in the position that he describes. Perhaps he is doing some of both, for while his reflections in vv. 18-21 would be applicable to any and all Jewish Christians in such a situation, Paul’s remarks betray a passion that suggests profound personal involvement with what is being written about here. While this issue cannot be resolved, it is still crucial to notice the shift in Paul’s argument from “we” to “I,” since this change may signal the end of Paul’s remarks directly to

98

Galatians 2

Cephas and other Jewish Christians and the beginning of his remarks directly to the Galatians. The verse provides a logical refutation of the charge against Paul (and Christ?), that his laying aside Law observance made him a sinner and that his actions implied that Christ was promoting sin. Paul’s refutation takes the form of an explanation that is clear from his beginning the sentence with “for” (Gk. gar, a postpositive conjunction), which itself has the sense of “because.” In other words, in v. 17 Paul asked and answered, “Is Christ a servant of sin? Absolutely not!” And now, in v. 18, he continues, “Because . . . .” Paul’s explanation is relatively self-explanatory. He casts his statement here as yet another simple/real conditional sentence that assumes the remark being made is true. In vivid, graphic language Paul says (literally), [protasis:] “If the things I tore down, these things again I build up, [apodosis:] (then) I demonstrate myself to be a transgressor.” The language of construction colors Paul’s references to (1) putting aside Law observance (“I tore down”) and to (2) resuming Law observance (“again I build up”). He continues by saying that such activity—i.e., first shunning Law observance and then taking up Law observance again—would itself be the proof or demonstration of his being a “transgressor.” The word Paul uses for “transgressor” or “trespasser” (Gk. parabat∑s) refers to someone who violates a boundary. Ernest DeWitt Burton observes that Paul’s uses of parabat∑s eliminates ambiguity from his remarks, since in the context of this discussion in Galatians the word indicates a violator of the real intent of the Law; furthermore, Burton contends that while “sinner” (Gk. harmartølos) seems to refer to a technical violator of the Law, “transgressor” or “trespasser” refers to a real sinner, “one who, obedient to the statutes, misses the real meaning of the law.”74 Paul’s remarks in this verse stand a certain form of Jewish Christian thinking on its head, for he speaks in a way that indicates that taking up Law observance is itself the source of or even the act of transgression. The laying aside of Law observance had, from Paul’s point of view, been participation in God’s tearing down barriers in Christ. If Paul returned to Law observance, it would have been an act of defiance toward God’s own work in Christ. Given what Paul thought (knew!) God was doing, he could do no other than cease Law observance for the sake of the unity of Jews and Gentiles in the new community in Christ. By implication, if God’s work in Christ led Paul to lay aside his observance of the Law, then it would make no sense for the Galatians to involve themselves in taking up Law observance.

Galatians 2

Paul continues his clarification in v. 19. The verse opens as did the previous verse with the word “for” (Gk. gar; a postpositive conjunction), which signals the introduction of an explanation. Readers of Galatians in either critical Greek texts or in English translations immediately encounter a problem. How many clauses are in v. 19? Two or three? The King James (or Authorized) Version and some other English translations present only two clauses (“For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God” [AV]), whereas the N-A 28th and some English translations include a third clause in v. 19 (“. . . I have been crucified with Christ”) that is placed by AV and other translations in v. 20. To summarize the situation succinctly, the clause (“. . . I have been crucified with Christ”) belongs physically in v. 19 in the Greek text, no matter how it is interpreted; but commentators variously take the line with the other words of v. 19 or the words of v. 20 for interpretation of the text of Paul’s letter. As will be seen in what follows, the clause (“. . . I have been crucified with Christ”) is taken with the other clauses of v. 19 in this commentary. However one resolves the issue of dividing the text between vv. 19 and 20, now one finds Paul explaining his earlier question and answer in v. 17 (“Is Christ a servant of sin? Absolutely not!”) by stating, “I myself died through the Law to the Law. . . .” This first clause of v. 19 stands as a declaration, although it is clearly the first part of a longer sentence that continues, “. . . in order that I might live to God.” The sentence presents a striking juxtaposition: the Law and God. Paul says that he died to the Law in order to live to God. It follows that if he had to die to the Law, that he had been living to the Law. But now, dead to the Law, Paul is alive to God. His words imply a fissure between God and the Law. One wonders whether Paul could have penned the converse: “Alive to the Law, I was dead to God”—certainly not as a Law-observant Pharisee. Through the history of the interpretation of this passage, many past commentators (and more than a few current ones) have taken the position that Paul died to the Law, through the Law, because he could not bear the burden of observing the statutes of the Law. According to this line of interpretation, Paul considered the Law oppressive and found a way out of his impossible situation by coming to faith in Jesus Christ. This reading of the text, of course, will not stand up to the weight of its erroneous assumptions. A glance at Philippians 3:6 shows that Paul the Pharisee was not laboring under the load of an impossible burden (see also Gal 1:13-14). In fact, in Philippians, the Christian Paul remembers his days of Law observance and states that with regard to righteousness

99

100

Galatians 2

in the Law, he was faultless. As Sanders has observed, Paul’s religious mind does not run from plight to solution, but from solution to plight.75 Paul does not begin with a problem with the Law that he resolves by becoming Christian. Rather, as a Christian he begins with his vision of Christ (Gal 1:12, 15-17) and evaluates everything, including the Law, from his Christian point of view. Paul states that the purpose of his death to the Law was in order that he “might live to God.” Should he have said, “I died through the cross to the Law, in order that I might live to God,” then his meaning would have seemed clear.76 But that is not what he writes, and so what does it mean to die “through the Law to the Law”? Perhaps some help for understanding comes from a look at the last clause in v. 19 (which many interpreters read in relation to v. 20). Here, immediately after writing of death “through the Law to the Law” and stating the purpose of that death as living to God, Paul writes, “I have been crucified with Christ.”77 Could this statement itself be a word of explanation for the preceding lines? Could being “crucified with Christ” be directly related to dying “through the Law to the Law”? Some interpreters think so. Especially notable is Galatians 3:13, where Paul writes, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, becoming a curse for us—because it has been written, ‘Accursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’” From this perspective, Christ died, cursed by the Law; he and the Law were at absolute odds with each other. What Paul does not speak of here, but what is of ultimate significance, is the resurrection of Christ (Gal 1:1). Obviously the curse pronounced by the Law was shown to be false and powerless in the light of God’s raising from the dead the one who bore the curse. As Paul is “crucified with” Christ, he participates both in Christ’s confrontation with the Law and in Christ’s death, which itself exposes the Law as being impotent and ultimately unable to curse Christ. Paul’s use of “to be crucified with” (Gk. systauroun) is striking because he refers to his participation in Christ’s crucifixion (“I have been crucified with Christ”; Gk. synestaurømai) with a perfect tense verb, which indicates a past action that still has present significance. What Christ accomplished at the cross has permanent meaning for Paul as he undergoes a lasting transformation in his relationship to the Law, for when this weakness in the Law is exposed, Paul’s evaluation of the Law and its authority had to be adjusted accordingly. For a zealous Pharisee, from what Paul writes, this reevaluation meant a death to the Law—death through spiritual (not physical) participation in Christ’s crucifixion. In v. 19, Paul has explained himself: by thoroughly identifying with Christ in his crucifixion,

Galatians 2

through the revelation to Paul of the resurrected Christ (Gal 1:1, 12, 15-16), Paul experienced death to the Law as the Law failed in its efforts to condemn Christ as one accursed by the Law. In a similar manner, v. 20 develops the second clause in v. 19, “. . . in order that I might live (z∑sø) to God.” As Paul continues, the catchword “to live” (Gk. z∑n) appears at the heart of the clauses and phrases of v. 20: 20a, “I myself no longer live (zø)” 20b, “rather Christ lives (z∑) in me” 20c, “the life I now live (zø ) in the flesh” 20d, “I live (zø) in faith, namely the faith of the Son of God. . . .”78 Paul’s thought comes here in dense theological metaphors. First, he states that he no longer lives. Obviously he did, so what does he mean? Paul’s statement is emphatic in pointing to “I myself ”—i.e., “I” independent of God (or Christ, or both). Or perhaps Paul means I and the Law when he writes of “I myself.” The loss of the Law in a death to the Law would have left Paul bereft of his guide and companion in life. For Paul, to have died to the Law would have meant undergoing the loss of what had previously been his defining factor in life. As is seen in/from the following clause in v. 20 (“rather Christ lives in me”), the old “I” was removed and replaced by Christ himself. Or, in other words, the “I” had been crucified and recreated by forces other than the self.79 Verse 20ab literally says, “I live no longer I; he lives in me Christ.” The syntax of these clauses of the verse juxtaposes “I” and “Christ.” But now, rather than conflict, Paul indicates that Christ became the controlling factor in his life. To express the significance of his relationship to Christ, Paul uses spacial language that speaks of an orb of power to which the human being relates and in or out of which the human being exists. For Paul, “Christ in me” was not a slogan for a mystical union that comes from peculiar pathfinding and self-denial with the goal of assimilation of the self into the divine.80 Rather, for Paul, the old “I” had not been simply renewed but replaced by the risen Christ himself.81 Thus, Paul writes of “Christ in me,” saying that Christ lived in him. Paul writes of this “Christ in me” life in v. 20cd. Using a relative pronoun (ho—translated here as “the life”) to refer to this new life, he elaborates by saying that this new life is lived “now” (Gk. nyn) and “in the flesh” (en sarki). At times in his letters, Paul uses “flesh” as a theological term for that which is opposed to God and God’s Spirit.82 At other times Paul uses “flesh” simply as a term for

101

102

Galatians 2

human existence. At this point in Galatians 2, Paul uses “flesh” in the latter fashion. Sometimes, however, Paul’s varying use of “flesh” can prove confusing, although the context in which he writes usually points to the sense of Paul’s use of the term—as it does here. Nevertheless, although Paul is simply speaking of human existence in this verse, there is still inherent in the statement recognition of tension between the new life in Christ that has already begun (“Christ in me”—Gk. en emoi Christos) and the sphere of the Flesh (“in the flesh”—Gk. en sarki) that has not yet ended. In v. 20d Paul goes on to state plainly that Making the Universal God One’s Own although he continues to live real human life What are you doing, Paul, making common in the sphere of human existence, he lives his things your own, and claiming for yourself what was done on behalf of the whole world? For he new life (with Christ in him) by faith. says not “who loved us” but “who loved me.” . . . But Remarkably, when Paul mentions faith here, Paul speaks in this highly personal voice, aware of the he does not speak vaguely about belief in culpability of human nature and the ineffable compasGod or in an undefined manner about belief sion of Christ, aware of what he redeems us from and in Christ. Rather, Paul writes explicitly about what grace he confers upon us. Burning with desire his life “in faith, namely the faith of the Son toward him, he utters this. In just this way did the prophets often make the universal God their own, of God who loved me and gave himself for crying, My God, my God, I invoke you. He shows that me.” [Making the Universal God One’s Own] Thus, each of us ought to render as much thanks to Christ Paul locates and defines faith. Faith is the as though Christ had come for him alone. For God place (sphere) where the one crucified with would not have withheld this gift even from one Christ now lives. Faith is the Son’s faith, but person. He has the same love for every individual as for all who believe in Christ’s faith, faith is for the whole world. (John Chrysostom, Homily on Galatians 2.20) love and self-sacrifice. This statement (v. 20d) Mark J. Edwards, ed., Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Ancient that God’s Son “loved” and “gave himself ” Christian Commentary on Scripture, vol. 8, gen. ed. Thomas C. Oden elicits several observations: (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 1999) 33. 1. This is the only place in his letters that Paul says that the Son “loved” (see the mention of “Christ’s love” at Rom 8:35). 2. Paul writes very personally in this passage of “me” (Gk. me and emou). 3. Christ himself gives himself over, he is not given over—“gave” here is paradidømi in Greek, a word that echoes Galatians 1:4 and perhaps the LXX text of Isaiah 52:13–53:12. 4. Faith and love are both defined by the Son of God’s selfless, sacrificial handing himself over for the sake of others (here = “for me” [Gk. hyper emou]; elsewhere = “for our sins” [Gk. hyper tøn hamartiøn h∑møn]—e.g., Gal 1:4; 1 Cor 15:3) Thus, who is God’s Son? The one who “loved” and “gave himself.” In turn, what is faith? “Loving” and “giving oneself.” Thus, what

Galatians 2

does it mean to live in faith, especially in the faith of God’s Son? It means to love and to give oneself for others. Paul begins the sentence(s) of v. 21 in a manner that is grammatically unattached to the pervious verse(s), although the statements in v. 21 form a powerful summary of what Paul has said in vv. 15-20. In the first clause/sentence of v. 21 Paul writes, “I don’t nullify the grace of God.” Immediately the interpretation of this verse becomes controversial. What is “the grace of God,” and how does one “nullify” it? What is the grace of God? Is it (A) the gift of the Law to Israel or (B) God’s working in the saving death of Jesus Christ? One school of interpreters sees Paul responding here to an accusation by his Jewish Christian opponents who had said that Paul’s ceasing Law observance (and not teaching Gentile Christians to observe the Law) amounted to his rejecting God’s grace, which was the gift of the Law to Israel. This understanding of v. 21a relies heavily on the idea (not made plain in the text itself ) that Paul’s statement is an explicit reply to his opponents in Galatia. On the other hand, commentators understand the phrase “the grace of God” to refer to God’s work in and through Jesus Christ, especially Christ’s saving death. This interpretation works more directly from Paul’s words than the previous understanding (which posits that the verse is using the explicit words of a charge against Paul). In what follows I will work from the latter of these interpretations primarily because doing so requires no “mirror-reading” at this point in Paul’s letter, where there is no certain use by Paul of the words of his opponents.83 In speaking of not nullifying God’s grace, Paul uses a word (Gk. athetein) that often has the sense of “rejecting” something or “denying” it. Thus, one definition is to set at naught,84 a lovely phrase that gives a certain nuance to the word but not a phrase that will work in contemporary English; still one gains an appreciation of the sense of the Greek word behind the English “to nullify”—see also 3:15. And so if Paul is speaking of rejecting or denying what God does through Christ, from his point of view there would be at least two ways that such nullification could occur: (1) a person could experience God’s grace and then go on sinning as if nothing had ever happened; or (2) a person could know God’s grace and then turn to or turn back (after having turned away) to Law observance as if it were necessary for God’s grace in Christ to be effective. Given Paul’s situation in relation to the churches of Galatia, from a reading of the letter as a whole, the second of these ways of

103

104

Galatians 2

nullifying God’s grace seems to be what he was facing among the churches in Galatia, and he was adamant that he was not turning back to Law observance himself (see especially 2:18). The next two clauses form still another simple/real conditional sentence, which as a whole echoes v. 16. The protasis (the “if ” clause) of this sentence is cast in a form that implies it is a true statement: “if righteousness is through the Law”; but clearly Paul views this as a false remark, so the clause functions as a “contrary to fact” supposition.85 For Paul, righteousness does not come through the Law, so that in this sentence there is an irony that moves toward sarcasm. Having stated that “if righteousness is through the Law” (which from Paul’s point of view it is not), Paul continues by saying what the consequence is if that statement were true: “then Christ died for no purpose.” Obviously Paul does not think that Christ died in vain, so the apodosis shows the protasis to be false (despite its grammatical form). Put differently, Paul says, since Christ did not die gratuitously, (without a doubt) righteousness does not come through the Law—see further 3:21. This is the first occurrence of righteousness (or “justification”; Gk. dikaiosyn∑ ) in the letter.86 Paul has already used the cognate verb to justify (Gk. dikaioun) in vv. 16 and 17. Readers should turn to the discussion of these terms and their meaning at the point of their discussion at 2:16.87 Here, however, commentators debate whether the noun dikaiosyn∑ (“righteousness”) is (A) a forensic term that means one’s status before God that results from God’s pronouncing one “righteous” or (B) an ethical term that designates one’s behavior (in relation to God and humanity) as a result of God’s transforming the person (God’s “justifying” one) into a new condition. While interpreters often emphasize the forensic character of righteousness, there are a sufficient number of Paul’s uses of this term in relation to a present reality88 to warrant seeing the term as an ethical designation. But ultimately it is not an either/or matter of interpretation, for there are aspects of both the forensic and the ethical in Paul’s uses of the word righteousness. The challenge for interpreters is to discern which of the senses of righteousness characterizes the particular use in question in a passage. Here in Galatians 2:21 the word seems to be used in the forensic sense, because it is spoken of in a more abstract manner than would likely typify an ethical sense of the word. In v. 21 Paul creates a contrast between the Law and the death of Christ. At issue, from Paul’s way of juxtaposing these two items, is the source of God’s grace. Having read what Paul says, one must ask, “How is God’s grace made effective in the human sphere?”

Galatians 2

And from Paul’s letter it is evident that two options have been given regarding that grace—the Law or Christ’s death. For Paul the answer is unambiguous: God’s grace and human transformation are made real through the death of Jesus Christ. Christ died for a purpose, to bring about righteousness. Moreover, his love and his self-sacrifice were for the sake of others.

CONNECTIONS Common Ground (2:1-5)

In Paul’s summary of his history with the Judean churches, he now fast-forwards to a second meeting with the leading apostles in Jerusalem. Whether we should count the stated “fourteen years” (2:1) from Paul’s turnabout on the Damascus Road or from the point where his story left off in chapter 1 is not entirely clear, but also not entirely relevant to the point he is making. At any rate, most scholars seem to equate this visit to Jerusalem with the “Apostolic Council” described in Acts 15. If that is so, then the writer of Acts knows of an additional visit to Jerusalem that Paul does not include in his chronology (Acts 11:30; 12:25). The purpose of Paul’s visit seems to have been both to seek agreement on the nature of the gospel (2:2) and to clarify the respective roles of Paul and his associates as missionaries to the Gentiles and the Jerusalem apostles as missionaries to the Jews (2:9). Verse 4 speaks of “false believers secretly brought in” who aimed to “enslave” Paul and his colleagues. These Judean “false believers” were, if not allies of the Galatian intruders, certainly sympathetic to their Torah-observant vision of what it means to be a follower of Jesus. Stagg describes them as “self-appointed monitors of other people’s orthopraxy.”89 Their attempt to compel Titus to be circumcised directly challenged Paul and his approach to ministry among the Gentiles. It is worth noting that Paul was not a universally loved and praised figure in the early church. Some in the church, like these troublemakers in Jerusalem, apparently saw Paul as a perverter of the gospel, not its proponent. This passage raises questions about what to do when believers in Jesus find that they cannot see eye to eye on important theological matters. Rather than immediately anathematize each other, Paul and the leading Jerusalem apostles first sought common ground. At

105

106

Galatians 2

Diversity and Unity in the New Testament “Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (15:11). This succinct sentence contradicts the assumption so common today that in early Christianity there was not one fundamental confession of the faith which united all, but all kinds of kerygmas, not one Gospel, but many Christologies contradicting each other, and many churches whose teaching and living were quite disjoined, so that one must speak of a chaos at the beginning of the early Church. The Pauline letters in particular show that the opposite is true. In order to justify itself, modern theological pluralism here project[s] itself onto early Christianity against the clear statements of the texts. There were of course—considerable—differences in the preaching of individual apostles and missionaries, even contradictions and conflicts. I just remind of the struggle at the apostolic council, the later incident at Antioch, and, what I believe, the permanent conflict between Peter and Paul. There [is] also, for example, considerable theological opposition between Romans and Galatians on the one hand and the Letter of James on the other. Nevertheless, all early Christian writings agree that eschatological salvation is effected through Christ, the Kyrios, his death and his resurrection. Only on this foundation, the attachment to the one Kyrios, was an agreement such as the one Paul depicts in Gal 2:1-10 at all possible, and in Gal 2:15ff. he assumes that Peter too acknowledges justification by faith alone and not through works of the law. (Hengel, 614–15) Martin Hengel, “Confessing and Confession” (trans. Daniel Johansson), in Earliest Christian History: History, Literature, and Theology: Essays from the Tyndale Fellowship in Honor of Martin Hengel, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2, vol. 320, ed. Michael F. Bird and Jason Matson (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012) 589–623.

least in the short term, their dialogue provided a way forward that blessed each group in its particular mission. Religious dialogue remains an important tool when Christians of differing faith communities struggle to understand each other and even work together. In recent years, Catholics and Lutherans have put forth an important document on the doctrine of justification that seeks to clear the air and even dial back some of the historical animosity between those two groups by clarifying what they each actually believe and teach about this important topic.90 Passages like this force us to consider what in our faith is truly worth fighting for. Or, put another way, what is essential to faithfully proclaiming and living out the gospel and what is merely cultural or incidental? Teachers and preachers might find this a fruitful starting point for a conversation about bedrock beliefs. What lines do we genuinely need to draw in the sand? On what issues must we never give in? And, conversely, what are matters of secondary importance on which we can agree to disagree? [Diversity and Unity in the New Testament]

Maximizing Ministry (2:6-10)

In these verses, Paul has reached his most important point, and he takes great care to communicate it effectively. This is a highly complex passage, and “the enormous care which the author has apparently devoted to this section can only be explained if the event on which he reports constitutes the center of his ‘statement of facts.’”91 Therefore, we can conclude that there must have been a relationship between the events in Jerusalem and the crisis in Galatia that Paul addresses. Paul must walk a fine line, however. His detractors apparently look to the Jerusalem leadership to justify their own Christ-centered Torah-observance. It is important for them to know that Peter and the others recognize the validity of Paul’s Torah-free gospel. At

Galatians 2

the same time, Paul is adamant that he received this gospel from God and not from any human teacher. On the contrary, the “acknowledged leaders” (v. 6) in Jerusalem added nothing to his message, and it is immaterial to him what others think of these men. How can Paul then appeal to the authority of the Jerusalem apostles without conceding that he is under that authority? What role could Peter (Cephas) and the others play if Paul received his apostolic commission from God alone? For that matter, why even go to Jerusalem? What did this meeting accomplish? A couple of important themes arise in this passage that a teacher or preacher might fruitfully explore. First is the issue of authority in the church. Paul acknowledges the authority of Peter and the others, but he relativizes their authority. What they are or what others think of them makes no difference to Paul (v. 6). He never implies that he is under their authority. On the contrary, they contributed nothing to him, and one is left with the impression that Paul wouldn’t have changed his approach even if they had objected. But if it is true that Peter’s authority is ultimately inconsequential, then it is improper for the intruders in Galatia to appeal to that authority in their debate against Paul. The Torah-free gospel will rise or fall on its own merits and not on the opinions of a distant hierarchy. The second important issue is diversity within the church of Christ. This seems to be a perennial question in New Testament scholarship. Can we even speak of “Christianity” in the New Testament period, or must we only speak of “Christianities” in the plural? And what might we learn from this debate in terms of relationships today between faith communities that, while professing Christ, vary in how they articulate their faith and how they live out their mission to the world? What are the ties that bind, really? Paul seems clear that there are practical matters on which he is willing to break fellowship (see 1:8-9). Such, however, is not the case with the Jerusalem “pillars” (v. 9), however we might conceive of their differences with Paul and his mission. Paul and the Jerusalem apostles found it best to recognize their differences and acknowledged that each had a distinctive role to play in the mission of God, Peter to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles (2:8-9). Something similar seems to have happened already within the Jerusalem church itself. Acts 6 describes a division in that church between “Hellenists” and “Hebrews” (Acts 6:1)—between more hellenized, Greek-speaking Jews and less

107

108

Galatians 2

hellenized, Aramaic-speaking Jews. In this instance, the apostles established a body of leaders to minister to those who felt that the church’s (“Hebrew”) leadership was inattentive to their needs. While we often read this story as having to do with the office of deacon, it might just as easily describe an amicable “split” between Greek-speaking and Aramaic-speaking elements of the Jerusalem church. Such a split freed both groups to minister more effectively. In this light, perhaps what we read in Galatians 2 is the next logical outgrowth of the impulse to maximize ministry by freeing the ministers to work in culturally appropriate ways. In both instances, the Jerusalem apostles relinquished authority so that others might serve more effectively. How might different Christian bodies today bless each other’s missions while remaining true to their own? What would it cost them to admit that others might choose to fulfill their missions in different ways? The Lines Begin to Blur (2:11-14)

It is fitting that the flare-up between Peter (Cephas) and Paul took place in Antioch because of that city’s place in the history of the early church. According to Acts 11:19-26, the church in Antioch was founded by refugees from Stephen’s martyrdom. These Hellenistic-Jewish believers in Jesus fled far to the north of Jerusalem to this principal city of Syria. There, they began to proclaim the message of Christ—but at first only to their fellow Jews. Luke reports that, eventually, this first evangelistic effort was joined by newcomers from Cyprus and Cyrene who took the radical step of proclaiming the gospel to Gentiles as well. (Several important manuscripts read “Greeks” instead of “Hellenists” at Acts 9:20. By whichever reading, the context calls for non-Jews to be in mind.92) It was in Antioch, therefore, that the lines between Jewish and non-Jewish believers in Jesus first began to blur. Oneness in Christ began to transcend ethnic and cultural barriers. Believers in Jesus could no longer be classified merely as a particular kind of Jew, and therefore the word “Christian” was coined to describe his increasingly diverse band of disciples (Acts 11:26). Into this ecclesiastical melting pot come Peter and Paul. Although F. C. Baur proposed in the 1800s that there was a strong dichotomy between these two giants of the early church, a stronger case could be made for James and Paul being the principal figures. Peter was actually caught in the crossfire.93 Although he apparently had no reservations about eating with Gentiles, he shrunk back

Galatians 2

109

under pressure from “certain people” who had come “from James” (Gal 2:12). We should note that Peter eating with uncircumcised men is nothing new. He did the same thing in Acts 10, and Luke reports that he got in trouble for it among certain “cirTable Fellowship cumcised believers” in the Jerusalem church Among life’s everyday experiences, the shared meal is viewed by biblical writers (Acts 11:2). Might this previous controversy as an especially powerful symbol of how human have made Peter gun-shy about continuing his beings are bound together with one another and liberal table-fellowship practices in the presence with their God. To eat with someone, to share of those sent from James? Might these emissaries table fellowship, is to foster close association and have been especially critical of Peter’s behavior acquaintance. The result is the establishment because this was his “second offense”? [Table of caring and trust, as well as a certain identificaFellowship]

tion by association. Betrayal or unfaithfulness toward another with whom one has shared the table is viewed in the Bible as particularly reprehensible (e.g., Judas’s betrayal of Jesus in Mark 14:17-21). The experience of such fellowship links the participant to God’s saving deeds, both past and future.

Peter’s behavior in this episode opens doors to fruitful study of human nature in the face of peer pressure. Even people who, like Peter, presumably know what they ought to do can shrink from doing it if they stop to calculate what others might think of them. Peter’s personal Malcolm L. Peel, “Table Fellowship,” Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Watson E. Mills et al. (Macon GA: Mercer University failure had wider repercussions, as Paul reports Press, 1990) 873. that even Barnabas stumbled because of Peter’s actions (v. 13). It shouldn’t surprise us, therefore, that Paul was furious that Peter undermined his work in order to appease James’s people. Wright notes that the question is never raised as to whether these Gentile believers were true Christians. In light of Galatians 3:27, we can assume that they had been baptized. They believed in Jesus, confessed him as Lord, and believed that God raised him from the dead (Rom 10:9). None of this is at issue. Rather, “What is at issue is the question: is it right for Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians to eat together? Do they belong at the same table, or not? That is the question, in this, Paul’s first and perhaps sharpest statement of ‘justification by faith,’ to which he regards that doctrine as the answer.”94 Paul addresses this issue with reference to the gospel because in his mind, nothing short of the gospel was at stake. Peter and Barnabas (and any others who followed suit) “were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel” (v. 14). Christians act out this truth at the table. As Stagg succinctly puts it, “A break in table fellowship is a blow to the essence of the gospel.”95 If God accepts all—whether Jew or Gentile—on the basis of faith in Christ, then how can Christians discriminate against each other on the basis of race or culture? How can one claim that a fellow believer is

110

Galatians 2

acceptable to God and yet not acceptable enough to share a meal together? The implication is clear enough: if you want to be part of the real family of God, you’re going to have to become Law observant.96 Such a stance makes no theological sense. It is a gross perversion of the gospel. A number of important theological issues swirl around this text. First is the matter of kosher foods. What happens when the new Gentile convert brings ham salad to the church picnic? But the deeper issue is not simply food that is or is not acceptable; it is the way dietary laws function sociologically to reinforce cultural divisions. Can we really share a meal with people who are so different from us? Can we honestly affirm that they are our brothers and sisters in Christ? Ultimately, the issue is not food at all, but identity. Who is a member of the people of God, and on what basis? In one way or another, it seems that most faith communities have found reasons to exclude their fellow Christians based on conformity to some religious rule. Maybe their point of contention is the other community’s method of baptism or ordination or some other aspect of religious practice. Whatever the specifics, this passage raises the question of what Paul might say about letting such external factors trump unity in Christ. Might these exclusionary policies also constitute movement away from the gospel? Is this the attitude of a Christian or the attitude of one of the interlopers in Galatia? Finally, there is the practical matter of getting along in the church despite the varied cultural sensitivities that we all bring into the mix. When there are differences, who is to accommodate whom? Do we ask those with more permissive cultural standards to accommodate those who are stricter, or should it be the other way around? Why? Is one strategy preferable to the other? Justification and the Works of the Law (2:15-21)

Paul’s report of what happened at Antioch now shades into theological reflection. It is one thing to know the facts; it is quite another to grasp what those facts mean. Paul grew up dividing the world into “Jews” and “Gentile sinners” (v. 15). My, how things change! Galatians in its entirety is an argument against this sociological map, for Paul is now convinced that ethnic identity—including all the taboos and shibboleths that tend to spring up to reinforce the lines between the in-group and the out-group—are not valid criteria for

Galatians 2

acceptability before God. The truth is that neither group is justified by the works of the Law (v. 16). Two important terms appear in verse 16: “justified” and “the works of the law.” Let’s look at each of them in turn. Paul doesn’t use the word dikaiosyn∑ (“justification,” “vindication”) in Galatians until 2:21, but related words like dikaioø (“justify,” “vindicate,” “make right”) and dikaios (“just,” “upright,” “righteous”) are found earlier in this chapter. Whether Paul was writing about actual righteousness manifested in upright behavior or merely a legal-forensic declaration of acquittal is, of course, a centuries-old debate. In the immediate context, however, the issue at hand seems not to be one’s standing before God in a strictly soteriological sense but rather being counted by God as a true member of God’s family, with the right to share table fellowship.97 Whatever else justification means—and it most assuredly means more than this—it means that God has declared a member of the church in good standing without reference to ethnic identity or practices. Now, on the “more” that justification means. For Paul, justification results in a radical transformation of a believer’s life. Paul assures us that this transformation is wholly a work of God, but it is nonetheless a real, observable phenomenon. “Righteousness is new character,” Stagg writes, “not new bookkeeping.”98 Such righteousness is independent of Law-observance. Paul is adamant that neither Jew nor Gentile can be justified by “the works of the law.” What are these works? Obviously, those practices that determine who is “in” and who is “out.” Within Paul’s Jewish context, he understood that the basis of Israel’s salvation was in God’s election. This point is a needed corrective to some Christian misinterpretations that propose that Judaism is a system of works-righteousness concerned with obtaining rewards in the afterlife. This interpretation has more to do with Martin Luther’s crisis of faith than Paul’s. Simply put, Jews don’t keep the Law because they’re trying to earn salvation. Jews keep the Torah because they’re Jewish! Faithfulness to the Torah isn’t about obtaining but rather maintaining a relationship with God. It cannot put anyone in good standing before God. That can only happen through Christ. When it does, however, one’s life is changed. In fact, Paul perceived the discontinuity between his old life and his new life in Christ as so great that he could only describe it in terms of a painful death on the cross (v. 19). He has “died to the law” and been “crucified with Christ” so that he might live a renewed and transformed life. The cross penetrates Paul’s life, changing its

111

112

Galatians 2

character and direction so much that he can claim that Christ himself has taken up residence within him, permeating his life, conforming him to Christ’s own image. Here is a rich mine from which to teach and preach on the nature of salvation. Its source is in Christ alone, it comes to us through faith, and it has implications for how we live. On the one hand, by relativizing our ethnic or cultural identity, it compels us to sit at the table with others who confess Jesus as Lord, no matter how different they might seem. On the other hand, it pulls us ever onward in the direction of Christ-likeness. One need not fall into the overplayed promises of revivalism to confess that an encounter with the crucified and risen Christ is meant to change people from the inside out. (This final point will take center stage especially in chapters 5–6.) Before moving on, it is worth considering why Torah-observance held any appeal at all for the Gentile Christians of Galatia. Experience tells us that rules and regulations of any sort can be deeply satisfying. They provide a sense of security. They give us clear-cut lines we must not cross. Many people find great comfort in that level of certainty—especially in subjective matters like religion. In terms more specific to the context of Galatians, it is possible for people of faith to fret over whether they really “belong,” whether they are truly members of God’s family. Being able to appeal to a set of external, objectively verifiable factors would go a long way toward assuaging our doubts about such matters. Could that almost universal need for this kind of certainty have fueled the Galatian Christians’ attraction to rules? They had learned from Paul himself about Jesus, his saving death, and his life-giving resurrection. Perhaps they thought to themselves, “Surely there must be more, something you can measure.” Like many of us, they perhaps yearned for something more tangible than faith—which might, after all, turn out to be nothing but wishful thinking. There are days when nearly every believer can sympathize with the Galatians. Thankfully, Paul’s testimony calls us to our senses: “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me.” We can’t measure that experience with any yardstick of external piety, but in our hearts we can know that it is true.

Galatians 2

Notes 1. Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC 41; Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990) 44. 2. There is a noticeable difference in the prepositions that Paul uses to express “after (meta) three years” and “after (dia) fourteen years.” Interpreters have tried to discern some difference in nuances in these words, but the general pattern of usages in Greek documents roughly contemporary to Paul’s time makes it unlikely that Paul is using these prepositions as anything other than synonyms. See LSJ, 1108–109 and 388–89. 3. To further complicate this issue, one should note that the term of Paul’s stay in Arabia and Damascus is not stated (1:17). Moreover, Paul does not tell his readers how long he was in Syria and Cilicia (1:21). Whatever Paul meant exactly about the time that elapsed between his calling and his second trip to Jerusalem, his itinerary looks something like the following: Call (1:15) Immediately . . . Arabia and Damascus (1:16-17); Then, after three more years . . . to Jerusalem (1:18); Then . . . Syria and Cilicia (1:21); and Then, after fourteen more years . . . Jerusalem again (2:1). The simplest, most straightforward way to read Paul’s phrases is to understand that after his call he was in Arabia and Damascus; then, after three years he went to Jerusalem; then, he was in Syria and Cilicia; then, after fourteen more years he went up to Jerusalem. Thus, the three years are counted from the end of the unspecified period that he was in Arabia and Damascus, and the fourteen years are counted from the end of the unspecified period that Paul spent in Syria and Cilicia. Thus, Paul seems to have in mind seventeen or more years between his call and his second trip to Jerusalem. 4. Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, Fortress, 1979) 83–84; cf. Longenecker, Galatians, 45. 5. For matters related to detailed attempts to construct a time line of Paul’s life and ministry, see Robert Jewett, A Chronology of Paul’s Life (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); Gerd Luedemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); and Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996) 1–31. 6. For detailed consideration of the question of the relationship of Galatians and Acts at the point of this story, see Werner Georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (17th ed.; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975; German original 1971) 301–304; and Ernest DeWitt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920) 115–17. 7. See Dieter Lührmann, Galatians: A Continental Commentary (CC; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992; German Original, 1978; 2d ed., 1988) 38. 8. J. Louis Martyn observes that anatith∑mi in the middle voice, as it is in this verse, occurs in Polybius (Frag. 21.46.11) to mean “to refer a matter to a deliberative body for consideration” and in Plutarch (Mor. 2.772d) to indicate “communicating something that is one’s own, with a view to consultation” (Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 33A; New York, 1997] 109). He argues

113

114

Galatians 2 persuasively that the second usage is the sense in which Paul uses the verb at this point in Galatians. See further LSJ, 123. 9. An instance of the rare exception occurs in Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater (KEK 7, 14th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 66. 10. Betz, (Galatians, 86) contends that “the delegation” was sent from Antioch to Jerusalem in order to acquire a belated approval by the authorities there for Paul and Barnabas’s gospel that was free from Torah and circumcision. He comments that while interpreters mention “the preservation of the unity of the church” or “the establishment of consistency between the mission to the Gentiles and the historical Jesus, . . . these considerations have no basis in the text.” 11. Betz (Galatians, 85) asks why Paul’s message became controversial (in a crucial fashion) only at this point, over fourteen to seventeen years into his ministry. Betz observes that opposition to Paul seems to have formed at this later stage in his work. Thus, Betz remarks that perhaps Paul did not begin his preaching of Law-free gospel to Jews when he first preached to the Gentiles but only came to that point later in his ministry. 12. Along with running, there were contests in chariot racing, boxing, wrestling, and javelin. See “athletics” in OCD, 206–207. 13. Further uses of the image of running occur in Paul’s letters at 1 Cor 9:24-26a; Gal 5:7; and Phil 3:13-14. 14. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1982) 111. 15. LSJ, 100; August Strobe, “anagk∑, anagkazø, ktl,” EDNT 1:77–78. 16. Martyn (Galatians, 194) makes the point that in Galatians, all of Paul’s references to circumcision are literal, whereas in other places and authors, circumcision is often used metaphorically (see Rom 2:25-29; Phil 3:3; Col 2:11; and Philo, Spec. Laws 1.8). On circumcision in general, see Marion L. Soards, “Circumcision,” NIDB 1.667–69. 17. Less likely than that these intruders were Jerusalem Christians intervening in the discussions in Jerusalem is that they were either (1) Jerusalem Christians interrupting matters in Antioch or (2) Antioch Christians in Jerusalem spying on the conference there. Nevertheless, the less than absolute clarity of Paul’s statements here leaves the matter somewhat ambiguous, and so some interpreters have taken a line different from that taken in this commentary. 18. Wilhelm Michaelis, “pareisagø, pareisaktos,” TDNT 5:824–26; Johannes Schneider, “pareiserchomai,” TDNT 2:682; BAGD, 624–25; and LSJ, 1333. 19. Ernst Fuchs, “skopos, skopeø, kataskopeø, kataskopos,” TDNT 7:413–17; LSJ, 912; and BAGD, 418. 20. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2d ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994) 522–23. 21. Martyn, Galatians, 198. 22. Betz, Galatians, 92; and Longenecker, Galatians, 53. 23. Gordon D. Fee, Galatians (Pentecostal Commentary Series; Blandford Forum, Dorset, UK: Deo Publishing, 2007) 63. 24. Betz, Galatians, 92. 25. Bruce, Galatians, 117.

Galatians 2 26. Betz, Galatians, 94. 27. Longenecker, Galatians, 54. 28. Martyn, Galatians, 199. 29. Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1920) §§2803–20. 30. Ernest DeWitt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920) 94. 31. Betz, Galatians, 97–98. 32. LSJ, 350. 33. Exod. Rab. 15.7—still other rabbinic texts mention twelve, seven, or one pillar(s). 34. See the somewhat legendary account of James’s influence in Jerusalem in Eusebius, E.H., 2.23.4-19, which even in its florid prose probably reflects something of the reality of James’s authority. 35. Burton, Galatians, 95. 36. Ibid., 97. 37. Leander E. Keck, “The Poor among the Saints in the New Testament,” ZNW 56 (1965): 100–29. 38. Irina Levinskaya, “Godfearer,” NIDB 2:619-20, and see further Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993) 177–382, especially 342–82. 39. Martyn, Galatians, 231. 40. Burton, Galatians, 102; LSJ, 140. 41. Longenecker, Galatians, 72. 42. Burton, Galatians, 103–105. 43. LSJ, 1895–96. 44. LSJ, 292 and Ulrich Kellermann, “aphorizø,” EDNT 1:183–84. 45. Bruce (Galatians, 130–31) credits K. H. Rengstorf with this insight. 46. Longenecker (Galatians, 73–75) attempts to rehabilitate Cephas’s image at this point in Paul’s critique by suggesting that he became confused under pressure. 47. LSJ, 1730; Bruce, Galatians, 131. 48. Fee, Galatians, 75. 49. Frank J. Matera, Galatians (SP 9; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992) 86. 50. Betz, Galatians, 110. 51. LSJ, 1696; Longenecker, Galatians, 76. 52. LSJ Supp., 110; Max Zerwick and Mary Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (rev. ed.; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981) 567. 53. LSJ, 480. 54. Ibid., 832.

115

116

Galatians 2 55. Smyth §2688b. Paul uses ouchi, the more emphatic form of “not” in other letters, especially 1 Corinthians, but this is the only occurrence of ouchi in Galatians. 56. Feldman, Jew, 288–90. 57. Martyn, Galatians, 235–36. 58. See Longenecker, 80–81. 59. Longenecker, 83, cites Jub. 23:23-24 regarding the designation “sinners of the Gentiles” and refers to “sinners” as a synonym for Gentiles at Isa 14:5; 1 Macc 2:44; Pss. Sol. 1.1; 2.1; Matt 26:45; and Luke 6:32-33. 60. Recently J. Louis Martyn (Galatians, 249–50) made a strong case for using “rectify” and the cognate “rectification” for translating the words in the dikaio- word group in Galatians (and other biblical texts), arguing that in common usage “to justify” implies law, while “righteousness” implies morality or religion. If there is a problem with Martyn’s suggestion, it is that “rectify” and “rectification” are not words in common use in contemporary English. 61. Martyn (Galatians, 250) writes, “The subject Paul addresses is that of God’s making right what has gone wrong.” 62. LSJ, 499 (III.6). See also Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996) 125. 63. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977). 64. Morna D. Hooker, “PISTIS CHRISTOU,” NTS 35 (1989): 321–42. 65. On Paul’s usage of Jesus Christ, Christ, Christ Jesus, see N. A. Dahl, “The Messiahship of Jesus in Paul,” in his The Crucified Messiah (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974) 37–47. 66. See the helpful tables of such arguments in Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary Series on the New Testament; Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 2010) 163–66. 67. Schreiner (Galatians, 164 nn. 51–54) presents an extensive bibliography of those scholars who have registered a studied opinion on this matter. 68. Martyn, Galatians, 250–52. 69. On this contentious matter see Burton, Galatians, 121; J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville: WJKP, 1990) 129–214; Martyn, Galatians, 251; Heikki Räisänen, “Galatians 2.16 and Paul’s Break with Judaism,” NTS 31 (1985): 543–53. 70. Betz, Galatians, 119. 71. In relation to this reference to “seeking to be justified in Christ,” Martyn (Galatians, 253) notes that Phil 3:7-9 shows Paul speaking of free grace and the most strenuous striving toward that future. 72. Betz (Galatians, 119–20) and others take the charge, “found to be sinners,” to be a false accusation. 73. L. J. de Regt, “Diatribe,” NIDB 2:121. 74. Burton, Galatians, 131. 75. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 443.

Galatians 2 76. In Rom 7:1-6, esp. v. 4, Paul writes of dying to the Law through the body of Christ, showing that he is not working with a fixed metaphor there or in Galatians. 77. Paul writes elsewhere of the believers’ experience of Christ’s crucifixion, see Gal 5:24; 6:14; and Rom 6:6. 78. Franz Mußner, Der Galaterbrief (3rd ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1977) 182–83. 79. Martyn, Galatians, 258. 80. Longenecker, Galatians, 93. 81. Martyn, Galatians, 258. 82. For the theological use in Galatians, see 3:3; 4:23, 29; 5:13, 16-17, 19, 24; 6:8. 83. See George Lyons, Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding (SBLDS 73; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985). 84. LSJ, 31. 85. Burton, Galatians, 140. 86. See Marion L. Soards, “Righteousness in the NT,” NIDB 4:813–18. 87. In Galatians, “to justify” (Gk. dikaioun) occurs in 2:16 (3x), 17; 3:8, 11, 24; 5:4; and “righteousness” (Gk. dikaiosyn∑) occurs in 2:21; 3:21; 5:5. 88. E.g., Rom 6:13; 1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9. 89. Frank Stagg, Galatians–Romans, Knox Preaching Guides, ed. John H. Hayes (Atlanta: John Knox, 1980) 11. 90. “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church,” The Vatican, (29 August 2014). 91. Betz, Galatians, 92. 92. John B. Polhill, Acts, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman, 1992) 270, n. 123. 93. Stagg, Galatians–Romans, 12. 94. N. T. Wright, Justification (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 2009) 114. 95. Stagg, Galatians–Romans, 13. 96. Wright, Justification, 114. 97. Ibid., 116. 98. Stagg, Galatians–Romans, 13.

117

Spirit, Faith, and Law Galatians 3

COMMENTARY Paul’s Polemic against the Galatians’ Accepting LawObservance, 3:1–5:12

An Appeal to the Galatians’ Experience, 3:1-5 Paul moves from the predominantly autobiographical material of 1:11–2:21 to address the Galatians directly in the following section of the letter, 3:1-5. Using a sharp form of address, Paul initiates a confrontation with the Galatians about their newfound interest in Law observance. He poses a series of six rhetorical questions, ostensibly to find out from the Galatians what was happening among them. The questions are also sharp, even sarcastic at times, and they are designed to instruct the Galatians, perhaps more than they are designed for Paul to be instructed by the Galatians regarding the situation among their congregations.1 Indeed, Paul’s rhetoric sets a trap for the Galatians, for they can only answer the questions that Paul asks in his own way. Furthermore, Paul continues here to critique the developments in the Galatian congregations, now by appealing to the Galatians’ own experiences of God’s working among them. The addressees are themselves eyewitnesses concerning the matters about which Paul inquires. They have firsthand information that makes it possible for them to answer Paul’s questions with ease. Indeed, the answers to the questions that Paul poses are self-evident for anyone in the Galatian churches. In turn, the answers the Galatians would give to the questions would provide the information needed by Paul to make an ironclad case to the Galatians. Thus, we see Paul building an argument that the Galatians would have to affirm because of their experience to which Paul appeals. Paul begins in v. 1 (and continues through v. 5) to address the Galatians directly using forms of the second person plural, “you.” Although Paul had addressed the Galatians engagingly at 1:11, here he does not write with his more usual “saints” or “brothers and

120

Galatians 3

sisters”; rather his opening line, “You foolish Galatians!” is harsh and, even more, sarcastic. In the world of the diatribe preachers of Paul’s day, this address would have gained attention, but it would not have been completely unprecedented. Furthermore, interpreters suspect that Paul uses the word foolish with intent, for at least two reasons. First, the Galatians were moving toward Law observance, and Paul thought that development was simply “foolish”; but second, Paul may have been “Foolish Galatians” insulting the Galatians in a way that is not Dahl writes, “But even in Gal. 3:1 and 3 immediately apparent to later readers—viz., there is more irony than commentators the Galatians had a reputation from previous usually observe. The only other passage in which times (prior to Paul’s day) of being uncivilized Paul uses the word ano∑tos (“foolish”) is Rom. 1:14, Hell∑sin te kai barbarous, sophois te kai ano∑tois and barbarous people. Thus, to refer to the opheilet∑s eimi [“I am one who is under obligation to Galatians as “foolish” not only could have both Greeks and to barbarians, both to wise and to insulted them in a straightforward fashion but foolish”]. As a synonym of barbaros [”barbarian”] and also could have maligned their heritage. an antonym of sophos [“wise”], the word ano∑tos [“Foolish Galatians”] Paul does not open this [“foolish”] means uncivilized or uneducated. In Gal. 3 section of his letter with the most diplomatic Paul plays [though Paul is far from playing] with a double meaning of the word. At his time the tone or words, though despite the stinging Galatians had been Hellenized, but had not comform of address, what he calls into question is pletely escaped the ancient reputation that they the common sense of the Galatians, not their were barbarians, uncivilized, rude and cruel people . . intelligence. . . Whether the Galatians are civilized is no [real] Paul continues by asking the Galatians, concern of his. But he would not have expected them “Who bewitched you?” The question itself, to be so stupid that they would let themselves be bewitched to turn away from the gospel that he had with the implication that Paul did not know preached.” “who” (Gk. tis) had cast a spell on the Nils Alstrup Dahl, “Paul’s Letter to the Galatians: Epistolary Genre, Galatians, is likely a rhetorical ploy to indicate Content, and Structure,” paper presented for private circulation that Paul’s opponents in Galatia were among the members of the SBL Paul Seminar, no date, p. 23. unknown, insignificant; although those about whom he asks here are certainly the same people to whom he had referred in 1:7 when he recognized that “certain people” were causing the Galatians confusion. The word for “to bewitch” (Gk. baskainein) has the basic connotation of casting the “evil eye” on someone or something in order to charm or put a spell on that one or thing. Paul is not speaking literally here about “casting an evil eye,” but rather figuratively to suggest that the Galatians have been misled as if brought under a spell. The problem is so grave in Galatia that Paul suggests, probably in a sarcastic way, that only malicious magic could account for the way things are going among the Galatians. Moreover, coupled with this linguistic reference to an evil eye is Paul’s reference to the gospel having been preached “before the eyes” of the Galatians. The eyes that had beheld Christ (not literally, but figuratively) had been

Galatians 3

charmed by strange “evil eye” magic that was now endangering the Galatians’ experience of grace (see v. 4). The phrase “before the eyes” literally means “according to the eyes” (Gk. kat’ophthalmous) and is a vivid reminder of the striking character of Paul’s initial preaching of Jesus Christ to the Galatians. The consistently colorful quality of Paul’s language enlivens his remarks, most likely reflecting the seriousness of the situation he was facing. As Paul continues, he refers to Jesus Christ and his having been crucified. For Paul, Jesus did not die just any death; he was crucified (Gk. stauroun), put to death on a cross. That death, in the context of the first-century Mediterranean world, was a sheer liability; for Jesus had died as a condemned criminal, suffering a death that was reserved for the occupants of the lowest rungs of society’s ladder. That death itself was a stumbling block to Jews and folly to the Gentiles (1 Cor 1:23); it also brought Jesus into direct conflict with the Law (3:13), the very thing that the Galatians were so eager to embrace. Finally in v. 1 Paul states that Jesus Christ had been “put on display” or “publicly portrayed” (Gk. prographein) as crucified. The verb prographein2 is used for “to write publicly” or “to placard.” It could suggest that placards were used as props for a speech or that something was written out on a bulletin board. While it is not impossible that Paul means something so literal as pictures or signs, he more likely is using this graphic language the way he has used graphic language throughout this verse, i.e., figuratively or metaphorically, in order to state vividly what he is bringing before the Galatians in the form of a question: What were they to make of the crucified Jesus Christ? Paul begins v. 2 by telling the Galatians that he wants to learn one thing from them; then, he poses his question. The introductory clause (“This alone I wish to learn from you”) appears to be a rhetorical device, for the context and the question that he subsequently asks pursue information that Paul could have easily furnished himself. Paul asks the Galatians how they “received the Spirit” (Gk. to pneuma elabete)—“from/by works of the Law” (Gk. ex ergøn nomou) or “from/by ako∑ pisteøs” (lit., “from the hearing of faith”). In looking at 2:16 we saw that “works of the Law” referred to Law observance, which is the meaning that the phrase carries in this context (3:2). In question for interpreters of 3:2 is the meaning of the phrase that Paul sets over against “works of the Law,” viz., ako∑ pisteøs (lit., “the hearing of faith”). Careful work by Richard B. Hays examined the range of possible meanings for the phrase ako∑ pisteøs.3 Hays began by recognizing that both ako∑ and pistis can

121

122

Galatians 3

mean at least two things: ako∑ can mean either “the act or sense of hearing” or “that which is heard”; pistis can mean either “the act of believing/trusting” or “that which is believed.” With this double ambiguity there are at least four different or possible meanings for the phrase ako∑ pisteøs: (1) “hearing with faith”; (2) “hearing the gospel (‘the faith’)”; (3) “the message that enables faith”; and (4) “the message of ‘the faith.’” This establishing of a range of possible meanings might be as far as interpreters could go had Paul not provided further information to weigh in the attempt to adjudicate between the possibilities. At Romans 10:16 Paul cites Isaiah 53:1 (LXX), which says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” (Gk. kyrie, tis episteusen t∑ ako∑ h∑møn). Here, beyond ambiguity, Paul uses ako∑ to mean “message.” Thus, Paul means through this citation from Isaiah to refer to the gospel message that had been spoken by God through the apostle.4 In turn, if “faith” here is taken to mean “trust,” as it seems to mean throughout the rest of Galatians, then the most likely understanding of ako∑ pisteøs is as “the message of trust”; but who does the trusting or who makes the trusting real? For Paul, faith itself is a gift from God, fruit of the Spirit (see 5:22). As such, the “message of trust” is a God-wrought reality that enables as it provokes and confronts Translation of Galatians 3:1-5 humanity, moving persons along toward a (1) You foolish Galatians! Who bewitched fuller, trusting relationship between themselves you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was and God. And so the phrase suggested by put on display as being crucified? (2) This alone I J. Louis Martyn for translating/paraphrasing wish to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit ako∑ pisteøs is “the proclamation that has the from works of the Law or from the proclamation that has the power to elicit faith? (3) Are you so power to elicit faith.”5 [Translation of Galatians 3:1-5] foolish? Having made a beginning with the Spirit, Having juxtaposed “works of the Law” and are you now bringing things to perfection with the “the proclamation that has the power to elicit flesh? (4) Did you suffer so many great things in faith,” Paul asks the Galatians which of these vain?—if it really was in vain. (5) So, does the one had been the source of the Spirit (Gk. pneuma) granting you the Spirit and working miracles among whom they had received at the time of their you do so from the works of the Law or from the proclamation that has the power to elicit faith? conversion. Unfortunately, many scholars ignore or minimize the place and role of the Spirit in Galatians, although examination of the letter shows that Paul’s concern with the Spirit underlies and unifies 3:1–6:10 through his argumentation and appeals.6 (See 3:2, 3, 5, 14; 4:6, 29; 5:5, 16, 17, 18, 22, 25; 6:8—simply reading through the verses in this list of references to the Spirit in Galatians opens ones eyes to the importance of the Spirit in the letter as a whole.) In v. 2 Paul states that the Spirit is that one who is manifested among the Galatians either by “works of the Law” or through “the proclamation that has the power to elicit faith.” In context it is the

Galatians 3

latter, certainly not the former, that Paul means to indicate as the source of the Spirit among the Galatians. In Paul’s letters, the Spirit is the presence and power of God. Most often Paul writes of “the Spirit,” but he can also speak of “the holy Spirit,” “the Spirit of God,” “the Spirit of Christ,” and “the Spirit of God’s Son.” (There are also references in Paul’s writings to the human spirit, but that use of “spirit” occurs in Galatians only at 6:1 and 18.) Paul is not unique in writing about the Spirit, for both Jews and Gentiles referred to a divine Spirit.7 But Paul gives the concept of the Spirit a distinctly Christian cast as he relates the Spirit in various ways to Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, even after one notices this Christian understanding of the Spirit, Paul’s thinking about the Spirit remains enigmatic. Thus, simply surveying what Paul writes about the Spirit in Galatians may be the best way to come to terms with the range of his pneumatological thought in this letter, though even when such analysis is done, there is something inscrutable about Paul’s thought about the Spirit. Nevertheless, Paul believes these things: 1. The Spirit is, on the one hand, God’s life-giving power and, on the other hand, a gift received by humanity (3:2-5, 14). 2. The Spirit marks a realm (4:29; 5:5, 16-18, 25; 6:8). 3. The Spirit is the second part of God’s salvific sending. First, God sent the Son to redeem those under the Law so that they might be adopted; then, because they are adopted, God sends the Spirit of his Son crying, “Abba! Father!” (4:4-6). 4. The Spirit bears fruit in the lives of Christians, specifically as listed in 5:22-23, 25. Thus, while we again see Law and faith in an antithetical relationship, this time the Spirit has entered the scene as the one whom the Galatians received. At issue is whether they received the Spirit from Law (“works of the Law”) or faith (lit., “the hearing of faith” = “the proclamation that has the power to elicit faith”). And, as the Galatians know and as is evident from the rest of the letter, when they received the Spirit, the Law was not yet on the scene. In v. 3 Paul again speaks sharply to the Galatians, asking a third question, viz., whether they were “so foolish” as he apparently found them to be. In turn, having (sarcastically) asked the Galatians about their lack of discernment, Paul presents a new pair of opposites: the Spirit (emerging again after appearing in v. 2) and flesh (Gk. sarx). With the introduction of these opposites Paul gives

123

124

Galatians 3

the Galatians a second contrast, similar to the first, so that now a pattern emerges: Law Flesh

— —

Faith Spirit

Paul recognizes that the Galatians had their beginning (Gk. enarchesthai = “to begin”) in/by/with the Spirit. This origin was one that the Galatians certainly could affirm and, given their history, the activity that Paul confronts is all the more difficult to understand. Nevertheless, they attempted to move from the Spirit to what Paul calls the “flesh.” On the one hand, flesh names that which is actually flesh and blood, and as such there may be an allusion to circumcision in Paul’s use of the word. Yet there may be a theological nuance in Paul’s use of flesh (there certainly is in 5:17-21) that means more than simply “flesh and blood.” Indeed, Paul seems here to be using “flesh” to refer also to the “merely human” and/or to “human effort.” Paul uses sarcasm to jar the Galatians into recognizing the difference between their beginning and the end that they were pursuing. In Greek the word for “to end” or “to finish” (Gk. epitelein) carries the connotation of bringing something to perfection. And so Paul challenges the Galatians because the end they wish to pursue is different from their beginning. They seem to seek certain perfection, but not by the Spirit with whom they began their lives as believers in Jesus Christ; rather, they seek perfection with the flesh (which, from what the letter shows us, was in fact a kind of Law observance).8 Paul poses an ad hominem question in v. 4, asking the Galatians whether their experience of the Spirit was in vain. Inherent in this reference to the Galatians’ experience is an appeal for them not to let their involvement with the Spirit be in vain. Yet, as Paul sees the matter, for the Galatians to pursue “works of the Law” was to move to or move back to life in the flesh (4:8-11). Thus, they were in danger of having experienced the Spirit “in vain.” Have they believed in vain? Paul implies that was not yet the state of affairs. But the Galatians’ actions inadvertently reflect that they judged Paul’s mission to have been “in vain” or inadequate, for they sought to turn to others (and to “works of the Law”) to complete their standing before God. Paul’s question in this verse seems highly nuanced and is a challenge for interpreters. First, the Greek word tosauta means either “so many things” or “so great things.”9 A case can be made for

Galatians 3

either sense at this point in the letter. Perhaps there is some of both meanings in this verse, for the Galatians could have known both “many” and “great” things from the presence of the Spirit. Unfortunately, English does not lend itself easily to expressing “many” and “great” in a single word; perhaps “so many great things” is as good as one can do in translating. Second, Paul uses a striking verb in writing of what the Galatians had lived through in their time as churches. The Greek verb he uses is paschein.10 It occurs in both the LXX and forty-two times in the New Testament. In the LXX and the forty-one NT uses other than in Galatians 3:4, the word means “to suffer.” Some ancient extrabiblical authors use the word, however, in a neutral manner to mean “to experience.” Thus, many commentators translate paschein as “to experience,” following the secular usage of the word, arguing that there is no indication in the letter that the Galatians had suffered for their faith. Nevertheless, given the biblical context and usage of this verb, it seems best to translate the word “to suffer” in Galatians 3:4. This mention of suffering could refer to an actual situation of hardship, though it could also simply be a metaphorical reference to the social stigma that could have come from professing faith in one who had died on a cross, especially when a prominent part of that faith was in his being the Son of God (4:4-7). Paul continues in v. 5 still juxtaposing “works of the Law” with “the proclamation that has the power to elicit faith.” He asks the last of the six questions that he posed in this section (3:1-5) in a way that echoes the second question that he asked in v. 2, but with important distinctions. Again, Paul appeals to the Galatians’ experience. The way that Paul forms his question seems to guarantee that the answer the Galatians will give will affirm Paul’s argument against their present conduct and the misguidance of those who have come among them advocating Law observance. Paul’s question in v. 5 is different from the similar question in v. 2, for now Paul introduces two elements that give the question a different perspective. First, v. 2 asked about the origins of the Galatians’ congregations, whereas v. 5 asks about the present life of those churches. Second, v. 2 uses a finite verb (“did you receive”; Gk. elabete) of which the Galatians are the subject, while in v. 5 there are two present participles that ask about God’s involvement with the Galatians: (A) the one granting the Spirit to you (Gk. epichor∑gøn) and (B) the one working miracles among you (Gk. energøn). Neither of these participles names God explicitly, but God is supplied by the thought of the readers (in the first place, the Galatians) who know exactly who did and was doing these

125

126

Galatians 3

many great things among them. At times interpreters state that “granting the Spirit” is a way of referring to the conversion of the Galatians and the origin of the Galatian congregations; in turn, these same commentators contend that “working miracles” refers to the ongoing life of the churches. This degree of interpretation may be over-interpretation.11 What is clear is that with Paul’s use of two participial phrases (“the one granting you the Spirit and working miracles among you”), God is not named explicitly but is understood by implication to be the one doing what is named by the participles (“granting” and “working”). And so, in these phrases, one sees that the Pauline churches were charismatic congregations12 where the Spirit was important because the Spirit was active in the life of the churches. For these churches, the gift of the Spirit was not limited to an initial or one-time event; it was ongoing, as the two present participles may indicate. Abraham’s Faith, 3:6-9 Verse 6 makes an abrupt transition from the Galatians’ experience of the Spirit to the figure of Abraham. [Abraham] Thus, commentators debate whether v. 6 belongs with vv. 1-5 or vv. 7-9 (14). At issue is whether the Greek word kathøs, translated “even so,”13 implies close or loose coupling of v. 6 with vv. 1-5. That there is a connection between vv. 1-5 and v. 6 is undeniable, especially when Abraham Abraham . . . is not an “example” of something else, an “illustration” of a general point about different kinds of piety and their relative soteriological effectiveness. Paul is working, throughout this section, on the basis of the single-plan-of-God-throughIsrael-for-the-world. . . . Thus the short opening section continues simply by adding “Gentiles” to the point already made: “Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and so made that promise to Abraham; thus those of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham” (Galatians 3:8-9). So far, so clear: God has begun the great single purpose, to bless the world through choosing Abraham, calling him and making promises to him. Paul is aware, though many readers today may not be even after reading Galatians 3:15-17, that Genesis 15 (quoted in Galatians 3:6) is the chapter where God makes the covenant with Abraham, the covenant which envisages the exodus as one of its great fulfillments . . . . But what happens next? The markers, the concluding notes, in every section in this chapter are still all about Abraham and his family. Galatians 3:9: those of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. Galatians 3:14: so that the blessing of Abraham might (after all!) come upon the Gentiles. Galatians 3:18: the inheritance was given to Abraham by promise. Galatians 3:22: no explicit mention of Abraham, but the same point: the promise belongs to believers. Then, finally, Galatians 3:29: if you are the Messiah’s, you are Abraham’s seed, heirs in accordance with the promise. The chapter is soaked in Abraham, and every section depends on the sense of a historical sequence in which Abraham comes first, the law comes next and the Messiah—and/or “faith”—comes to complete the sequence. From N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 2009) 122–23.

Abraham. From the Kievan Psalter. 1397. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-1923)

Galatians 3

127

one notices the “faith” language in vv. 5 and 6—pisteøs (v. 5, “faith”) and episteusen (v. 6, “believed”). A close connection would imply that as the Galatians had received the Spirit, so had Abraham; but that idea is not part of Paul’s understanding of the Spirit as a divine gift of the new creation that had begun through God’s work in Jesus Christ. Thus, given this element of Paul’s theology and given that Abraham is introduced in v. 6 and continues to be mentioned in each of vv. 7-9, it seems best to view and treat v. 6 in conjunction with vv. 7-9. From this perspective, v. 5 makes a concluding statement (by faith the Galatians received the Spirit and experienced miracles) and v. 6 moves beyond v. 5 to make a new beginning in Paul’s argument, while offering a loose parallel to v. 5 (by faith Abraham was counted righteous). In addition, from this point of view, v. 6 makes a scriptural declaration that is treated in vv. 7-9. Verse 7 offers an interpretation of the biblical text (Gen 15:6) that was quoted in v. 6; then, vv. 8-9 present exposition and a scriptural proof for the point that Paul is making in v. 6. For Paul, the story of Abraham was particularly important because he read the account in such a way that the justification of the Gentiles was foretold in the promise to Abraham (see vv. 8-9). Against any claim to the contrary, Paul works to put the record (of God’s dealings with Abraham and of God’s regard for the Gentiles) straight. Paul’s use of Scripture (exegesis) is different from the interpretation of biblical texts using historical-critical and grammatical methods that scholars practice today. Paul works with Scripture in a circumstantial fashion. This approach strikes Ancient Exegetical Strategies twenty-first-century readers as arbitrary. But, For further reading on the exegetical if one allows Paul to work as a citizen of the strategies used in early Christianity and Judaism, consult the following: first-century world, using the presuppositions and exegetical procedures of his own time, his Karlfried Froehlich, Biblical Interpretation in the arguments from Scripture are, in fact, underEarly Church, Sources of Early Christian Thought, standable and logical in their own terms. [Ancient ed. William G. Rusch (Philadelphia: Fortress, Exegetical Strategies]

Furthermore, the figure of Abraham is important in Paul’s controversy with the Galatians. For the Jewish mission to Gentiles, Abraham was the model of one who converted from paganism to the true God and to the Law.14 Perhaps Paul had introduced the Galatians to Abraham in his original preaching among them. Perhaps those whom Paul opposes in Galatia, outsiders advocating Law observance (and particularly circumcision), had brought Abraham to the

1984). Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson, eds., A History of Biblical Interpretation, vol. 1: The Ancient Period (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2003). Daniel Maoz, “PARDES,” Dictionary of the Bible and Western Culture, ed. Mary Ann Beavis and Michael J. Gilmour (Sheffield UK: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012). Darrell J. Pursiful, “Quadriga,” Dictionary of the Bible and Western Culture, ed. Mary Ann Beavis and Michael J. Gilmour (Sheffield UK: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012).

128

Galatians 3

attention of the Galatians. That Paul could expect the Galatians, who appear to be Gentile pagans (see 4:8-10), to follow an exegetical discussion of Abraham seems to indicate that they were somehow familiar with Abraham. It is ultimately impossible to tell how the Galatians first learned of Abraham, but however that had happened, Paul uses Abraham’s story as the foundation of the case that he puts before them. In v. 6, Paul cites Genesis 15:6 LXX almost exactly, (A) changing the word order so that Abraham’s name appears at the beginning of the quotation rather than after the beginning of the clause and (B) using the form of Abraham’s name that comes into the text of Genesis only at Genesis 17:5 (earlier it was “Abram”): LXX—kai episteusen Abram tø theø, kai elogisth∑ autø eis dikaiosyn∑ Galatians 3:6—Abraam episteusen tø theø, kai elogisth∑ autø eis dikaiosyn∑ Yet Paul’s use of Abraham is different from the references to Abraham in much of Jewish literature contemporary with Paul. In that material, Abraham is consistently remembered and cited as the paragon of faithfulness to God in and through obedience and Law observance. First Maccabees 2:52 is typical of the Jewish regard for Abraham, stating, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” Similarly see Sirach 44:19-21; Philo, Heir 90-95; Abraham 262, 273-74; Jubilees 23.10; and James 2:20-24 (?). For such Jewish (and Christian?) authors, the Law was given at Sinai after the lifetime of Abraham, but many authors contended that he knew and kept the unwritten law beforehand. Modern interpreters, however, who read Paul to say in this and similar passages that “for both Abraham and the Galatians, faith was the personal response essential for the eventual blessing that the divine word had initiated” misread Paul as being quasiPelagian.15 As another interpreter of Paul has put it, “. . . faith is neither a human response, nor that which makes us what we would be of all persons most miserable [cf. 1 Cor 15:19b] . . . that faith is a miracle is reflected in Paul’s listing it among the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22; cf. 4:23, 25) . . . if we are to use a single word for it, faith is then not response (and surely not salvific response), but rather gift.”16 Furthermore, in v. 6 Paul uses the verb logizesthai (“to count”), a word taken from the LXX in the citation of Genesis 15:6. (Paul’s fondness for this verse is seen in his using Gen 15:6 three times in

Galatians 3

129

God’s Promises to Abram his midrash on Abraham in Rom 4.) The word comes from commerce and came to have both literal and figurative usage. In commerce the word is used to express “to reckon” or “to count.” More figuratively logizesthai means “to take into account,” “to calculate,” or “to consider.” In the passive voice (as it is here in Gal 3:6), the verb has both literal and figurative senses, “to be counted” and “to be calculated.”17 In uses like those in Genesis 15:6 and here in Galatians, interpreters sometimes suggest a translation such as “credit James Jacques Joseph Tissot (1836–1902). God’s Promises to Abram. c. something as,”18 though the more tradi1896–1902. Gouache on board. The Jewish Museum, New York, NY. (Credit: tional renderings as “reckon” or “count” Dauster / Wikimedia Commons, CC-PD-Mark) are accurate in the sense they suggest for the word. Faith in Abraham’s case is not the faith of one who is in fact righteous, but of one who believes in God who justifies the unrighteous, so that Abraham was reckoned righteous according to God’s grace. Many interpreters note that Paul’s presentation of faith/righteousness seems more forensic than transformational at this point in his argument, but to place faith/righteousness into alternative readings that seem exclusive of each other may not appreciate Paul’s dynamic thought fully; for what appears forensic in one context may well appear transformational in another (otherwise interpreters would not argue over this interpretive matter so vigorously). From the citation of Scripture in v. 6, Paul moves in v. 7 to unpack the meaning and implications of the Scripture for the situation that he and the others were facing in Galatia. Paul signals that he is now interpreting the passage from Genesis (15:6) by the use of the postpositive inferential conjunction ara, most often translated, “therefore.” The use of this word indicates that Paul is drawing a conclusion, and, since it is a conclusion drawn from a biblical text, we can say that Paul was about to do exegesis of the verse from Genesis. Yet Paul continues before entering into the explicit interpretation of the Scripture by saying, “You know” (Gk. ginôskete). This word could be either an indicative (“you know”) or an imperative (“know!”)—it is the difference between a simple statement and a command. Many commentators take the word as an imperative because they infer that Paul is directing the Galatians here using a form found in didactic literature.19 Yet others see Paul

130

Galatians 3

using a “standard disclosure formula” that draws a conclusion from the previously cited scriptural text and introduces Paul’s argument that will follow.20 Given the tone and the apparent function of the word ara (“therefore”) in Paul’s argument at this point, the statement seems best read as an indicative: “Therefore, you know that. . . .” Paul next refers to “those of faith” (Gk. hoi ek pisteøs), a phrase that in context names believers in Jesus Christ. He forms a comparison between Abraham and “those of faith,” particularly focused on the issue of faith. Many interpreters suggest that Paul coined this phrase, “those of faith.” It is found only here (vv. 7 and 9) in Paul’s writings and it occurs in a setting—a dispute over Law observance for Gentile Christians—that may mean that Paul used the phrase to differentiate Law-free from Law-observant believers. In the minds of some commentators, Paul’s opponents would have used a phrase such as those of the Law, to which Paul would have responded by referring to those of faith. For Paul faith forms a sphere, the new creation, in which those who believe in Jesus Christ live their lives to God. The sphere came into existence through the faith of Jesus Christ (2:16), and now those people of faith live out their new relationship with God by God’s own grace, which created and sustains the sphere of faith. This sphere, however, is not spiritually amorphous. It has content and character: Jesus Christ (1:1; 2:16), who is the Son of God (2:20; 4:4), whose death has meaning for the salvation of humanity (1:4; 2:20; 3:13; 4:5). In v. 7 Paul also creates an equation between “those of faith” and “the sons of Abraham.” Contemporary translations use “children” (tekna in Greek; a word that does not occur here in the Greek text), rather than the purely male word “sons” (huioi in Greek, which does occur here). That Paul himself had more in mind than merely the males is clear from the way he defines “sons of God” and “Abraham’s seed” in Galatians 3:26-29; there the sons and the seed include, among other ways of designating them, persons who are “male” (Gk. arsen) and “female” (Gk. thely). Thus, contemporary translations are on the right track in understanding that Paul uses the word sons in reference to both men and women. Paul’s use of “sons” may have been no more than a linguistic convention in a male-dominated culture, such as the first-century world in which he lived, though his focus on inheritance may have led him to use “sons” for reasons related to Greco-Roman and Jewish inheritance laws.

Galatians 3

Verses 8-9 continue the exposition of Genesis 15:6 as quoted in v. 6. Verse 8 depicts Jewish Scripture, both “foreseeing” and “preaching” the gospel “in advance” to Abraham. Scholars differ over what the phrase the scripture (Gk. h∑ graph∑) means. Some interpreters state that Paul intends to refer to the Scriptures as a whole, while others contend that the scripture denotes a particular passage, here Genesis 12:3 (with perhaps elements of Gen 18:18 or 22:18 or both). The use of this phrase, the scripture, and the context of v. 8 seem to indicate that Paul has a particular passage in mind (Gen 12:3), though he may mean that all of Scripture put this particular message forth at a particular moment. However Paul meant to refer to “Scripture,” in his usage it appears to be personified (as is also the case in 3:22 and perhaps 4:30), so that Scripture both saw and proclaimed to Abraham in advance that God would justify and bless (apparently they are the same in Paul’s mind at this point) the Gentiles in/through him. The Scripture Paul cites here is Genesis 12:3. The LXX text of Genesis is not exactly what Paul quotes. A comparison with Galatians 3:8 shows how Paul’s citation differs from Genesis 12:3 and, furthermore, comparison with Genesis 18:18 and 22:18 shows how Paul may have picked up an important phrase from one or both of those verses: Genesis 12:3 LXX—eneuloge–the–sontai en soi pasai hai phylai t∑s g∑s, “all the tribes of the earth will be blessed in you” Galatians 3:8—eneuloge–the–sontai en soi panta ta ethne–, “all the Gentiles will be blessed in you” Genesis 18:18 LXX—eneuloge–the–sontai en autø panta ta ethne– t∑s g∑s, “all the Gentiles of the earth will be blessed in him” Genesis 22:18 LXX—eneuloge–the–sontai en tø spermati sou panta ta ethne– t∑s g∑s, “all the Gentiles of the earth will be blessed in your seed”21 As one sees, Paul apparently introduced a change to the text of Genesis 12:3 in order to make the augmented citation fit the situation he was facing in the letter to the Galatians. With this change, Paul declares not that “all the tribes of the earth” but that all the Gentiles will be blessed in Abraham. Perhaps Paul interpreted Genesis 12:3 the way he did because God’s revelation moved him in the direction of a Law-free mission to the Gentiles (1:15-16), and, in turn, in his experience confirmation for that mission came

131

132

Galatians 3

in God’s indisputable acceptance of Gentiles through faith and not works of the Law. Thus, Paul’s logic runs this way: The children of Abraham are those of faith. In turn, Scripture foresaw, prior to the time of Christ, that God justifies the Gentiles by faith. Thus, the Gentiles are children of Abraham. And so Scripture preached the gospel in advance to Abraham. The gospel that was preached was that all the Gentiles will be blessed in you (in Abraham). Thus, the Gentiles are blessed by God’s justification of them by faith (as was the case with Abraham—see v. 6 and Gen 15:6). In this way, Paul can draw the conclusion that those of faith, Abraham’s “To Bless” children, the Gentiles, are blessed along with The verb “to bless” (Gk. eneulogein) occurs here and in Acts 3:25, which is a loose citation faithful Abraham as God justifies them by of Gen 22:18 (with possible touches from Gen 12:3 and faith. [“To Bless”] 18:18) that has text-critical problems related to this In v. 9 Paul draws together his Old word; forty-two times elsewhere in the NT one finds Testament texts, Genesis 15:6 and 12:3, by the Greek word eulogein used for “to bless.” employing language from both: “those of faith” (Gen 15:6) and “are blessed” (Gen 12:3). In his historical setting, this tying together of the texts he has been expounding gives credence to his interpretation of those biblical passages. One should not miss, however, the way in which Paul uses Genesis 15:6 before Genesis 12:3, for Paul’s sequencing of these texts allows him to paint a portrait of Abraham that makes him the forebear and precursor of the Gentiles who are now being blessed (and justified) through faith, and not by works of the Law. In the last phrase of v. 9 (“with faithful Abraham”; Gk. syn tø pistø Abraam), Paul refers to Abraham as pistos, a Greek word that has been translated here as “faithful,” but by others as “believing.” The dominant general usage of pistos suggests that faithful is a preferable translation,22 especially given Paul’s use of pistos in his other epistles (3:9 is the only verse in Galatians in which pistos occurs).23 The Law and Christ, 3:10-14 In vv. 10-14, Paul continues his argument against Law observance and expounds the benefits of redemption, blessing, and the reception of the Spirit in Christ Jesus. His presentation is, however, complex and hard to follow. He weaves together a series of statements and a group of biblical quotations. These statements and quotes are ostensibly to fit together as declarations and prooftexts or, better, as exegeses of the biblical citations that are given in Paul’s letter and, then, the Scriptures themselves. Verses 10-12 are negative in character, dealing with a curse, lack of justification, and the incompatibility of the Law and faith; vv. 13-14 present a more

Galatians 3

133

positive outlook, speaking of redemption, blessing, and the promise of the Spirit through faith. Paul begins v. 10 with the postpositive conjunction “for” (Gk. gar). The sentence is a self-explanatory statement made in relation to the preceding discussion of Abraham in vv. 6-9. Nevertheless, Paul introduces a new angle into his reflection on the blessing of Abraham, viz., the curse of the Law. The Law Gets in the Way [The Law Gets in the Way] The exact nature of this Paul highlights three ways in which the curse is never spelled out, but one who is cursed Law of Moses gets in the way of God’s is evidently cast into a perilous position in relapromise to Abraham: tion to the Law. Paul’s own statement, however, 1. The law, and Israel’s subsequent failure to keep is exactly the opposite of the assumptions and it, creates a bottleneck that keeps the promise outlook of someone who would be practicing from being fulfilled (Gal 3:10-14). Law observance; he says, “as many as live from 2. The law threatens to divide the promised single the Law are under a curse.” But then he cites family of believers into two (Gal 3:15-18). Deuteronomy 27:26, which is contrary to what 3. The law keeps everything imprisoned under the power of sin (Gal 3:21-22). he has just said. What is going on here? Paul is presenting a view of the human condiN. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers tion that works with the conviction that people Grove IL: InterVarsity, 2009) 123. are under the influence of powers beyond the humans’ control. This view is an apocalyptic outlook on reality, and as will become evident in the remainder of chapter 3 and also in chapter 4, Paul sees humanity in bondage to a series of such negative forces: the curse of the Law (3:10), Sin (3:22), the Law itself (3:23), the Warden (3:25), guardians and overseers (4:2), the elements of the universe (4:3), and again the Law (4:4, 5, 21; 5:18).24 Because Paul sees humanity enslaved to these forces, he says (what no Law-observant person would even think) that the Galatians will be under the curse of the Law if they engage in Law observance. Paul cites Deuteronomy 27:26, though his “citation” is different from all known texts of the LXX (this is often the case with Paul’s quotations of Scripture). A comparison of the LXX and Paul’s statement here is instructive: LXX—epikataratos pas anthrøpos ho ouk emmenei en pasin tois logois tou nomou toutou tou poi∑sai autous, Cursed is every person who does not abide in all the words of this law, to do them Paul—epikataratos pas ho ouk emmenei pasin tois gegrammenois en tø bibliø tou nomou tou poi∑sai auta, Cursed are all who do not abide in all the things having been written in the book of the Law, to do them

134

Galatians 3

In comparison with the LXX text, Paul’s quotation omits, adds, and substitutes words and phrases. This citation could come from an unknown version of the LXX, from memory, or Paul could have made changes deliberately. The differences between the LXX and Paul, extensive as they are, do not affect the basic sense of the text. What is more striking than the verbal similarities and differences between the texts is the way Paul seems to assume that this passage from Deuteronomy agrees with his own exegesis. Paul says, “If one observes the Law, that one is under a curse.” But Deuteronomy states, “All who do not observe the law are cursed.” Many, if not most, interpreters conclude that Paul makes an unstated assumption here. They argue that Paul believed that human beings are incapable of keeping the Law, and so they interpret the text this way: (1) Deuteronomy admonishes people to observe the Law; (2) people cannot keep the Law, and Paul knows it; therefore, (3) Paul states that all who are involved with Law observance are under a curse. The problem with this interpretation is that Paul never states that it is impossible for persons to observe the Law meticulously. In fact, at Philippians 3:6 Paul says the opposite. (Readers should consult the discussion of Law and Law observance in the comments on 2:16 above.) Since the idea that Paul is working with an unstated assumption is not persuasive, certain scholars have made further attempts at unraveling the meaning of v. 10. Some commentators conclude that Paul worked out an exegetical explanation that would have made little sense to the Galatians. That lack of clarity and coherence is equally evident today. Or other interpreters suggest that Paul may be quoting a passage that his opponents in Galatia presented to the churches there in their own work with Scripture. Paul takes that passage and attempts to refute his opponents by interpreting the text from Deuteronomy in relation to his own understanding. With any one of these three options, Paul’s interpretation of Deuteronomy 27:26 still makes no sense. But there may be another option for interpretation. The first option presented above assumed and argued that Paul believed that humans cannot keep the Law. That option proves inadequate for understanding the text in its historical context. But could it be that what Paul is critiquing is the situation that he faced, viz., an attempt at partial Law observance (5:3) that his opponents practiced (6:12-13) and that they were attempting to teach the Galatians to follow? In other words, it is not that people cannot practice full Law observance but that they do not practice full Law observance. If this is what Paul means,

Galatians 3

135

The Noachic Laws then, what he is saying in 3:10 is that all who In discussing the moral obligations God dabble in Law observance are under a curse imposed upon everyone, Jew or Gentile, because the Law itself curses all who do not do the rabbis discussed what are called the Noachic everything written in the book of the Law. laws or the Noachic covenant. According to the Attempts at partial Law observance bring on the Talmud, God gave Adam six commandments that curse of the Law. Thus, Law observance is an allwere to be obligatory upon the entire human race: or-nothing way of life (5:3). [The Noachic Laws] 1. prohibition against idolatry In the interpretation that I am suggesting, 2. prohibition against blasphemy Deuteronomy 27:26 states (I paraphrase), 3. prohibition against murder “Every person who does not keep the whole Law 4. prohibition against adultery is cursed.” And Paul writes (again, I paraphrase), 5. prohibition against robbery “As many as live from the Law, keeping it only 6. requirement to establish courts of justice in some of its parts, are under a curse.” Here too A seventh commandment was given to Noah assumptions have to be made, but in this line of after the flood: interpretation, the assumptions are in keeping with, not contrary to, what we know of Paul and 7. prohibition against eating meat cut from a living his attitude toward the Law and Law observance animal. (Up until this time, all consumption of from his preserved writings. [Who Is Cursed?] meat was forbidden.) The next verse (v. 11) presents a two-part The rabbis concluded that Gentiles who obeyed statement similar in form to v. 10—first Paul these laws were deemed righteous in the sight of says what he means, and then he cites Scripture God and were to be protected by Jewish law that his statement has already interpreted. In when under Jewish jurisdiction. Such Gentiles this verse, Paul’s own declaration says literally, would have a part in the world to come. “that by the Law no one is justified before God Some interpreters believe the Noachic laws lie behind the compromise reached at the Apostolic clearly.” The word clearly (Gk. dêlos) can be used Council in Acts 15 regarding the place of Gentile to introduce a proof,25 as perhaps here, where believers in the church. If that is the case, it both Paul’s interpretation and his citation are would have tended to maintain a division taken as manifest evidence of the point that Paul between Jewish and Gentile believers, creating a is making—i.e., persons are not justified by the sort of “Gentile auxiliary” organization of which Law, but rather they are justified by faith. What Paul could hardly have approved. At any rate, discussions of the Noachic laws may not be apparent to readers of the English point to the fact that at least some Jews in the text of Galatians is the close relationship time of Paul devoted a fair bit of energy to the between the words Paul uses in speaking of question of minimum standards of Torah obser“being justified” (Gk. dikaioun) and the vance to which Gentiles must comply. mention of the “righteous one” in the biblical text (Gk. dikaios). These words are cognates in Greek, though that is not always apparent in English translations. What Paul says is clear is his own statement, though by implication the Scripture he cites is also clear in the point that it makes. Nevertheless, in English Paul’s own interpretive words begin v. 11 with “It is clear that . . . .” Paul’s declaration is indeed clear: “No one is justified before God by the Law.” This point is one that Paul knows both experientially and theologically (2:15-16; 3:21; see also 2:17-18): the Law justifies no one before God.

136

Galatians 3

Who Is Cursed? If Paul’s point is not that everyone who keeps the Law is cursed but rather that the curse falls on those who live from the Law, but keeping it only in some parts, then Gal 3:10-14 can be read as much as a defense against the charge that he himself neglected the law and thus made Christ a servant of sin (2:17) as a polemic against his opponents’ theology. Rather than reading an implied premise in v. 10, this interpretation reads an implied condition: those who rely on the works of the Law are cursed if they abandon any of its precepts. Seen in this light, we might suggest Young’s paraphrase of Gal 3:10-14 as an apt clarification of this difficult passage:

Both in confirmation of his claim and also as the source of his knowledge, Paul cites Habakkuk 2:4.26 As one can see by comparison between texts, the form of Paul’s citation does not match the LXX of Habakkuk 2:4b: LXX—ho de dikaios ek pisteøs mou z∑setai, “the righteous one by my faith will live” Paul—ho dikaios ek pisteøs z∑setai, “the righteous one by faith will live”

Moreover, the Hebrew text (MT) matches neither the LXX nor Paul exactly, reading in v. 10: Whoever makes the Sinai covenantal law their translation, “the just [righteous one] will live way of life comes under a curse (if they deliberately by his faith.” abandon any of its precepts); for scripture itself proThe meaning of this Old Testament nounces a curse on anyone who claims to be under Scripture in Paul’s argument is not deterthe law’s jurisdiction and yet abandons some of its mined by either the original Hebrew text or requirements. the translation of the LXX. Rather, Paul’s v. 11a: Hence it is clear that no one can belong to the people of God on the basis of the Sinai law/covenant abbreviated reading lacks “his” (Hebrew) while blatantly abandoning any of its requirements. and “my” (LXX)—possessive pronouns— v. 11b: Therefore, those who become members of the before “faith.” Thus for Paul the text reads, people of God by faith must continue to direct their “The righteous one by faith will live.” lives by faith And the question is whether the preposiv. 12: and not by the Mosaic covenant, which requires tional phrase “by faith” (Gk. ek pisteøs) a person to live by all its stipulations (hence the hypocrisy of the Judaizers, who claim Sinai’s authority modifies the noun “the righteous one” or the in support of their case for circumcision but do not verb “will live.” Does Paul mean to say, “the themselves keep all the law’s requirements; see 6:13) one who is righteous by faith will live,” or “the v. 13: Christ’s death on the cross has released us— one who is righteous will live by faith”? those of faith—from the Sinai covenant’s ability or Interpreters cannot resolve this matter, right to curse us for abandoning such requirements as primarily because both readings or interprecircumcision and holy days, v. 14: with the result that Gentiles, without incurring tations of Paul’s citation have much to the law’s curse, are now able to receive the blessing commend them. Thus, perhaps one should of Abraham and the promise of the Spirit, even though join those commentators who take both they are uncircumcised. (91) readings (“the one who is righteous by faith” and “will live by faith”) as Paul’s intended Norman H. Young, “Who’s Cursed—and Why? (Galatians 3:10-14),” Journal of Biblical Literature 117/1 (1998): 70–92. meaning. For example, Martyn finds that both readings would mean the same thing to Paul, since Galatians 3:21 equates “righteousness” (Gk. dikaiosyn∑) and “imparting life” (Gk. zøopoiein).27 The even larger controversial question, however, is “Whose faith is Paul talking about in his own version of the citation of

Galatians 3

Habakkuk 2:4?” The Hebrew text (MT) is almost certainly referring to the faith of the righteous person. The LXX appears to have God in mind. But of whose faith does Paul speak in his use (adaptation?) of Habakkuk 2:4? There are two reasonable answers. First, Paul may have in mind the believer per se. This understanding of Paul’s citation would agree with the wording of the Hebrew text, “by his faith,” which uses the possessive pronoun his explicitly. But Paul’s version of Habakkuk 2:4 does not use a possessive pronoun in the phrase by faith. And so, while this interpretation of Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 is possible, it is not demonstrable. Second, Paul may have in mind God or, perhaps better, Christ. That understanding also is not demonstrable, because Paul’s citation lacks the possessive pronoun my of the LXX. Yet for Paul faith is not a human creation; it is, as Galatians 5:22 states, “fruit of the Spirit.” Thus, it is God’s work and not the achievement of a person. (We will have occasion to return to this topic, especially in considering 3:23.) And so the second option (“by faith” equals “by God’s/Christ’s faith”) seems more in line with Paul’s thoughts on faith elsewhere in the letter, but this issue of interpretation is still highly debatable. For the third time in this thicket of exegeses and citations (vv. 10-14), Paul makes a statement that provides his interpretation of the citation of Old Testament material that follows. Though some interpreters read v. 12 as being in an adversative relationship to v. 11, Paul’s assertion, “the Law is not from faith,” comes in a complementary way in the wake of his reasoning in vv. 10-11. Paul’s emphases throughout vv. 10-12 are negative (“under a curse . . . no one is justified . . . not from faith”) as he works out a case against Law observance and for faith. His outlook here remains unchanged. Paul’s declaration, “The Law is not from faith,” is sensible in itself. Yet one must recognize that it is a conclusion drawn as an interpretation of a portion of Leviticus 18:5, “The one doing these things will live by them.” In other words, those who live observing the Law will live by virtue of the precepts of the Law that they keep. Paul’s citation of Leviticus 18:5 is, as with previous quotations, slightly different from the LXX: LXX—ha poi∑sas anthrøpos z∑setai en autois, “the person doing these things will live by them” Paul—ho poi∑sas auto z∑setai en autois, “the one doing these things will live by them”

137

138

Galatians 3

Some commentators try to find meaning in the lack of “person” (Gk. anthrøpos) in Paul’s version of this citation, but no significance is really apparent, and the difference is as likely to be the result of Paul’s quoting from memory as anything else. In turn, Paul’s use of the strong adversative conjunction “rather” (Gk. alla) between his interpretation and his citation of Leviticus 18:5 forms a sharp contrast. Paul’s explanation (“the Law is not from faith”) is a negative statement in relation to the positive declaration in the Old Testament text itself (“the one doing these things will live by them”). Paul stands that text on its head, using a positive statement to draw a negative conclusion, so that he advances his presentation, arguing from a confidence in faith against a commitment to Law observance—all the while turning the words of the Law against the Law and in favor of faith. In v. 13 Paul follows the pattern seen in vv. 10-12 of making an interpretive statement that precedes a citation of an Old Testament Scripture that the initial statement explicates. Paul had said that those who engaged in limited Law observance were under the curse of the Law. Now in v. 13 he takes up the theme of the curse of the Law and makes a connection between Christ, the curse of the Law, and humankind. “Christ,” Paul says (meaning by “Christ” to speak of Jesus Christ—see 2:16-17 for the variety of ways Paul can use Christ), redeemed “us” from the curse of the Law. Interpreters disagree about whom Paul speaks of using the pronoun us (Gk. h∑meis). Some commentators argue that Paul means Jewish Christians, because he is speaking of the Law and because earlier he had used first-person pronouns (we and ourselves—see 2:15-17) to indicate that group of persons. But others contend that Paul uses the pronoun us here to refer to the whole of humanity. There are several reasons to conclude that Paul is speaking of Jews and Gentiles alike at this point: (1) the curse of the Law is universal (v. 10); (2) the phrase for us (Gk. hyper h∑møn) echoes other statements about Christ and humanity (see 1:4; 4:1-7; and Rom 8:32); and (3) God sends the Spirit into the hearts of both Jews and Gentiles (4:6).28 Christ, Paul states, “redeemed us from the curse of the Law.” The idea of redemption is itself a concept from the world of ancient commerce, functioning here as a religious metaphor. The same language occurs at 4:5 (see similarly 1:4), indicating there too the notion of redeeming or purchasing something (or someone) at a price to the deliverer. (Interpreters sometimes understand the word as an allusion to the exodus.) In this instance Paul states that Christ

Galatians 3

139

is the one who has paid the price for the sake of humanity. Paul refers to the situation or peril from which Christ redeemed humankind as “the curse of the Law.” This phrase is found only here in Paul’s writings. Some commentators see in this statement a reference to sacrifice, specifically to sacrifice as a payment for the sake of atonement. Paul’s lanThe Slave Market guage, however, is not so specific, The imagery of “redemption” is drawn from the practice of and his focus on the curse of the slavery. It imagines humankind’s predicament as bondage to sin, death, the devil, and the Law and proposes that God through Law is not an explicit reference to Christ comes to our rescue by purchasing our freedom. the Jewish (or even Gentile) sacrificial system. The curse of which Paul writes is that of the Law— notably not that of God (explicitly). Even so, the curse of the Law is not exactly the Law itself. Yet the situation for people is dire. Paul sees humanity in a perilous bondage to the Law (and to the idols and elements of the universe—see 4:8-10) and he sees that Christ acted to free humanity from the enslaving curse that is Gustave Boulanger. The Slave Market. c. 1882. Oil on canvas. (Credit: Wikimedia associated with the Law. [The Slave Commons, PD-1923) Market] The curse here in v. 13 is the same as that mentioned in v. 10. Given that later in Galatians 3 (vv. 19-20) Paul will in part dissociate God and the Law, one can already see him here separating God and the Law from an oftenassumed intimacy. Paul writes that Christ “became a curse,” i.e., he came under the curse of the Law. A similar idea occurs at 2 Corinthians 5:21. In both instances, Paul appears to say that Christ himself became as if the scapegoat of Leviticus 16 (vv. 6-10, 20-22, 26). Whether this animal should be regarded as a sacrifice is debated. Nevertheless, the goat took on and bore away the sins of the people in much the way that Paul seems to envision Christ becoming a curse (or being “made sin”—2 Cor 5:21) in behalf of humanity. Paul’s remarks in v. 13a are followed by a citation of Deuteronomy 21:23. One may compare the LXX and Paul’s citation: LXX—kekat∑ramenos hypo theou pas kremamenos epi xylou, “Cursed by God is everyone who is hanged on a tree” Paul—epikataratos pas ho kremamenos epi xylou, “Accursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”

140

Galatians 3

Four items merit attention. (1) The opening word in Paul’s version of the text from Deuteronomy is epikataratos rather than the LXX’s kekat∑ramenos. This difference makes Paul’s citation fit more neatly with the citation of Deuteronomy 27:26 in v. 10, where epikataratos also occurs, so that the two passages from Deuteronomy are held together more closely in Paul’s presentation. (2) More striking than the alteration of words is the absence of “by God” (Gk. hypo theou) in Paul’s citation. Commentators remark that perhaps Paul either could not say that God cursed Christ, or Paul wanted to make more explicit that the Law cursed Christ, or both. Whatever Paul’s motivation was, he presents his argument so that he shows Christ’s death by crucifixion to be the fulfillment of Scripture. Indeed, this Scripture is the only one that Paul uses in interpreting Christ’s death. (3) Paul’s statement that Christ was “hanged on a tree” repeats the language of the text of Deuteronomy 21:23. In Deuteronomy, however, the original “hanging” to which the text referred was the exposure of the dead body of an already executed criminal. This kind of hanging was not a method of execution. Rather, when a person was dead (by another form of execuCrucifixion in the Dead Sea Scrolls tion), the dead body was put on display by Its interpretation [re: Nah 2:13] concerns the being hanged on a wooden post or tree. This Angry Lion [who filled his den with a mass of practice was intended to discourage activicorpses, carrying out rev]enge against those looking for easy interpretations, who hanged living men [from the ties similar to those that resulted in the tree, committing an atrocity which had not been comexecution of the hanged criminal. With the mitted] in Israel since ancient times, for it is horrible for passage of time, by the Roman era, the text the one hanged alive from the tree. (4QpNah 1:6-8; of Deuteronomy 21:23 became associated Martínez, 195) with crucifixion in certain circles of Judaism. If there were a man with a sin punishable by death and he escapes among the nations and curses his people (4) Paul is not alone in associating death /and/ the children of Israel, he also you shall hang on by crucifixion with being cursed. In the the tree and he will die. Their corpses shall not spend DSS (4QpNah and 11QTemple), there is the night on the tree; instead, you shall bury them that evidence that some Jews, roughly during day because they are cursed by God and man, those Christ’s time, related the text from hanged on a tree; thus you shall not defile the land Deuteronomy to execution by crucifixion.29 which I give you for inheritance. (11QTemple 64:9-13; Martínez, 178) [Crucifixion in the Dead Sea Scrolls] Nevertheless, while Paul is not unique in connecting Florentino García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Deuteronomy 21:23 with death by cruciQumran Texts in English, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1996). fixion, he is distinguished in linking that verse with death by crucifixion that is further understood to be the Christological fulfillment of Scripture.30 Verse 14 is a statement comprising two purpose clauses (Gk. hina [“in order that”] + a verb in the subjunctive mood). Here, these

Galatians 3

141

clauses reveal why the things occurred that are named in the preceding clause. In this instance, v. 13 says what happened and v. 14 gives the reason(s) for the occurrence. In v. 13 Paul tells what Christ did and experienced—he redeemed believers (“us”—Gk. h∑meis) and he became a curse in their behalf. In other words, Paul says that Christ died on the cross to save humanity. Why? Verse 14 supplies the answer, or in this case v. 14 offers two “To Abraham and His Offspring” reasons why Christ did what he did. Christ The establishment of a link with redeemed those whom he freed from the curse of Genesis 22 was to bear considerable the Law (1) in order that the Gentiles might experifruit—a case that has been argued by Vermes and by Nils Dahl, among others. The ence the blessing of Abraham in Christ Jesus clear allusion to Gen. 22:18 in Rom. 8:32, for himself and (2) in order that those whom he example, suggests the possible shape of an redeemed might experience the Spirit through faith. [“To Abraham and His Offspring”]

interpretive tradition: as Abraham did not spare his only son, so God did not spare his—as the means of fulfilling his promise to Abraham that in his seed all the Gentiles would be blessed. Paul could use the argument to defend his ministry to Gentiles or to prove that the death of the Messiah was a suitable climax to the ministry of the one whom God designated as the source of blessing promised Abraham in remembrance of the Akedah [the binding of Isaac].

The two purpose clauses do not refer to two independent results of Christ’s actions. Rather, they recognize complementary dimensions of Christ’s redemptive work: 1. In order that the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus—God gave a blessing to Abraham and his descendents, which is recorded in Genesis 12:1-3. Part of that blessing was pronounced upon “all the families of the earth.” Paul From Donald Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity says here in v. 14 that Christ’s death on the cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 87. brought the promised aspects of Abraham’s blessing to fruition in relation to the Gentiles, but, importantly, Paul says that the blessing came to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus. Christ’s death somehow realized the promised blessing for the Gentiles. 2. In order that “we” might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith—Paul referred to the blessing of the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, and now he indicates that the promise of the Spirit came to Jewish and Gentile believers alike through faith. Already the Galatians knew this dimension of God’s involvement with them (see 3:1-5). For Paul to name this aspect of God’s work was to remind the Galatians of the Law-free manner in which the gospel came to them and of the obvious effect it had in their lives. In what Paul writes, one should note that the promise of the Spirit was part of the blessing of Abraham that came to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus. The focus for Paul is Jesus Christ, not primarily “faith”—faith is in something and is not an end in itself; it is secondary. That which matters most for Paul is Jesus Christ, who acted for the sake of humankind, who brought the blessing of Abraham to the Gentiles, and who effected the Spirit in the lives of believers.

142

Galatians 3

Verses 10-14 of chapter 3 make for a challenging passage, especially because Paul combines statements and Scriptures in forming his argument. As we have seen, discerning the relationship between the statements, which seem to function as Paul’s exegetical remarks, and the Scriptures, which are presented as being foundational for Paul’s comments, is difficult. But in order to follow Paul’s argument, after distinguishing between the statements and the Scriptures, it is possible to focus on Paul’s statements alone in order to see what he had to say from his reading of the biblical texts. This strategy allows one to follow Paul’s argument more simply without the complexity of the combinations of Paul’s remarks and the references to and quotations of Scripture. Read in this manner, Paul says, 1. As many as live from Law observance are under a curse. 2. It is clear that no one is justified before God by the Law. 3. The Law is not from faith. 4. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, becoming a curse for us—in order that the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, in order that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Read this way, Paul’s remarks seem more readily clear than when they are read (for what they really are) as exegeses of scriptural texts. One can never forget, however, the chief role that Scripture plays in Paul’s theological reflection. Nor should one underestimate the key role that Scripture plays in much of Paul’s construction of his arguments. But, in this instance, when Paul’s statements and his citations of Scripture are so tightly bound to each other, it is helpful to step back from the text of Paul’s letter to see what he is saying on his own from his reading of biblical texts. In this case, it may be that such selective reading helps one to perceive what Paul had to say. A Will: Promises and the Law, 3:15-18 In order to clarify and emphasize his message about Christ and the Law, Paul presents an argument from everyday life that illustrates the point(s) that he is making. Verse 15 begins with a greeting, “brothers and sisters” (lit., “brothers”; Gk. adelphoi), that repeats his salutation from 1:11. Paul has moved away from the sharp rhetoric of 3:1, 3, where he referred to the Galatians as “foolish,” to use the language of family relations that was so obviously the norm among early Christians (in Galatians, see further 4:12, 28, 31;

Galatians 3

5:11, 13; 6:1, 18). This direct form of family address seems to mean that Paul does not understand himself to be addressing those people in Galatia who have caused the Galatian Christians themselves to be distressed. Nevertheless, the argument he is about to present would have been of keen interest to these opponents of Paul. Paul announces that he is “speaking from a human point of view” (Gk. kata anthrøpon legø) as he delivers his illustration and argument. He uses this clause three times in his undisputed letters: here; Romans 3:5; and 1 Corinthians 9:8. The phrase seems particular to Paul as it occurs nowhere outside his letters in the New Testament, the LXX, or Greek literature. “Nevertheless” (Gk. homøs), Paul continues by referring to a “will” (Gk. diath∑k∑). Interpreters debate what kind of will Paul has in mind in forming his argument: Greek, Jewish, or Roman? While all of these cultures had and used wills, there were slight differences in the way the wills functioned. Many interpreters conclude from Paul’s manner of describing a will that he had in mind one that could not be changed once it had been put in play. Both Greek and Roman wills could be altered after they were written, as could most Jewish wills. There was, however, one kind of will in Judaism that could not be changed after it was written and ratified. That kind of will was akin to a covenant arrangement rather than a legal pact. Richard N. Longenecker observes in this matter that Josephus used diath∑k∑ thirty-two times, always with the sense of “will” or “testament” (not “covenant”), but the LXX uses diath∑k∑ consistently to mean “covenant.”31 Nevertheless, Paul says that he is using an illustration from everyday human life, so it is most likely that he refers here to normal human wills as written and ratified by ordinary people. There is no obvious involvement of God at this point. In other words, it is less than likely that Paul has a covenant in mind as he writes to the Galatians in v. 15. In presenting the idea of a will for the Galatians’ consideration, Paul also remarks that “no one voids or makes additions to the ratified will of a human being.” This statement also perplexes interpreters, so many conclude that Paul indicates that no one, including the testator, can alter a will after it is confirmed. Whether this understanding is correct is debatable. It seems more likely that Paul is simply saying that when someone formulates a will, someone else is unable to change it, and that basic understanding of Paul’s illustration serves to makes sense of his discussion that follows. Thus, Paul’s assumption in this illustration is that God

143

144

Galatians 3

established the testament with Abraham, so that it can never be rendered void or added to by another. In v. 16 Paul refers to the idea of “the promises,” which is the plural form of an idea introduced in 3:14. Paul most often uses the word promise, though he can use the plural form, promises, without any real disparity. Paul’s use of the plural at this point in his discussion of a will may be the result of his having in mind the repetitions in the Old Testament of God’s promise(s) to Abraham—see Genesis 12:2-3; 13:14-17; 15:1, 5, 7, 18-21; 17:1-8; 22:17-18—though he certainly has his own reasons and ways for recalling the promises in Galatians. Paul refers to the promises of God without mentioning the gift of the land of Canaan and the custom of circumcision. Paul’s argument is deliberate, and he employs the image of a will in order to allow him to continue his reflection on Christ and the Law. Having referred to Abraham and the promises that were spoken to him by God, Paul then recalls Abraham’s “seed” (Gk. sperma), not “seeds” (Gk. spermata) “as if referring to many rather than one.” Paul picks up the word seed used in conjunction with the name of Abraham from OT texts such as Genesis 13:15; 15:5, 18; 17:7-8; 24:7. His argument at this point is remarkable. He uses the difference between the singular form of the word seed and the plural form of the word (seeds) to construct an argument against Law observance and in favor of Christ. Paul argues that since the text of the OT uses the singular word seed, it is referring to one heir of Abraham, not the many generations of the children of Abraham. In Paul’s reading, the text of the OT focuses on Christ as the heir of Abraham, a messianic understanding of the text, rather than the generations of Law-observant Jews. One should remember that Paul is writing himself out of the lot of Abraham’s heirs along with all others than Christ. His exegesis is truly remarkable, for the argument he forms around the words seed and seeds is notably creative: the word seed in Greek functions as a collective noun that can refer to either one seed or a mass of seeds. Seed works the same way in English. One may purchase seed, meaning seeds, in large quantities—and so it was in first-century Greek. But Paul treats the word seed in pertinent OT texts simply literally. By doing so he can argue that Christ is the one valid heir of Abraham who along with Abraham received the promises of God. What does Paul understand God’s promises to Abraham and Christ to be? From the context of this discussion, Paul seems to view the blessing of the gift of the Spirit and the coming of the Gentiles into the church to be what God promised that has come to be. As already noted in

Galatians 3

145

3:8, for Paul God’s promise to Abraham was God’s assurance that one day God would bless the Gentiles in Abraham, and in 3:14 that blessing was the coming of the Spirit. With his opening statement in v. 17 (“What I am saying is this”; Gk. touto de legø), Paul reveals that he is about to explain his reasoning in bringing together a will and God’s promises to Abraham in vv. 15-16. He first mentions the Law, stating that it “came to be four hundred and thirty years later” than God’s promises to Abraham. Paul’s dateline seems to reflect Exodus 12:40-41 (LXX), which states that the children of Israel dwelled in Egypt and Canaan 430 years, although Genesis 15:13 refers to a 400-year sojourn in Egypt. [430 Years] Rabbis resolved this 430 Years discrepancy by arguing that 400 years was the The Masoretic text of Exod 12:40, as time in Egypt whereas 430 years was the time translated in the NRSV, reads, “The time that the Israelites had lived in Egypt was four between God’s covenant with Abraham and the hundred thirty years.” This same verse in the LXX gift of the Law to Moses. Paul’s point, however, reads, “The time of the sojourn of the sons of does not depend on precisely either 400 or 430 Israel, which they sojourned in Egypt and in the years; rather, he means to refer to a long period land of Canaan, was four hundred thirty years.” from the promises of God to Abraham and, This textual variant is also found in the Samaritan then, Moses’ subsequent reception of the Law. Pentateuch and known to Josephus (see Antiquities 15:2, where the length of the sojourn Reaching back to v. 15 and using the illustration in Egypt is reduced to 215 years). It suggests that of a will, Paul formulates an argument “from the 430 years is to be counted from Abraham lesser to greater” that holds the Law to be like a entering Canaan until the exodus under Moses. codicil to a will, but the Law is an illegitimate Thus, for Paul, the law given on Mount Sinai came attempt at addition because of the time between 430 years after the time of Abraham. the original composition of the will and the effort to amend it. The will in Paul’s argument at this point appears as a covenantal promise because of the explicit involvement of God in the promises. Thus, the Law does not annul or alter the covenant, which is the previously ratified promises of God to Abraham. Like a bogus attempt to alter a will, the Law is an effort at addition to the covenant that neither annuls it nor changes it in any way. In the context of this argument, Paul refers to the promise (singular) of God to Abraham. This slight change in Paul’s terminology is likely the result of his moving from the earlier discussion of God’s promises, which were repeated to Abraham by God (see the references above), and the general phenomenon of God’s giving a promise to Abraham and his seed. This shift in language is part of Paul’s forming a sharp contrast between promise and Law. In his comparison of a will to the promise and the Law, Paul shows that God’s covenant with Abraham antedates the Law and makes the Law both irrelevant and impotent to invalidate God’s promise to

146

Galatians 3

Abraham and Abraham’s seed.32 Paul argues for the primacy of the promise to Abraham over the Law to Moses and insists that the purpose of the Mosaic Law had nothing to do with God’s covenant with Abraham. Paul moves to give a word of explanation in v. 18, as is evident by his opening the statement with the explanatory postpositive conjunction for (Gk. gar). This beginning is followed by a conditional sentence in which the first clause is “contrary-to-fact”; thus, one can read Paul to say, “The inheritance is not from the Law.” In this beginning clause, Paul refers to the “inheritance” (Gk. kl∑ronomia), a term that is part of a word group that plays an important role in the reflection that follows in Paul’s letter.33 For Paul, Abraham and his seed’s inheritance are directly related to the “promises” that God gave. In the context of the Genesis narrative, the promises were of the land and the multiplication of descendants to rival the stars of the sky. Paul spiritualized the promise to Abraham so that, as seen in 3:14, the blessing of Abraham became the outpouring of the Spirit on the Gentiles. Paul’s reasoning juxtaposes Law and promise, forming a pair of opposites that is part of a larger set of antinomies that informs Paul’s reasoning and teaching. This perception by Paul of such pairs is part of his Christian apocalyptic eschatological worldview, wherein God in Christ is at work in the world to defeat the forces of evil that are arrayed against God and God’s efforts in the human context for the salvation of humanity. So far in this letter one has encountered several of these pairs: promise faith proclamation that elicits faith those of faith faith/righteousness/blessing Spirit promise to Abraham promise and blessing Christ

Law works of the Law works of the Law all who rely on works of the Law Law/curse Law Law Law Law34

Moreover, with this background of antinomies inherent in Paul’s presentation, Paul explicitly names God as the one who gave the inheritance of the promise to Abraham. Thus, Paul reemphasizes God’s role in the gift of the inheritance through promise. Paul’s language in telling of God’s giving is striking. He uses a single verb that means to give graciously (Gk. charizesthai), which occurs in the perfect tense—a tense that expresses completed action that has

Galatians 3

ongoing significance for the present.35 Thus, one can see from Paul’s choice of words that God’s promise was based on grace. The Law and Angels, 3:19-22 Paul’s remarks regarding the Law at 3:1-18, especially vv. 15-18, raise questions concerning the Law. Then, vv. 19-22 ask and answer two such questions that Paul poses in rhetorical form. Verses 19-20 take up the matter of the purpose of the Law; vv. 21-22 ask about the relationship between the Law and the promises of God (to Abraham). Furthermore, as vv. 19-22 ask and answer Paul’s two questions that come from reading the foregoing verses (3:1-18) of Paul’s letter, these verses (vv. 19-22) lead into a discussion of the relationship between faith and the Law. Verses 19 and 20 present some of the most vexing interpretive problems in the Pauline corpus. At a glance, Paul’s words may seem clear and his grammar may seem straightforward, but still this may be deceptive, for even when one believes to have discerned what Paul is saying, it is nearly impossible to know with certainty what he has said. First, in v. 19 Paul raises a question, “Why then the Law?” (Gk. ti oun ho nomos). The interrogative particle, ti, that begins the question is ambiguous and could be read as “what” as easily as “why.” Thus, the question could say, “What then is the Law?” But the answer that follows this rhetorical question seems concerned with the purpose (“why?”) of the Law, not the nature (“what?”) of the Law. In any case, Paul positions the question and its answer in relation to the preceding portion(s) of the letter, as is indicated by his use of “then” (or “therefore”; Gk. oun); so that vv. 19-20 reach back to and build on the discussion of the inheritance of Abraham, the promise and the Law. Now, having asked about the purpose of the Law, Paul states, “It was added because of transgressions” (Gk. tøn parabaseøn charin proseteth∑). But this statement too is difficult because of ambiguities in Paul’s choice of words. First, Paul writes of “transgressions” (Gk. parabasis36), actions that were understood by Greek-speaking persons to indicate deviation, digression, or overstepping boundaries. Here, Paul’s use of this term seems best understood to indicate violations of the limits of God’s will. This much is clear. The next Greek word, however, charin, is an improper preposition (formed from the accusative form of the Greek word charis, which means “grace”) that can be used as either “because of ” or “for the sake of.” The first of these usages means “on account of,” while the second registers “in order to provoke.”37 Interpreters differ sharply in the way they understand this clause. Some take the phrase to

147

148

Galatians 3

mean that because sin existed, the Law was given to aid humanity in identifying and knowing what was in accordance with and contrary to the will of God. Others understand the statement to mean that the Law was given to increase and multiply sin.38 Despite several distinguished interpreters’ having defended the idea that the Law, from Paul’s point of view, was given in order to increase sin, because of Paul’s general tendencies in writing of both sin and the Law (compare Rom 3:19-20; 4:13-15; 5:12-14, 20; 7:1-25), it seems best to understand Paul to be saying that the Law was given because of the reality of human transgressions of God’s will in order to bring about a knowledge of sin by identifying those transgressions before God. Nevertheless, as Martyn has observed,39 the Law still has an essentially negative profile: • it is the Law’s business to pronounce a curse on observant and nonobservant alike (3:10, 13); • no one is being justified by the Law (3:11); • the Law does not have its origin in faith (3:12); and • the Law does not provide the Abrahamic inheritance (3:18). Finally in this brief, challenging clause, Paul states that “it [the Law] was added” (Gk. proseteth∑ from prostithenai)—speaking “especially of adding articles to statements or documents” that already exist.40 Commentators regularly and rightly write of Paul’s depreciation of the Law with this remark that it (the Law) was only added later. Moreover, other questions of interpretation arise: (1) To what was the Law added? to the promises of God to Abraham or to the human situation? F. F. Bruce suggested that the Law was added to the human situation for a purpose that was totally different from the promise(s).41 Most interpreters, however, understand that Paul is referring to the addition of the Law to the promise of God to Abraham and Abraham’s heir. Considering what went before in vv. 15-18 and what follows in v. 21 with the discussion of the Law and the promises, most interpreters seem to be correct. In turn, (2) by whom or what was the Law added? One should note the passive form of the verb, indicating that the Law did not impose itself but rather its addition was the result of another’s action. This kind of passive construction is often referred to as a “divine” or “theological” passive, meaning that God is the unnamed actor whose action the passive form of the verb describes.42 Thus, if the verb is understood this way, then God is the one who added the Law to the promise. This conclusion finds elements of both confirmation and disproof in what follows in

Galatians 3

149

Paul’s discussion. We will take up this matter in detail in considering the remainder of v. 19 and v. 20. With the clause, “until the seed might come to whom it had been promised,” Paul refers to and continues the discussion of vv. 15-18, where it was clear that the “seed” was none other than Christ. Yet Paul’s primary focus here is the Law itself that he contends “was added” to the promises of God to Abraham and his seed. The Law, writes Paul, was “bequeathed through angels by the hand of a mediator.” [Ambrosiaster on “Angels”] The Greek word translated as “bequeathed” (Gk. diatassein43) can be rendered as “given,” “ordained,” “set [troops] in array,” or “bequeathed.” It is rendered bequeathed here because of its use in the context of a discussion of both a “will” and an “inheritance.” Given any rendering of the Greek into English, however, Paul’s statement raises several difficult questions: 1. Did God or did God not bequeath the Law? 2. Did angels or did they not bequeath the Law? 3. If it were angels who bequeathed the Law, were they good or bad angels? 4. Whether good or bad, why did the angels bequeath the Law to Israel? 5. Who was the mediator? 6. Was it Moses? 7. Was it Moses alone? 8. Did Moses mediate in behalf of the Israelites, the angels, or both? 9. Did Moses and another provide mediation— with Moses representing the Israelites and an angel representing the angels?44

Ambrosiaster on “Angels” “Angels” (angeloi) might be translated more literally as “messengers.” Ambrosiaster considered this possibility in his commentary on Galatians, writing, By angels he means God’s messengers—that is, Moses, [Joshua] son of Nun and the other prophets up to John the Baptist. . . . Through these, therefore, the Law and the Prophets are ordained and disposed by God in the hand, that is, the power, of the Savior. For he is the Mediator, the reconciler of God and humanity, so that he may save whom he will out of those who have received the law from the angels. (Epistle to the Galatians 3.19.1-2 [Edwards, 46])

It is not at all clear that this was Paul’s intention, given the widespread popular belief that the Torah was given at Mount Sinai through the ministrations of supernatural messengers. It does, however, suggest a possible link between Gal 3:19 and the reference to God speaking to God’s people in “many and various ways” in Heb 1:1-4.

These are some of the questions that interpreters have posed for this passage. That these and still other questions can be formed in relation to Paul’s statement is shown in the history of the interpretation of this text. Some scholars have Mark J. Edwards, ed., Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, vol. 8, gen. ed. Thomas C. stated that over 300 solutions have been proOden (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 1999). posed for the explication of vv. 19-20. This text is ambiguous at the level of grammar and translation. The phrase, “through angels by the hand of a mediator” (Gk. di’angelôn en cheiri mesitou), begins with the preposition dia (lit., “through”) used in conjunction with a noun in the genitive case. In a construction with a passive verbal form (here, a participle) as is

150

Galatians 3

found at this point, “being bequeathed” (Gk. diatageis), dia + genitive is normally used to express intermediate agency; so that the simplest implication of the grammar is that the passive participle, “being bequeathed,” is a divine or theological passive that assumes God to be the ultimate agent who acts through the angels (and the mediator). Moreover, the rest of the clause, en cheiri mesitou (lit., “by a mediator’s hand), presents an instrumental dative of means in order to express the medium by which the action (“being bequeathed”) is accomplished. On the other hand, some interpreters, such as Hans Dieter Betz, argue, “The preposition dia (‘through’) implies either that the angels, not God, are regarded as the originators of the Torah, or that they act on behalf of God as his mediators.”45 In either case, Paul’s remark is a significant depreciation of the Law, for understood this way, Paul is saying at least that God did not give the Law directly to Israel. Still others go farther in their understanding of Paul’s presentation of the distance between God and the Law. For example, H. J. Schoeps states, “Paul does not attempt to criticize the content of the law given on Sinai, but puts forth a theory as to its supposed origin, which leads to the most reckless conclusions. He derives his ‘proof ’ from Jewish folklore, which indicates that the law was given not by God but by angels.”46 Similarly, A. Oepke contends that “the law does not come directly from God, who is one, but from the plurality, i.e., the angels mentioned in v. 19b. On this view the objection of v. 21 is quite logical.”47 Where did this idea of angelic involvement with the giving of the Law originate, especially since the idea of angelic administration of the Law is not in the Hebrew Bible at all? The key is almost certainly found in Deuteronomy 33:2 LXX. The Hebrew text of this verse is obscure, and apparently it was obscure to the translators of the LXX, for the verse in the LXX in part says, “on his right hand, his angels with him,” which is certainly not what the Hebrew text reads. In turn, the idea of angelic administration of the Law occurs not only in Deuteronomy 33:2 LXX and Galatians 3:19-20; it is found in Acts 7:38, 52; Josephus, Antiquities 15:136, and probably in Hebrews 2:2 and Apocalypse of Moses Preface. [“Bequeathed through Angels”]

Furthermore, the mediator is none other than Moses. Some interpreters have taken the reference to mean Christ (e.g., Origin, Chrysostom, Jerome, Luther, and Calvin),48 but the focus on the giving of the Law at Sinai clearly implies Moses. Moreover, in places in the LXX, en cheiri (lit., “by hand” or “by a hand,”

Galatians 3

151

implying “by the hand”) is used regularly of Moses in his role as God’s representative—see, e.g., Numbers 4:37, 41, 45, 49; 9:23; 10:13; 15:23; 16:40; 33:1; 36:13; and Psalm 76:20 LXX. For Paul, both the angelic and the Mosaic mediation of the Law are evidence of the Law’s inferiority to the promise(s) of God, for according to Paul God speaks directly, but the Law was passed along, perhaps not even originating with God. That the promises are superior to the Law is, however, no ultimate disparagement of the Law. Indeed, although the Law had not and did not lead one to righteousness (2:21; 3:21), still the Law was information about “Bequeathed through Angels” the will of God. Paul’s presentaIn Gal 3:19-20, Paul refers to a common Jewish tradition that the Torah was given to Israel through the mediation of angels. tion of the angels and Moses does The phrase in Deut 33:2 that the NRSV translates “at his [i.e., God’s] not cast them in an explicitly right, a host of his own” is rendered “at his right, angels with him” in negative way, but for the sake of the Septuagint. the Galatians his comments Owing, no doubt, to the tendency to highlight the transcendence of expose the real purpose and God (perhaps at the expense of God’s immanence), Jews of the power of the Law for informing Second Temple period were often reluctant to portray God working the human condition. Finally, directly in the created order. Instead, God sent angels to carry out the Paul says, the Law cannot and divine will. The giving of the Torah was no exception. Angels play a role in the giving of the Law in Josephus (Ant. so does not achieve the end that 15:136), Jubilees 1:29, and in the rabbinic corpus (Mek. on Exod the Galatians have become so 20:18; Sipre on Num 12:5). The concept also appears in the NT in interested in pursuing, viz., Acts 7:38, 53, Gal 3:19, and Heb 2:2. In both Galatians and Hebrews, righteousness through Law the validity of this tradition is apparently assumed and is used to buttress the writers’ respective arguments about the superiority of Jesus observance. Thus, one comes to v. 20 with as a messenger sent from God (in Hebrews) or about the superiority its devilishly difficult references of faith over the law in its ability to impart life (in Galatians). to a mediator (Gk. mesit∑s). In a glance at vv. 19-20, one infers that the presence of a mediator in the bequeathing of the Law means that the Law came from God indirectly. Some have argued that the mediator is, of course, Moses, who mediates in behalf of the angels and the Israelites. Others insist that Moses was in no way qualified to mediate for the angels, so he must have been mediator for the Israelites, although one should Gustave Doré. “The Giving of the Law on Mount Sinai.” Engraving. Doré’s English Bible, note that the Israelites are never 1866. (Credit: Wikimidia Commons, PD-US-100) mentioned in Paul’s remarks.

152

Galatians 3

Thus, still others contend that Moses, in Paul’s presentation, mediated for the angels alone. Fortunately this is a problem that, while it may be impossible to resolve, does not have to be settled to make sense of the verse. As Martyn observes, v. 20 is a pair of clauses that forms a cryptic sentence.49 What one finds in v. 20 are the first two parts of a syllogism: (A) The mediator is not representing one. (B) God is one. This much Paul says, but he leaves the third part of the syllogism unstated. Taken in the simplest logical order, the third element of the syllogism would read, (C) The mediator is not representing God. Here one finds a conundrum. Verse 19, read in the simplest, most straightforward way implies that God bequeathed the Law through angels by means of a mediator. Verse 20, again, read in the simplest, most straightforward way implies that the mediator (almost certainly Moses) did not represent God (in the bequeathing of the Law). What is one to do? To me, it seems best to work this way: 1. Verse 19 seems clear from the point of view of “standard” grammar. 2. Verse 19 can, however, be read in ways different from standard grammar. 3. Verse 20 is clear, despite all the scholarly contortions that many interpreters have gone through in reading the text. 4. Verse 20 implies without stating so that Moses did not represent God in the bequeathing of the Law. 5. With v. 19 read according to standard grammar and v. 20 read as parts of a syllogism, vv. 19 and 20 are at odds with each other. 6. The stark clarity of v. 20 suggests that v. 19 may best be read in a way different from that of standard grammar. 7. Read in harmony, vv. 19d-20 say, “[The Law was] bequeathed by angels through the hand of a mediator. Now the mediator is not representing one; but God is one.” Read this way, Paul offers a startling and novel critique of the Law. In his assessment, as has been seen, he does not really attack either the angels or Moses (the mediator); rather, Paul’s statements concerning these figures are made in order to register the inferiority

Galatians 3

153

of the Law in relation to and in comparison with the promise of God to Abraham and Abraham’s seed. In vv. 19-20, at best, Paul is saying that the Law came from God indirectly. Translation of Galatians 3:19-20 But, as seems more likely, Paul is telling his 19 Why then the Law? It was added because of transgressions, until the seed readers in Galatia that the Law, which they seem might come to whom it had been promised, being so concerned to observe, did not come from bequeathed through angels by the hand of a God at all. [Translation of Galatians 3:19-20] mediator. 20 Now the mediator is not repreAs noted at the outset of interpreting vv. 19senting one; but God is one. 22, Paul raises and answers a pair of rhetorical questions concerning the Law. He responds to these questions in similar ways. First, in vv. 19-20 Paul posed a question, answered it, and then commented on the answer given. Likewise in vv. 21-22, Paul asks a question, offers an emphatic answer, and then comments on the issues inherent in the question. Verse 21a puts the question; v. 21b gives Paul’s answer; and vv. 21c-22 explicate the answer. At the beginning of v. 21, Paul ties the question he is about to ask to his preceding remarks by using the postpositive inferential particle/conjunction, “then” (which may also be translated “therefore”—Gk. oun). The connection Paul presents clearly links vv. 21-22 to vv. 19-20, but since Paul is about to address matters related to the Law in vv. 21-22, it is likely that Paul means to relate vv. 21-22 to all of vv. 10-20. Here Paul asks about the possible conflict of the Law and the promises. Before delving into this matter, however, one should note that there is a textual variant in v. 21, where a few of the oldest and best manuscripts do not have the words “of God” (Gk. tou theou). (Read without the words in question, the text says, “the promises”; whereas read with the words, the text says, “the promises of God.”) This variant is handled differently by various translations. A look at the evidence finds that the majority of ancient texts do include the words. Nevertheless, it is easier to understand that a scribe added the words for clarity than that the words were omitted for no discernable purpose. And so, with these factors considered, the shorter reading seems preferable in this instance. Thus, Paul’s question would be “Then is the Law against the promises?” Certainly what Paul has said in the previous verses could be taken to suggest a positive answer. But, to this question, Paul gives an emphatic negative answer, “Absolutely not!” (Gk. m∑ genoito; on this expression, see the commentary above on 2:17). In turn, at this point in reflecting on Paul’s question and answer, some interpreters argue that Paul’s negative answer is obvious because, these scholars contend, both the promises and the Law are God’s, so that they cannot be at odds with each other. But, as we have seen

154

Galatians 3

in examining vv. 19-20, it is not at all obvious that Paul regards the Law as being God’s. Furthermore, the same interpreters who see Paul presenting both the promises and the Law as being God’s also contend that Paul asks about the Law because he sees the Law as being superseded by faith. Yet, to digress for a moment, this is not so. Paul sees the Law as being preceded by faith in the promises; and then, as we will see especially in v. 22, in his own frame of reference, Paul calls upon the precedence of preceding faith to argue for the superiority of faith, which means that faith was, is, and always will be greater than the Law. We will return to this crucial issue when we take up vv. 23-29. For now, in v. 21, Paul comments in an explanatory conditional sentence (note “For” [Gk. gar] at the beginning of the clause [“For if a Law had been given. . . .]) that is set in the grammatical form of a “contrary-to-fact” or “unreal” condition. Paul says, “If a Law had been given that was able to impart life, righteousness would in fact have been from the Law.” At least two things are obvious from the way that Paul casts his declaration: (1) the Law was/is not capable of imparting life, and (2) righteousness does not come from the Law. Thus, at issue for Paul is the source of righteousness. Is it “from the Law”? Paul says, “No,” in this rhetorically effective conditional construction. And so Paul identifies an impossible situation, viz., that the Law could (or did) bring about righteousness. Paul’s comment points (despite Lev 18:5) to the Law’s fundamental impotence for dealing in a redemptive manner with the human condition. Here Paul contradicts and even challenges one of the central tenets of Jewish (but, to be more exact in this instance, Jewish Christian) thought. Paul’s remark includes a striking verb, “to impart life” (Gk. zøopoi∑sai), which is what Paul says the Law is unable to do. [Jesus Christ the Life-giver] This verb could also be translated “to make alive.” Thus, Longenecker50 suggests that cognate expressions in Paul’s letters are “to be in Christ”; “to be led by the Spirit”; and “to be righteous” (both forensically and ethically). Thus, in v. 21 Paul explicitly says that the Law is not the source of righteousness. To clarify the origins of righteousness, Paul advances his argument through his reflections in v. 22. Paul begins v. 22 by drawing a contrast to his twin contentions of v. 21 (that the Law neither can impart life nor is the source of righteousness). He uses the strong adversative form of the conjunction “but” (Gk. alla), probably because v. 21 was an “unreal” conditional remark, whereas v. 22 is a direct statement of fact. Paul’s statement, though it is of fact, is still challenging to understand: “But the Scripture locked up all things under sin, in order

Galatians 3 Jesus Christ the Life-giver In this traditional icon design, Jesus gives a blessing with his right hand while holding an open book in his left, inviting the faithful to come and learn about him and about eternal life. In the book is written, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live even if he dies, and whoever lives and believes in me will never die” (John 11:25).

Christ Pantokrator in the apse of the Cathedral of Cefalù, Sicily, Italy. Mosaic, Byzantine style. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons, CCA-SA-3)

that the promise might be given from the faith of Jesus Christ to those who believe.” Paul refers to “the Scripture” (Gk. h∑ graph∑) in such a way that it is personified. The Scripture acts, here “locking up” what Paul refers to as “all things.” The image of the Scripture in this present verse, i.e., as being a character in the play of life, is not unique in Paul’s writings. Already at Galatians 3:8 one encountered Paul’s statement, when he quoted Genesis 12:3, that “the Scripture . . . preached the gospel in advance to Abraham.” And likewise, at Romans 9:17 one finds Paul’s report, when he quotes Exodus 9:16, that the Scripture spoke to Pharaoh. Similarly, at Romans 4:3; 10:11; 11:2; and Galatians 4:30, Paul uses the formula, “the Scripture says,” to lead into a quotation of a specific text from the Old Testament/LXX, though this use of the phrase “the Scripture says” does not necessarily depict the Scripture in a personified fashion. In surveying Paul’s references to “the Scripture,” one sees that in general when Paul uses the singular form, “the Scripture,” he has a particular verse from the Old Testament/LXX in mind. But, when Paul employs the plural form, “the Scriptures” (Gk. hai graphai), he makes a general reference to the Scriptures without citing a specific text or texts (see Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 15:3, 4). Remarkably, at this point in Paul’s reasoning with the Galatians, he uses the singular form, “the Scripture,” which elsewhere in his writings leads to the citation of a particular text; whereas here there is no citation of a specific verse or verses from the Old Testament/LXX. Thus, interpreters suggest and examine possibilities. Two texts merit attention: Psalm 143:2, which was perhaps alluded to by Paul at 2:16; and Deuteronomy 27:26, which was cited at 3:10. Both (1) the

155

156

Galatians 3

proximity of the citation of Deuteronomy 27:26 in 3:10 and (2) the basic sense of the citation from Deuteronomy make Deuteronomy 27:26 the most likely text to which Paul may be referring. However Paul intended the phrase “the Scripture” to be understood, the action that he attributes to the personified “Scripture” is that of “locking up all things under sin”—a strange and difficult notion indeed. As Paul states this peculiar occurrence, one should recognize that Paul’s complete statement makes it clear that Scripture’s locking up all things under sin (whatever that means; we will come back to this matter) is not an end in itself; it is but a stage along the way to a greater end. Paul’s thought here is difficult. It may be that there is help for understanding in a very similar statement at Romans 11:32. To compare the texts: Galatians 3:22—But the Scripture locked up all things under sin, in order that the promise might be given from the faith of Jesus Christ to those who believe, alla synekleisan h∑ graph∑ ta panta hypo hamartian, hina h∑ epangelia ek pisteøs I∑sou Christou doth∑ tois pisteuousin Romans 11:32—For God locked up all humanity in disobedience, in order that he may show mercy to all, synekleisen gar ho theos tous pantas eis apeitheiav, hina tous pantas ele∑s∑ Thus, one can see remarkable parallels. It is instructive to note similarities and dissimilarities: Galatians 3:22 the Scripture locked up all things under sin in order that the promise from the faith of Jesus Christ may be given to those who believe

Romans 11:32 God locked up all people in disobedience in order that he may show mercy to all

By comparison, one notes that Romans 11:32 is shorter and simpler than Galatians 3:22. While both sentences speak of “locking up” (Gk. sygkleiein)—these are two of only four occurrences of this striking verb in the New Testament51—and while both sentences conclude with purpose clauses, “in order that”

Galatians 3

(Gk. hina + subjunctive verb), “the Scripture” is the subject of one sentence and “God” is the subject of the other. Thus, commentators sometimes observe that personified “Scripture” is practically equivalent to God in Paul’s usage.52 Then, in Galatians Paul states that “all things” (Gk. ta panta) were locked up, while in Romans he says that “all people” (Gk. hoi pantes) were locked up. Furthermore, Galatians records that all things were locked up “under sin”; whereas Romans notes that all people were locked up “in disobedience.” Thus, one sees remarkably distinct emphases in Paul’s partially parallel statements: Galatians: all things; under sin Romans: all people; in disobedience Galatians seems to take a cosmic point of view, while Romans seems to focus on the human situation in relation to God. Paul’s more sweeping perspective in Galatians (“all things under sin”) registers the larger frame in which one may view humanity (“all people in disobedience”), so that one sees from the parallels that God uses disobedience in relation to humanity, as God also uses sin, to capture, to arrest, to confine, or to “lock up” creation (including especially humankind) for God’s own mysterious purpose. Thus, Paul writes that God used disobedience and sin “in order that” God’s own aims might be accomplished. In Galatians he says that the aim is to give the promise (of God to Abraham and his seed [3:15-18, especially vv. 17-18]—which is the Spirit [3:14]) to those who believe; and, then, in Romans the aim is to show mercy to all humanity. In Galatians, however, when one studies the partially parallel words and phrases at Galatians 3:22 and Romans 11:32, one is struck by the phrase “from the faith of Jesus Christ.” In Galatians, from his cosmic perspective Paul writes in a way that reveals that the source of “the promise”—which in Galatians is the gift of the Spirit—is “from the faith of Jesus Christ” (Gk. ek pisteøs I∑sou Christou). Moreover, he says that from this source the promise is given “to those who believe” (Gk. tois pisteuousin)—or, as the words could be translated, “to the ones having faith.” Once again, Paul draws a line between the faith of Jesus Christ and the faith of those who believe (or those who have faith)—see 2:16. Thus, Paul says Jesus Christ’s own trusting obedience to God in giving his life for humanity (3:13) arouses faith in him among human beings. And so, as God’s promise brought forth Abraham’s faith, so Christ’s own faith summons faith in him on the part of humankind.

157

158

Galatians 3

People are frequently offended by Paul’s remarks in Galatians 3:22, reading the verse in such a way that they hear Paul saying that God created sin. Part of the problem with this misunderstanding is the order of the clauses in this verse. As it is written, the verse first states that “Scripture” (most often read as “God”) “locked up all things under sin”; then, there follows a purpose clause that tells why Scripture/God did what was done in the locking up of all things. One may, however, profitably reverse the clauses and read, “In order that the promise might be given from the faith of Jesus Christ to those who believe, Scripture locked up all things under sin.” This reversal takes some of the sting out of Paul’s remarks by putting the positive purpose before the seemThe Law and Sin ingly negative action taken by “Scripture” in The problem was not with the law, but relation to “all things.” There is in Paul’s presenwith the people to whom the law had tation the conviction that whatever transpires been given. This—to anticipate a later but vital between God and all things takes place for the point—is close to the heart of [Paul’s] theology, close to the reason why it often appears so ultimate purpose of a positive outcome. This complex and convoluted. There was always dimension of Paul’s thought is frequently overbound to be a problem with the single-planlooked or unappreciated. Nevertheless, one through-Israel-for-the-world, precisely at the should not (even if offended by what one per“through-Israel” point, since Israel was made up ceives Paul to be saying) fail to recognize that at entirely of human beings who, themselves sinful, this point Paul is assuming and attributing to were as much in need of redemption as the rest of humankind. Paul’s conclusion here in Galatians God a degree of sovereignty and a way of acting 3:22 thus anticipates his sigh-of-relief moment at that may be incompatible with elements of the end of the long argument of Romans 9–11 much of contemporary (to the reader) thought. itself: Scripture has concluded everything under Moreover, it may also be helpful for those sin, so that the promise, on the basis of the faithhaving difficulties with v. 22 to note that Paul fulness of Jesus the Messiah, might be given to perceived all things to be already under the those who believe. God’s single-plan-throughIsrael-for-the-world has turned, as God always power of sin (read Rom 3). [The Law and Sin] For intended, into God’s-single-plan-through-thePaul, Scripture merely caught or captured or faithful-Israelite-for-the-world-now-including-Israel locked up all things in their current condition of -too. being under the power of sin, and that for a From N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision clearly positive purpose: “in order that the (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 2009) 126. promise might be given from the faith of Jesus Christ to those who believe.” And so, from here, Paul continues in vv. 23-25 to discuss “faith” in conjunction with “the Law.” Faith and the Law, 3:23-25 Verses 23-25 seem to be one sentence in Greek, which opens and closes with a reference to the coming of faith. In the opening words of v. 23 (“Before faith came”), Paul practically, if not actually, personifies “faith.” He refers to the coming of faith and, in doing so, writes of the time “before” which faith came. For Paul, the coming

Galatians 3

of faith differentiates two periods—one viewed negatively and the other positively. For him, the time before the coming of faith was a time of incarceration that lasted until the coming of faith, at which time there was a liberation (see 3:25 and 5:1) of those who were held in custody. Paul states that during this time of imprisonment, “. . . we were held in custody under the Law, locked up. . . .” His phrase “under the Law” (Gk. hypo nomon) itself seems to indicate a hostile holding. Analysis of Paul’s use of the preposition hypo (English: “by” or “by means of ”; and “under” or “under the authority of ”) is instructive in this regard. Paul uses hypo (“under”) fourteen times in Galatians. Four of the fourteen uses have hypo + a genitive noun or pronoun in a grammatical construction similar to a “genitive of agency,” so that hypo is translated “by” and effectively “indicates the personal agent by whom the action in view is accomplished.”53 Paul’s usage in this particular construction (including a look at the action taken “by” the agent) is as follows: Galatians 1:11 3:17 4:9 5:15

Agent by me by God by God by one another

Action preached previously ratified being known consumed

More to the point regarding 3:23-25, ten of Paul’s uses of hypo occur in a grammatical construction described as an “accusative of subjection or subordination.” Here, hypo is translated “under” (meaning, “under the rule of ”)54 and indicates a person or thing under whom/which another person or thing is subjugated. Paul’s usage in Galatians appears as follows: Galatians 3:10

Authority a curse

3:22 3:23 3:25 4:2

sin Law supervisor trustees and stewards the elements of the universe Law Law Law Law

4:3 4:4 4:5 4:21 5:18

Subjected as many as live from Law observance all things we we heirs we God’s Son we you you (not)

159

160

Galatians 3

The overall pattern of hypo + accusative is a negative construction for Paul. It refers to relationships that have been rendered void by the coming of faith as an act of God’s revelation. Paul’s point in v. 23 is to recall the condition of humanity before the coming of the faith that has now already come. Inherent in his recollection, however, is the recognition that faith was destined to come, and though he writes of the time before the coming of faith, the reality of faith’s coming registers even in his references to that time before the coming of faith: “until the destined faith was revealed.” Paul’s language is vivid as he writes of the time before the coming of faith. There is ambiguity in the wording, however, that results in debate and different opinions among scholars. Paul states that “we were held in custody” and that this being held was a kind of incarceration, for Paul remarks that “we were . . . locked up.” There is some ambiguity in the usage of these words: “held in custody” (Gk. phrourein) and “locked up” (Gk. synkleiein55); although when used in tandem as they are here there is little doubt that Paul is using them to refer to a restrictive guarding rather than a protective guarding. [Phrourein] On that much, many commentators can agree. The debate regarding these statements focuses, above all, Phrourein on the words “we” and “our,” which occur in the forms of The verb phrourein can verbal suffixes (-oumetha; -ømen), verbs (esmen), and proindicate “guard,” as in nouns (h∑møn). The issue is this: does Paul mean for “protect,” or “hold in custody” or “we/our” to refer to Jewish Christians alone, or does he use “confine,” as in “incarcerate” the words to indicate both Jewish Christians and Gentile (BAGD, 867). Christians, not only alike but together? From Paul’s phrase “under the Law” (Gk. hypo nomon), which occurs in this verse (lit., “under the Law we were held in custody, being locked up”), many, perhaps the majority, of interpreters conclude that Paul is speaking exclusively of Jewish Christians at this point. Other interpreters recognize Paul’s more inclusive use of “we” in places such as 3:14 and 4:3-7 in order to argue that Paul means in 3:23-25 to refer to both Jews and Gentiles before and after the coming of faith. In any case, it is hard to know how carefully Paul employed his pronouns at this point in the letter, and it may be that there is no way to resolve this difference of opinion among commentators. Though it does seemingly make more sense to understand that Paul was addressing the Galatians themselves (including at least himself ) rather than moving back and forth between remarks aimed at one group now and another group later. Given that Paul’s use here of the pronouns “we” and “our” is indeterminable, it is perhaps more important to take note of the final words in v. 23, where Paul writes, quite literally, “unto the

Galatians 3

about to be faith was revealed.” The preposition “unto” (Gk. eis) can have a variety of usages, but here it is “temporal,” meaning “until”56 in the same way that the Greek word achris was used in 3:19. Those of whom Paul has written were “under the Law” until “faith came” or, more exactly, until “the destined faith was revealed.” The revelation of “faith” has, at the time of Paul’s writing, already passed. Paul writes from the perspective of one who has experienced the coming of faith, and as such he says that faith “was revealed.” The construction “faith was revealed” (Gk. pistin apokalyphth∑nai) is a passive form, a divine or theological passive, that essentially means “God revealed.” Thus, this last phrase in v. 23 could be rendered “God revealed the destined faith.” The striking idea here is not only that “faith” was “revealed”—by God—but that it was “destined”—seemingly also by God. Thereby Paul indicates that faith itself was something—he tells the reader what in both the rest of the letter and the lines that follow immediately—that God intended to reveal even before the revelation took place. The next element of Paul’s reflection, coming in the first half of v. 24, is a statement of the results of the coming of faith of which Paul wrote in v. 23. Paul opens the first clause of v. 24 with the conjunction “so that” (Gk. høste), which, used as it is here,57 states that “something actually occurred as a fact.”58 In other words, Paul says that the actual result(s) of being held in custody prior to the coming of faith was that “the Law became our supervisor until Christ.” The issue of who are the “we” and the “our” of Paul’s remark is still open for debate, though the closer the reader of Paul’s letter comes to 4:3, the more likely it seems that Paul has both Jewish and Gentile believers in mind in making his statements. But, however one resolves this interpretive matter, Paul once again speaks of the Law, though now independently of the preposition hypo. Now Paul characterizes (and personifies?) the Law as a paidagøgos, translated here as “supervisor,” but translated through centuries in a striking variety of ways by translators, interpreters, and commentators. One well-known but unfortunate translation that has appeared in various English renderings of the Greek text is “tutor.” One might think that this translation is commendable since the Greek word paidagøgos is etymologically related to the English word “pedagogue,” which means “teacher.” The issue, however, is that a Greek paidagøgos (here, English: supervisor) did not teach; he oversaw the comings and goings of children. In fact, such a “supervisor” was a “slave who went with a boy from home to

161

162

Galatians 3

school and back again.”59 On the one hand, the supervision could have been for the child’s safety; but on the other hand, as Bruce points out, one learns from the ancient references to the paidagøgoi, that during a boy’s minority a paidagøgos imposed necessary restraint on the boy’s liberty until, with the coming of age, the boy could be trusted to use his liberty responsibly.60 [Paidagøgos] Furthermore, from the way Paul crafts his clauses in vv. 2325, one sees that the Law was portrayed in v. 23 as a jailer and in v. 24 it is cast as a “supervisor.” In Paul’s historical and cultural context, neither of these roles that are attributed to the Law are very positive. Yes, jailers and supervisors performed positive tasks in that they suppressed reprehensible behavior; but still, Paul’s manner of speaking about incarceration and supervision (using hypo in reference to the Law and the “supervisor”) is not flattering of either the jailer or the supervisor. They are dominant figures that limit or even From Harold Whetstone Johnston, The Private Life of the Romans (Chicago: Scott, preclude one’s freedom (see 4:3Foresman, and Co., 1909) §123. 7; 5:1). Paul does focus on one positive element in the first clause of v. 24 (“so that the Law became our supervisor until Christ”). Paul’s phrase “until Christ” should probably be understood to mean “until Christ came”—otherwise, one wonders, “until Christ what?” If this is so, then the phrase “until Christ came” parallels the opening phrases of vv. 23 and 25: Paidagøgos The boy of good family was always attended by a trustworthy slave (paedagøgus), who accompanied him to school, remained with him during the sessions, and saw him safely home again when school was out. If the boy had wealthy parents, he might have, besides, one or more slaves (paedisequ•) to carry his satchel and tablets. The paedagøgus was usually an elderly man, selected for his good character and expected to keep the boy out of all harm, moral as well as physical. He was not a teacher, despite the meaning of the English derivative, except that after the learning of Greek became general a Greek slave was usually selected for the position in order that the boy might not forget what he had learned from his nurse . . . . The scope of his regular duties Paedagogus and children. English School. 19th C. is clearly shown by the Latin Engraving from terra cotta group from Tanagra. Louvre. Paris, France. Illustration for Atlas of words used sometimes Classical Antiquities by Schreiber (Macmillan, 1895). (Credit: Private Collection/© Look and Learn instead of paedagøgus: comes, custøs, monitor, and / Bridgeman Images) r∑ctor. He was addressed by his ward as dominus, and seems to have had the right to compel obedience by mild punishments . . . . His duties ceased when the boy assumed the toga of manhood, but the same warm affection often continued between them as between the woman and her nurse.

v. 23= “Before faith came”;

Galatians 3

v. 24= “until Christ [came]”; v. 25= “now that faith has come.”61 In this case, Paul is relating, probably even equating, the coming of Christ with the coming of faith. Thus, for Paul, Christ himself is the bearer of faith into the situation where humanity is incarcerated and overseen by the Law. Christ’s own faith is the God-destined liberating force that sets humanity free as these same human beings find that faith is provoked in their very selves through their encounter with Christ and his own faith/faithfulness. This understanding of the relationship of these phrases in vv. 23-25 fits well with the understanding of the phrase Paul uses at other points in this letter when he writes about “the faith of Jesus Christ” (on this matter see further 2:16; 3:22; compare 2:20). Nevertheless, whether this recognition of parallelism in vv. 23-25 is correct or not, Paul does say plainly in v. 24 that with Christ the Law is no longer a supervisor over those whom it once dominated. Paul continues in v. 24 with another distinctly formed clause, this one a purpose clause. It reads, quite literally, “in order that out of faith we might be justified [or made righteous].” In essence, in the whole of v. 24, Paul writes that the purpose of the Law’s having functioned as a supervisor until (the coming of ) Christ was in order that “we” might be justified from/by faith. Several observations follow from this simple reading of the text. The passive form of the verb “to be justified” or “to be made righteous” is a divine passive identifying God as the one who justifies. To this obvious remark, however, some interpreters add the contention that the justification that God is working at is presented to human beings as an offer to be received (or refused). The ideas of God’s making an offer, of humanity’s responding to the offer, i.e., of God’s creating a new possibility for human existence and humanity’s making a decision about God’s presentment really do not seem to be supported by the text of Paul’s letters. For Paul God effects liberation for humankind that is not dependent on humanity’s decisions. God in Christ has created a new reality that human beings either experience or do not experience. Paul can write of the obedience of faith (Rom 1:5; 6:16; 16:26), but he never presents God’s righteousness as a mere offer to be thought over and decided about by hermetically sealed human beings. For Paul, God justifies from faith—out of faith—out of the sphere of the faith of the faithful Jesus Christ. For Paul, the time of the Law has passed, so that he sees the desire of the Galatians to enter into Law observance as a wish to move backwards into time before

163

164

Galatians 3

Christ. But that time, Paul tells the Galatians, is gone, so that hoping in the Law is hoping against Christ’s freedom and for something other than God’s grace (see 5:1, 4). Paul began this lengthy, complex sentence (vv. 23-25) with a reference to the coming of faith, and now he repeats that idea. At this point, however, rather than write as he did in v. 23 of the time “before faith came,” Paul focuses on the time “now that faith has come.”62 This time comes with a break from the time that had gone before it, as is evident in Paul’s use of the word for “no longer” (Gk. ouketi)—so that his final clause in this long sentence is the whole of v. 25, which literally says, “but with the coming of faith, no longer under a supervisor are we.” And so, using a different syntax from that of v. 23, Paul repeats his message to the Galatians: faith has come; thus, we are no longer under a supervisor. From v. 24 one can see or at least strongly suspect that for Paul faith came with Christ, and faith—particularly Christ’s faith—is the source of God’s justifying work in relation to humanity; so that now there is freedom from the incarceration and the supervision of the Law. Thus, the Galatians’ new desire for the Law and Law observance is not only inappropriate; it is also dangerous because it is a failure to recognize the time in which believers are living—a new time of independence from sin and the Law. All Are Sons of God in Christ Jesus, 3:26-29 Verses 26-29 provide exposition of vv. 23-25, especially for the final clause of v. 25, “we are no longer under a supervisor” (Gk. ouketi hypo paidagøgon esmen). The first word of v. 26 in many Englishlanguage translations is “for” (Gk. gar). Gar is a postpositive particle in Greek (it comes after the first word or words of a sentence) and can be used in a variety of ways: as a causal adverb (“since” or “because”), as an explanatory conjunction (“for” or “you see”), or as an inferential particle (whether an adverb or a conjunction is debated; “indeed” or “certainly”).63 At stake is whether one thinks Paul opens v. 26 with (a) a statement of what caused people to be no longer under the supervisor, (b) an explanation of why people were freed from the supervisor, or (c) an exclamation stating conclusions about the meaning of people being out from under the supervisor. The context of this passage in the overall letter and the position of v. 26 in relation to vv. 23-25 suggest that at this point in his writing Paul is exclaiming the self-evident conclusion (following vv. 23-25) that (in an essentially literal translation) “Indeed, in Christ Jesus all of you are children of God through the faith.”

Galatians 3

Paul’s bold declaration raises a number of interpretive issues. The Greek word gar occurs two further times in vv. 26-29, at vv. 27 and 28b. In each instance it is helpful to ask how Paul is using this word in its immediate context. For now, however, it is striking to note that as gar is repeated, the text is woven together by Paul’s repetition of this word, even though Paul may have different nuances of the word in mind in the different uses. We will deal with these occurrences of gar in looking further at the verses. In the Greek text, the word “all” (pantes) is used as the first word of v. 26, so that it is placed in an emphatic position at the beginning of the sentence. Interpreters sometimes suggest that this prominent placement is polemical in character, for Paul now speaks to “all” the Galatians, both those favoring Law observance and those who are not inclined in that direction, and he addresses them as one people, not as two groups distinguished from each other in terms of their attitude toward the Law. (He will address this combined group again in v. 28b.) This all-inclusive form of address anticipates the universality envisioned by Paul in vv. 27-28, especially in the compass of the three pairs of antonyms that he identifies in v. 28a. Paul not only addresses the Galatians in an all-encompassing manner but also writes to them directly using second person plural forms, in both verb endings and with pronouns, meaning “you.” This manner of address runs through vv. 26-29, in contrast to both the verses that precede and those that follow, where one finds Paul writing of “we” and “our.” These different pronouns with their seeming difference in focus lead commentators to debate whether Paul is writing sometimes of Jewish Christians (“we”) and at other times of the Gentile Christians in Galatia (“you”). Many interpreters conclude that Paul is writing in rhetorical fashion, speaking at points to both the Galatians and at least himself (if not also to other Jewish Christians) with “we” language, and referring in other places to the Galatians alone with “you” language. This matter is much debated, as was noted above in relation to vv. 23-25, but, as stated there, Paul’s clearly inclusive remarks at 3:14 show that he used “we” as a way of referring to Jewish and Gentile Christians together. Paul continues by declaring that the Galatians are, literally, “sons of God” (Gk. huioi theou). (Readers are asked to consult the discussion of Paul’s use of “sons” at 3:7.) The statement is more than a simple remark; it relates to the previous image (vv. 23-25) of a child under the authority of a supervisor and, by contrast, declares that “you” (the Galatians) are fully grown human beings with a newly

165

166

Galatians 3

realized relationship to God. Paul’s point here is important not only for this portion of his letter but also for the discussion of the metaphorical issues of inheritance, redemption, adoption, and intimacy of relationship with God that follows in 4:1-7. We will return to this point as we consider those verses below. The final six words of v. 26 form two Dia t∑s Pisteøs phrases that require attention independHere are the places in Paul’s undisputed letters where he uses the phrase dia t∑s pisteøs: ently and, then, together. The initial phrase is “through the faith” (Gk. dia t∑s Romans 1:12 pisteøs).64 The phrase is a bit odd, touto de estin symparakl∑th∑nai en hymin dia t∑s en all∑lois although Paul uses it at six places in his pisteøs hymøn te kai emou; or rather so that we may be undisputed letters (Rom 1:12; 3:30, 31; mutually encouraged by each other’s faith [lit., “through Gal 3:14, 26; and 1 Thess 3:7). [Dia t∑s the faith of each other”], both yours and mine Pisteøs] It is the definite article, “the” (t∑s), Romans 3:30-31 that makes the interpretation of the eiper eis ho theos hos dikaiøsei peritom∑n ek pisteøs kai phrase challenging. Translators suggest at akrobystian dia t∑s pisteøs. nomon oun katargoumen dia least four different ways to understand t∑s pisteøs? m∑ genoito, alla nomon istanomen; since God is and to translate the word. First, some one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith interpreters argue for the simple translaand the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the tion of t∑s as “the,” so that the phrase contrary, we uphold the law. reads “through the faith.” Here, “the faith” is usually understood in the same Galatians 3:14 way that these scholars explain “the hina eis ta ethn∑ h∑ eulogia tou Abraam gen∑tai en Christø faith” in 3:23 and 25; i.e., “the faith” is I∑sou, hina t∑n epagelian tou pneumatos labømen dia t∑s the content of the Christian message. pisteøs; in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might Second, some suggest that the word receive the promise of the Spirit through faith “the” should be left untranslated and that the phrase should be understood to Galatians 3:26 say, “through faith.” In Galatians 3:14 pantes gar huioi theou este dia t∑s pisteøs en Christø I∑sou; the phrase is often translated this way, as for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith it is (to some degree) in Romans 1:12 1 Thessalonians 3:7 and 1 Thessalonians 3:7. Third, other dia touto parekl∑th∑men, adelphoi, eph’ hymin epi pas∑ t∑ scholars contend that “the” (t∑s) should anank∑ kai thlipsei h∑møn dia t∑s hymøn pisteøs; For this be translated as if it were a personal reason, brothers and sisters, during all our distress and pronoun, in this verse “your,” somewhat persecution we have been encouraged about you through similarly to the way in which translators your faith render the word “the” (Gk. t∑s) in Romans 3:30 using the pronoun “their.”65 Fourth, yet other commentators argue that the definite article should be taken as an anaphoric usage and translated as if it were the demonstrative pronoun “this.” Romans 3:31 (and Rom 3:30 in some renderings) is an example of dia t∑s pisteøs that is often translated “through this faith.”

Galatians 3

The first option is to translate t∑s literally as “the,” with the understanding that the definite article is specifying “the faith,” which is taken to mean content, i.e., something akin to Christian doctrine. If this interpretation is the understanding that one has of “the” in this phrase, then one needs to consider Paul’s uses of “the faith” in all of his letters in order to see whether there are other such constructions. One finds that Paul uses the word “faith” (Gk. pistis) over ninety times in his undisputed letters, twenty-two times in Galatians alone. Forty-four of Paul’s uses of “faith” in the undisputed letters occur with an article + noun (“the” + “faith”; Greek either h∑ pistis; t∑s pisteøs; t∑ pistei; or t∑n pistin). Six times in Galatians Paul uses “faith” preceded by an article, literally, “the faith.” Examination of Paul’s undisputed letters in standard contemporary English translations shows that most of Paul’s usages of “the” + “faith” are rendered simply as “faith,” although there are some instances of this use (“the” + “faith”) that seem to require “the” to be used with “faith” in order to constitute good English idiom; but even among these occurrences the use of “the faith” does not necessarily refer to content. This of course is a debatable observation, though a firsthand analysis of these usages will show a reader that Paul most often uses the definite article in a way that most translators judge does not require its being translated into English and that, even when it is translated, one need not interpret “faith” to be content. (More information related to this usage will follow in the discussion below of the fourth option for translation.) In the second option, commentators translate (or actually do not translate) Paul’s “the” (Gk. t∑s) by leaving the word out of the translation of the phrase into English; thus, instead of “through the faith,” one reads “through faith.” One should note that at times Greek does employ the article when the use of a definite article does not suit English idiom. As noted above, Paul uses the phrase dia t∑s pisteøs (lit., “through the faith”) at least six times in his undisputed epistles (though Rom 1:12 and 1 Thess 3:7 modify the phrase slightly). In turn, among the forty-four uses of “the” + “faith” in Paul’s letters, fewer than five occurrences of “the” are regularly translated into English (in a range of standard translations), so that most uses of “the” + “faith” are translated simply as “faith.” And so, frequently, Paul seems to use the article in a manner that does not translate literally into English. Many interpreters deem the use of “the” + “faith” in Galatians 3:26 to be an instance where the article should not be rendered into English.66 The third option, to translate Paul’s “the” as if it were “your” (a possibility in Greek),67 seems ill advised, because Paul knows and

167

168

Galatians 3

repeatedly uses a construction (in two forms) comprising “article + noun + pronoun” (Gk. h∑ pistis hymøn or t∑s pisteøs hymøn; lit., “the faith of you”) that is normally translated as “your faith.” Apparently, should Paul have wanted to say “your faith,” he had a plain and explicit way to do so (see Rom 1:8; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 6, 7, 10; Phlm 5, 6). The fourth option is to translate “the” as if it were “this” because the article is understood to be anaphoric, i.e., it occurs in denoting a previous reference.68 For example, in Romans 3:30 Paul uses parallel phrases in a rhetorical construction that compares God’s use of “faith” in regard to circumcision on the one hand with God’s use of “faith” with regard to uncircumcision on the other hand. In relation to “circumcision,” Paul states that the one God justifies “circumcision from faith” (Gk. peritom∑n ek pisteøs) and “uncircumcision through the faith” (Gk. akrobystian dia t∑s pisteøs). The phrases are meant to say (my paraphrase), “God who is one justifies those who are circumcised and those who are uncircumcised in the same way—faith.” But in the use of “faith” in the first phrase there is no article; whereas in the second phrase Paul uses the article with “faith” (“the faith”). The article in the second phrase (“through the faith”) refers back to the initial use of “faith” in the first phrase (“from faith”). This article points to or denotes the previous reference to “faith” and may be translated best as “this” or “the same” or even “this same.” The article in the phrase (lit.,) “through the faith” in Galatians 3:26 functions the same way. Paul has several anarthrous occurrences of “faith” (pistis) in chapter 3 of Galatians—see 3:2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 22, 24—but few uses of “faith” with the article—see 3:14, 23, 25, 26. Read in context, these constructions (“the” + “faith”) appear to use the article in reference to the anarthrous substantive previously employed (“faith”), so that the use of the article (t∑s) with the noun (pisteøs) probably should be translated “this faith” or “this same faith.” At this point in Paul’s letter, dia t∑s pisteøs (“through this faith”) primarily refers back to the faith that Paul said was manifested in Jesus Christ (3:24). (This observation may hold true in other places than Galatians for Paul’s use of “the” + “faith.”) What difference, then, does the use of “the” (t∑s) with “faith” (pisteøs) make for reading this statement by Paul or, for that matter, for reading his uses of this same phrase at other points in the letter? Because so many interpreters pay attention to this construction at this point, it is necessary to attempt to resolve the disputed issues of translation and interpretation. What one learns from analysis of the use of “the” with “faith” is (1) that “the faith” is not likely to be

Galatians 3

referring to the content of the gospel message or to a system of belief related to the gospel; (2) that the word “the” is not merely superfluous at this point, as if it may be left out of the translation of the Greek phrase dia t∑s pisteøs (lit., “through the faith”); (3) that the word “the” does not serve as the personal pronoun “your,” as if it were referring to a personal possession (“your faith”); and (4) that the Greek word t∑s (“the”) most likely points back to the substantive that was previously mentioned, so that it is to be read like a demonstrative pronoun (“this faith”). In the event that the fourth way of reading the article is correct, then “the faith” (translated, “this faith”) mentioned in Galatians 3:26 is the faith of Christ that came with the coming of Christ himself (see 3:22-25). The final phrase in v. 26 in Greek is “in Christ Jesus” (Gk. en Christø I∑sou). Its position in the verse (at the end, immediately following the phrase “through this faith” (Gk. dia t∑s pisteøs) raises questions about its meaning and significance in the verse, which can be read in English in the literal word order of the Greek sentence, “Indeed all of you are sons of God through this faith in Christ Jesus” (see 3:7 on Paul’s use of “sons”). Scholars understand the construction of this verse in a variety of ways, including the following: 1. Some interpreters contend that in the phrase “in Christ Jesus,” the preposition “in” (Gk. en) governs the nominal phrase “Christ Jesus” in relation to the word “faith” as a dative of respect,69 so that Paul writes of the “faith in Christ Jesus”70 that the Galatians have. 2. Other commentators read Paul to say (the following translations are meant to be equivalent), “For all of you are sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus”; or “For all of you are sons of God in Christ Jesus through faith”; or “For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.” As Ernest DeWitt Burton wrote, “That en Christø I∑sou [“in Christ Jesus”] does not limit pisteøs [“faith”] is evident because Paul rarely employs en [“in”] after pistis [“faith”] . . . and in this letter always uses the genitive (2:16, 20; 3:22), but especially because vv. 27, 28 take up and dwell upon the fact that the Galatians are in Christ Jesus.”71 3. Yet another group of scholars translates the verse, “For you are—all of you—sons of God through the faith that is in Christ Jesus.”72 Here, the anaphoric character of t∑s (“the”) in the phrase “through the faith”—translated in this interpretation as “through the faith that is”—seems to influence the reading of the verse, which is taken to emphasize that it is Christ’s own faith that is primarily the source (and also the object) of the believers’ own faith and experience of God.

169

170

Galatians 3

There are good grammatical reasons for all of these readings/translations of v. 26. The first understanding, however, shows no awareness of the general tendency in Galatians for Paul to focus on the subjective genitive phrase, “the faith of Jesus Christ.” And it demonstrates no awareness of Paul’s habit of modifying “faith” (pistis) with a genitive word or phrase, not a dative prepositional phrase. In turn, the third option for interpretation uses the insights of grammatical analysis from other portions of the letter to formulate a sensible translation. The unusual explanation and translation, however, do not seem as persuasive as the more straightforward grammatical and thematic observations that support the second of the options for translation and interpretation, so that taken along the lines of the second explanation, v. 26 in a completed translation reads, “Indeed, in Christ Jesus all of you are sons of God through this faith.” How Paul’s Galatian readers would have understood this sentence is an open question. But we (and they?) have still to reckon with the meaning of Paul’s phrase, en Christø I∑sou (“in Christ Jesus”) that comes at the end of the verse in Greek. These words are particularly challenging for interpreters because, as the reference grammar by F. Blass, D. Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk states, “The phrase en Christø (kyriø) [“in Christ” (“Lord”)], which is copiously appended by Paul to the most varied concepts, utterly defies definite interpretation.”73 The phrase occurred already in 2:4 and 3:14; then, after appearing here in 3:26, it is found in 3:28 and 5:6. There are other occurrences of the phrase in other of Paul’s letters. Moreover, there are similar phrases in Paul’s usage in Galatians: “in Christ” (Gk. en Christø) occurs in 1:22 and 2:17, while “in the Lord” (Gk. en kyriø) appears in 5:1. There is no significant pattern to Paul’s employment of these phrases.74 They all do, however, seem to refer to a local, personal incorporation of believers into Christ that means there is an intimate mutuality between Christ and the believers that is sometimes described by interpreters as mysticism. Longenecker refers to the idea of being “in Christ” as a mystical intimacy with Christ that did not blur the outlines of personality for either Christ or the Christian. And, while acknowledging this mystical mode of Paul’s theological reflection, Longenecker observes that for Paul this mysticism is not absorption of the believer into the divine, not something for only those initiated into advanced stages of Christian life, and not an experience separate from justification.75 In conclusion, en Christø I∑sou (“in Christ Jesus”) is a difficult phrase to define because of Paul’s various uses of the words in a

Galatians 3

variety of contexts. Some interpreters have suggested that “in Christ Jesus” can be understood simply as “in church,” because it refers to the incorporation of the believer into the “body of Christ.”76 Other scholars disagree, finding in Paul’s use of the phrase evidence of his (nascent) mysticism. Yet Burton’s remarks may say all that can be said from Paul’s usage: en (“in”) has a metaphorical spatial sense;77 Christø I∑sou (“Christ Jesus”) is the one in whom believers live and with whom they are in fellowship. Perhaps one can say little more about the phrase “in Christ Jesus,” given the evidence that Paul’s letters present. In Greek, v. 26 ends with a reference to Christ Jesus, and v. 27 continues to focus on Christ, mentioning Christ twice, especially in relation to baptism. Paul’s language is both literal and metaphorical, and discerning his nuances is important for following his reasoning. Here again, Paul uses the postpositive particle “for” (Gk. gar), in this instance as a conjunction, apparently to introduce an explanation of the meaning of his declaration in v. 26 that “in Christ Jesus” the Galatian believers were “sons of God through this faith” that was activated by Christ Jesus himself. (On Paul’s use of “sons,” see 3:7.) Paul explains that those who are God’s sons “in Christ Jesus” are identified through being baptized into Christ. Thus, they come into a relationship with Christ, as if he were the very garment in which they were clothed, the garment that distinguished them as God’s sons. Paul writes of “as many as” (Gk. hosoi) to refer to the same body of believers whom he named previously with the designation “all” (Gk. pantes) in v. 26 (and whom he will so name again in v. 28b). Paul is not making a distinction between “all” and “as many as,” which is evident from his reference to Christian baptism, which all believers would have experienced. He is simply saying that all were baptized into Christ. Baptism itself is a ritual that believers experienced at some point as they became members of the Christian community. Paul’s wording, using a passive form of the verb (“you were baptized”; Gk. ebaptisth∑te), seems to indicate that the baptism of the believers was conducted by someone other than the believers themselves, so that there is no picture of self-baptism at this mid-first-century point in the lives of these Pauline congregations. Paul’s remarks, however, are situational, and he does not offer teaching on baptism per se. We can infer little here about his theology of baptism,78 although his simple use of the verb “to baptize” (Gk. baptizein) indicates that he has immersion of the believers in mind (see further

171

172

Galatians 3

on baptism, Rom 6:1-11).79 These believers, Paul says, were baptized “into Christ” (Gk. eis Christon), meaning by that phrase something akin to being (as he has already said) “in Christ.”80 Interpreters can discern no real difference between these phrases, except that being in Christ locates the believers with regard to their relationship to Christ, while into Christ expresses motion toward Christ on the part of the believers. Location and motion to are not different ways of the believers being related to Christ; rather, they are merely figurative ways to conceptualize these aspects of the believers’ relatedness to Christ. Many commentators regard vv. 27-28 as related to a baptismal liturgy of the early church.81 A variety of reasons are given in support of this interpretive suggestion; chief among them • the employment of baptismal language; • the use of the image of putting on Christ, which may refer to the early Christian practice of donning a new garment after being baptized as a symbol of one’s transformation in Christ; • the employment of only the first pair in v. 28 (neither Jew nor Greek) in Paul’s argument in Galatians—the other two pairs of antitheses (neither slave nor free, not male and female) play no part in Paul’s argument in Galatians; • the various pairs in v. 28a that appear in modified form elsewhere in Paul writings, so that they occur as if they were part of a formula (Rom 10:12; 1 Cor 12:13; compare Col 3:11); and • the striking parallelism of v. 26 and v. 28b. The argument for Paul’s use of formulaic materials from the baptismal practices of the early church seems strong. One should note, however, that the plural forms (“you” plural in Greek in both verb endings and pronouns) that occur in Paul’s remarks at least raise questions about his meticulously following set liturgical language, since baptismal formulae could have been (more likely?) in the second person singular (“you” singular in Greek). It is quite possible that Paul pluralized originally singular forms, although it is also possible that the plural forms indicate that those being baptized were addressed en masse in the course of the ceremony. Moreover, it may be simply that Paul coined the phrases himself and used them as he saw fit in a variety of situations.82 Verse 28 contains one of the best-known and most frequently quoted lines in the New Testament. It is so well known, so often cited, and so much used in relation to contemporary (twenty-first century) issues that it is sometimes difficult to relate the verse to

Galatians 3

Paul’s own situation in Galatians. Indeed, it is hard at times not to fault Paul for not having meant in his own context what we take the verse to say in our life situations. Paul’s statement in v. 28 falls into two distinct, related parts. Verse 28a presents three pairs of contrasts, and then v. 28b explains the declaration(s) of v. 28a using language that echoes v. 26. Thus, v. 28a moves through the rhythm of repetition, “There is . . . there is . . . there is . . . .” Then v. 28b opens with the third (of three) uses of “for” (Gk. gar) in postpositive position, this use harking back to vv. 26 and 27, a repetition that holds vv. 26-28 together. In turn, vv. 26 and 28b are held together by the use of the word “all” (Gk. pantes) in an emphatic position at the very beginning of the sentences and by the phrase “in Christ Jesus” (Gk. en Christø I∑sou) at the end of the lines. Verse 28, especially v. 28a, is not closely connected to the sentences in the verses immediately preceding it. In fact, one could read vv. 26, 27, and 28b together by passing over v. 28a and not notice the loss of an element of Paul’s argument. Nevertheless, v. 28a is part of Paul’s letter and, as it stands, the declarations of v. 28a touch on but then go beyond the limits of the issues at stake among the Galatian congregations. Paul states three contrasts, but as noted above, only the first pair of these juxtapositions seems pertinent to Paul’s discussions in the rest of the letter. Nevertheless, along with the negations of religious/ethnic differences, Paul declares the abolition of social/economic and sexual/gender distinctions in the tripartite remarks of v. 28a. While Paul does not say explicitly that these negations of differences occur “in Christ,” that is clear from the uses of “in Christ Jesus” in vv. 26 and 28, of “into Christ” and “Christ” in v. 27, and of “Christ’s” in v. 29—see especially v. 28b. Paul’s remarks in v. 28a have a formulaic quality wherein each of the three phrases begins, “there is neither” (Gk. ouk eni). The first pair of contrasts, “neither Jew nor Greek,” is obviously related to the situation in Galatia (see 2:1-21, esp. vv. 15-16). It is important to remember, however, that while Paul refers in this juxtaposition to “Jews” and “Greeks” (a synonym for “Gentiles”—see 2:3), he is really concerned with the distinctions that others have made between Jews and Gentiles who are Christians. The Jew/Greek (or Jew/Gentile) contrast focuses in this instance in Galatians on the issue of Law observance in Christian life. Paul has already made the point (see 2:11-14) that Jewish and Gentile believers are not to be distinguished in terms of Law observance. Yet the issue is controversial because those who have come to Galatia after Paul were making a distinction between Jewish and

173

174

Galatians 3

Gentile Christians in exactly those terms, obviously insisting on circumcision as necessary for the (male) Gentile believers (see 5:2-4; 6:13) and apparently asserting the necessity of broader observance of the Law for all Christians (see 4:10). Obviously in the teaching of those who came to Our Babel-like Existence Galatia after Paul, Gentiles must become Just as male and female distinctions remain but no Law observant in order to be valid longer matter in Christ, Paul saw the ethnic distincChristians (as Law-observant Jewish tions between Jews and Gentiles as no longer separating Christians naturally would have been). them. Rather, through Christ the entire human family is brought together, rescued from what Wright calls “its fractured, divided, Babel-like existence” (130).

[Our Babel-like Existence]

The other two pairs of juxtapositions N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove IL: that Paul declares to be nullified are InterVarsity, 2009). more enigmatic in their context in Galatians. First, Paul states, “There is neither slave nor free,” although this declaration has little or no relevance to the issues and arguments of Paul in Galatians. Elsewhere, in 1 Corinthians 7:21-24 and Philemon, Paul does deal with slavery and freedom. Scholars, however, debate Paul’s actual position on this matter, arguing over the meaning of these pertinent texts. Some interpreters contend that Paul spoke out for freedom in 1 Corinthians and Philemon, while other commentators conclude that he advised slaves to use their present condition as an opportunity for service. Paul is certainly clear in Galatians that such distinctions are negated in Christ, but he may mean only that such differences do not hold true in the new community of believers, although they remain all too true in the world outside the church. Building of the Tower of Babel; detail of a miniature from British Library, Add MS 18850, f. 17v (the “Bedford Hours”). Illumination on parchment. Second, the evidence for interpreting c. 1410–1430. Held and digitized by the British Library. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-1923) Paul’s third pair of contrasts is complicated. Paul writes, oddly in terms of phraseology, “There is not male and female” (Gk. ouk eni arsen kai th∑ly). Many scholars refer to the text of Genesis 1:27, which reads in part, “male and female he made them” (LXX Gk. arsen kai th∑ly epoi∑sen autous), in attempting to explain the shift in style at this point in Paul’s statement. The argument is that Paul’s phrase echoes the line of Genesis. This interpretive theory is often repeated and

Galatians 3

175

may even be correct. Moreover, “male” (Gk. arsen) and “female” (Gk. th∑lys) are neuter in form, unlike the first two pairs that were stated in the masculine gender. Some interpreters suggest that this neuter-form style implies not only the negation of social roles but even the nullifying of biological distinctions—though this last interpretive suggestion seems to fit later Gnosticism better than a remark by Paul in his own time. [Male and Female] Paul did write explicitly about women (and to a degree, Male and Female men) in another context in 1 Corinthians. Perhaps this is part of the point in the “no male and female” of Galatians 3:28: circumcision He seems to assume the subordination of itself not only divides Jew from Greek, it also puts a wall women in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16—and between male and female, with only the male proudly there are other equally challenging verses bearing the covenant sign. It isn’t like that in the gospel. for interpretation in that letter that portray Male and female alike believe in the faithful Messiah. women in less than comparable roles and Male and female alike are baptized, die and rise with and ranks with men (see esp. 1 Cor 14:33b-36). in the Messiah. Male and female belong side by side as equal members of the single family God promised to The evidence for assessing Paul’s view of Abraham. women is simply not clear. It is true that From N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers when Paul repeats portions of his negationGrove IL: InterVarsity, 2009) 131–32. scheme in 1 Corinthians 12:13, the nullification of the distinction between “male and female” does not occur; but it is also true that when Paul denies any difference between “Jews and Greeks” in Romans 10:12, he makes no mention of the juxtaposition of either “slave and free” or “male and female.” One may wish for further information for comprehending 3:28a, but there is a dearth of data on these matters in Paul’s letters. In other writings, Paul does show an awareness that distinctions made in the world outside the church still found their way into the life of the church. Sometimes in other contexts he addresses this problem, but “One Fiery Color” When one has once put on Christ and, having been “in writing to the Galatians he does not 83 sent into the flame, glows with the ardor of the Holy pause over that matter.” Spirit, it is not apparent whether he is of gold or silver. As Verse 28b reiterates elements of v. 26, long as the heat takes over the mass in this way there is one exchanging the phrase “you are one” for fiery color, and all diversity of race, condition and body is the phrase “you are sons of God” in v. taken away by such a garment. (Jerome, Epistle to the 26, and not repeating the phrase Galatians 2.3.27-28) “through this faith.” [“One Fiery Color”] Mark J. Edwards, ed., Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, vol. 8, gen. ed. Thomas C. Oden (Downers Grove Beginning with “for” (Gk. gar), v. 28b IL: InterVarsity, 1999) 51. provides an explanation of the meaning of the stated negations of v. 28a. Moreover, the focus of the explanatory remark is all, meaning especially in the context of Paul’s letter to the Galatians both the Jewish and the Gentile believers. The emphasis in v. 26 was on being included, whereas the focus of v. 28b is on unity or oneness. Paul does not explain the

176

Galatians 3

nature of oneness in this context, since his concerns are more functional and practical (Will the Galatians become Law observant?); but in texts such as Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 10, where Paul explicates unity/oneness using the metaphor of the body of Christ, he does explain the nature of unity in the church. One should note here that Paul emphasizes the oneness of all, and he ties that idea to one-and-all being “in Christ Jesus.” Again, “in Christ Jesus” designates a local and personal relationship that at the same time is universal in scope. Members of the congregations of believers are as if they were one person, the Corporate Christ. In Christ Jesus, differences are nullified, and they are replaced not by mere equality but by a unity that was created by and is to be identified with Christ Jesus himself. Verse 29 stands apart a bit from vv. 26-28 as is indicated by the use of the conjunction de, which in Greek is somewhere between “and” and “but.” The usage here is continuative (“and”), not disjunctive (“but”), as is evident from the close relationship of the language and themes of all four verses in this section. Still, v. 29 not only summarizes vv. 26-28 but also reaches back as far as 3:6 and echoes elements of all the portions of the chapter that follow. The verse is a first-class or real conditional sentence, in which the protasis (“if you are Christ’s”) is assumed to be true: the Galatians to whom Paul writes are Christ’s, i.e., they are “in Christ Jesus” as stated in vv. 26 and 28. The apodosis of this conditional sentence (“then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise”) begins with “then” (Gk. ara), a particle that expresses “the natural, direct, and expected consequence of a previous statement of the existing situation”84—in other words, the Galatians are “Christ’s,” and the results of that relationship are stated in the apodosis in two phrases: “you are Abraham’s seed” (see vv. 7, 9, 16) and “[you are] heirs according to promise” (see vv. 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22). The second phrase introduces the themes that will inform or characterize the next section of the letter, 4:1-7, viz., heir and adoption, although one should not lose sight of Paul’s reference to God’s “promise,” which he has already defined as the Spirit (see 3:14). He will revisit that theme also in the next section (see 4:6), and he will come back to “the Spirit” in some detail still later in his reflections in the rest of the letter (see 4:29; 5:5, 16, 17, 18, 22, 25; 6:1, 8, 18). Basically Paul tells the Galatians in v. 29 that what they want to be (Abraham’s heirs, children of God), they in fact already are. Paul’s christocentric vision of God’s grace shines through particularly clearly in vv. 26-29, for as the Galatians are “in Christ,” they

Galatians 3

are “Christ’s.” Moreover, for Paul, being “Christ’s” makes the connection between Abraham and the Gentiles; it is not Law observance that connects the two. Believers are not related to Christ through Abraham. Rather, to be “in Christ” or “of Christ” means that they are related through Christ to Abraham, since Christ himself is Abraham’s seed, the heir to the promise through whom believers are now also heirs.

CONNECTIONS Pointed Questions (3:1-5)

As Galatians 3 begins, Paul’s address is no longer as friendly, as in 1:1. Here, he is “biting and aggressive.”85 In chapter 2, it is clear that Paul is frustrated that the Galatians abandoned the gospel message of justification by faith to flirt with Torah observance. Here, however, the Apostle’s tone shifts from mere frustration to outright hostility. Paul calls the Galatians anoêtos: “brainless” or “foolish” (vv. 1, 3). Paul launches a devastating assault on his opponents’ position by asking six rhetorical questions. His first question, “Who has bewitched you?” is a subtle accusation that the Galatians were behaving irrationally. How did his readers get to the point where they turned their backs on the message he had proclaimed? It surely wasn’t through any sort of logical reflection. Therefore, he argues, they must have become fascinated with keeping Law through irrational means. They must be under someone’s spell to think this way! Next, Paul asks, “Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard?” (v. 2). This is the first mention of the Spirit in Galatians. The Galatians’ experience of the Spirit took place outside of—and prior to—any connection to the covenant(s) of Judaism. Paul would have them consider this fact as they ponder what the Christian life is really all about. As Paul lays out his argument in the remainder of the book, the role of the Spirit is seen to be a crucial aspect of his answer to the claims of those who are leading the Galatians astray. What is the basis of the Christian life? Does the Christian life consist of “doing the works of the law” or of “believing what you heard” (ex ako∑s pisteøs, “out of the hearing/proclamation of faith” vv. 2, 5)? For Paul, obedient faith is diametrically opposed to the

177

178

Galatians 3

“Who Has Bewitched You?” We must expound what follows—Who has bewitched you?—in a way worthy of Paul, who even if rough in his speech is not so in his understanding. It must not be interpreted in such a way as to make Paul legitimize the witchcraft that is popularly supposed to do harm. Rather he has used a colloquial expression, and as elsewhere so here he has adopted a word from everyday speech . . . . In the same way as tender infants are said to be harmed by witchcraft, so too the Galatians, recently born in the faith of Christ and nourished with milk, not solid food, have been injured as though someone has cast a spell on them. (Jerome, Epistle to the Galatians 1.3.1)

Galatians’ foolish attempt to maintain favor with God through Torah observance. In the questions that follow, however, it is clear that the Galatians are clueless about life in the Spirit. They want to trade the power of the Spirit transforming them from the inside out for a set of external religious practices. No wonder Paul calls them “foolish” and “bewitched”! [“Who Has Bewitched You?”] In v. 3, Paul asks two closely related questions: “Are you so foolish? Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?” “Spirit” and “flesh” are often contrasted in In Mark J. Edwards, ed., Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Ancient Paul’s writings. The difference between them is Christian Commentary on Scripture, vol. 8, gen. ed. Thomas C. Oden not strictly the difference between the non(Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 1999) 35. corporeal and the corporeal. Rather, the distinction here has to do with whether something is aligned with or against God and God’s redemptive purposes. Any aspect of human existence can be either depending on its Godward orientation. If the Galatians began their Christian lives by the power of the Spirit, why are they trying to complete their discipleship on the basis of the flesh? The old saying “Dance with the one that brought you” captures something of Paul’s challenge to the Galatians. Through their fascination with “why works of the law,” they prove themselves unfaithful to the Spirit of God through whom they have come to Christ in the first place. Paul’s next question has to do with the Galatians’ spiritual experience: “Did you experience so much for nothing?” (v. 4). What, Paul asks, was the significance of their previous experience with Christ? Was it all a sham? Was it devoid of meaning since, as they apparently saw things, it lacked reference to the Torah? Finally, Paul returns to a matter he first raised in v. 2 when he asks, “Does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?” (v. 5). The Galatians were not unfamiliar with divine manifestations, including miracles. Paul wants to know whether these manifestations are the work of the Spirit or if, in fact, they are the result of human effort in keeping the Torah. Through these rhetorical questions, we begin to learn more explicitly what Paul had in mind when he warned against embracing a “different” gospel in 1:6. He appeals to the Galatians’ own experience, knowing that their experience of the Spirit contradicts their present infatuation with Torah-keeping.

Galatians 3 Christ Accursed (3:10-14)

What does it mean that Christ “became a curse for us” (v. 13)? For some, this statement points in the direction of a cosmic transaction and feeds into substitutionary theories of atonement. Many scholars, however, assert that this interpretation misses the mark. Christ “became a curse,” they say, in that sinners treated him as an accursed man. “Hanging on a tree” was a reference to crucifixion in later Judaism (cf. Deut 21:23). (Obviously, this was not originally the case, as crucifixion, apparently a Persian invention later perfected by the Romans, was unknown in Israel at the time Deuteronomy was written.) Through the death of Jesus, God ends the curse and brings salvation to the world. Through the cross, we are set free from the curse of the Law and deemed worthy to receive the blessing of Abraham and the promise of the Spirit. Jesus was “cursed” not by God but precisely by the Law. The Reading of the Will (3:15-18)

A lesson or sermon might be developed on the topic “The Reading of the Will.” Despite Paul’s assurances to the contrary, wills in the modern world do occasionally end up in probate as the various heirs dispute their stipulations. But no one can add to or annul the “will” in which Christ’s people are named as Abraham’s descendants and heirs (3:24). (The Greek word diath∑k∑ translated here as “will” can also be translated “covenant.”) No outside source, not even the Torah, can attach a codicil to this will revoking its original stipulations. The inheritance in which believers take part is not conditioned upon Torah observance. It is based on God’s original promise to Abraham. Abraham is not merely an illustration of Paul’s point. He and the promises God gave to him are precisely God’s point. Discharging the Loyal Soldier (3:23-25)

Rhetorically, Paul must walk a fine line if he doesn’t want to lose his readers. He must acknowledge that the Law given through the angels, is good and holy. He must also drive home the truth of freedom in Christ. One of the ways Paul seeks to make this point is by comparing the Law to a paidagøgos, a slave “disciplinarian” who oversees the schooling of youngsters in the master’s house. Perhaps teachers and preachers today could draw a comparison between the Law and the

179

180

Galatians 3

The Purpose of a “Custodian” A custodian is given to infants to rein in an age full of passion and to restrain hearts prone to vice until tender infancy is refined by growth . . . . Yet the teacher is not a father, nor does the one being instructed look for the custodian’s inheritance. The custodian guards another person’s son and will depart from him when the lawful time of inheritance arrives. (Jerome, Epistle to the Galatians 2.3.24f.)

rules parents inevitably lay down for their children. Eat your vegetables. Get to bed at a decent hour. [The Purpose of a “Custodian”] It may not be much of a stretch to imagine Paul wanting non-Jewish believers in Jesus to think of the Mosaic Law as something like those restrictions. The Law is good—and it’s good for you—but adults ought not be constantly badgered about such things. Adults are Mark J. Edwards, ed., Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Ancient free to make their own decisions. Christian Commentary on Scripture, vol. 8, gen. ed. Thomas C. Oden (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 1999) 49–50. The Galatians’ problem was they were unwilling to assume adult-level responsibilities for their spiritual lives. They preferred instead for someone to tell them what to do and what to think. That kind of living is at best a pale shadow of the Christian life. In Christ, we can put such childish things behind us (1 Cor 13:11). We can live for God on the basis of grace, not law. Another apt analogy is provided in Richard Rohr’s Falling Upward. After the end of World War II, some Japanese communities understood that their returning soldiers were not fit or prepared to reenter civilian society. Having spent their formative years as “loyal soldiers” to their country, they had no broader context in which to locate themselves once the war was over. Rohr explains, So these Japanese communities created a communal ritual whereby a soldier was publicly thanked and praised effusively for his service to the people. After this was done at great length, an elder would stand and announce with authority something to the effect: “The war is now over! The community needs you to let go of what has served you and served us well up to now. The community needs you to return as a man, a citizen, and something beyond a soldier.”86

For Paul, God similarly calls the people to let go of the Law, even though it has served God’s people well in the past. And following Christ means growing up to be something more than merely a Torah keeper. Transformation through Baptism (3:26-29)

Paul appeals to baptism as a model of what it means to be “in Christ.” But surely he is not appealing to a bare ritual, the immersion of one’s physical body in water. This would simply replace one ceremonial requirement (i. e., circumcision) with another.

Galatians 3

181 Baptism in Buffalo Bayou For Paul, baptism unites believers in a community of faith that includes everyone regardless of sex, race, cultural heritage, or socio-economic status. Christians observe this sacred act in various ways, ranging from solemn, high liturgy to the festive atmosphere depicted in the photograph. Whatever the particulars, through baptism believers have clothed themselves with Christ and celebrated their status as “heirs according to the promise.”

A large group of African-American spectators stands on the banks of Buffalo Bayou to witness a baptism. Many umbrellas are present, indicating an effort to provide shade from the heat of the day. c. 1900. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons, Courtesy of Special Collections, University of Houston).

Baptism in water does, however, provide for Paul an important touch point as he argues for the superiority of Christ and of his own message of justification. As the central initiatory ritual of the church, baptism bears witness to the transforming power of the gospel. Namely, in Christ “you are all children of God through faith” (v. 26). This was not the product of ritual performance of any sort but rather the work of God. Christians testify to this transformation through baptism, in which they clothe themselves with Christ (v. 27). Paul uses the imagery of taking off old clothes and putting on new (Rom 13:12; see also Col 3:9-11; Eph 4:24-25). The reference is likely to the rite of baptism, in which converts stripped off their old garments and were then clothed in new, white garments befitting their new status as “cleansed” individuals. That is certainly the context here. What does this new status entail? Chiefly for Paul’s argument, that in Christ “there is no longer Jew or Greek” (v. 28). The nonJewish Galatians are wrong to think observing the Law will make them any more “in Christ” than they already are. On the contrary, such distinctions are irrelevant to their standing before the God who saves them by grace alone!

182

Galatians 3

Then, for good measure, Paul notes other distinctions humans make amongst each other that have absolutely no bearing on one’s spiritual status. Religious and cultural distinctions no longer matter (“Jew or Greek”), and social and economic distinctions (“slave or free”) and even sexual difference (“male and female”) fall by the wayside as well. It is not, of course, that these distinctions no longer exist. They most certainly do! But in the context of the Christian community, they are just as certainly irrelevant. They are distinctions negated in Christ. We must note with discomfort that the church has taken longer than it should have to live out the implications of Paul’s bold declaration of equality in Christ. We may pat ourselves on the backs for no longer harboring such obvious prejudices, but most churches are still quite segregated, be it along racial or ethnic or socioeconomic lines. And, in many churches, the declaration that women stand on equal footing with men in the kingdom of God is met with fierce denunciations at worst and, at best, with condescending “yes buts.” It is time for the church to decide what “in Christ” really means. Is it strictly a question of who gets to go to heaven? Or does it have implications for every aspect of life within the community of faith?

Notes 1. Nils Alstrup Dahl observes, “The questions in Gal. 3:1-5 play upon the meaning of words, but they are also ironic in another deeper sense; they point out an amazing, unreasonable, even ludicrous contrast between aspiration and result, pretense and reality” (“Paul’s Letter to the Galatians: Epistolary Genre, Content, and Structure,” paper presented for private circulation among the members of the SBL Paul Seminar, no date, p. 33). 2. BAGD, 704. 3. Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11 (SBLDS 56; Chico CA: Scholars Press, 1983) 139–49. 4. Paul does use ako∑ in other contexts (Rom 10:16, 17; 1 Cor 12:17 [2x]; Gal 3:2, 5; 1 Thess 2:13), but these other uses are as ambiguous as Gal 3:2; so that for interpretation of Paul’s question here, the citation from Isaiah is crucial. 5. J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997) 284. 6. Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC 41; Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990) 101–102; see also Charles H. Cosgrove, The Cross and the Spirit:

Galatians 3 A Study in the Argument and Theology of Galatians (Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1988). 7. H. Kleinknecht, F. Baumgärtel, W. Bieder, E. Sjöberg, and E. Schweizer, “pneuma, pneumatikos, pneø, ekpneø, theopneustos,” TDNT 6:332–455. 8. Ernest DeWitt Burton suggests that there is another antithesis in Paul’s presentation of the situation in Galatia: beginning/completing (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians [ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920] 148). 9. LSJ, 1807–808. 10. LSJ, 1346–47, gives as a first definition, including especially secular Greek authors, “to have something done to one,” “suffer.” 11. See Umberto Eco et al., Interpretation and Overinterpretation (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992) 23–88. 12. Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 1994) 389. 13. LSJ, 837—“even as,” citing John 15:12. 14. Dieter Lührmann, Galatians: A Continental Commentary (CC; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992—German Original, 1978; 2d ed. 1988) 56; Longenecker, Galatians, 113; see Philo, Abraham, 262–74. 15. Sam K. Williams, Galatians (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries; Nashville: Abingdon, 1997) 86. 16. J. Louis Martyn, Review of Leander E. Keck, Paul and His Letters, Reflection 77 (1980)—photocopy supplied by author, page numbers unknown. 17. LSJ, 1055. 18. H.-W. Bartsch, “logizomai,” EDNT 2:354–55. 19. Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 141. 20. Longenecker, Galatians, 108. 21. The Greek word ethn∑ can be translated either “Gentiles” or “nations.” In the Genesis texts, nations seems preferable, but Paul’s point in Gal 3:8 is related to his understanding the word to mean “Gentiles.” On this point he is not really stretching the text. 22. LSJ, 1408. 23. See 1 Cor 1:9; 4:2, 17; 7:25; 10:13; 2 Cor 1:18; 6:15 (where perhaps pistos means “believer”); 1 Thess 5:24; 2 Thess 3:3. Furthermore, there are seventeen uses of pistos in the Pastoral Epistles. 24. Martyn, Galatians, 308. 25. LSJ, 385. 26. Martyn (Galatians, 310) cites E. P. Sanders (Paul and Palestinian Judaism [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977] 483–84), noting that Hab 2:4 along with Gen 15:6 are the only two texts in the whole OT that explicitly link together “justification” and “faith.” 27. Martyn, Galatians, 314. 28. Martyn, Galatians, 317. 29. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament,” CBQ 40 (1978): 493–513.

183

184

Galatians 3 30. Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977). 31. Longenecker, Galatians, 128. 32. Martyn, Galatians, 342. 33. “To inherit”—Gk. kl∑ronomein, 4:30; 5:21; “inheritance”—Gk. kl∑ronomia, 3:18; “heir”—Gk. kl∑ronomos, 3:29; 4:1, 7. 34. Longenecker, Galatians, 134. 35. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 1996) 572–82. 36. LSJ, 1305. 37. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1982) 175; Martyn, Galatians, 354–55. 38. E.g., see John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians (orig. 1548; trans. T. H. L. Parker; 1965; repr., Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1996) 60–61; Martyn, Galatians, 354–55. 39. Martyn, Galatians, 353. 40. LSJ, 1527. 41. Bruce, Galatians, 176. 42. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 437–38. 43. LSJ, 414. 44. A. Vanhoye, “Un médiateur des anges en Ga 3,19-20,” Bib 59 (1978): 403–11. 45. Betz, Galatians, 168. 46. H. J. Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History (Philadelphia: Westminister, 1959) 182. 47. A. Oepke, “mesit∑s,” TDNT 4:619. 48. Longenecker, Galatians, 140. 49. Martyn, Galatians, 357–58. 50. Longenecker, Galatians, 144. 51. The other occurrences are at Luke 5:6 and Gal 3:23. 52. Bruce, Galatians, 180. 53. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 126. 54. Ibid., 389. 55. The verb can indicate both “locking up for safe storage” (LSJ, 1665) and “confine/imprison” (BAGD, 774). 56. LSJ, 491. 57. Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1920) §§2249–78. 58. Smyth §2257. 59. LSJ, 1286. 60. Bruce, Galatians, 182. 61. Betz (Galatians, 178) states that the coming of faith is identical to that of Christ.

Galatians 3 62. Martyn (Galatians, 363) remarks that between the faith of Abraham and the faith of Christ, there was only the world characterized by the Law’s curse. In turn, Paul sees a world that has been changed from without by God’s incursion into it, and he perceives that incursion as the event that brought faith into existence. 63. LSJ, 338–39; Smyth §§2803–20; BAGD, 151–52; and Wallace, Greek Grammar, 673–74, 761. 64. P46 and a few minor witnesses (including Clement) omit “the” (Gk. t∑s) in this phrase. 65. Smyth §1121: “The article often takes the place of an unemphatic possessive pronoun when there is no doubt as to the possessor.” 66. BDF § 258; Betz (Galatians, 186) seems to favor this solution; Longenecker, Galatians, 151–52. 67. Burton, Galatians, 203; H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Toronto: Macmillan Company, 1929/1955) § 148.2. 68. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 206–43, 325–35, and see 219. 69. Apparently this is the way Martin Luther read 3:26—see Martin Luther, Lectures on Galatians 1535, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, Luther’s Works, vol. 26 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1963) 351–52. 70. BDF § 197; see also § 219.4. 71. Burton, Galatians, 202. Similarly, A. Oepke (“eis,” TDNT 2:434 n. 54) writes, “pistis en [“faith in”] is hardly used in Rom 3:25 and Gal 3:26, where the prepositional expression belongs to the verb.” And in agreement, see Bruce, Galatians, 184. 72. The translation is that of Martyn (Galatians, 375). 73. BDF § 219.4 74. On the pattern of Paul’s uses of “Christ” and his various uses of Christ in combination with other words, see Nils Alstrup Dahl, “The Messiahship of Jesus in Paul” in his The Crucified Messiah and other essays (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974) 37–47, 170–72. 75. Longenecker, Galatians, 153–54. 76. Bruce, Galatians, 188. 77. Compare the remarks of A. Oepke, “en,” TDNT 2:542. 78. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1962) 146–51. 79. In the context of 1 Cor 1:10-17, Paul expresses an attitude toward baptism that is at best disinterested, if not cavalier. 80. Beasley-Murray (Baptism, 147) contends that “in Christ” (eis Christon) is an abbreviation for “in the name of Christ” (eis to onoma tou Christou). 81. Some interpreters include all of vv. 26-29, whereas others contend that vv. 27-28 form a liturgical piece. Still other scholars suggest other configurations, e.g., vv. 26-28 or vv. 27-29. 82. This solution may seem less imaginative and less enticing than the postulation of a baptismal liturgy upon which Paul drew, but it has equal claim to serious consideration by those pondering the sense of Paul’s statements to the Galatians. 83. Martyn, Galatians, 377.

185

186

Galatians 3 84. Smyth §2787. 85. Betz, Galatians, 130. 86. Richard Rohr, Falling Upward: A Spirituality for the Two Halves of Life (Hoboken NJ: Jossey-Bass, 2011) 44.

Live as Free People Galatians 4

COMMENTARY Paul’s Polemic against the Galatians’ Accepting LawObservance, 3:1–5:12 (continued)

The Plight of Humanity, God’s Sending His Son, and Its Consequences, 4:1-7 In chapter 4 Paul continues to argue against the necessity—or even the desirability—of Law observance for his Galatian Gentile converts to Christianity. At the outset of this chapter, Paul takes up the idea of heirship, thus using an illustration from everyday life to provide the basis of the argument that he makes in vv. 1-7. The discourse in this segment of the letter is quite complicated. With regard to the argument’s development, in vv. 1-2 Paul depicts a situation related to inheritance; then, in vv. 3-5 he forms a theological analogy (nearly an allegory) to the circumstances depicted in the illustration in vv. 1-2; and finally, in vv. 6-7, using language from vv. 1-5, Paul presents a theological exposition of the situation in Galatia (as he sees it) in light of the gospel. Thus, he advances an argument that shows not merely the practical but, even more, the theological irrelevance of Law observance for the Galatians. Moreover, in ordering this argument, Paul presents fourteen to seventeen characters (depending on how one counts them) who either act or are acted upon in the presentation of his narrative and exposition. These include the following: 1. the underage heir, the future lord of everything; 2. a slave; 3. guardians and managers (perhaps one group rather than two); 4. the father of the heir; 5. “we”—as minors and enslaved; 6. the elements of the universe; 7. God; 8. God’s Son;

188

Galatians 4

9. a woman; 10. the Law; 11. those under the Law; 12. “we”—receive adoption as sons; 13. adopted sons; 14. “you” (plural)—sons; 15. the Spirit of God’s Son; and 16. “you” (singular)—no longer a slave, but a son, also an heir. Inheritance When the Israelites went into exile they were disinherited from the land. This disinheritance meant more than just the loss of a little strip of territory. In a deeper sense it meant the loss of spiritual blessings as a consequence of national sin. The idea of a restored inheritance, taught by the prophets, suggested the glorious anticipation of the messianic age. In that period the people, not by works which they had done, but by God’s grace, would recover that which they had lost. The covenant which they had broken would be renewed . . . . In Mark 12:1-11 Christ claims to be the heir of God. This identification of Christ as heir is fundamental to the use of inheritance throughout the NT. This is seen in Heb 1:2 and implied in Rom 8:17. The Messiah, through whom the disinheritance should be brought to a close and the covenant renewed, was naturally regarded as the supreme heir of all the promises and privileges implied in the old covenant. As the Messiah’s unique relation to the Father became more clearly defined, the idea of his inheritance indicating his unique birth and universal supremacy became enlarged and expanded. Rom 8:17 states also that those “in Christ” are joint heirs with Christ of the inheritance. Since Christ is the only begotten Son, the inheritance is his by right. However, the believer receives this inheritance by grace through adoption in Jesus Christ. The word “adoption” thus occurs in connection with inheritance in Rom 8:15, 23 and Gal 4:5. As God’s heirs, according to the NT, we are in a real sense currently “owners” of all the good things tangible or intangible to be found in God. The blessings we receive now are from the rich store of his wealth, distributed in his will but truly our own. One day we will possess fully what we currently own (Rom 8:17-23; 1 Cor 15:50; Heb 11:13; 1 Pet 1:3-4). From John P. Newport, “Inheritance in the New Testament,” Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Watson E. Mills et al. (Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1990) 406.

The pattern of Paul’s presentation is striking. The first and last characters that he names are heirs. [Inheritance] While the heir plays a part in the development of the story, the son actually has a more prominent role as God’s Son is sent to bring others into sonship. Nevertheless, in the end Paul remarks that a son is an heir, so that the theme of heirship concludes this section of the letter, although sonship seems more vital to the development of Paul’s reflections. Furthermore, with regard to the themes of the passage, in the situational illustration of vv. 1-2, there are issues of inheritance, slavery, and investiture; in the theological analogy/allegory that Paul presents in vv. 3-5, there are issues of enslavement, sending, redemption, and adoption; and in the exposition that Paul offers in vv. 6-7, there are issues of sonship, sending and crying, and transformation. And these lines of analysis recognize only the main contours of Paul’s argument, so that much more complex parsing of his argument is possible, if thought to be desirable. Paul begins v. 1 with a cliché that he has already employed in 3:17 and that he will repeat in 5:16, legø de (lit., “But I say” or “Now I say”—though to paraphrase Paul, “Here’s what I mean”), which brings emphasis to what he is about to say.1 And, having focused the attention of the Galatians on his forthcoming statement, Paul proceeds in vv. 1-2 to tell them about a situation

Galatians 4

related to an underage heir. In essence, Paul says that as a minor the heir is powerless, no different from a slave, despite being the heir, for the underage heir is under various supervisors until the day comes that was set by the father of the heir (to inherit the estate). Paul’s story is easy to follow, but it has brought about much discussion because the situation he describes does not match the legal system of Roman, Greek, or Jewish law. Moreover, the challenge of interpretation is compounded by our knowledge of such laws coming from sources that are much later than Paul’s own time.2 Nevertheless, Paul’s audience would probably have read his remarks against the background of something similar to (if not the same as) what we do know of ancient law from the sources that are available. The mention of “guardians” (Gk. epitropoi) and “managers” (Gk. oikonomoi) as a pair of supervisors has led many interpreters to conclude that Paul has in mind the Roman law of tutela impuberis (tutelage of youth) or, more so, tutela testamentaria (tutelage by will), wherein an underage heir is placed under the oversight of a tutor who was nominated by the father. This arrangement continued until the heir was fourteen years old; then, the heir became a free agent who, nevertheless, was under the oversight of a curator appointed by the praetor urbanus (city magistrate) until the age of twenty-five. Greek law apparently allowed for more flexibility in setting the ages of stages of inheritance, but generally Greek and Roman inheritance laws were similar. Jewish laws of inheritance were rooted in the Old Testament and are something else completely; and as E. P. Sanders remarks in another context, “Diaspora Jews went their own way . . . rather than basing their behavior on Palestinian rules.”3 Still, several observations merit attention regarding Paul’s illustration: 1. Inheritance laws uniformly assume the death of the testator, but Paul (understandably) makes no mention of the father’s death. 2. The mention of a slave intrudes somewhat in Paul’s wordpicture of the heir, though it anticipates the references to enslavement in vv. 3-5 and, then, to a slave in vv. 6-7. 3. The comparison between the underage heir and the slave is hyperbolic; their futures were almost completely different. 4. The epitropoi (“guardians”) and oikonomoi (“managers”) do not match, especially the oikonomoi, the figures that are named in Roman law as an heir’s supervisors (“tutor” and “curator”). 5. The oikonomoi were household or estate managers, not personal supervisors.

189

190

Galatians 4

6. The references to epitropoi and oikonomoi are in the plural form, suggesting that Paul is not trying to depict a literal situation where there would have been only one tutor and one curator. 7. Roman law, not the father, set the time(s) of the heir’s investiture. In this regard, however, independent of the differences between Paul’s picture and Roman law, a key word that Paul uses here is prothesmia (“the day appointed”), which is the name for a date set beforehand, i.e., a predetermined time of some significance.4 These observations make it improbable that Paul is referring to the regulations of normal Roman, Greek, or Jewish law. Despite some scholars’ contentions that Paul is following inheritance laws as practiced in certain Roman provinces (Phrygia in particular), it seems most likely that the backdrop for Paul’s illustration is Roman law and that he simply made the lines of his illustration run in the direction of his purposes. Besides, how many of Paul’s readers actually would have known the details of inheritance laws; indeed, what about Paul himself? From wherever Paul derived this illustration, even with its seeming irregularities, its basic sense is understandable: an underage heir is under restrictive authority until the time appointed for investiture. The mention of a slave, however, could imply that the authority is oppressive. That is not entirely clear from vv. 1-2, but the idea of the oppressive character of certain authorities will be an important part of Paul’s development of his argument in vv. 3-5. And, in the same way, when Paul’s analogy in vv. 3-5 focuses on the matter of time, the use of prothesmia (“the day appointed”) that seems problematic in Paul’s illustration may take on greater significance than is initially recognized in reading vv. 1-2. Verses 3-5 are one long, complicated sentence forming an analogy to the story Paul told in vv. 1-2. The opening word of v. 3, “so” (Gk. houtøs), touches on what went before (vv. 1-2) while pointing ahead to what is about to follow (vv. 3-5). This Greek word could be translated with the phrase, “in the same way.” In turn, having drawn attention to the analogy he is about to offer, Paul writes in such a way that the analogy has repeatedly to do with “we” (Gk. h∑meis): “we . . . we were . . . we were enslaved.” This reference to “we” raises questions about the identity of those of whom Paul speaks. In 3:26-29 Paul wrote of “you,” using second person plural forms. He will write of “you” again in 4:6-7, using both second person plural and second person singular forms (more on this matter later); but here in vv. 3-5 Paul mentions “we.” Some

Galatians 4

commentators regard the use of “we” as being Paul’s consistent way of referring to Jewish Christians only; others, however, point to the parallels regarding enslavement between vv. 3-5 (especially v. 3), where there is “we” language, and vv. 8-9, where there is “you” language, and conclude that Paul’s “we” in vv. 3-5 includes both Jewish and Gentile Christians. Paul does seem to be describing the universal human condition in v. 3, recognizing that Jews and Gentiles alike were enslaved before God sent his Son. Thus, he draws his analogy to the story he told in vv. 1-2 by referring in v. 3 to those (“we”) who were enslaved as n∑pioi, the same Greek word that was used to name the underage heir (a “minor”) in 4:1. In vv. 1-2 the minor heir was powerlessly under supervisors, as if a slave, and so in v. 3 Paul now refers to those enslaved under the elements of the universe using the term n∑pioi, “minors.” This observation raises a significant issue in the interpretation of this passage, viz., who or what are “the elements of the universe” (Gk. ta stoicheia tou kosmou)? Several options for interpretation exist, and there are also several ways to present those options. One important statement of the possibilities for interpretation is found in the BAGD lexicon (i.e., 2d edition),5 which offers a helpful summary of the usages of the word stoicheion that may guide our reflection on this topic. The entries are a follows: 1. elements (of learning), fundamental principles or even letters of the alphabet, the very elements of the truths of God. 2. elemental substances, the basic elements from which everything in the natural world is made, and of which it is composed. The four elements of the world (earth, air, fire, water). 3. the elemental spirits that the syncretistic religious tendencies of later antiquity associated with the physical elements—they were sometimes worshiped as divinities. 4. heavenly bodies—of the signs of the zodiac. It is generally recognized that persons of Paul’s day would have thought of the second usage given above if they had come upon the phrase ta stoicheia tou kosmou,6 but it is also clear that they could have thought and that they often did think of the third usage as well. [Elements of the Universe] Thus, F. F. Bruce,7 among others, lists passages in the writings of Philo that seem to confirm in part the understanding of ta stoicheia tou kosmou as “the [four] elements that form the universe” (though Bruce does not translate the phrase this way). First, Philo uses the exact phrase, ta stoicheia tou kosmou, in his work On the Eternity of

191

192

Galatians 4

Elements of the Universe The phrase “the elements (of the universe)” (ta stoicheia [tou kosmou]) is found four times in the Pauline corpus: Gal 4:3, 9; Col 2:8, 20. Heb 5:12 mentions ta stoicheia t∑s arch∑s, which in context must mean something like “the basic principles.” 2 Pet 3:10 and 12 anticipate ta stoicheia, the elements, being destroyed in the eschaton. A number of interpreters, perhaps the majority, see in this phrase reference to spiritual powers of some sort. This view is bolstered by the usage in Colossians, where the writer speaks of a false teaching that is in accordance with the elements of the universe rather than to Christ, who is the head of every principality and power (Col 2:8-10). Later, Col 2:20 speaks of believers having died with Christ to the elements of the universe, implied here to be associated with various external religious rules. Reference to “worship of angels” in Col 2:18 has seemed to strengthen this interpretation. Although a popular reading, it should be noted that no clear extrabiblical evidence for this reading can be found prior to the second century AD (Reid, 229). At this point, however, the evidence is well attested and may well represent beliefs contemporary with the time of Paul (see T. Sol. 8:2-4). Eduard Schweizer is perhaps the most prominent advocate of the view that the Pauline references to ta stoicheia point to the four classical elements of Greek philosophy: earth, water, air, and fire. He points to the Pythagorean idea that the world, originally in a state of equilibrium in which these elements are balanced, is now in a condition of strife that threatens to destroy the world. Schweizer suggests that these ideas informed the religious milieu in both Colossae and Galatia. People saw

themselves living in a world of futility and prevented by the elements from ascending to heaven (Reid, 231). Thus, the elements of the universe are not gods to be worshiped but entities to be feared and overcome through ascetic practices, spiritual insight, and the worship of various angels or divinities. This interpretation is easier to square with Colossians than with Galatians, as Schweizer himself admits. He argues, however, that the Galatian preoccupation with “observing special days, and months, and seasons, and years” (Gal 4:10) may be related to the Pythagorean idea that “insight into the cosmic order . . . would purify the soul” (Reid, 231). These two interpretations may not necessarily be mutually exclusive. Philo of Alexandria states, There is an error of no small importance which has taken possession of the greater portion of mankind concerning a subject which was likely by itself, or, at least, above all other subjects, to have been fixed with the greatest correctness and truth in the mind of every one; for some nations have made divinities of the four elements, earth and water, and air and fire. Others, of the sun and moon, and of the other planets and fixed stars. Others, again, of the whole world. (Decal. 52–53, emphasis added)

Based on this statement, it is possible to see a reference in Gal 4 to the former pagan practices of the Galatians in worshiping various aspects of the natural world: a state of ignorance, immaturity, and enslavement from which, Paul reminds them, they have been set free through Christ. Daniel G. Reid, “Elements/Elemental Spirits of the World, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne et al. (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 1993).

the World (109). In this usage Philo discusses “earth, water, air, and fire,” referring to these things as “the elements of the world [or universe]” while arguing that between the four “powers” there is a reciprocity based on equality and justice. Second, elsewhere (On the Contemplative Life 3) Philo records how some persons regarded the elements when he writes of “those who revere the elements, earth, water, air, fire” and who “call fire Hephaestus because it is kindled, air Hera because it is lifted up and exalted on high, water Poseidon perhaps because it is drunk, and earth Demeter because it appears to be the mother of all plants and animals.” And, third, going further along this line, Philo writes (On the Decalogue 53) of a “great delusion” that had taken hold of the majority of people, “For some have deified the four elements, earth, water, air, and fire,

Galatians 4

others the sun, moon, the other planets and fixed stars, others again the heaven by itself, others the whole world [or universe].” In this way, one sees that Philo unambiguously recognizes that some persons deified and revered ta stoicheia tou kosmou (“the elements of the universe”). Lest one think that Philo was alone or that he misrepresented the situation that he knew, one should consider a passage from a document from a time in the (much debated) range of the late third century BC to the early first century AD,8 The Wisdom of Solomon: “For all people who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature; and they were unable from the good things that are seen to know the one who exists, nor did they recognize the artisan while paying heed to his works; but they supposed that either fire or wind or swift air, or the circle of the stars, or turbulent water, or the luminaries of heaven were the gods that rule the world [Gk. prytaneis kosmou theous].” (Wis 13:1-2; NRSV; emphasis added)

And so Philo and Wisdom agree that certain persons acknowledged and venerated the “elements of the universe: earth, water, air, and fire” as divine. While Wisdom does not use the phrase ta stoicheia tou kosmou, one reads there that “from the good things that are seen” (Gk. ek tøn horømenøn agathøn), people were unable to know God. This difference in terminology is a minor point in comparison with the greater agreement between these writings. In the similarities between Philo and Wisdom, one sees that the persons about whom these documents spoke placed themselves under the perceived authority of the elements (Wis 13:10-19 discusses the folly of idolatry). Thus, Paul’s phrase, “enslaved under the elements of the universe,” makes sense in relation to the members of the Galatian congregations who appear to have been pagans9 (in the ancient religious sense of that term) before they became Christians. We will return to this matter shortly, particularly in relation to vv. 8-9. For now, however, having recalled the enslavement that he and the Galatians (and others?) had experienced, Paul goes on in v. 4 to remember a change that occurred “when the fullness of time came.” The phrase the fullness of time probably reflects the conviction in early Christianity that all things transpired at set times according to the plan/purpose of God (see Acts 2:23; Rom 5:6). Moreover, the Greek word prothesmia (“the day appointed”—see v. 2) in Paul’s preceding illustration of the heir and the day set for inheritance was most likely an anticipation of this idea of the

193

194

Galatians 4

fullness of time in Paul’s further discussion of God’s activity. In Paul’s own thought, this “fullness of time” likely had to do with his vision of two apocalyptic ages (1 Cor 10:11). One age was evil (“the present evil age”—Gal 1:4) and the other was good (“the new creation”—2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15; or “the kingdom of God”—Rom 14:17; Gal 5:21). These two ages were radically incompatible and, in fact, opposed to each other. From this perspective, Paul perceived that in the fullness of time a complete filling10 of conditions occurred as God acted in a remarkable way, viz., “God sent forth his son”—a sending that simultaneously signaled the beginning of the end of the present evil age and the beginning of the dawn of the new creation. Some scholars have contended that in vv. 4-5 Paul is drawing on a sending formula that is also seen in other early Christian writings (Rom 8:3-4; John 3:16-17; 1 John 4:9-10).11 Furthermore, a usual part of this suggestion is that this (now) Christological/soteriological declaration is an adaptation of a saving-sending formula from Hellenistic Judaism—see Wisdom 9:10-17; Sirach 24 (especially vv. 8-9); Baruch 3:29-30; and Philo, Agriculture 51; Confusion 145–48; On Dreams 1.69—wherein Wisdom or Logos is sent by God as the agent of salvation for humanity. This striking interpretive idea has been both embraced and called into question. Nevertheless, no matter whether this statement—that God sent his Son—is an adaptation of a myth from Hellenistic Judaism, a formula from the early church, or an original Pauline formulation, the idea itself is remarkable: God sent his Son for the benefit of humanity. Moreover, as used by Paul, the concept of sending focuses on a historical figure, Jesus Christ, and does not make a doubly abstract declaration about God’s saving action. The remark that God sent his Son has raised further questions about whether the statement of God’s sending his Son assumes or indicates the Son’s preexistence. Since Paul seems clearly to believe in Christ’s preexistence (Rom 8:3 [?]; 1 Cor 8:6; 10:4; Phil 2:6-11 [?]), it is certainly possible that preexistence is part of the picture that Paul presents here in Galatians; although, in fact, the issue of preexistence is irrelevant to the point of Paul’s argument here. Still, in this statement, Paul could have in mind no more than a historical sending forth on the order of the Old Testament prophets, a sending out among people from the seclusion of his private life.12 On the other hand, Paul may mean in the ambiguity of this statement to refer to (1) Christ’s preexistence and sending as well as (2) his coming forth among people as one sent by God. In addition to the basic declaration that God sent forth his Son, Paul uses two parallel participial phrases to qualify the appearance

Galatians 4

of the Son. First, Paul states that God’s Son was born of a woman, which is a way of acknowledging the Son’s humanity. At times, however, some interpreters have attempted to read this declaration as an affirmation of Jesus’ virginal conception, but this text shows no awareness of that issue; rather, Paul is referring to Jesus Christ’s true humanity. In turn, Paul writes that the Son was born under the Law. There are perhaps two emphases brought by this remark: first, God’s Son was a Jew; second—at least as important if not more important—as a human, God’s Son shared the universal human condition of enslavement (here, remarkably, to the Law—see 3:13).13 Verse 5 continues the statement about the sending of God’s Son, adding two hina (Greek, usually translated “in order that”) clauses to the declaration. In their most frequent grammatical usage, hina clauses express purpose—so that the two purpose clauses of v. 5 tell the readers why God sent his Son: in order that (1) “he [God] might redeem those under the Law” and (2) “we might receive adoption as sons.” During the Koine period of the Greek language, hina (purpose) clauses came to express results (“so that”) as well as purposes; so that read as result clauses, the two hina clauses of v. 5 inform readers what the sending of God’s Son accomplished: (1) redemption of those under the Law and (2) adoption of the redeemed. It may not be necessary to decide between the two usages of hina (“in order that” or “so that”) in this verse, since grammarians argue that “purpose-result hina clauses” occur in the New Testament “to express both the divine purpose and the result.”14 This verse may be an instance of such double emphasis, although one is never in danger of complete misinterpretation by understanding such usages simply as purpose clauses and translating them by using the phrase “in order that” for hina. Furthermore, there may be sequencing in the arrangement of the clauses of v. 5, so that first comes redemption and then follows adoption. Yet the first act, redemption, leads to the second act, adoption, in such a way that ultimately the two actions are parts of a whole. More specifically, in the first clause of v. 5 Paul writes of God’s redeeming certain persons who are said to be under the Law (again, more on this matter later when we examine vv. 8-9).15 The word translated “redeem” is the Greek verb exagorazein, which literally means “to buy from,” especially in reference to buying or redeeming slaves (and in actuality, not merely as sacral manumission).16 Paul had used the same verb (exagorazein) in 3:13 in relation to Christ’s death, so that while he does not raise the matter

195

196

Galatians 4

of the cross in an explicit way, as he presents this formulaic statement (vv. 4-5) about God’s sending his Son for the redemption of human beings, the word redeem itself echoes the earlier statement about Christ’s death and redemption, so that one should not lose sight completely of the cross as Paul reflects on the saving-sending of God’s Son. The second hina clause in v. 5 speaks of the believers’ reception of adoption as sons. Paul writes once more of we—“in order that we might receive . . . .” Here again, he joins himself with the Galatians and all others in Christ. Moreover, Paul uses sons in a metaphorical way that his readers would have understood to include all believers; although the Greek word huiothesia17 (“adoption as a son”) was technical or legal terminology for “adopting a son.” The word huiothesia is not found in the LXX or in the New Testament in writings outside the Pauline corpus. This kind of adoption was a particular phenomenon in Greek and Roman culture.18 People regularly adopted males, both youths and adults, in order that as sons, those who were adopted might inherit (1) the responsibility of caring for parents in old age, (2) the role of continuing the family itself and perpetuating the family’s name, and (3) the care of the parents’ tombs after their deaths. And, of course, passing along the family’s materials goods was part of the arrangements. The one who was adopted started a new life. Adoption was so important that there were even posthumous adoptions (obviously referring to the time after the death of the adoptive parent). Moreover, inheritance laws were such that sons fared better than daughters in the arrangements. Thus, adoption as a son imparted benefits and status, though in the Greco-Roman world such adoption meant responsibilities as part of the new relationships. Paul’s declaration about adoption would have carried many more shades of meaning in his own day than it does in twenty-first-century Western culture. It is remarkable, however, in any age to note that Paul’s message to his reader is that God’s sending his Son resulted in God’s reception of human beings into a relationship to God as sons.19 Paul will develop this theme of sonship in the verses that follow, vv. 6-7. Verse 6 takes as its point of departure the statement at the end of v. 5 regarding the believers’ reception of adoption as “sons.” Again, it is because of Greek linguistic convention and because of ancient social norms, both parts of a male-dominant culture, that Paul uses the designation “sons” for all those in Christ (3:26). Sons enjoyed privileges beyond those of daughters in the Greco-Roman world, especially with regard to inheritance, which is one of Paul’s central

Galatians 4

themes in vv. 1-7. Here, Paul remarks, because of adoption as sons, “you” are sons. Paul’s grammar is noticeably awkward: having written in v. 5 that we are adopted as sons, in v. 6 Paul states that you are sons. Interpreters explain this abrupt shift in pronouns, from first person plural to second person plural, in various ways. Some commentators have suggested that Paul was (still) using a (baptismal) liturgy or confession so that vv. 4-5 are the traditional piece and vv. 6-7 are Paul’s application. This may well be the case, but since Paul chose to construct vv. 1-7 as he did, with no explicit reference to sources, whether he was using a tradition may be irrelevant (and in any regard not provable), for he used the material (if he did) to make the statements found in the present text of Galatians. In other words, Paul wrote what we have, as it is, using a tradition or not; so it is the text as it is that demands interpretive attention. Thus, another way to understand Paul’s awkward statements (alternating between we and you) is to see him speaking of all Christians (we) in vv. 3-5, 6b and then turning directly to the Galatians to remind them (you—plural and singular) in vv. 6a, 7a of the significance of the events that were remembered and explained in vv. 3-5. Paul’s statement, “Now because you are sons,” precedes his declaration, “God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts.” This ordering of clauses has led some interpreters to observe that if Paul means to say that the installation as sons occurs before the reception of the Spirit, then he seems to have contradicted his earlier assertions (3:3, 5, 26). Nevertheless, the most sensible solution to this apparent (theological) issue may be to follow Bruce, who comments that the installment as sons and the receiving of the Spirit would appear to be simultaneous. God’s sending the Spirit of his Son is the second divine sending of which Paul has written (compare vv. 4-5). The phrase “the Spirit of his Son” does not appear elsewhere in Paul’s letters, although related phrases do appear in other letters: Spirit of Christ (Rom 8:9); Spirit of God (Rom 8:9); the Spirit of the Lord (2 Cor 3:17); and the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil 1:19). In general, Paul distinguishes Christ from the Father (1 Cor 8:6; 15:23-24; Phil 2:6-8) and, less so, the Spirit from God (Rom 8:9-11, 13-16), but he does not specifically identify them with each other.20 Here, however, “the Spirit of his [God’s] Son” means the present reality of Christ.21 To the adopted sons, God sends the Spirit of his Son. Son to sons, God sends the Spirit into the hearts of all (our) who are believers, and so there is a cry to God. Paul’s reference to hearts (Gk. kardia) identifies the portion of humanity that ancients

197

198

Galatians 4

regarded as the locus of the emotional, intellectual, moral, spiritual, and volitional dimensions of the human being. As Paul sees and presents the matter, God acts in such a way as to touch all the higher functions of human life. God even acts so that God affects the will of persons by sending forth the Spirit of his Son. (On this point of God’s affecting the will of human beings, consult Phil 2:12-13 in any translation other than the NRSV, which completely mistranslates Paul’s remarks and so alters Philippians 2:12-13 the point of Paul’s declaration in these two The Greek text of Philippians 2:12-13 reads as verses.) [Philippians 2:12-13] follows: The reference to the Spirit of God’s Son makes clear that it is not simply any Spirit Høste, agap∑toi mou, kathøs pantote hyp∑kousate, m∑ høs en t∑ parousia mou monon alla nyn pollø mallon en t∑ to which Paul refers. It is the Spirit of the apousia mou, meta phobou kai tromou t∑n søt∑rian one who was crucified and raised, so that katergazesthe; theos gar estin ho energøn en hymin kai to Christ’s own obedience and compassion thelein kai to energein hyper t∑s eudokias. determine the nature, the character, and the person of the Spirit given by God to Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, those whom he adopts through the power not only in my presence but now more so in my absence, with fear and trembling work out your salvation; for God of that same Spirit. And, as Jesus Christ is the one working in you both to will and to work, for the enjoyed a filial relationship with God, now sake of [his] good pleasure. those adopted and filled with the Spirit of God’s Son are moved by the Spirit to cry out, “Abba, Father!” This cry has two parts, saying the same thing in two ways. First is “Abba.” This word is from Aramaic. It was transliterated in the early church from Aramaic into Greek (abba) and then brought into English translations by transliterating the Greek, abba, into English, “Abba.” Thus, the Aramaic word came into English through Greek, though the sound of the Aramaic word has been preserved in Greek and English versions. [Abba] Second is “Father.” This word is from Greek, which has been translated into English, “Father” (Gk. ho pat∑r). The double expression, abba in Aramaic and ho pat∑r in Greek, shows the bilingual character of the early church, with Palestinians (predominantly Jews) speaking Aramaic as their native tongue and with Diaspora Jews and Gentiles speaking Greek as their primary language (although some Gentiles, even some Jews, could have spoken Latin or another language as their mother tongue). With regard to abba, one frequently reads that this word goes back to Jesus himself. That is probably true— see Mark 14:36—although there is no way to assess the further claim that this address, “Abba, Father!” reflects the Lord’s Prayer.22 The statement by Paul that the Spirit of God’s Son cries out from our hearts probably registers three points. First, the Spirit of the Son is the one who cries out, not the Spirit-filled believer; this is

Galatians 4

199

evident because the Greek participle that Abba is translated “crying” (Gk. krazon from The church fathers Chrysostom, Theodor of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus who krazein) is neuter, matching “the Spirit” originated from Antioch (where the populace spoke (Gk. to pneuma) in gender and so indicating the West Syrian dialect of Aramaic) and who probwho does the crying. Second, the recognition ably had Aramaic-speaking nurses, testify of God as “Abba, Father” is the distinguishing unanimously that abba was the address of the small characteristic of the Son’s Spirit within the child to his father. And the Talmud confirms this believers. Third, Paul’s presentation of the when it says: “When a child experiences the taste filial cry shows that it is more affirmation than of wheat [i.e., when it is weaned], it learns to say abba and imma [“dear father” and “dear mother”]. invocation.23 Verse 7 clarifies and concludes what went Abba and imma are thus the first sounds which the child stammers. But these terms were not limited to before in vv. 1-6; moreover, the verse echoes small children; grown-up sons and daughters also and amplifies Paul’s previous statements in used them to address their parents. Abba was an 3:26-29. That Paul understands the phrases of everyday word, a homely family-word, a secular this sentence to summarize is evident from the word, the tender, filial address to a father: “Dear first word of the verse, which is translated, “So father.” Joachim Jeremias, The Lord’s Prayer, Biblical Series, trans. then” (Gk. høste). The second word in this From John Reumann (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964) 19. Greek sentence is ouketi (“no longer”), which Paul has used earlier in 2:20; 3:18, 25. This word states a theme in Paul’s letter: something has happened and something has changed. With the coming of Christ/faith/Spirit, the Galatians are “no longer” under the forces of oppression. They are no longer enslaved to the elements, to the things that by nature are not gods (see 4:8). Quite noticeably in this verse, Paul once again alters his subject by shifting his verb from second person plural (v. 6) to a second person singular (v. 7) form. Thus, he writes (to put it archaically), “So then, no longer art thou . . . .” This striking shift allows Paul to move from addressing the entire body of believers in the Galatian churches to speak to every Galatian Christian individually. Speaking to each Galatian, Paul reiterates the main lines of his argument: “You are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, also an heir.” And, to make what is perhaps his most important point, Paul concludes this summary of his reasoning by ending the sentence with the words, “through God” (Gk. dia theou). [“Through God”] In other words, God’s work accounts for the transformation from slave to son to heir. Thus, in v. 7, the following points are true: 1. The references to an underage heir are gone. Apparently that image/metaphor is not useful or needed here. Rather, now the Galatians are told that they—each one of them—are no longer slaves. The issue of slavery, a minor note in v. 1 and a dramatic

200

Galatians 4

“Through God” The phrase “through God” (Gk. dia theou) appears to many to be a problem because in Greek, dia + a genitive noun, indicates intermediate agency. Thus, the construction (dia theou) implies that someone or something acted and God was the agent through whom the action occurred. This apparent theological problem caused scribes to produce several additional variant readings that attempt to relieve God of the position of agency. Among the most prominent are the following: • “because of God” (dia theon); • “through Christ” (dia Christou); • “through Jesus Christ” (dia I∑sou Christou); • “of God through Jesus” (theou dia I∑sou); • “of God through Christ” (theou dia Christou); and • “heir of God, fellow heir with Christ” (kl∑ronomos men theou, synkl∑ronomos de Christou).

statement in v. 3, has become the lead image in Paul’s concluding remark in vv. 1-7. 2. The explicit reference to adoption is not present in this verse, but the transformation from slave to son that Paul declares here could only occur through manumission and adoption. 3. As a son, a Galatian believer would also, according to Paul, be an heir. As an heir the believer would be in a position to inherit—but what? At 3:14 Paul had already named the inheritance, the promise of the Spirit. 4. All of this transformation and benevolence comes about “through God,” who has acted through his Son, Jesus Christ, for the freedom and the good of humanity (4:4-5).

The brief, difficult reading (dia theou; “through God”) best accounts for the other readings that remove the scandal of “agency” that appears to be attributed to God. This is not a unique occurrence in Paul’s writings of dia + genitive to indicate source rather than agency (see Gal 1:1; 1 Cor 1:9).

Paul is telling the Galatians that what they think they are pursuing through Law observance is already theirs. God has acted in Jesus Christ, and the endowment of the Spirit has been given and received. What they are pursuing, they already have. What they want to be, they already are. The Galatians already possess the promised Spirit, so Paul emphasizes that it was not their efforts that brought about the gift of the Spirit, but the fulfillment of the promise in Jesus Christ by God. The Peril of Spiritual Slavery, 4:8-11 Paul’s discussion in vv. 8-11 moves beyond the previous analogy in vv. 1-7. He begins this next section of his letter at v. 8 with the strong adversative conjunction, “but” (Gk. alla), which marks a contrast with the preceding statement(s) in vv. 1-7—although Paul continues using the images and language of what went before, but now with a new focus. “But,” Paul writes, despite the Galatians’ having been redeemed from under the Law by Christ, despite their having been adopted by God as “sons,” and despite each one of them having been made an “heir” to the promises by God, the Galatians are in danger of putting aside all that they have and are in order to take on Law observance in an attempt to maintain their relationship to God. Prior to their conversion to Christianity, the Galatians were almost certainly pagans of the kind that would have worshiped

Galatians 4

201

idols. Paul has spoken and will speak again with them about freedom (see 2:4; 5:1, 13), though at the time of his writing the letter to the Galatians, he identifies their desire to become Lawobservant as nothing but a wish to return to bondage. The Galatians, however, probably only wanted some clear instructions about how to regulate their relationship to God, some directions about how they should live their lives. Nevertheless, even though they probably did not see any danger in their desire for clarity in and through Law observance, Paul does. Paul refers to the Galatians’ preEgyptian Slave Christian past, giving no details of their Slaves were very common in Hellenistic society former religious practices. He simply says and came from all nationalities. This figure’s Then (Gk. tote) and, in turn, uses a cirstruggle, probably against the strain of a heavily laden cart, cumstantial participle of time when is eloquently communicated by his posture. (“knowing,” Gk. eidotes from oida), to say, “. . . then, when you did not know. . . .” Paul continues and reveals that what they did not know was “God.” Moreover, speaking about this time of theological ignorance, Paul states that the Galatians “were slaves to the things that by nature are not gods.” Already in v. 3 Paul had said that he (at least) and the Galatians were slaves to the elements of the universe. This is Paul’s way of referring to the Galatians’ past religious paganism, which was a time during which the Galatians were effectively slaves to the “elements” and, most probably, to the idols associated with the elements. (What is especially striking in Paul’s remark is his including himself with the Galatians in this former time of slavery to the elements of the universe.) [Egyptian Slave]

Egyptian slave. Bronze. 2d century BC. Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, Maryland. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons and Walters Art Gallery, CCA-SA-3)

Gentile idolatry was a common theme of Jewish writings (see Jer 10:1-16; Isa 44:9-20; Wis 13:10-15:19), and Paul writes in that vein when he refers to the Galatians’ former religious life, mentioning the elements (and thinking of their idols?) as “the things that by nature are not gods” and referring to the Galatians as former “slaves” to these non-entities. Scholars do, however, differ concerning Paul’s understanding of so-called gods. In his other writings, especially 1 Corinthians, Paul refers to “so-

202

Galatians 4

called gods in heaven or on earth” (see 1 Cor 8:4-6) and ultimately identifies such so-called gods as “demons” (see 1 Cor 10:19-21). [Are Pagan Gods Real?] As Paul states the matter, however, idols themselves are not anything, though they apparently signified (at least sometimes) demons. In relation to the Galatians in their past religious life, Paul identifies the “elements” (of the universe) as that to which the Galatians were formerly enslaved; although Paul in due course describes the elements as being weak and impotent.24 (Strikingly, Paul had already said in v. 5 that he [at least] and the Galatians were redeemed from under the Law by God’s Son and were adopted as “sons.”) Paul pictures the Galatians as turning (Gk. epistrephein) again (Gk. palin) to the elements (Gk. stoicheia). In fact, he states twice that they were turning again to the elements. Indeed, he states that the Galatians again once more (Gk. palin anøthen) were returning to the elements of their past religious life. As Paul makes these accusaAre Pagan Gods Real? What did Paul believe about the reality of the gods the pagans worshiped? Were they actual spiritual entities, or were they merely figments of the pagan imagination? The Apostle is not entirely consistent on this matter. In 1 Cor 8:4-6, he states, Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “no idol in the world really exists,” and that “there is no God but one.” Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Here he agrees with his Corinthian interlocutors that there is no God but one and that idols (or the divinities they signify) have no real existence. And yet two chapters later he writes, What do I imply then? That food sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. (1 Cor 10:19-21)

Here, the Apostle warns against sharing in food sacrificed to Roman votive altar. Vorarlberger Landesmuseum. Bregenz. (Credit: idols because such food is, in fact, sacrificed to demons and Wikimedia Commons, PD-US) thus spiritually compromised. Even in 1 Cor 8, however, it is obvious from the context that Paul has a problem with believers eating food that has been associated with idols. The commandments of the Decalogue requiring uncompromised allegiance to God alone and forbidding the crafting of images of Deity open a window into Paul’s aversion to any sort of entanglement with such “weak and beggarly” distractions (Gal 4:9). Even if such things are completely devoid of substance, believers in Christ ought not have anything to do with them.

Galatians 4

tions against the Galatians, one should note that the verb he uses for “turn” or “return” is epistrephein, which can also mean convert.25 This turning, or perhaps better in Paul’s perspective, this returning to the stoicheia is now a turning to the Law and Law observance— not a strict return to the exact “elements” (or idols) of the Galatians’ past;26 rather they are turning to an element that Paul identifies “now” as the Law. Paul casts the Law as a stoicheion, a radical move for anyone, but especially for a former Pharisaic Jew. Paul has already remarked in 4:3 that “we were enslaved under the elements of the universe,” and he refers to “those under the Law” (4:5), implying that those under the Law were in fact under the elements. In 4:8-9 he accuses the Galatians of wanting to return to being slaves to the elements. Thus, he identifies the Law (and Law observance) as a stoicheion by saying to the Galatians regarding their desire to be Law observant that you wish again once more to be slaves to the elements (Gk. epi ta . . . stoicheia . . . palin anøthen douleuein thelete). Now, however, in v. 9 Paul writes that, unlike in their past, the Galatians know God (Gk. gnontes theon from ginøskein theon), but, abruptly, Paul stops, corrects himself, and says, “. . . or rather, being known by God” (Gk. gnøsthentes hypo theou). Paul’s correction indicates that it is not what the Galatians know—even about God—but rather what God knows about the Galatians that makes a difference for them. As Paul presents the matter, knowing God (Gk. gnontes theon) is not really the opposite of not knowing God; rather the opposite of not knowing God is being known by God (Gk. gnøsthentes hypo theou).27 Thus, Paul juxtaposes being “under the elements of the universe” (Gk. hypo ta stoicheia tou kosmou) and “being known by God” (Gk. gnøsthentes hypo theou), thereby forming a wordplay on the Greek preposition hypo, which in English can signify “under” as well as “by,” depending on the case of the noun with which the preposition is used. And so Paul has said that “the elements” have the power to enslave humankind (4:3, 9), but now he says further that they are weak and impotent (Gk. asthen∑ kai ptøcha). From his point of view, Paul sees that “the elements of the universe,” including “the Law,” are powerful enough to enslave (3:10, 22; 4:5), but they are impotent to grant life (3:21).28 Paul states, using the present tense verb “observe” (Gk. parat∑reisthe from parat∑rein), that the Galatians “are observing” days (Gk. h∑merai), months (Gk. m∑nes), seasons (Gk. kairoi), and years (Gk. eniautoi ). The verb itself (“to observe”) can be used to give emphasis, so that it may be translated, “to scrutinize with

203

204

Galatians 4

regard to a religious point of view.”29 Interpreters debate whether Paul’s use of a present tense (“observe” or “are observing”) indicates that the Galatians are actually observing these calendrical markers already. There seems to be an equal division among scholars regarding this issue, though it is perhaps pressing the verb too hard to attempt to discern from a verb tense the extent of the Galatians’ involvement in such celebrations. On the other hand, with regard to the practice of circumcision, Paul’s remarks do seem to indicate that the Galatians had not yet embraced that ritual (see 5:2; 6:12-13). The mention of days, months, seasons, and years seems to indicate that the Galatians are aware of such cyclical elements of the Jewish calendar of festivals: days probably refers to Sabbaths and single-day feasts, months to monthly recurring events associated with new moons, seasons to the great feasts and holy convocations of the Jewish calendar that were not limited to one-day celebrations, and years to sabbatical years or Jubilee. Yet these terms that Paul uses are generic and seem meant to cover all kinds of celebrations of the Jewish calendar, so that one cannot clearly discern what practices the Galatians might have observed. For ancient persons, the days and seasons were more than festive vacations. Rather, the keeping of the religious calendar was a way of participating in and even influencing the cycle(s) of the orderly operation of nature and the world.30 The Galatians’ becoming interested in or involved with such religious regulations and practices indicated that they were trying by their own efforts to advance their standing in relationship with God; they were trying to complete or perfect their faith rather than to live in or by faith in the Spirit (3:2-5; 4:11). Thus, Paul writes to the Galatians and here (v. 11) expresses his perplexity at the developments in the Galatian churches since his founding of the congregations there. Paul’s declaration in v. 11 is filled with dismay, along with a certain amount of irony and sarcasm. Paul registers his “fear” (Gk. phoboumai from phobein), here in a grammatical construction31 that does not so much mean that he is fearful as that he is afraid for the Galatians themselves— because of their behavior. Paul states that his work among the Galatians will come to nothing if the Galatians continue their involvement with Law observance as a method of trying to regulate their relationship to God. Paul had expressed a similar distress at 3:4, but he will articulate a more positive outlook at 5:10.

Galatians 4

An Affectionate Discussion of Paul’s Distress, 4:12-20 Having worked through (1) autobiographical materials related to the life of the early church and (2) a series of arguments, primarily related to biblical passages, Paul gives his letter a noticeably different turn in 4:12-20 by making a strong personal appeal to the Galatians concerning his and their relationship to one another. The plea Paul makes here has been described as emotional, erratic, irrational, and passionate. Some commentators even suggest that Paul drops argument altogether at this point (returning to it as a kind of afterthought in 4:21-31) in order to beg the Galatians to take his attitude toward the Law. Interpreters have also suggested that Paul is operating here out of the “fear” that he mentioned at 4:11, so that rather than continue with argumentation he appeals directly to the feelings of the Galatians.32 The shift in tone is apparent in the way that Paul addresses the Galatians. No longer does he refer to them as “foolish”; rather, he addresses them as “brothers and sisters” (Gk. adelphoi—lit., “brothers”), using the family language that characterized the regard for one another among the earliest Christians. In this vein, Paul urges (Gk. deisthai—“to beg a favor of someone”)33 the Galatians to “become as I am, because I myself have become as you are.” At times commentators explain the statements in this section of the letter as topoi on friendship,34 noting that true friendship was thought by the ancients to be possible only between equals. Moreover, Paul is said to be calling for “imitation” of himself on the part of the Galatians. While it is true that in Paul’s day philosopher-teachers were expected to guide their students as much with the example of their lives as with the intellectual direction they imparted,35 Paul is not here calling for mere imitation of himself by the Galatians. There is a striking mutuality being called for in Paul’s admonition: “Become as I am, because I myself have become as you are.” In other contexts (1 Cor 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil 4:9; 1 Thess 1:6; cf. 2 Thess 3:7-9), Paul does direct the members of congregations that he founded to imitate him, but here in Galatians the concept of imitation is treated differently from the way it is presented elsewhere by Paul. Paul’s logic at this point is that the Galatians are to become as Paul is, because he has become as they are. (Note that Paul does not say that he became as the Galatians “were.” He is not a pagan; rather, Paul is a Christian, neither Jew nor pagan in religious practice.) In other words, like his Galatian converts, Paul was not Law observant when he was with the Galatians, and now he exhorts them, who have been keenly attracted to Law observance, to become as he is, which means to

205

206

Galatians 4

show no regard for Law observance. Paul the formerly Law-observant Jew is now non-Law-observant like a Gentile (or better, Gentile Christian), while the formerly pagan (Gentile) Galatians are apparently interested in taking on the observance of the Law like a Jew (or better, Jewish Christian). Paul’s final words in v. 12 are puzzling; he says, “You did not wrong me.” From where does this remark come and to what does it relate? Several interpreters have suggested that the words are an assertion of the Galatians, which Paul is here quoting and to which he subsequently responds. There are no explicit rhetorical markers to establish this observation, however, so that the prudent way to read the line is simply as a statement by Paul. Thus, if Paul is himself registering this comment, then he is most likely referring to the time that he describes in the following remarks (vv. 13-14). Paul looks back to the time of his and the Galatians’ first meeting and recalls how, despite his own vexing condition, the Galatians treated him graciously. In that former time, Paul declares that there was no ill feeling between him and them. The formulaic word, “You know” (Gk. oidate from eidenai/oida), at the beginning of v. 13 indicates that Paul wishes to remind the Galatians of the time when he had been among them. With that time in mind, Paul recalls that because of—literally—“weakness of the flesh” he “first” preached the gospel among the Galatians. Several items in Paul’s remarks merit attention. (1) Paul uses the phrase “weakness of the flesh” (Gk. di’ astheneian t∑s sarkos), which almost all interpreters understand as a reference to some kind of bodily ailment, to name the reason that he came to preach the gospel among the Galatians. This striking but enigmatic phrase has led to many theories as to what Paul suffered that would have caused him to be incapacitated and thus to evangelize the Galatians. Some serious suggestions as to Paul’s problem include malaria, epilepsy, and ophthalmia—though these ideas are all speculations and, in fact, impossible to prove. Paul’s remark here would have been immediately intelligible to the Galatians, who would have understood the assertion not merely as a reference to some sickness but as Paul’s way of citing evidence of the Galatians’ great affection for him. Moreover, perhaps more importantly, they would have recognized this statement as Paul’s way of reminding them that the gospel itself had overcome whatever barrier might have existed between them and Paul because of Paul’s problematic condition.36 (2) Paul did not simply proclaim a neutral message; rather, he preached “the gospel,” i.e., “the good news” to the Galatians. See the comments above for 1:8, 9, 11, 16, 23. (3) Paul

Galatians 4

says that he “first” preached among the Galatians. In classical usage, the word translated “first” (Gk. proteros) actually means “first of two” or “former.” Understood this way, Paul’s remark would imply that he had preached the gospel among the Galatians twice. But, in the Koine period, proteros came to refer to the “first” of an unspecified series, so that it could simply mean “at first” or “earlier.” Everything about the context of Paul’s remark here points to there having been only one occasion when he had been among the Galatians and preached the gospel to them. Moreover, the mention of “now” (Gk. nyn) in v. 16 presents a contrast to proteros that gives Paul’s remarks the sense of “then . . . now.” Furthermore, in general, at this point Paul’s remembering and reminding the Galatians of their first encounter would have registered the sharp difference between the way things had been and the way things had come to be.37 Verse 14 is grammatically awkward and challenging to translate, though the basic idea being stated in the verse is relatively clear. The first clause of the verse presents the difficulty; it literally says, “And you neither despised nor rejected your testing by my flesh. . . .” Many translations render the line in a sensible fashion similar to the NRSV, “though my condition put you to the test, you did not scorn or despise me. . . .” This translation, however, places the emphasis on the Galatians’ reaction to Paul’s illness in the wrong place. It is not that the Galatians did not reject Paul; rather, they did not reject the difficulty that they experienced as a result of Paul’s condition. Paul says that when they were confronted with his illness, the Galatians did not refuse to face their own tribulation regarding his state; instead, dealing with their own reaction to Paul’s problematic situation, they welcomed him—despite their reaction to his condition—warmly. Paul’s language in this verse is notable. First, he uses the word “testing” or “temptation” (Gk. peirasmos) to name what the Galatians experienced when confronted with his illness. While this word can simply mean any “test” that one faces, it is often used in eschatological or apocalyptic contexts to name “temptation” that is faced in such difficult situations (e.g., Matt 6:13; 26:41; Luke 4:13). Paul seldom uses the word (here and 1 Cor 10:13). A case can be made for understanding the word to have eschatological overtones in 1 Corinthians 10:13, though it is not clear that Paul has that usage in mind at this point in writing to the Galatians. Still, Paul seems to think here of some kind of extraordinary trial, as is evident by the use of the word in this verse and in 1 Corinthians 10. Second, Paul continues to refer to his illness as

207

208

Galatians 4

being “in my flesh” (“flesh” in Gk. sarx).38 Paul can use the word “flesh” in different ways. He uses “flesh” to refer to the physical self (here). He uses “flesh” to refer to the human condition (2 Cor 5:16). He uses “flesh” to name that which is opposed to the Spirit (Gal 5:13, 16-21). This mixture of usages sometimes creates confusion and some uncertainty regarding Paul’s intended meaning—though in any one of these employments of “flesh” there is always the possibility that shades of the other two usages are in the background of Paul’s remark. Third, Paul uses a set of synonyms to portray the vigor of the Galatians’ potential reaction to his condition: “despised” (Gk. exouthenein) and “rejected” (Gk. ekptyein). The word translated “rejected” is especially interesting, because in its basic meaning it has to do with spitting. Many commentators observe that “spitting” was both a sign of disrespect and an effort to ward off evil or to turn away a demon. In the context of Paul’s remarks, the use of these verbs vivifies the picture of the Galatians being tempted to reject Paul in his illness. Paul’s final phrases in v. 14 state how, in fact, the Galatians received Paul, despite his sickness: “as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.” Paul does not mean that the Galatians welcomed him as a superhuman figure, but that they honored his presence—again, in spite of his trying condition. Paul’s two exaggerated comparisons (“as”; Gk. høs —“an angel of God,” “Christ Jesus”) are not meant to glorify Paul but to affirm, praise, and remind the Galatians of their gracious reception of the apostle. Paul continues in v. 15 by posing a rhetorical question, “Where then is your happiness?” He recalls the earlier period described in vv. 13-14 when, in fact, the positive relations between Paul and the Galatians had been the cause for much happiness. Now that matters have changed, however, with the Galatians’ being drawn toward Law observance, Paul contrasts that earlier time with the present in which he writes to the Galatians. Paul speaks in order to bear witness to the dynamics of the situation in Galatia (“I testify”; Gk. martyrein, which is used to say, “I give evidence”), writing in vivid terms of the Galatians’ original liking for him, saying that if they could have done so, they would have dug out their eyes and given them to him. This statement is one of the elements often cited in attempts to discern what Paul’s affliction was when he came ill to the Galatians at the outset of their relationship. The declaration, however, may simply be a literary motif39 used as an exaggeration to indicate the great degree of the Galatians’ initial affection for Paul. This remark shows again explicitly the dramatic contrast between how things had been and how they had come to be at the time of Paul’s letter to the Galatian churches.

Galatians 4

Verse 16 is often translated as a question (“Have I become your enemy. . . ?”), though the first word of the verse in Greek is høste, which serves to introduce the declaration of an inference, not a question. Thus, the verse should be read as an exclamation that is made after stating the facts in vv. 14-15. The correct punctuation is not a question mark but an exclamation point: “So then, I have become your enemy by telling you the truth!”40 One can understand this statement to be either (1) the way matters stand between Paul and the Galatians as the Galatians see it or (2) Paul’s own perception of the way the Galatians understood things to stand. In other words, do the Galatians think that Paul is hostile, or does Paul think that the Galatians think that he is hostile? It is ultimately impossible to tell which of these understandings is correct, though the way that Paul’s letter presents the situation he faced in Galatia seems to favor the second of these options rather than the first, i.e., this bold declaration appears to be Paul’s own evaluation of what he perceives to be the point of view of (some of?) his Galatian converts.41 Paul’s statement that he had become the Galatians’ “enemy” (Gk. echthros) seems harsh. It is worth noting, however, as Hans Dieter Betz42 does, that the word translated as “enemy” can also carry the sense of “one who has been [a friend], but is alienated.”43 The exact nuance of Paul’s usage is impossible to determine, though whatever he means he recognizes a distance and friction between himself and the Galatians that did not characterize their original relationship. Paul says that he became the enemy of the Galatians by telling them the truth. This statement is still another ambiguous remark and may mean either that (1) in the past Paul told them something that they have now come to regard as problematic, or (2) the present message of Paul’s letter is truth-telling that goes against what they have come to believe through the proclamation of the preachers who have come to Galatia advocating Law observance, or (3) both. Almost certainly, Paul’s telling the truth comprised both options 1 and 2, for he presents the message that he articulates in this letter as being consistent with or a reiteration of his original message to the Galatians. His remarks are cryptic at this point and continue to be so in the verses that follow (especially vv. 17-18). Still, in direct relationship to Paul’s comments, one can see that Law observance is the issue over which Paul and the Galatians are at odds. Paul is now telling the Galatians not only that observance of the Law is not necessary but also that devotion to Law observance is a hindrance, indeed an insurmountable impediment to a genuinely Christian relationship with God. From Paul’s statements

209

210

Galatians 4

to the Galatians, it appears that those who have come among them advocating such Law observance have told the Galatians of observance of the Law and it benefits. The Galatians have apparently welcomed this message of Law observance and have become upset with Paul for presenting a gospel that did not include observance of the Law. Paul responds to criticism of his preaching (1:10; 5:11) by reiterating his Law-free gospel and by arguing repeatedly and vigorously throughout this letter that Law observance is irrelevant and, even more, dangerous. The truth of the gospel as Paul understands it is Law-free. Paul came to speak with the Galatians about Law observance as the result of other preachers informing the Galatians about it. Only when others introduced observance of the Law into the Galatian context did Paul take up the subject at all. Law observance from Paul’s point of view was not part of the truth of the gospel. Paul comes in v. 17 to discuss his opponents. He speaks of them using verbal endings (“they”) and a pronoun (“them”), but he uses no names, since everyone concerned knew to whom he was referring. Paul says three related things about these people: (1) they eagerly pursue (or “court”) the Galatians—Paul says that this pursuit is to no good; (2) they want to shut the Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing Galatians out; and (3) they want the Galatians “Beware of false prophets, who come to to pursue (or “court”) them. [Wolves in Sheep’s you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their Clothing] Paul connects these ideas in a striking fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs way. Item 2 is connected to item 1 with the from thistles? In the same way, every good tree strong adversative conjunction “but” (Gk. alla). bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A This grammatical construction implies a congood tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree trast or incompatibility, so that Paul is saying bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good that the pursuit of the Galatians by the other fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits.” (Matt 7:15-20) preachers (a pursuit that he says is no good) is in contrast to the desire of the preachers to shut out the Galatians (from whom or what is not clear). It appears that Paul thinks the preachers are courting the Galatians in order to manipulate them. In item 3, Paul’s last clause is a purpose clause (Gk. hina + subjunctive verb form) that states that the purpose of the preachers’ behavior is in order that the Galatians will court them. Paul’s thought here is rather contorted, though the points in the Greek text help to make some sense of this difficult statement. Paul sees the preachers pursuing the Galatians in an inappropriate way. At the same time, it appears that the preachers want to shut the Galatians out (or threaten to shut them out) from someone or something (Paul? or Paul’s gospel? or even grace?). Then, Paul con-

Galatians 4

211

cludes by saying that all of this occurs for the purpose that the Galatians will make much of the preachers. In short, Paul accuses the preachers of manipulative and self-serving behavior. The implication for the Galatians is that they are being duped. Verse 18 continues the line of thought begun in v. 17, as is evident in the ongoing use of the verb z∑loun (used twice in v. 17 and now once in v. 18). Frequently, interpreters note that v. 18a has the characteristics of an aphorism. That observation is true whether Paul is citing an established saying or inventing a phrase himself. Paul’s point is that appropriate (“in a good way”) zeal for another is always a good thing, though in the context of this letter neither the preachers’ zeal for the Galatians (that they might be zealously Law observant and so beholden to the preachers) nor the Galatians’ zeal for the preachers (as their initiators into Law observance) are, from Paul’s perspective, for the good. Nevertheless, “My Children” lest he be thought to be simply jealous of any Several manuscripts, including some of the and all attention given to his Galatian conoldest and best, read teknia (“little chilverts, he adds the qualification of v. 18b, “and dren”) rather then tekna (“children”) at this point in not only in my presence with you.” This last Paul’s letter. The difference is merely that of an iota in the second syllable of the word. The difference phrase should remind the Galatians of what for interpretation is not great, though “little chilthey experienced with Paul and assure them dren” may seem even more affectionate than that he is not merely dealing with them out of “children.” Some commentators prefer the reading petty jealousy. Moreover, subtle though it may “little children” because it differs from the reading be, Paul’s most important emphasis here may (“children”) in 4:25, 27, 28, 31, so that if original it be to recall the Galatians to a proper zeal for is unique in Paul’s letters and so provides a more 44 difficult text. The majority of the very best and the gospel. oldest manuscripts, however, have “children”; and In v. 12 Paul greeted the Galatians cordially since that reading is consistent with the four undisas “brothers and sisters,” and now in v. 19 he puted uses of “children” in Galatians 4, it seems addresses them even more affectionately as “my best to understand Paul’s reference to be to “chilchildren.” [“My Children”] The portrayal of Paul’s dren” rather than to “little children.” converts as his children is a feature of others of his letters—see 1 Corinthians 4:14; 2 Corinthians 6:13; 12:14; 1 Thessalonians 2:7, 11; Philemon 10. Here, however, that image will lead to Paul’s subsequent novel remarks concerning his parental relationship to the Galatians. And so Paul uses startling,45 stunning46 language to develop the image of his relation to his offspring, the churches of Galatia. He employs the verb “to be in the pain of childbirth” (Gk. ødinein), a maternal birthing reference,47 which he qualifies with the word “again” (Gk. palin), in order not merely to speak of his condition of birthing the Galatian congregations but to represent the Galatians as being again in the womb and in need of rebirth, i.e., a second spiritual rebirth.48 Paul speaks in other contexts of his being the father of

212

Galatians 4

the congregations that he founded— 1 Corinthians 4:15; 1 Thessalonians 2:11; but here he uniquely employs the language of a mother’s giving birth to her offspring. [Feminine Images of Though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you, like a nurse tenderly caring for Ministry] Paul clearly wants to do more her own children. So deeply do we care for you that we are than merely compare himself with a determined to share with you not only the gospel of God but mother; he understands his mission as also our own selves, because you have become very dear to us. actually giving birth to churches.49 This usage parallels Old and New Testament images of God (or Furthermore, the image of a mother’s Christ) longing for the people of God with motherly affection: giving birth allows Paul to speak passionately about the pains of giving For a long time I have held my peace, I have kept still and birth, especially to the Galatian congrerestrained myself; now I will cry out like a woman in labor, I will gations with whom he is embroiled in gasp and pant. (Isa 42:14) sharp controversy. Can a woman forget her nursing child, or show no compassion Yet Paul’s use of the image of a for the child of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not mother’s giving birth to children does forget you. (Isa 49:15) not simply relate to the difficulties he experienced in producing the Galatian As a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you; you shall congregations, for he compounds the be comforted in Jerusalem. (Isa 66:13) image of the mother going through the Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and pains of childbearing with the image of stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to the fetus being formed in the womb. gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under Paul writes that he labors with the her wings, and you were not willing! (Luke 13:34) formation of the children themselves as Christ is being formed (Gk. morphousthai) within them. The imagery is remarkable: Paul is in pain to give spiritual rebirth to the Galatian congregations, but he experiences birth pangs as long as the Galatians are in the process of having Christ himself formed within them (not as individuals, but as congregations).50 In pondering this set of images, Ernest DeWitt Burton remarks that Paul represents the Galatians “as again in the womb, needing a second (spiritual) birth, and himself as a mother suffering again the birth pangs, which must continue till Christ be formed in them, i.e., until it be true of them as of him that Christ lives in them (2:20).”51 Burton goes on, however, to suggest that there is a strikingly unnatural image presented here that reverses the preceding image, so that “those who were just spoken of as babes in the womb, [are] now being pictured as pregnant mothers, awaiting the full development of the Christ begotten in them.”52 Yet, as J. Louis Martyn comments, Burton’s observation concerning Paul’s reversal of images may be possible, but there is no thought in Paul’s remarks of the Galatians ever giving birth to Christ—rather, Martyn Feminine Images of Ministry In addition to comparing himself to a woman in labor in Galatians, Paul also compares himself to a nursemaid in 1 Thess 2:7-8:

Galatians 4

suggests, it is better to see here only the image of Christ becoming the real ego of the Galatian communities, in the sense that Christ will live in them as he already lives in Paul (2:20).53 Paul’s thoughts at this point express deep affection, concern, and perplexity. He writes these image-rich lines without ever really clarifying with precision how the various ideas in his statements are related to one another. Nevertheless, the general thrust of Paul’s remarks comes through: Paul’s situation with the Galatians is such that he essentially has to go back to the beginning with them, to form them in Christian faith as that same faith is formed within them—although it is not merely “faith” that is being formed by Paul’s ongoing work, rather through that work Christ himself is alive within the Galatians’ congregations, forming them from within, even as they take shape in him. Paul brings this personal portion of his reasoning with the Galatians to a conclusion in v. 20 by reporting a personal set of thoughts. First, using an imperfect verb tense he tells the Galatians of his present wish to be personally with them. The tense of the verb “I wish” (Gk. ∑thelon—imperfect tense from thelein), seems to indicate a desire that has occurred time after time in the past and “now” (Gk. arti) still again in the present.54 Paul deeply desires to be among the Galatians. Second, Paul declares that if he could be with the Galatians, then he would be able to change his tone. Several interpreters take this phrase to mean that Paul would like to exchange his letter for his actual voice. That understanding is possible, since the verb “to change” (Gk. allassein) can be used to mean either “to alter” or “to exchange.”55 But, without positing so neat an exchange (letter for voice), the simplest way to understand Paul’s remark seems to be this: “I would like to be able to alter my harsh tone in this letter to express a more congenial regard for you in person”; so that Paul expresses the wish to change one tone for another rather than to exchange a letter for a voice. Nevertheless, Paul’s remark is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for different readings of his text. Third, Paul’s final clause, “because I am at a loss about you”56 (Gk. hoti aporoumai en hymin), is a causal remark denoting a fact.57 As Paul states the matter, it is because he is perplexed over the Galatians that he wishes to be with them and to alter his tone. He has questions that actually need to be investigated in person and on friendlier terms than those expressed in his present letter. Betz observes that by expressing his befuddlement, Paul uses a rhetorical device that distances him from a charge of arrogance, of knowing all the right answers and having all the right arguments.58

213

214

Galatians 4

The Allegory of Hagar and Sarah, 4:21-31 This passage is one of the most striking texts in the canon of Pauline epistles. Here, one finds what appears and is often taken to be some of Paul’s harshest words about Judaism. This understanding of the text, however, is almost always a conclusion drawn from the assumptions that Paul’s opponents in Galatia are Jews (often understood to be Christian Jews) and that what is at stake in the arguments by Paul and his opponents is the validity of Judaism. But interpretive assumptions have driven interpretive conclusions in a direction that may not be true to the actual sense of Paul’s letter in its original context. In the commentary that follows, working along the same lines that have been taken thus far in this study, we will find that the sense and the implications of Paul’s remarks run in a different direction from that which has informed many earlier interpretations of Paul’s text. Moreover, in working with this difficult section of the letter, which normally comprises vv. 21-31 in printed editions of the text, I am taking the unorthodox route of dealing with the larger passage in three smaller units of material. This path of interpretation should not be taken to imply that vv. 21-23; 24-27; and 28-31 are not intimately related to one another. Galatians 4:21-31 is a coherent portion of the letter. But there are certain rhetorical markers that indicate that Paul is, first, telling a story (“Tell me . . . do you not hear the Law? For it is written . . .”); second, explaining the story (“These things are . . .”); and third, applying the interpretation of the story to the Galatians (“But you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac . . .”). The Biblical Story, 4:21-23. Having expressed his consternation at the situation with the Galatians, Paul turns rather unexpectedly to confront the Galatians concerning their involvement with Law observance. Paul poses a peculiar question: “Tell me, those of you who wish to be under the Law, do you not hear the Law?” The query seems consistent with Paul’s concerns as expressed in the prior parts of the letter, but what marks this question off from his earlier allusions to the Law is that here, unlike in previous references to the Law, Paul uses the word “Law” (Gk. nomos) in two different ways, once negatively (“to be under the Law”), i.e., to be subject to the oppressive religious regulations of the Law, and once positively (“to hear the Law”), i.e., to be informed to the good of important information in the Law. The first use of “Law” is consistent with uses of “Law” in the earlier parts of the letter, for Paul writes here exactly as he did in 3:23; 4:4, 5 (and will in 5:18) of

Galatians 4

being “under the Law.” Thus, “the Law” is portrayed as an oppressive power under which humanity is deprived of freedom. In turn, in the latter part of this verse “the Law” appears to refer to the broader body of writings that Paul often refers to as “the Scripture” (Gk. h∑ graph∑; see 3:8, 22; 4:30). Here, that is the portion of the Pentateuch that he will now draw from to tell the story of Abraham’s family. From Paul’s use of “the Law” (Gen 16–21) in telling this story (here, vv. 22-31), one sees that Paul recognizes that “the Law” can have a positive role in communicating the truth of God’s freedom, promise, and Spirit. Furthermore, in posing this question (“Do you not hear the Law?”), Paul mentions certain of the Galatians, referring to them as “those who wish to be under the Law.” Commentators note at least three items in the way Paul forms this phrase. First, he employs a diatribe style of argumentation, a Stoic form of dialogical engagement that almost certainly would have been recognized by his readers and hearers. (See [Diatribe].) There is a deliberate effort on Paul’s part to engage the Galatians in a theological exchange, but also to win this argument with them concerning Law observance. Second, Paul recognizes that those who came to Galatia after him have had notable success in working with the Galatians. As he states the matter, at least some of the Galatians have been deeply affected by the call to Law observance (“those [of you] who wish to be under the Law”; Gk. hoi hypo nomon thelontes einai). Apparently, for some Galatians the observance of the Law had become an attractive option for religious life. Third, Paul’s wording here (“who wish to be under the Law”) recognizes the desire of the Galatians to move to Law observance, but it implies that they have not yet done so. It is impossible to tell from Paul’s letter exactly how far (some of ) the Galatians had moved toward observance of the Law, though remarks such as this one (see also 5:2-4) seem to imply that the Galatians had not yet fully engaged Law observance. Having mentioned “hearing the Law,” Paul continues reasoning with the Galatians using the postpositive particle gar (“for”)59 in order to introduce the exposition of the specific elements of the Law that he has in mind. Just as the Law is heard, so Paul says, “It is written” (Gk. gegraptai from graphein), a formula that he normally uses to introduce citations of Scripture. Here, however, there is no specific quotation of a biblical text; rather, one finds a statement summarizing stories about Abraham and his family that occur in several chapters of Genesis (Gen 16–21). This departure from Paul’s usual way of introducing biblical material is one factor in some commentators’ suggesting that Paul is responding to the

215

216

Galatians 4

use of biblical texts by his opponents. Other elements of the text that are cited as evidence that this interpretation of the story from Genesis is a reply by Paul to his opponents include (1) the manner in which Paul handles Abraham: after mentioning him briefly, Paul drops the patriarch from his biblical exposition in order to focus on the two sons and the two women. Then, (2) the mention of the women is itself peculiar, for Paul refers to “the slave girl” and “the free woman”; but who are these characters? It has been said that an inexpert reader of Paul’s letter would have been lost at this point, so that Paul is probably assuming elements of his opponents’ biblical interpretation with which the Galatians were already familiar. That observation may be correct, but without an actual sermon or lesson from Paul’s opponents one is left simply with Paul’s own biblical exegesis; the direct exploration of that material proves helpful in understanding Paul’s point of view and theological reflection.60 Paul’s interest in briefly retelling a portion of the Genesis account does not seem focused on Abraham at all. Instead he focuses on the two sons and on the two women. These pairs of characters occupy Paul’s attention. While Paul leads in his remarks with the mention of the sons, the women will eventually emerge in their own right as important characters in his theological narrative. At this point, however, Paul is content to mention Abraham’s two sons whom Abraham “had” (Gk. eschen from echein) from the two women: one son by the slave girl and one son by the free woman. In vv. 22-23, these characters all remain nameless. Only later does Paul give two of their names. He is obviously not interested in giving an accurate (literary or historical) version of the whole Abraham story (e.g., the issue of circumcision is absent from this discussion of Abraham’s heirs—see Gen 17:9-14; 21:1-7; and Abraham had more than two sons and at least one other “wife”—see Gen 25:1-6). Verse 23 offers further explanation (note the Greek alla [“Yet”] that here indicates the giving of additional information) of the significance and the identity of the characters in Paul’s retelling of the story of Abraham’s family. With a rhetorical construction, “on the one hand . . . on the other hand (Gk. men . . . de), Paul sets up a contrast between the two sons and the two mothers: one son by the slave girl according to the flesh

one son by the free woman through promise

In this contrast, Paul is not so immediately concerned with the mothers’ castes, slave or free, as he is with the manner of each son’s

Galatians 4

217

Sarah, Abraham, and Hagar “begetting” or “being born.” The word that Paul uses for each son’s conception and birth is the Greek verb gennan, which is used in Greek in relation to the father’s and the mother’s roles in the birth of a child. In relation to the activity of the father, the verb means “to beget”; whereas, in relation to the activity of the mother, the verb means “to bear.” The voice of the verb at this point in v. 23 and, then, when it is used again in v. 29 is passive, Matthias Stomer (1600–1650). Sarah, Abraham, and Hagar. Oil. 17th C. Gothenburg Museum of signifying that the subject Art, Sweden. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-US-100) (the child being begotten or being born) is acted upon rather than that the subject is the one acting. Most often when the verb is in the passive voice, it is used of the father’s “begetting,” although there are instances of gennan occurring in the passive voice in reference to the child’s being brought forth by the mother.61 Since Paul clearly uses the verb (gennan) to refer to the bearing of children (not the begetting) in v. 24, most commentators seem to assume that the verb carries the sense of “bearing” at this point in v. 23. Thus, they argue that in this portion of the theological reflection on the members of Abraham’s family, Paul is emphasizing the difference in the births of the sons: one “according to the flesh,” i.e., by the normal natural process; and one “through promise,” i.e., extraordinarily by means of God’s promise to Abraham (see Gen 15:4-6; 17:15-21). Paul may, however, have a different idea or image in mind—viz., the “begetting” of the two sons, so that God’s work is done (or not done) in relation to the begetting of the children. Thus, one son “is begotten” according to the flesh, while the other son “is begotten” through promise. This is not to say that Isaac had a supernatural conception, but that clearly God’s will is expressed in one thing and not another. Furthermore, in regard to these phrases it is striking that here Paul sets “according to the flesh” (Gk. kata sarka) against “through promise” (Gk. di’epangelias), because later in the letter he presents an explicit extended juxtaposition between “flesh” (Gk. sarx) and “Spirit” (Gk. pneuma)—see 5:16, 17, 18-19, 24-25; 6:8—as an

218

Galatians 4

important part of his theological reflection. The phrases “according to the flesh” and “through the promise,” however, are important for Paul in this context. In English the words “according to” do not convey the sense of Paul’s use of this Greek preposition (kata) in this discussion of the sons of Abraham; here, the word means something akin to “by the power of,” referring to more than a natural process; in fact, in context, this power of which Paul speaks is itself not in keeping with God’s will. It is something else, not necessarily morally impugnable but certainly not God’s will. It is set against God’s purposes and thus theologically impeachable. Moreover, Paul uses “flesh” (Gk. sarx) in a complex fashion. Probably because his opponents emphasize circumcision, Paul nuances the word “flesh” so that it has a double meaning: on the one hand, “flesh” can refer to human beings, literally their flesh; on the other hand, “flesh” can refer to a power that is contrary to both the “promise” and the “Spirit” or, to put it another way, contrary to God. In turn, the word “through” (Gk. dia) is a preposition that finds meaning in a variety of usages. Here the word (dia) is coupled with a noun (“promise”; Gk. epangelia) that occurs in the genitive case (epangelias), which is a grammatical construction referred to as “intermediate agency.” In other words, the “promise” is that through which the actual actor or ultimate doer acts. In this instance, the one acting through the promise to give Abraham an acceptable heir is God. And Paul has already dealt with the notion of “promise” in 3:14-21, 29, where one sees that God’s promise was to Abraham and his heir(s) and is the Law-free gift of the Spirit, especially to the Gentiles. Here, however, Paul focuses on God’s promise to Abraham concerning Isaac, whose birth through promise emphasizes God’s gift of freedom to believers. Paul will return to this kind of language in vv. 28-29, where, first, he tells the Galatians in v. 28 that they are children of the “promise,” like Isaac. Then, in v. 29 he will create further contrasts between the phrases “according to the flesh” (Gk. kata sarka) and “according to the Spirit” (Gk. kata pneuma). Explanation of the Allegory, 4:24-27. Having sketched the story of Abraham, his two sons, and the slave girl and the free woman who bore the sons, Paul turns to give an allegorical explanation and interpretation of the brief narrative. He states explicitly that he is engaging in allegorical interpretation by using a phrase that is grammatically ambiguous but sensibly clear. He writes (Gk. hatina estin all∑goroumena) either: (1) “These things are being spoken allegorically”62 or (2) “These things are allegorical entities,”63 with

Galatians 4

one translation emphasizing action and the other substance. Either reading is probably possible, though Paul’s use of a passive participle rather than a noun (possibly all∑goria) suggests that the first understanding is preferable to the second, i.e., that Paul is referring to what he is doing: “These things are being allegorized.” Thus, Paul is offering an allegorical interpretation rather than composing an allegory himself. Allegorical interpretation was well established in Greek culture in Paul’s day.64 Moreover, allegorical interpretations appear in rabbinic literature as well.65 An allegory is a symbolic expression through fictional characters and actions of a deeper meaning not visible on the surface of the story/text. The verb to interpret allegorically (Gk. all∑gorin) comes from the conflation of the Greek words in the phrase to say something else (Gk. allo agoreuein).66 Having stated his basic story, Paul moves to give an allegorical interpretation. Frequently, scholars argue that Paul’s allegory here is tempered with typology, though Paul’s use of the biblical story is sufficiently like other examples of ancient allegory to allow it that designation.67 In essence, the allegorical method of interpretation works from the understanding that the text to be interpreted has a deeper (or obscure) meaning that is not apparent on the surface of the material. The allegorical explanation of a text claims to bring this deep-seated sense to light. In scholarly estimations, however, the alleged deeper meaning of most materials that have been interpreted allegorically is secondary to the plain sense of the text and originates with the interpreter and the interpreter’s own thought and context. Paul continues by using the word for (Gk. gar), which signals that he is about to offer an explanation for his declaration that “these things are being allegorized.” He follows with the explanation, “. . . these women are two covenants.”68 The word translated here as covenant (Gk. diath∑k∑) has already occurred in 3:15-18, where it refers to a legal instrument or will. Here, however, in the context of Paul’s allegorical interpretation of story material from Genesis (which is laced with references to “Mount Sinai” and “Jerusalem”), the word diath∑k∑ should probably best be seen as referring to a covenant with theological significance, i.e., something more than a mere will. Between the words these women (Gk. hautai) and covenants (Gk. diath∑kai) stands the copula are (Gk. eisin from eimi, “to be”). The word takes its basic meaning from “to be” (thus, with plurals, “are”) and may be so translated here, though in its use in this allegorical

219

220

Galatians 4

context the word can be understood to mean “to represent” or “to signify”: thus, “these women represent (or signify) two covenants.”69 Then, having referred to the two covenants, Paul sets up a rhetorical comparison between the two. He uses a grammatical construction that presents a contrast between two objects (in Greek the construction is men . . . de70). This contrast is frequently rendered by on the one hand . . . on the other hand. Thus, beginning in v. 24 Paul states the first element of contrast, writing, “. . . one [covenant], on the one hand, from Mount Sinai, bearing children unto slavery: this is Hagar.” Remarkably, however, Paul either (1) never states the second element of the contrast, or (2) uses the Greek word men in the sense of an asseverative particle (“indeed”), which was its original force,71 so that de is not needed, or (3) postpones the use of de until the beginning of v. 26, offering there the other part of the contrast begun here. Speaking of the first covenant, Paul identifies it with Mount Sinai, slavery, and Hagar. He says, in fact, that this first-mentioned covenant bears children unto slavery, like Hagar. The combination of elements is striking: Mount Sinai, slavery, and Hagar; for no Jew (or, Jewish Christian) would have likely drawn the equation that Paul makes here. Paul numbers the covenants—“two” (Gk. duo)—and he seems to begin to refer to “one” (Gk. mia) of the covenants separately in what appears to be the first part of a comparative statement, “On the one hand” (Gk. men). Thus, Paul writes of “. . . two covenants—one . . . bearing children unto slavery.” Furthermore, Paul did not find the story of two covenants through reading Genesis 16–21. In these particular Genesis stories, there is no concern with Mount Sinai, nor is there a covenant associated with Hagar. There is only one covenant, God’s covenant with Abraham, a covenant of promise (that involved both heredity and circumcision!). But, through allegory, Paul sketches a picture of two covenants. The one that he focuses on in vv. 24-25 is a covenant of slavery, which in the context of Paul’s presentation in Galatians is a covenant of slavery to the Law—thus, Mount Sinai enters the picture. Paul allegorizes the Genesis stories (Gen 16–21) and introduces to the Genesis account what can only be called a creative reading of the materials. Going even further, Paul explicitly equates Hagar to Mount Sinai.72 Then, he enters an enigmatic note in his comments (“Mount Sinai in Arabia”—why mention Arabia?) that should not distract one from noticing still another of Paul’s difficult equations:

Galatians 4

221

Four Senses of “Jerusalem” Hagar corresponds to the present Jerusalem. One and the same Jerusalem can be understood in [Four Senses of “Jerusalem”] And so, having a fourfold way: historically as the city of the Jews, equated Hagar with Mount Sinai and allegorically as the church of Christ, anagogically as the having stated that that covenant (the heavenly city of God, which is the mother of all, and tropocovenant of the Law, which is not part of logically as the human soul, which is often upbraided or praised under this name by the Lord. the covenant with Abraham) brought John Cassian, Conferences 14.8.4 (69–70). persons into slavery, now in v. 25 Paul creates an equation that includes “the present Jerusalem” in a mix of those things that Paul has associated with (spiritual or religious) slavery: Hagar = covenant = Mount Sinai = slavery = present Jerusalem. In forming this equation, Paul makes a startling statement: he declares that Hagar corresponds (Gk. systoichein) to the present Jerusalem; for, Paul says, the present Jerusalem is in slavery with her children. The Greek word translated as corresponds has as its basic meaning, “stand in the same line or rank [of soldiers]”; remarkably, Aristotle and Pythagorean philosoCorrespondences phers used the noun systoichia (derived from the verb systoichein) to refer to “a On the other hand On the one hand pair of coordinate or parallel columns” Son Son and also “a series of coordinate pairs” by the free-woman by the slave girl such as odd/even, one/many, and according to the flesh through promise right/left; moreover, the noun was covenant covenant Mount Sinai used in reference to “either of such children unto slavery parallel columns.”73 Hagar As a result of the occurrence of the Jerusalem above present Jerusalem word corresponds, commentators roufree in slavery tinely form charts of “parallel with her children columns” of the elements in Paul’s our mother barren one/the one having a husband allegorical treatment of the Genesis Isaac materials. Some charts cover a selected children of the promise number of verses from Paul’s allegoraccording to the flesh according to the Spirit ical exposition. See [Correspondences] for what is intended to be a complete With regard to the present Jerusalem, Delling (TDNT 7:669) notes that Paul “does not equate [Hagar] directly with the earthly Jerusalem but simply says columnar list of Paul’s contrasting that she ‘belongs to the same series.’” pairs in 4:22-31. In these columns of pairs of opposites, one effectively finds the outline of Paul’s discussion of two covenants—the covenant with Abraham that is left unnamed and the Sinai covenant on which Paul focuses. The story Paul uses to present the contrasts is told selectively and even inaccurately, as noted above. The conclusions that one draws from Paul’s discussion and presentation of coordinates (and implied coordinates) are crucial, for what Paul is not

222

Galatians 4

Sarah and Hagar The artist forces us to consider other interpretations of this story by placing Hagar’s encounter with the angel in the background.

Wenceslas Hollar (1607–1677). Sarah and Hagar (State 2). 17th C. Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, Wenceslas Hollar Digital Collection. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-US-1923)

talking about is as important as what he is discussing in these verses. Many interpreters have concluded that in vv. 21-31 Paul is comparing Christianity and Judaism. Thus, J. B. Lightfoot in commenting on the elements of Paul’s parallels said in relation to t∑ nyn Hierousal∑m (which he translated as “the earthly Jerusalem,” though literally it reads “the present Jerusalem”), “The metropolis of the Jews is taken to represent the whole race.”74 Similarly, when Hans Lietzmann drew up his own set of pairs of opposites in parallel columns, the concluding coordinate pair was Judaism/ Christianity.75 And Burton remarked, “As Hagar, a slave, bore children that by that birth passed into slavery, so the Jerusalem that now is and her children, viz., all the adherents of legalistic Judaism which has its centre in Jerusalem, are in bondage to law.”76 In turn, Hans Dieter Betz stated that Paul “wants to create a dualistic polarity between ‘Judaism’ and ‘Christianity,’ in order to discredit his Jewish-Christian opposition.” And Betz added, “This conclusion is one of Paul’s sharpest attacks upon the Jews. He uses the self-understanding of the Jews in order to reject it.”77 [Alternative Interpretations of Hagar] Likewise, F. F. Bruce commented, “The identification of Hagar with Sinai means simply that she and her descendants represent the law, which holds men and women in bondage. If she also corresponds to the present Jerusalem . . . it is not so much the literal city that is meant as the whole legal system of Judaism, which had its world-centre in Jerusalem.” Bruce does qualify his remarks with regard to “the church of Jerusalem and its

Galatians 4 Alternative Interpretations of Hagar In chapter 1 of Reading the Bible with the Dead, John L. Thompson surveys the history of Christian interpretation of Hagar, Abraham’s wife-concubine whose story is told mainly in Gen 16 and 21. Hagar enters the biblical narrative as Sarah’s Egyptian slave, forced to sleep with her husband Abraham in an ill-advised scheme to produce for him an heir. She is used, abused, and then cast out of the family when, after the birth of Isaac to Sarah, it is deemed she has outlived her usefulness. In Gal 4, Hagar figures as part of Paul’s allegory about freedom from and slavery to the Torah. Thompson notes, however, that there were in fact two strands of allegorical thought surrounding Hagar in early interpreters. The one in Gal 4 we know, but ancient interpreters realized this was only one piece of the puzzle. For Philo of Alexandria, the symbolism of Hagar was the “preliminary teachings” that the wise must study on their way to true wisdom (symbolized by Sarah). For Origen as well, Hagar does not represent “a literal wife or a fleshly union, but rather the virtue of wisdom” (Thompson, 18–19). Her expulsion from Abraham’s camp provides a contrast between the meager skin of water with which she is provided and the divine spring she discovers in the wilderness. She is thus like the Samaritan woman of John 4: “both had their eyes opened to see a well of living water, which in each case was Jesus Christ” (19). Later patristic interpreters likewise found in Hagar some symbol of godly virtues. Didymus the Blind even invokes Matt 5:8, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God,” to argue that, since she had a divine vision, Hagar must have been pure in heart. Nor does the early church let Abraham off the hook for his despicable treatment of Hagar. The earliest worries about Abraham expelling Hagar and her son Ishmael come from the rabbis. In Genesis Rabbah, there is great interest

223

in the meaning of the Hebrew term in Gen 21:9 where Ishmael is “playing” with Isaac. For the rabbis, this term was associated with shameful deeds—“fornication, or idolatry, or attempted homicide” (23). Whether these speculations are true, it must be said that they apparently arose out of a sense of discomfort with Abraham’s seeming extreme reaction against Ishmael’s otherwise innocent behavior. Christian interpreters as well wrestled with the questionable morality of Abraham and Sarah’s treatment of Hagar. Thompson quotes Luther’s assessment: Abraham simply sends away his beloved spouse, she who first made him a father, along with his firstborn son, giving them only a sack of bread and a skin of water. . . . But does it not seem cruel that a mother burdened with offspring should be dismissed so miserably, and that, to an unknown destination, indeed, into a vast and arid desert? . . . If someone wanted to rant against Abraham at this point, he could make him the murderer of his son and wife. . . . Who would believe this if Moses had not recorded it? (25)

None of these precritical interpreters intended to hang Abraham without a trial. On the contrary, they strove to find a way to harmonize the actions of the biblical characters with the moral standards they learned in Christ. But as Thompson notes, “If some [commentators] appear to have worked overtime to exonerate Abraham, they never lost sight of the seriousness of the charge against the patriarch nor brushed aside the terror inflicted on Hagar and her son” (25–26). John L. Thompson, Reading the Bible with the Dead (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2007).

leadership,” but the understanding of Judaism as being (uniformly?) legalistic is problematic. Similar statements occur in many of the abundance of commentaries on Galatians, though there is a noticeable tendency in recent (late twentieth- and early twentyfirst-century) commentaries to avoid such comments and to move to a different level of interpretation. [Christianity and Judaism] Instead of reading Paul’s remarks as coming from Christianity in contrast with Judaism, it is not only possible but also preferable to view these statements as being made in the overall context of the early church as Paul knew it. Thus, Paul does not formulate the allegory of Hagar and Sarah as a polemic of Christianity versus

224

Galatians 4

Christianity and Judaism Even from the early periods of commentary on Galatians, polarity between Christianity and Judaism was presented as the explanation of Paul’s remarks in 4:24-30, as is seen in comments from Ambrosiaster. In part, Ambrosiaster writes, Of v. 24: Thus Paul says that these things were said as an allegory, and that the persons of Ishmael and Isaac stood for other things. Ishmael represents the birth of the Jews and of those who are slaves to sin, whereas Isaac represents the birth of Christians who are born into freedom.

Judaism; it is not a matter of church against synagogue/Temple. Rather, Paul pens the sharp, confrontational allegorical vignette as part of an ongoing intramural debate in the life of the first-century church. Several factors make it unlikely that Paul is articulating a contrast between Judaism and Christianity and seem to indicate that Paul is writing of conflict between two factions in early Christianity. Such factors include the following:

1. J. Louis Martyn has shown that in certain instances, Jerusalem can and does Of v. 25: Paul says that Hagar’s case refers to the earthly stand in Paul’s usage for the Jerusalem Jerusalem, which is to say, the synagogue, which church.78 bears people into slavery, because those to whom it 2. Paul contrasts flesh/promise, gives birth are captive to sin. slavery/freedom, and flesh/Spirit. But Paul does not contrast old/new (covenants). Of v. 30: 3. The supposed contrast between old She [Sarah] wanted the son of the maid—that is to say, the Jewish people who had been cast down (Judaism) and new (Christianity) that many because of their unbelief, for they are slaves to sin and interpreters read into Paul’s discussion is the forgiveness of sins has not been given to them— essentially impossible because such distinct cast out so that the son of that free heavenly entities (Judaism/Christianity) did not yet Jerusalem, which is the new people of the kingdom of exist as they would in later periods. heaven, might be the heir instead. 4. Paul refers to two different Christian See Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Galatians (trans. and ed. Gerald L. messages: the gospel (1:11; 2:2, 5, 7, 14; 3:8) Brey; Ancient Christian Texts; Downers Grove IL: IVP Academic, 2009) and another gospel (1:6-9)—most likely the 25–26. proclamations of two distinct (Jewish Christian) missions to Gentiles with one being independent of the Law and the other emphasizing Law observance. 5. All of Paul’s illustrative biographical materials (Gal 1 and 2) regarding conflict are about church situations; there is no mention of synagogue or Temple in Paul’s letter to the Galatians. He illustrates only conflict within the life of the church. Furthermore, in contrast with “the present Jerusalem,” Paul writes in v. 26 of “the Jerusalem above,” an idea found in the New Testament (e.g., Rev 3:12) and in Jewish apocalyptic writings (e.g., 2 Bar. 4:1-6). The concept appears in a variety of ways: 1. Older Jewish apocalyptic writings expect the historical city of Jerusalem, which lies in ruins, to be rebuilt in the final future age.

Galatians 4 The New Jerusalem In Rev 21, “Jerusalem above” is depicted not as a mother but as a bride “adorned for her husband” (Rev 21:2). A maternal image of Jerusalem (or Israel) might be suggested by the pregnant woman crowned with stars in Rev 12:1-6. See Mitchell G. Reddish, Revelation, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2001) 233, and George R. BeasleyMurray, Revelation, The New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1974) 193–94.

225

Nicolas Bataille. “The New Jerusalem.” (Tapestry of the Apocalypse) c. 1373–1382. From a series of tapestries woven for Louis I, Duke of Anjou. Musee des Tapisseries, Angers, France. (Credit: Kimon Berlin / Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SA3.0-migrated)

2. The earthly Jerusalem will be replaced by a new heavenly city that will descend from heaven. 3. The heavenly Jerusalem exists and abides in heaven, and those who are to live in it will ascend to it.79 Paul appears to have had the third of these outlooks in mind (1 Thess 4:13-18; 1 Cor 15:51-58; and here in Galatians), although Betz has suggested that Paul’s language here is not his own, because Paul’s typical way of creating contrast is to juxtapose “flesh” and “Spirit,” not “present” and “above.”80 Nevertheless, Paul employs this language. This “Jerusalem above,” Paul says, “is free.” Paul’s remark associates this Jerusalem with Sarah, who as the unnamed one of the pair of women in the allegory (vv. 22-23) was designated “the free woman.” As Sarah (though unnamed) was free, so is the Jerusalem above free. And by implication, as Sarah bore a free son (Isaac, v. 28), so the Jerusalem above is the mother of free people (compare 5:1), i.e., people who are free from being “under” oppression (especially by the Law). Paul’s remark that the free Jerusalem above is our mother employs language that draws on the images and ideas81 of Jewish tradition as he brings together two lines of thought— about Sarah and about Jerusalem—to make the argument that believers (Gentiles only?) are free from Law observance and destined for even greater freedom (2:4; 5:1). Paul makes the argument that Law observance is not necessary for believers precisely because

226

Galatians 4

certain of his Jewish-Christian contemporaries were insisting that Gentile converts must follow the Law (2:4; Acts 15:5). Thus, we may see that if there were some working among the Galatians, demanding that they observe the Law (particularly circumcision), then there were Jewish-Christian contemporaries of Paul who ran a Law-observant mission to the Gentiles. Paul’s language of Jerusalem (in part) and the present Jerusalem reflects his struggles with those Law-observant Jewish Christians (from Jerusalem?) who were active (apparently at least in Galatia) among Gentiles who were converted to Christianity. Paul continues in v. 27 by quoting Isaiah 54:1 LXX. His citation follows the text of the Septuagint precisely. This verse is part of a larger passage that contains verses that, while prophetic, seem also to be (older) apocalyptic in character.82 It is helpful to consider the verse in its original historical and literary context in order to appreciate how Paul used it in Galatians. Thus, the prophet writes at the time of the Babylonian exile, focusing on the fate of Jerusalem. In the original setting, the prophet writes of one “woman,” Jerusalem. The “barren” woman is Jerusalem in the time of the absence of the exiles. She experiences desolate days when she has lost her children. The woman “having a husband” is Jerusalem before the exile. She had days of prosperity. But, with the exiles gone, her days of bounty have waned. Consequently, in the days of despair, when robbed of her children (the exiles), by comparison to her former prosperity she had fallen on hard times. Yet the prophet heralded a new day to come, a time after the return of the exiles when her prosperity would exceed that which she had experienced before the captivity. In other words, the prophet spoke of a time after the return of the exiles when the currently desolate one would have even more children than she had before the exile.83 Perhaps, by focusing simultaneously on once-barren Sarah and the Jerusalem above, Paul was put in mind of this verse from Isaiah, for barren Sarah reminds one of the barren woman (Jerusalem), and the woman of plenty (also Jerusalem) reminds one of the Jerusalem above (or, for some readers, it reminds them of Hagar— which is another matter). However Paul came to write this verse (v. 27), he seems to understand the text of Isaiah as an explanation or confirmation of his argument, as is seen by his use of “for” (Gk. gar) at the beginning of the verse: “For it is written . . . .” From this usage, one sees that Paul’s main concern was to illustrate and explain his conviction that the Jerusalem above is the source of freedom, while slavery ensues from the present Jerusalem, which in the context of Galatians was likely the church in Jerusalem. And so Paul understands that Isaiah 54:1 speaks of the Jerusalem above

Galatians 4

and her offspring, which provides confirmation for his argument in vv. 24-26. The use of Isaiah 54:1 without explanation is quite confusing. On the surface it appears that the barren one (Sarah) is told to rejoice “because the children of the solitary one are more than of the one having a husband.” In the Genesis account, Sarah has a husband (Hagar does not), so how can barren Sarah have more children than the one who has a husband (who is again, Sarah) when she is the barren one? Read as remarks about two women, the text defies comprehension; but read in Paul’s letter as it should be read in the context of Isaiah, the passage is much more sensible. Application of the Argument from Scripture, 4:28-31. Paul advances his allegorical argument and applies the story to the situation of the members of the churches of Galatia. In v. 28 he addresses the Galatians directly, “You,” adding “brothers and sisters” (Gk. adelphoi; lit., “brothers”). Paul has used this same familiar and even affectionate manner of address earlier (1:2, 11, 19; 3:15; 4:12), and he will use it again (4:31; 5:11, 13; 6:1, 18) before he concludes the letter. That he greets the Galatians here (4:28) as “brothers and sisters” in the midst of making this difficult argument indicates the level of his regard for the Galatians and the urgency of his appeal to them. The language is family language, expressive of a bond that ties people together in the most intimate of terms. This language generally reflects the early Christian conviction that fellow believers were co-members of the household of God. There is, however, a text-critical problem with the opening word of this verse, “You” (Gk. hymeis), because some old and reliable manuscripts read “We” (Gk. h∑meis) rather than “You.” Is Paul speaking “to” the Galatians (“you”) or is he identifying “with” them (“we”) in the statement that he makes in v. 28? Most interpreters judge that the context and Paul’s argument require the second person plural (“you”) rather than the first person plural (“we”), so that Paul is understood to be speaking to the Galatians about their own theological identity. By referring to Isaac (“like Isaac”; Gk. kata Isaak), Paul applies his allegory (in a very typological fashion) to the Galatians. They are, Paul says, “children of the promise” whose relationship to God is based not on any physical heritage but on God’s promise to Abraham, which Paul has interpreted as referring to all those who are persons of faith (3:7-9). Oddly, in v. 29 Paul begins the sentence with the strong adversative conjunction “but” or “rather” (Gk. alla). The statement (v. 29) does not seem, however, to stand in contrast to the foregoing

227

228

Galatians 4

remark in v. 28. Paul’s usage is perhaps a bit peculiar, but alla seems to be used at this point “where two notions are not mutually exclusive.”84 Here, then, Paul seems to be saying (to paraphrase), “You . . . are children of the promise, nevertheless, as then . . . so also now.” Thus, Paul is telling the Galatians that despite their true God-given identity as children of the promise, in the present they are/will experience difficulties because of opposition, just as Isaac did at the hands of Ishmael. The language that Paul uses in v. 29 is dualistic—juxtaposing “flesh” and “Spirit.” Flesh can mean simply “in the normal human way,” but in Paul’s contrast of flesh with Spirit one perceives a sharp distinction between two kinds of people. Spirit in Paul’s letters in usages such as this one refers to the presence and power of God at work in the world. The one who is “according to the Spirit” (Gk. kata pneuma) is the one who is in concert with God. In Paul’s letters, flesh can stand for that which is contrary to God’s will. There is an irony inherent in this present usage, for Paul is arguing against circumcision of Gentile believers, a truly fleshly act that Paul vigorously contends is contrary to God’s will. For Paul, “according to the flesh” (Gk. kata sarka) designates people and other pertinent entities that are set against God’s purposes. Thus, in referring to Abraham’s two sons as being born “according to the flesh” and “according to the Spirit,” Paul names two orbs of theological significance: one contrary to God, the other in accord with God. Paul says that as in the past (Gk. tote; lit., “then”) Abraham’s one son who was born “according to the flesh” persecuted (Gk. diøkein) the other son who was born “according to the Spirit,” in the present (Gk. nyn; lit., “now”) it is the same (Gk. høsper . . . houtøs; lit., “just as . . . even so”). The Law-free believers experience persecution as Paul’s adversaries insist on circumcision and Law observance. Paul’s remark that the son born according to the flesh (Ishmael) persecuted the son born according to the Spirit (Isaac) will strike many readers of Paul’s storytelling as peculiar, because there is neither explicit persecution nor any mention of it in the original story in Genesis 21. But Paul uses a more developed version of the story of Ishmael and Isaac than that which occurs in the biblical text. The original story is found at Genesis 21:8-14. In English translations of Genesis 21:9, one reads something like this: “But Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, playing with her son Isaac” (NRSV). In turn, Sarah demands that Abraham force Hagar and her child to leave because Ishmael was playing with Isaac. In the Septuagint, the word used

Galatians 4

229

for “playing” is paizonta, which is from paizein, which, while it can have the innocent meaning “to play,” can also be used for “to hunt” or “to jest.” Later Jewish traditions understood the verb not as “to play” but as “to hunt” or “to make fun of.” Thus, in some developed accounts of Genesis 21:8-14, Ishmael was credited with dangerous, malicious, or mocking behavior. One often-cited tradition has it that Ishmael shot arrows Ishmael and Isaac toward Isaac.85 Apparently Paul was The word translated “playing” or “laughing” (meßå˙∑q) familiar with such popular traditional in Gen 21:9 is more accurately “making sport” or material, although where he garnered “mocking.” It often has a negative connotation in the Old the idea (and language) of Ishmael’s Testament, and this has colored how rabbinic tradition has read having persecuted Isaac is indeterthe verse. minable.86 Nevertheless, Paul’s choice What precisely was Ishmael doing that provoked Sarah’s wrath? Genesis Rabbah 53:11 lays out several possible lines of of verb tense, imperfect, may be interpretation: intended to indicate that Ishmael’s problematic behavior was ongoing. Thus R. Akiba lectured: And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the [Ishmael and Isaac]

Paul’s main concern, however, is to draw a parallel between Isaac’s being persecuted by Ishmael on the one hand and the treatment of the Galatians by Paul’s Law-observant adversaries in the Galatian congregations on the other hand. Paul’s choice of the verb to persecute (Gk. diøkein) is striking because of his use of the verb elsewhere in Galatians. In chapter 1 (1:13, 23) Paul writes of his own persecuting of the church prior to his call experience; in chapter 5 (5:11) he writes of being persecuted himself because he did not still preach circumcision; and in chapter 6 (6:12) Paul states that those who oppose him insist on circumcision in order that they not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. Here, one should note that chapters 1, 5, and 6 give images of persecution in relation to proclamation of a particular perspective: either for the gospel or for the cross of Christ (for Paul these were probably synonymous). Paul interprets the difficulties being faced by

Egyptian, whom she had borne unto Abraham, making sport. Now Making sport refers to nought else but immorality, as in the verse, The Hebrew servant, whom thou hast brought unto us, came in unto me to make sport of me (Gen. xxxix, 17). Thus this teaches that Sarah saw Ishmael ravish maidens, seduce married women and dishonour them. R. Ishmael taught: This term Sport refers to idolatry, as in the verse, And rose up to make sport (Ex. xxxii, 6). This teaches that Sarah saw Ishmael build altars, catch locusts, and sacrifice them. R. Eleazar said: The term sport refers to bloodshed, as in the verse, Let the young men, I pray thee, arise and sport before us (II Sam. ii, 14). R. ‘Azariah said in R. Levi’s name: Ishmael said to Isaac, ‘Let us go and see our portions in the field’; then Ishmael would take a bow and arrows and shoot them in Isaac’s direction, whilst pretending to be playing. Thus it is written, As a madman who casteth fire-brands, arrows, and death; so is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith: Am not I in sport (Prov. xxvi, 18f.)? But I say: This term sport [mockery] refers to inheritance. For when our father Isaac was born all rejoiced, whereupon Ishmael said to them, ‘You are fools, for I am the firstborn and I receive a double portion.’ (Freedman and Simon, 469)

Thus, according to rabbinic tradition, Ishmael was either a rapist and adulterer, an idolater, an attempted murderer, or at least (following Rabbi Akiba) contemptuous of his perceived inferiors. (See also Pirqê de Rabbi Eliezer 30; Exodus Rabbah 1.1; t. Sotah 6.6.) While the Masoretic text of Gen 21:9 simply says that Sarah saw Hagar’s son “making sport,” the Septuagint adds, “with her son Isaac.” This is apparently the reading to which Paul alludes in Gal 4:29, which would suggest he envisioned Ishmael tormenting or attempting to kill Isaac or at least disdainful of him. H. Freedman and Maurice Simon, eds. Genesis Rabbah, vol. 1 (London: Soncino, 1961).

230

Galatians 4

the Galatian believers as evidence of their being “like Isaac,” persecuted for being children of Abraham according to the Spirit and people of faith. Before leaving Paul’s statement contrasting Abraham’s two sons, one should note a striking feature of Paul’s discussion, viz., the way he juxtaposes Ishmael and Isaac here (v. 29): according to the flesh and according to the Spirit; but in v. 23 Paul had contrasted the sons with the phrases according to the flesh and through promise. Paul uses through promise and according to the Spirit virtually as synonyms, although from this point in the letter “promise” does not occur again, while “Spirit” becomes preeminent in Paul’s reflections (5:5, 16, 17, 18, 22, 25; 6:8). As Richard N. Longenecker has recognized, in effect all Paul’s references to the gospel, the Spirit, the promise, the blessings, and the inheritance become focused from here to the end of the letter in terms of the Spirit’s presence and guidance in the lives of believers.87 In v. 29 Paul told a brief story from Genesis that had its focus in Genesis 21:9. Now, Paul asks a question, which he immediately answers: “But what does the Scripture say?” He answers his own question by quoting Genesis 21:10 LXX, although he makes two small changes in the text of the Septuagint. Whereas the Septuagint reads, “Throw out this slave girl and her son; for the son of this slave girl will certainly not inherit with my Isaac,” Paul’s citation says, “Throw out the slave girl and her son; for the son of the slave girl will certainly not inherit with the son of the free woman.” Paul’s citation—almost certainly his own adaptation—changes the word this (Gk. taut∑n and taut∑s) to the (Gk. t∑n and t∑s) in relation to the “slave girl” and substitutes “the son of the free woman” (Gk. tou huiou t∑s eleutheras) for “my Isaac” (Gk. mou Isaak). These changes make the biblical text more applicable to the situation faced by Paul and the Galatians. Paul is most likely not concerned with the original context and the original meaning of the text he cites. His interest is in the allegorical interpretation and application of the statement to the situation he faces in Galatia. In that context, as we have noted repeatedly, Paul encounters other Jewish Christians who have come among Paul’s own Gentile converts. Apparently they both criticize Paul and advocate Law observance by the Gentile Galatian converts who have responded to the gospel through Paul’s preaching. Now, after arguing his case for a Law-free Gentile Christian lifestyle, Paul forms an allegory related to the difficult circumstances he stands against and applies the allegory to the situation, ultimately calling for the Galatians to expel those persons who have come in from outside the churches and caused the Galatians distress.

Galatians 4

Some interpreters contend that Paul’s statement here about the expulsion of Ishmael (and in Galatians the children of Abraham according to the flesh) points to a rejection of the children of Abraham according to the flesh in favor of Abraham’s children by faith.88 Still others take an even harsher line: if God gave the inheritance to the Gentile Christians (3:14, 29; 4:1, 7), the Jews are excluded from it and the Christians constitute “the Israel of God” (6:16).89 One should remember that such commentators are claiming to interpret Paul’s letter to the Galatians and are not necessarily advocating these position themselves. Nevertheless, Paul’s particular statements with regard to the situation he faces in Galatia are not aimed at Jews and Judaism, nor are his remarks a general appeal for Gentile Christians to expel Jewish Christians from congregations. One should read Romans 11:13-36 and 14:1–15:13 to see in more detail what Paul thought about Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian relations and, also, what he thought about Jews. In conclusion, the call in v. 30 for the expulsion of those Lawobservant Jewish Christians who were insisting that Paul’s Galatian Gentile converts take up Law observance (especially circumcision) was a directive in particularly problematic circumstances and should not be universalized. Paul ends this portion of the letter in v. 31, which is a further application of the foregoing allegory to the Galatians and himself. Paul begins the verse with the word therefore (Gk. dio), indicating that he is drawing and applying a conclusion from the allegory to the situation in the Galatian congregations. Again, he addresses the Galatians as “brothers and sisters” (Gk. adelphoi). Here, however, Paul uses the first person plural we (it is the verbal suffix to the verb esmen; from einai, “to be”), so that he includes himself along with the Gentile Galatian converts as “children . . . of the free woman.” Having brought the theme of freedom to the fore, Paul will now move his argument forward, leaving the allegory behind and engaging in a more straightforward kind of reasoning.

CONNECTIONS In the Nick of Time (4:1-7)

In 4:1, Paul at last comes to the point of his extended discussion about wills and heirs. A minor, he says, has no more rights than a

231

232

Galatians 4

slave. Indeed, they are watched over by the father’s appointed guardians until they come of age. In the same way, until God sent his Son, human beings were in bondage to “the elemental spirits of the world.” But now, at last, we have come into our own: redeemed, adopted, given the Spirit, no longer slaves but children and rightful heirs. The dividing line between the “before” and the “after” that Paul sets up is the coming of Christ “in the fullness of time.” Many sermons have been preached on the distinction in Greek between chronos or clock time, the counting of hours or days or years, and kairos: existential or opportune time. Unfortunately, Paul does not use the word kairos in v. 4. Even so, the expression he does use (plêrôma tou chronou) seems to slide into the same semantic neighborhood. God acted at just the right time in sending the divine Son. Preachers and teachers might explore precisely what made the time ripe for the coming of Christ. Certainly, a combination of historical factors around the turn of the era provided a number of advantages to the early church: a variety of messianic expectations among many Jews, the near universality of Greek language, and the Pax Romana itself are most often noted. The motif of salvation and rescue coming at exactly the right time is a powerful element in many novels and movies. Anyone who has ever watched a western or an action movie knows that help is coming to the beleaguered heroes even though it looks as if there’s no way out of the fix they’re in. In these stories, salvation comes at precisely the right time, though the characters and readers/audience may have wanted it to arrive sooner. So it was with God. In the fullness of time—but not a second before—God sent his Son. A sermon or lesson on “In the Nick of Time” could explore the interplay between impatient human longing and God’s perfect timing. Furthermore, we must not neglect to see the Christmas themes in this passage. In the Revised Common Lectionary, vv. 4-7 are, in fact, read on the first Sunday after Christmas in all three years, following the precedent set by the traditional Western Lectionary (which includes all of vv. 1-7). The same passage is read on the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus (January 1) both in Year A of the Revised Common Lectionary and in all three years of the Roman Catholic Lectionary. This passage is perhaps the closest we come in Paul’s writings to a theological reflection on the incarnation. Before there was a Babe in the manger, there was a divine plan to redeem the world from

Galatians 4

slavery and adopt the human race as sons and daughters. When Jesus was born, it was with a divine purpose to fulfill.

233

“Born of a Woman”

Real Life (4:8-11)

Paul pleads with the Galatians not to abandon their freedom in Christ for lesser things: “weak and beggarly elemental Edward Burne-Jones. The Nativity. 1888. Oil on canvas. Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh, spirits” (v. 9). Rather than Pennsylvania. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-1923) claiming their inheritance in Christ, they have In this depiction of the birth of Jesus, Mary reclines with the Christ child while turned back to shallow Joseph looks on. The three angels to the left bear the symbols of the Passion substitutes. They are and crucifixion: the crown of thorns, a container of myrrh, and a chalice (see Mark 14:36). The Latin inscription is from Ps 12:5: “Because of the misery of the enamored of their liturpoor and the groaning of the needy, I will now rise up, says the LORD.” gical calendar, with its special days, months, seasons, and years, but neglect the knowledge of God through which Paul hoped they had been transformed. What makes their recent course reversal so troubling for Paul is precisely that the Galatian Christians had, in fact, come to know and be known by the true and living God. Now, however, they are in danger of slipping back to the worship of false gods, namely, human systems of ritual conformity that are completely divorced from life in Christ. It would be fruitful to explore what Paul meant by knowing and being known by God. This sort of knowledge isn’t intellectual or impersonal. It is the knowledge of another that comes through intimate relationship, which is what the old-time evangelists meant when they spoke of a “saving knowledge” of Christ. Anybody can know things about God. Not everybody knows God as a child knows his or her father. Absent this sort of knowledge, the wheels can quickly come off any religious system, no matter how otherwise praiseworthy. The sad part is that the person who has embraced such a defective spiritual stance may be the last one to recognize it. Stagg astutely observes that “What Paul saw among the Galatians is not isolated, for mankind has a sad record of tending to choose the phony over the genuine, in religion as in life generally.”90 “Real Life” might be

234

Galatians 4

an apt sermon title under which to explore the ways even earnest church folk trade in the joy of knowing God for a counterfeit hope such as the Galatian interlopers hawked. The Cost of Faithfulness (4:12-20)

The gospel first came to Galatia by an unforeseen act of providence. In 4:13, Paul reminds his readers that he first preached to them because of “a physical infirmity.” Apparently, a bout of sickness provoked a change in Paul’s travel plans. Rather than merely passing through the region, he stopped there long enough to convalesce. The specifics of Paul’s illness are vague, and whether this incident has anything to do with the “thorn in the flesh” he mentions in 2 Corinthians 12:7 is a matter of speculation. Based on the Galatians’ reaction of willingness to tear out Paul’s Physical Infirmity their own eyes and give them to Paul, some Paul reminds the Galatians that “it was have suggested that the Apostle suffered from because of a physical infirmity” that he some form of disease or infection of the eyes. first preached the gospel to them (Gal 4:13). There is no shortage of speculations as to the precise nature of this infirmity. Circumstantial evidence would suggest it was some sort of disease or infection of the eyes. This would explain the Galatians’ desire to tear out their own eyes and give them to Paul (Gal 4:15) and perhaps, if this were some sort of chronic condition, why he wrote with such large letters (Gal 6:11). Whatever the case, the physical infirmity mentioned in Galatians may or may not be associated with the “thorn in the flesh” Paul speaks of in 2 Cor 12:7-9. Both, however, proved to be advantageous for Paul. It was because of his physical infirmity that he first came to the Galatians and proclaimed the gospel to them, and the “thorn in the flesh” was a reminder to Paul of his deep dependency on God. Indeed, as Paul himself says, God’s power is made perfect in weakness (2 Cor 12:9).

[Paul’s Physical Infirmity]

Whatever the case, we have here an example of God using the brokenness or weakness of the messenger in order to advance the message. Rather than thwarting the gospel, Paul’s poor health actually advanced it. Moved with compassion for a sick man in need of help, the Galatians forged a relationship with Paul to the point of receiving him as a messenger of God and even as Christ himself (see Matt 25:40). They ministered to Paul, and that opened a door for Paul to preach Christ. It’s time to quit pretending that following Christ is constant and uninterrupted bliss. Ministry is a two-way street, and vulnerability is often the first step in presenting an effective witness for Christ. We can see, then, the reason for Paul’s frustration at the current situation in Galatia. He wonders what became of the goodwill they once felt. “Where then,” Paul asks, “is the great attitude that you had?” (v. 15, CEB). What has caused the turnaround so that now Paul is perceived to be their enemy? As Paul sees it, he has become their enemy by telling them the truth. Paul preached a Torah-free gospel, which didn’t sit well with

Galatians 4

the Torah-preaching interlopers who were now troubling the Galatians. Perhaps a sermon could be developed on the theme of the cost of faithfulness. Paul was not willing to let the Galatian Christians slip away without a fight. Make no mistake: embracing views of the Galatian interlopers constituted for Paul a clean break with the gospel. Just as he confronted Peter to his face, he now confronted the Galatian Christians, knowing full well it might spell the end of their relationship. For Paul, the gospel was worth it—and so were the Galatians. In v. 17, Paul flatly states that those with whom the Galatians have become so enamored are up to no good. They are not truly interested in growing them up into mature (and thus free) disciples. On the contrary, they want to foster dependency: “they want to exclude you, so that you may make much of them.” It isn’t hard to imagine the Galatians wondering why Paul never got around to telling them about the new spiritual “insights” they had gained from the interlopers. They were offered something tangible and quantifiable—something that promised a degree of certainty they apparently didn’t find in Paul’s Law-free gospel. The drive for certainty is not foreign to believers today. Just look at the many religious charlatans and tricksters hawking their own distinctive slants on the gospel. The “traditional” or “no-frills” spirituality through which one first came to faith may seem bland and unsatisfying next to the certainty—to say nothing of the novelty— that such people promise. Paul challenges the Galatians to know who their friends are. They must not be taken in by an attractive package that is ultimately empty inside. In the last few verses of this passage, Paul confesses that he is at a loss about the Galatians (v. 20). He compares the anguish he feels to birth pangs (v. 19). This is not the first time Paul draws on maternal imagery to describe his feelings for the Christians under his charge. In 1 Thessalonians 2:7, he says that he and his coworkers acted among the Thessalonian believers like nurses gently caring for their own children. Now, Paul says, it is like he is a woman in labor “until Christ is formed in you” (v. 19). The goal of Paul’s ministry is spiritual formation. This is not mere institutional allegiance or doctrinal conformity but a complete reorientation of life. As Stagg puts it, “Salvation means nothing less than Christ’s penetration of our deepest inner self to transform it.”91 The goal is to be like Jesus.

235

236

Galatians 4

Those who are preparing for vocational ministry would do well to listen to Paul’s words about the anguish that ministry can provoke. Done right, ministry engages everything that is in the minister with everything that is in the people to whom he or she is called. There is ample room on both sides for failure, hurt feelings, and confusion over goals and priorities. The result is sometimes pain. As with a pregnant woman, pain is to be expected even in the best circumstances. How much more when pastor and people cannot agree about what they are trying to accomplish? And yet Paul embraces this pain as part of his apostolic calling, enduring birth pangs in hope of the Galatians’ emergence into new life in Christ. Paul takes his apostolic ministry very seriously indeed. A Patriarchal Allegory (4:21-23)

Paul now resumes his fiery rhetoric, essentially asking the Galatians if they even know what they’re getting into by subjecting themselves to the Law. The Apostle’s appeal to the story of Hagar and Ishmael (Gen 16) and Sarah and Isaac (Gen 21) is challenging to follow. We are not accustomed to handling Scripture as Paul does here, and his logic is not entirely transparent—although it is perfectly acceptable within his own first-century milieu. It is probably best for modern readers to take vv. 21-31 as an illustration of points Paul makes more clearly and cogently elsewhere in Galatians. Stagg gives us good advice here when he says, Paul’s clearest or most convincing writing is seldom in his illustrations. His point is usually clear apart from his illustrations. Paul employed the allegorical method less than much of the ancient world: pagan, Jewish, and Christian. His unyielding stand for Christian freedom is secure in Galatians, apart from the allegory of Sarah and Hagar. We are under a covenant of promise and not of law. We live by faith out of the goodness of God and not by satisfying the requirements of the Mosaic law.92 Covenants Old and New (4:24-27)

Is allegory an acceptable strategy for handling the Bible? Perhaps— if, like Paul, we admit to what we are doing (v. 24). As an exegetical method, allegory is of dubious value. [Allegory] As a rhetorical strategy, however, it has a long and honored pedigree in Christian as well as Jewish history. With Paul’s back against the wall, he is

Galatians 4

237

forced to bring to bear every conceivable Allegory argument in favor of freedom in Christ. Allegory is a literary device prevalent in the Greco-Roman world. The term comes from These factors should warn us against Greek words that might be loosely translated “to say one taking Paul’s words here as an anti-Jewish thing and mean another.” The earliest use of allegory polemic. Paul is engaged in an intramural was apparently by Greek philosophers who applied the conflict with other Christians, and his technique to the epics of Homer to defend against the complaint is not with Judaism per se— allegation that Homer spoke impiously of the gods by he considered himself to be a faithful Jew attributing to them anthropomorphic character flaws. In the Hellenistic period, Jews like Philo of Alexandria throughout his life!—but with foisting the took up this technique to demonstrate that the teachings requirements of Judaism upon unsusof the Hebrew Bible were in harmony with contemporary pecting Gentile believers as a way of philosophical and cosmological doctrines. Throughout the achieving acceptability before God. patristic era, Christians turned to allegorical methods of Paul draws a contrast between two sons interpretation. of Abraham, their mothers representing By the fourth century, the so-called Antiochene school two covenants. Ishmael is the child of of biblical interpretation questioned the appropriateness Hagar, the slave, who corresponds to the of allegory. Although far from “literalist” in the convenearthly Jerusalem. Isaac is the child of tional sense of the word, these scholars and bishops from Western Syria preferred a more face-value reading Sarah, the free woman, who corresponds to of the biblical text. By contrast, the Alexandrian school the heavenly Jerusalem. The first was born continued to advocate for the value of allegorical inter“according to the flesh”; the second was pretation. Allegory remained the most popular method of interborn “through the promise” (v. 23). pretation throughout the Middle Ages. With the This is not the first time in Galatians Protestant Reformation, interpretation shifted decidedly that Paul has starkly contrasted the two toward the literal sense of Scripture. covenants. He did the same thing in From Karl Shuve, “Allegory,” Dictionary of the Bible and Western Culture, describing his own apostolic calling in ed. Mary Ann Beavis and Michael J. Gilmour (Sheffield UK: Sheffield 1:13-15. Once again, the ultimate point of Phoenix, 2012) 13–14. the contrast is not between Judaism as a “bad religion” and Christianity as a “good religion” but rather between two different means of approaching God. This comes into focus in Paul’s quotation of Isaiah 54:1 in v. 27, where one who had been barren rejoices in her numerous children. Boundaries (4:28-31)

“Now you, my friends, are children of the promise, like Isaac,” Paul declares (v. 28). The Galatians came to God by a miraculous work of God (see Gal 3:1-5). They have been born from above by faith, not through the Torah. Now, however, they are being harassed by those of merely earthly birth, just as Isaac was harassed by Ishmael (v. 29, cf. Gen 21:9-10). In the book of Genesis, there was a fundamental conflict between the two sons of Abraham. It was not good for them to associate with each other. Nor, Paul argues, is it good for children of the

238

Galatians 4

promise—the “heirs” of 4:7—to rub elbows with those who would rob them of their birthright. Admittedly, these are harsh words. No one who is on the path toward transformation in Christ can easily or happily say, “Drive out the slave and her child; for the child of the slave will not share the inheritance with the child of the free woman” (v. 30). But hopefully all of us understand that personal boundaries are vital to one’s spiritual well-being. One might go in a number of directions in developing this passage for teaching or preaching. For example, perhaps the lesson to be learned has to do with boundaries. We may not even realize that certain institutions, practices, doctrines, or even people can pose a threat to our spiritual health. It is important for believers to recognize the dangers that exist and establish boundaries against negative influences. We may well have heard lectures from our parents or sermons from our pastors about being negatively influenced by the company we keep. It is worth remembering that “bad company” comes in many varieties, including some in the sweet sugarcoating of external piety. Other believers may be suffering overtly from the peer pressure or false accusations of those who demand conformity to their own vision of shallow religiosity. Like Paul, their Christian convictions may compel them to take a costly stand for freedom in Christ.

Notes 1. See also Rom 10:18, 19; 11:1, 11; 15:8; 1 Cor 1:12; 2 Cor 11:16; Phil 4:4. 2. David E. L. Johnston, “inheritance,” OCD 757–58. 3. E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990) vii. 4. “prothesmia,” EDNT 3:156; LSJ, 1481. 5. BAGD, 768–69. 6. Gerhard Delling, “stoicheø, systoicheø, stoicheion,” TDNT 7:684. 7. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1982) 193. 8. David Winston, “Solomon, Wisdom of,” ABD 6:122–23. 9. On the vastness, variety, and vitality of paganism in the New Testament era, see Ramsay MacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1981). 10. LSJ, 1420. 11. Eduard Schweizer, Jesus (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1971) 81-85; and “huios,” TDNT 8:355–56, 383–84, 391–92.

Galatians 4 12. Ernest DeWitt Burton, Galatians (ICC: Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1920) 217. 13. J. Louis Martyn, Galatians (AB 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997) 390. 14. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 1996) 471–74. 15. One might expect Paul to say that God redeemed those under the elements of the universe, but he does not. Perhaps, as Martyn suggests, by referring to the Law Paul is identifying that which presents the greatest danger for the Galatians (Galatians, 390). 16. Rolf Dabelstein, “exagorazø,” EDNT 2:1. And, on slavery and sacral manumission, see Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (2d ed.; Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1993) 56–59. 17. LSJ, 1846. 18. Adolf Berger, Barry Nicholas, and Susan M. Treggiari, “adoption,” OCD 12–13. 19. At this point it is tempting to read the language, images, and thought of this verse (4:5b) in relation to Paul’s earlier discussion of a will (Gk. diath∑k∑) in 3:15—but as Burton (Galatians, 221) observes, Paul is not so consistent. 20. Burton, Galatians, 222. 21. Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 210. 22. Joachim Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus (SBT 6; London: SCM Press, 1967) 11–65. 23. Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC 41; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990) 174. 24. On the use of ptøchos as “impotent,” see BAGD, 728. 25. LSJ, 661. 26. John Calvin saw the awkwardness of the language of “returning,” writing, “They could not turn again to ceremonies that they had never practiced. He [Paul] has used the word imprecisely. . .” (The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, orig. 1548—trans. T. H. L. Parker [1965; repr., Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1996]). 27. Martyn, Galatians, 411. 28. Ibid., 411–12. 29. BAGD, 622. 30. On the intricacies of the Jewish calendar system, see James C. Vanderkam, “Calendar,” NIDB 1:521–27. 31. BAGD, 863; BDF §476. 32. Burton, Galatians, 235–36. 33. LSJ, 383. 34. Betz, Galatians, 221–22. 35. Martyn (Galatians, 419) cites Seneca, Epistolae 6.5-6, and refers to A. J. Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 52–53. Moreover, Epictetus and Musonius Rufus among others treat the subject of the philosopher as an example for students to emulate; see further Abraham J. Malherbe, Moral

239

240

Galatians 4 Exhortation, A Greco-Roman Sourcebook (LEC 4; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986); idem, Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989). 36. It is worth remembering at this juncture that Paul actually understood manifestations of “weakness” to be the very occasions of the demonstration of God’s power (1 Cor 1:18-25; 2 Cor 4:7-12; 12:7-10). 37. Information in Acts that is often used to determine whether Paul means he had been among the Galatians only once or more times than one is, in fact, useless. 38. See Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 1994) passim. 39. Betz, Galatians, 228. 40. Burton, Galatians, 245; Longenecker, Galatians, 193; Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1920) §§2250–78; Wallace, Greek Grammar, 761–62; BDF §391. 41. Burton, Galatians, 244–45. 42. Betz, Galatians, 229. 43. LSJ, 748. 44. Gordon D. Fee, Galatians (Pentecostal Commentary Series; Blandford Forum, Dorset, UK: Deo Publishing, 2007) 168. 45. Longenecker, Galatians, 195. 46. Martyn, Galatians 424. 47.The word ødinein was used metaphorically of any great pain (“anguish”)—see Od. 9.415 where the verb describes the travail of the Cyclops, although Beverly Roberts Gaventa (Our Mother Saint Paul [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007] 29– 39, esp. 31–34) points out significant passages in Septuagintal prophetic literature, apocalyptic writings, and the DSS to show an established association between theological expectations (especially apocalyptic expectations) and the anguish of childbirth. 48. Burton, Galatians, 248; Betz, Galatians, 234. 49. Betz, Galatians, 233. 50. Martyn (Galatians, 425 n. 103) remarks that the prepositional phrase en hymin (lit., “in you”—plural) should always be translated “among you” unless there is strong reason to translate it otherwise, which there is not here. 51. Burton, Galatians, 248. 52. Ibid. 53. Martyn, Galatians, 424. 54. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 550–52. 55. LSJ, 68. 56. LSJ, 214. 57. Smyth §2241. 58. Betz, Galatians, 237. 59. LSJ (338, I.3.b) remark on the translation of gar as “for”: “to confirm or strengthen something said.” 60. George Lyons, Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding (SBLDS 73; Atlanta: Scholars, 1985) 96–105, 119.

Galatians 4 61. LSJ, 344. 62. LSJ, 69. 63. Bruce, Galatians, 217. 64. Michael Burney Trapp, “allegory, Greek,” OCD 64. 65. Longenecker, Galatians, 209. 66. Betz, Galatians, 243. 67. Longenecker, Galatians, 209. 68. The Greek word hautai, meaning “these,” occurs in the feminine plural form, so that it is best understood as a reference to these women who were spoken of in Paul’s foregoing remarks. 69. LSJ, 488. 70. Smyth §2904. 71. Smyth §2895. 72. There are major textual variants for this verse (v. 25), perhaps because of the peculiarity of Paul’s remarks. See Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2d ed.; Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994) 527. 73. LSJ, 1735. See Gerhard Delling, “stoicheø, ktl,” TDNT 7:669. 74. J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (2d ed.; London, 1865) 181. 75. Cited in Betz, Galatians, 245. 76. Burton, Galatians, 262. 77. Betz, Galatians, 246. 78. Martyn, Galatians, 457–66. 79. Betz, Galatians, 246–47. 80. Ibid., 247. 81. Ps 87; Isa 50:1; 66:7-11; 4 Ezra 10:25-27—see Longenecker, Galatians, 215. 82. Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 60–61. See Isa 54:11-17. 83. Burton, Galatians, 264. 84. Smyth §2775. 85. Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, 1.263–66; see also 5.246 n. 211 (which lists several other traditional explanations of Ishmael’s offenses). 86. The verb to persecute (Gk. diøkein) occurs in Galatians at 1:13, 23; 4:29; 5:11; 6:12. 87. Longenecker, Galatians, 216–17. 88. Burton, Galatians, 267. 89. Betz, Galatians, 250. 90. Frank Stagg, Galatians–Romans, Knox Preaching Guides, ed. John H. Hayes (Atlanta: John Knox, 1980) 21. 91. Ibid., 23. 92. Ibid., 24.

241

Stand Firm Galatians 5:1-12

COMMENTARY Paul’s Polemic against the Galatians’ Accepting LawObservance, 3:1–5:12 (continued)

A Bold Declaration, 5:1 Interpreters understand in different ways the role that 5:1 plays in its context in Paul’s letter. Some commentators contend that 5:1 should be viewed as a summarizing statement to Paul’s allegorical interpretation in 4:21-31 of elements of Genesis “Give Us Free!” 16–21. Here the focus is on Paul’s The film Amistad (DreamWorks, 1997) steady emphasis of freedom. In Galatians recounts the true story of an 1839 rebelhe uses the noun freedom (Gk. lion on board a slave ship sailing from Cuba that ignites a legal battle over what should happen to eleutheria) in 2:4; 5:1, 13 [2x]; the the slaves after they have been recaptured and adjective free (Gk. eleutheros) in 3:28, brought to American soil. Who owns these men? 4:22, 23, 26, 30, 31; and the verb to free The Spanish crown? The American ship captain (Gk. eleutheroun) in 5:1. Thus, these who took the ship into custody? Or are they now, commentators maintain that Paul’s in fact, free? “freedom language” holds 5:1 together The controversy reaches the Supreme Court, where Cinquè, the leader of the revolt (played by with the same kind of language that Djimon Hounsou), passionately interrupts the prooccurs throughout 4:21-31. [“Give Us Free!”]

ceedings and demands over and over in broken English, “Give us free!” Having tasted freedom, he adamantly refuses to be enslaved once again.

Other interpreters argue that 5:1 is related to 5:2-12 and is primarily a striking declaration providing the theological foundation of Paul’s remarks in the balance of the section (i.e., 5:1 + 5:2-12). In this instance, Paul’s hortatory tone and pointed remarks in 5:1 are understood to be central to his concern, which he articulates repeatedly in 5:2-12, viz., that the Galatians exercise their freedom as they desist from taking up Law observance. Still other commentators assert that 5:1 comprises two distinct parts, one related to 4:21-31 and the other related to 5:2-12. First, 5:1a (“For freedom Christ has set us free”; Gk. T∑ eleutheria h∑mas Christos ∑leutherøsen) fits with 4:21-31 and forms an epitomizing

244

Galatians 5:1-12

conclusion to those verses. Second, 5:1b (“Therefore, stand firm and do not again be subject to a yoke of slavery”; Gk. st∑kete oun kai m∑ palin zygø douleias enechesthe) is an exhortation that directs the Galatians to refrain from Law observance, which is Paul’s plain point of reasoning in 5:2-12. This interpretive position obviously picks up elements from both of the previous understandings, noting that 5:1 both proclaims freedom and instructs the Galatians to resist Law observance. There are also other interpreters who view 5:1 as a relatively independent remark that stands between 4:21-31 and 5:2-12 and functions as a bridge between these two sections of the letter. Thus, 5:1 is seen as holding a place of its own while relating to its preceding and following contexts. The chief reasons for understanding 5:1 to stand somewhat independently while clearly relating to its context are (1) that 5:1 begins with no particle/conjunction connecting it to what went before1 and (2) that 5:2 begins with a rhetorical address (“Look, I, Paul, myself say . . .”; Gk. Ide egø Paulos legø . . .) meant to capture the attention of his readers and hearers, so that it makes something of a new start in the letter. This latter option for interpretation of Paul’s writing at this point seems to make the most sense of all the factors that are available for understanding what Paul seeks to achieve in 5:1. Thus, Paul’s twofold emphasis—to declare and to admonish—which some interpreters refer to as the “indicative” and the “imperative” of the gospel,2 occurs in the context of this one outstanding verse. Having observed the place and the function of 5:1 in Paul’s letter, it is also necessary to consider the actual sense of Paul’s statement(s) in this verse. The importance of these lines is hard to overestimate. As Hans Dieter Betz observes, “ . . . eleutheria (“freedom”) is the central theological concept which sums up the Christian’s situation before God as well as in this world. It is the basic concept underlying Paul’s argument throughout the letter.”3 Nevertheless, Paul’s language is challenging to follow. He begins v. 1 with the Greek phrase T∑ eleutheria, which is in the dative case. Ordinarily one would probably understand Paul to be using an instrumental dative (“with freedom”), and many interpreters read Paul’s remark this way: “With freedom Christ has set us free.”4 But other scholars find that understanding awkward and less than satisfactory, so many other interpreters read Paul’s remark to mean, “For freedom Christ has set us free,” thus understanding Paul’s dative case to be one of “purpose.”5 This rendering seems to be the dominant translation/interpretation of Paul’s words. Yet J. Louis Martyn suggests that Paul’s dative case is a usage referred to by Herbert Weir Smyth

Galatians 5:1-12

as a dative “of place whither”—so that Paul is speaking of Christ’s bringing believers “into the realm of freedom.”6 Readers of Paul’s letter, then, are faced with a question: is “freedom” the instrument by which, the purpose for which, or the place to which Christ has set believers free? (There are yet other, less plausible ways to interpret Paul’s use of the dative case.7) While the most sensible and persuasive interpretation seems to be that of taking Paul’s dative construction as a dative of purpose and viewing 5:1a as a statement that parallels Paul’s similar usage in 5:13 (compare 5:13—“For you yourselves were called to freedom”; Gk. Hymeis gar ep’eleutheria ekl∑th∑te), still in its (deliberate?) ambiguity Paul’s declaration may be saying that believers are called with/for/into freedom. In any understanding, however, here Paul informs his readers of the Christological basis of freedom and makes it clear that the freedom of which he speaks is freedom both in relation to Christ and from anything that might enslave free believers. In 5:1b Paul draws a conclusion (“Therefore”; Gk. oun) that results in his issuing a pair of commands (“stand firm and do not again be subject to a yoke of slavery”; Gk. st∑kete . . . kai m∑ . . . enechesthe). Paul’s directions to the Galatians, to “stand firm” and not to “be subject,” are presented as extending from Christ’s having freed the Galatian believers: the word therefore “signifies that something follows from what precedes.”8 Thus, because Christ freed the Galatians, they are expected to resist returning to “a yoke of slavery” (Gk. zygos douleias). The image of the “yoke” (Gk. zygos) was used both positively and negatively in antiquity. Used positively, the reference to a yoke recognized an agreeable obligation or commitment that brought benefits; whereas used negatively, mention of a yoke referred to an unwelcome burden that was imposed rather than embraced. Paul’s reference to a yoke is clearly negative, “a yoke of slavery.” Moreover, Paul’s use of the word again (Gk. palin) indicates that a yoke of slavery had been removed by Christ (see 1:4; 4:8-11) and that the Galatians were in danger of enslavement anew by undertaking Law observance. The named “yoke of slavery,” however, did not merely refer to Law observance, for the Galatians had come from a background in pagan culture (especially, religion) that Paul clearly regards as having imposed a yoke of slavery on them (again, see 4:8-11). Although Christ had freed them from enslavement to “the elements of the universe” (4:3), the Galatians are now warned by Paul that their turning to Law observance is the same as if they were returning to the slavery from which they had been freed in the first place.

245

246

Galatians 5:1-12

Circumcision and Faith, 5:2-6 Scholars frequently contend that v. 2 opens the pastoral or parenetic portion of the letter, but it seems best to notice that in vv. 2-12 Paul uses neither imperative verb forms nor hortatory subjunctives as he does in the subsequent instructions. His more commanding remarks begin in v. 13 and continue through 6:10. As noted above, Paul opens v. 2 with a rhetorical flourish (“Look! I, Paul, myself say to you . . .”) designed to capture the attention of the Galatians. Having evoked a hearing, Paul raises for the first time directly the issue of circumcision for the Galatians. His harsh tone recalls 1:6-10, and he will return to so direct a mention (and brief discussion) of circumcision in 6:11-13. [Circumcision] While Paul has not previously brought this issue to the fore in relation to the Galatians’ situation, much of what has gone before in the letter, especially chapter 3, anticipates and undergirds his observations at this point. Thus, one sees that Paul is deliberative in vv. 2-12 as he makes his direct case against the Galatians’ interest in circumcision and Law observance. His forceful declarations are urgent pronouncements meant to sway the Galatians to his point of view. Three or four times, Paul mentions circumcision (and uncircumcision) in these verses. And three or four times in these same verses, Paul makes confrontational declarations. [Paul’s Declarations] Paul

Circumcision In the New Testament world, circumcision, Sabbath keeping, and dietary laws were the three preeminent marks of Jewish identity. Numerous texts praise Jewish heroes for refusing to assimilate to the prevailing Gentile culture precisely by foreswearing these practices. With respect to circumcision, one need only look as far as 1 Maccabees 1 to see what was at stake as many saw it: In those days certain renegades came out from Israel and misled many, saying, “Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles around us, for since we separated from them many disasters have come upon us.” This proposal pleased them, and some of the people eagerly went to the king, who authorized them to observe the ordinances of the Gentiles. So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil. (1 Macc 1:11-15)

For the author of 1 Maccabees—and, indeed, for most Jews—circumcision was non-negotiable. It is easy to see, then, why devout Jewish followers of Jesus would take exception to Paul’s insistence that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision ultimately mattered to God. An izmel, or circumcision knife. Jewish Life, Stadtmuseum, Göttingen. (Credit: Ingersoll, Wiktionary.org (“izmel”)/Wikimedia Commons, PD-US)

Galatians 5:1-12

247

weaves these statements and warnings Paul’s Declarations together to make a strong case against the Paul’s mentions of circumcision or uncircumcision: • “if you have yourselves circumcised” (v. 2); particular practice of circumcision and • “to every man who has himself circumcised” (v. 3); the broader practice of Law observance in • “neither circumcision” (v. 6); and Galatia. As Paul deliberates, he makes his • “nor uncircumcision” (v. 6). case primarily through declaration as he speaks from his theological convictions Paul’s confrontational declarations: concerning the meaning and the efficacy • “Christ will be of no benefit to you” (v. 2); of God’s grace at work in Jesus Christ and • (“he is under obligation to do the whole Law” [v. 3] ?); the movement of the Spirit in the lives of • “you have been estranged from Christ” (v. 4); and the Galatians. Inherent in Paul’s argument • “you have fallen away from grace” (v. 4). is the conviction that to attempt to add anything to God’s work in Christ, as if there were something lacking in God’s achievement that needed completion through human effort, is an implicit—if not explicit—denial of the sufficiency of God’s grace at work in Christ for the delivery and redemption of humankind. For Paul, if the gospel is not sufficient, then it is not good news at all (compare 2:21; 3:1-5). The way Paul writes of circumcision in relation to the Galatians—“if you have yourselves circumcised” (Gk. ean peritemn∑sthe)—may indicate that the Galatians had not yet experienced circumcision although the conditional quality of his remarks in v. 2 may only indicate that some of the Galatians had not yet been circumcised. Paul confronts the (as yet) uncircumcised Galatians, not merely because they may desire to undergo a physical process but also because they seem to assume and to desire circumcision as necessary for their experience of God’s grace. Thus, they imply their previous experience in Christ (and the Spirit) is insufficient, perhaps even invalid without the accompaniment of Law observance9 (by contrast compare 2:21; 3:21-22). Paul says bluntly that if the Galatians “have [themselves] circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to [them].” Circumcision is not simply unnecessary. If the Galatians are circumcised they have moved away from the only one who could redeem them (1:4; 4:4) from their religious enslavement. Their actions in being circumcised are an attempt to throw in human effort with God’s work in Christ, so as to reveal that they consider God unable to deliver them without certain necessary actions on their part. It is important to recognize and to keep in mind that as Paul forms his argument in this letter, his opposition is to the imposition of circumcision and Law observance on Gentile believers; he makes no case here, one way or the other, concerning the ongoing practices of circumcision and Law observance among Jewish Christians. That is not his concern in Galatians.

248

Galatians 5:1-12

In v. 3 Paul states that he is testifying again to every man who has himself circumcised concerning his complete obligation to observe the whole Law. The word again leads some interpreters to conclude that Paul had either paid a previous visit or written a previous letter to the Galatians. These commentators point to both 1:9 and 4:16 to make a case for Paul’s engagement with the Galatians prior to his writing the letter at hand (canonical Galatians). But Paul does not make it clear that there had been earlier communication with the Galatians regarding the concerns he expresses in this letter. The word again seems simply to indicate Paul’s reiteration of the point stated in v. 2; thus, he emphasizes the warning of v. 2 and restates his argument in other words in v. 3. He will Mirror Reading repeat himself in the subsequent verses of “Mirror reading” refers to attempting to discern this section of the letter. the issue or issues a writer is reacting against. Furthermore, many interpreters do a Reading a New Testament letter is essentially the same as reading someone else’s mail or, one might say, lismirror reading here of Paul’s letters. They tening in on one-half of a conversation or dialogue. argue that Paul’s emphasis on the necessity Through mirror reading, interpreters try to work out what of total Law observance indicates that Paul’s the other conversation partner did to elicit the responses opponents had not taught the Galatians the found in the document at hand. In other words, mirror obligation of complete observance of the reading is an attempt to move from the known, the Law. Rather, they had presented Law obserletter, to the unknown, the circumstances behind it. By reading Galatians or 1 Corinthians or some other letter, vance as being circumcision and some other we can usually arrive at a reasonable reconstruction of selected aspects (practices) of the Law. [Mirror the problem faced in those congregations. Reading] While such interpretive suggestions Although mirror reading is certainly a valuable tool for are reasonable, there is no direct support for understanding the New Testament letters, it is not the ideas in the text of the letter itself. without its pitfalls. It is possible, for example, to overThe deep irony of Paul’s remarks is that interpret the text or, alternatively, to approach the text with undue selectivity in collecting the data to go into he, a former, zealous Pharisee, undertakes one’s reconstruction of the historical context. One might to upbraid and to warn the Galatians about also mishandle the polemic rhetoric that is so often an their involvement with circumcision and aspect of Paul’s letters. Finally, it is possible to latch Law observance. From his own (seemingly onto particular words or phrases and read them without informed) point of view, Paul realizes and warrant as direct echoes of an opponent’s vocabulary. argues that involvement with the physical For Further Reading rituals of Law observance engages one in John M. G. Barclay, “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: such a way that one is fully obligated to Galatians as a Test Case,” in The Galatians Debate, ed. observe the whole Law. One should note Mark Nanos (Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 2002) 372–76. here that Paul never states, in any of his Nijay K. Gupta, “Mirror-Reading Moral Issues in Paul’s letters, that it is impossible to keep the Letters,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament whole Law—indeed, see Philippians 3:6. At 34/4 (June 2012): 361–81. times interpreters of this passage argue that Paul misrepresents the practice of Law observance in Second Temple Judaism. Such interpreters generally contend that Paul’s statements here reflect more his own Christian understanding of

Galatians 5:1-12

the Torah than that of other known authorities in Second Temple Judaism.10 Nevertheless, one must always keep in mind that Paul’s remarks are directed to the situation in Galatia, to his Jewish Christian opponents there—not toward Judaism. Moreover, to reiterate a point, while Paul says one involved with the Law is obliged to keep the whole Law, he also never says that such meticulous observation of the Law is impossible. Paul is not Martin Luther or any number of his other interpreters who find in the Law an unbearable burden that no one could keep. Paul never speaks this way. His remarks in vv. 2-3 are strongly worded warnings about the particular perils of circumcision and Law observance for the Galatian believers. Now, in v. 4 Paul intensifies his rhetoric, speaking with force to the Galatians by addressing them directly through verbal endings (“you” in second person plural form, 3x) and with pronouns (“those . . . who”; Gk. hoitines), so that he writes, “You . . . those of you who . . . you . . . .” Paul’s pattern of personal address carries much more weight than would statements of general principle.11 The power of Paul’s rhetoric in v. 4 is also intensified by the simplicity and clarity of his statements, which fall into two related declarations in three parts: 4a. You have been parted from Christ, 4b. those of you who seek to be justified by the Law; 4c. you have fallen away from grace. The middle clause (4b: “those of you . . . by the Law”) qualifies the first statement (4a) from a strictly grammatical point of view, but it actually relates to both the preceding (4a) and the following (4c) statements. It points to the heart of the problem in Galatia as Paul sees it: some of the Galatian believers are turning (or have turned) to the Law, looking for justification through Law observance. Paul confronts them and informs them that they have been parted (Gk. katargein)12 from Christ (contrast 1:3-4; 4:6; 5:1), which at the same time means that they have fallen away (Gk. ekpiptein)13 from grace. Here one sees that Paul lines up Christ and grace against justification by the Law. Obviously for some people in the early church, Christ, grace, and the Law did not appear to be incompatible. The outlook of Paul’s opponents who are among the Galatian churches seems to prove this point. Under the tutelage of such persons, the Galatian believers almost certainly did not see themselves as giving up

249

250

Galatians 5:1-12

Christianity; they did not intend to be abandoning Christ—rather, they probably conceived of their adoption of Law observance as something akin to changing denominations.14 Paul, however, holds another line. For him, to seek justification through the Law (“works of the Law”—see 2:16) rather than from faith (5:5) is to miss the reality of justification (being set right with God) altogether. Paul presents Christ and the Law as mutually exclusive. The Galatians appear to be convinced that their allegiance to Christ is salvific only when that devotion is manifested in doing the Law. Paul sees the attempt to couple Christ and the Law (i.e., Law observance) as a denial of the efficacy of the gospel of Christ, an act that divorces from Christ those attempting to hold this dual commitment. Paul says that one cannot subsidize Christ with the Law, for there is no need for a subsidy to God’s all-sufficient grace in Jesus Christ. Adding Law observance to faith in Christ is impossible, and to think that one can do so is to be badly mistaken. Verse 5 is as theologically dense a statement as Paul ever wrote in any of his letters. [Translation of Galatians 5:5] In fact, the weighty theological nature of this verse can lead one to suspect that an Translation of Galatians 5:5 early Jewish Christian confession lies behind the statement. For we ourselves, by the However that may be, after opening the line with Spirit from faith, eagerly await the hope of righteousness. an emphatically employed pronoun, we (Gk. hymeis), Paul continues by employing the nouns Spirit (Gk. pneuma), faith (Gk. pistis), hope (Gk. elpis), and righteousness (Gk. dikaiosyn∑ ), along with the verb to await eagerly (Gk. apekdechesthai ). Moreover, the use of we is noteworthy, since Paul writes of you (second person plural) in vv. 1b-4 and 7-12. The reference to us, however, in v. 1a anticipates a remark from the point of view that Paul takes here in v. 5. Furthermore, what Paul says in v. 5 is hardly fitting, from Paul’s perspective, for all of the Galatians at this time. Commentators note this cluster of concepts and action and speak of Paul’s writing here a résumé, a précis, or dogmatic abbreviations of what he had said earlier in the letter. For this verse, Longenecker delineates the following connections: 1. “by the Spirit” 2. “through faith” 3. “the hope of righteousness that Christians eagerly await”

3:2-5 3:6-18 This undergirds all of Paul’s thought.15

While Paul’s language here does echo his remarks at earlier points in the letter, v. 5 is much more than a mere epitome. Paul speaks

Galatians 5:1-12

quite personally, referring to we ourselves, which is almost certainly a way of speaking about Paul himself and all other believers who take a stance with him in the posture that he names in this verse. This would especially include those believers in Galatia who agreed with Paul’s perspective. Having referred to himself and those with him as the subject of the sentence that makes up v. 5, Paul offers the following statement (which will be considered now in the word order of the Greek text): • In/by the Spirit (Gk. pneumati)—Using the dative case and no definite article, Paul speaks of the Spirit of God (or of the Spirit of God’s Son, 4:6) either as the realm (“in”) or the means (“by”) that affects the believers of whom Paul writes (“we”). See 3:1-5. • From faith (Gk. ek pisteøs)—Here Paul speaks of the place from which, naming the source of that which he refers to in the rest of this sentence. Recent attempts to understand pistis (“faith”) in this verse as a reference to Christ’s own faith seek to add weight to the arguments for reading pistis Christou as an subjective genitive (“Christ’s own faith”) rather than as an objective genitive (“faith in Christ”)—see the discussion above regarding 2:16 and see 3:23-26 as well.16 To read this prepositional phrase ek pisteøs (“from faith”) as a reference to Christ’s own faith/faithfulness is to understand it in a manner consistent with the earlier interpretation of other occurrences of the phrase in chapter 3 (vv. 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 22 [!], 24). • Hope (Gk. elpida)—This is the only place in this letter where Paul speaks of hope. In other letters, especially in Romans 8:18-30, Paul writes at some length about hope, and he does so in a way that makes clear what he means by it. For him, essentially, hope is waiting eagerly that is based on what God has done in relation to creation and what God will yet do. Expectation and trust are major ingredients in Paul’s concept of hope, and it is the Spirit who keeps hope alive. • Of righteousness (Gk. dikaiosyn∑s)—Readers are asked to consult the section of the commentary on 2:15-21 for a discussion of righteousness. In the current context, one should simply recall that for a person to be set into a right relationship with God, by God, is for the person to experience righteousness. What is striking in this mention of righteousness is that Paul speaks of the hope of righteousness, casting righteousness as a future entity. Normally for Paul righteousness is associated with the achievement of God in the cross of Christ and the ethical and forensic transformation of those who believe in Christ in the present (see 2:15-21; 3:21, 24).

251

252

Galatians 5:1-12

Romans 8:19-25 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. For in hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is seen? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. (NRSV)

• We eagerly await (Gk. apekdechometha)— As stated in the comments on hope, hope is eager waiting. To turn the table, to wait eagerly is to hope. The role of the Spirit in this waiting is crucial, for it is not simply left to human beings (believers) to muster and to maintain a hopeful level of confidence in God. As Paul says in this verse, waiting eagerly occurs pneumati (“in or by [or both] the Spirit”). Moreover, this verb (“to wait eagerly”) is regularly used by Paul to speak of a kind of waiting that is pointed toward God’s eschatological act of redemption (Rom 8:19, 23, 25; 1 Cor 1:7). [Romans 8:19-25]

Paul’s statement in v. 5 is clear, although the significant theological concepts with which he is dealing make full comprehension of his remarks difficult. Having examined his language, one may do well to craft a paraphrase of Paul’s declaration in v. 5 as follows: “For we, in the realm of the Spirit and by the Spirit’s power, with the assurance given by faith, in expectation and trust, eagerly wait for God’s setting right that which is contrary to God’s purposes in all creation.” Ernest DeWitt Burton states that v. 6 expresses Paul’s radical concept of the nature of religion; he argues that there is no more important sentence in Galatians or any of Paul’s other letters.17 Burton is not alone in his regard for this verse, so that careful attention to the details of v. 6 seems well advised. Paul opens this sentence with the postpositive particle gar (“indeed” or “for”), which appears to function in this instance as a confirmatory adverb (“indeed”) rather than, as it often does, as an explanatory conjunction (“for”).18 Then, Paul writes “in Christ Jesus” (Gk. Christø I∑sou), an extremely important phrase that recognizes a realm or sphere of new reality that was established by the coming of Christ. This realm is the place where new values are revealed and established. Paul will continue his thought and remarks by focusing on his matters of concern from the perspective, “in Christ Jesus.” Paul’s topic, which is a major concern of Galatians, is the importance or value of circumcision. From what Paul has said so far in the letter, one would expect him to declare the impotence of the rite of circumcision to accomplish anything.19 But Paul does more than that as he continues by declaring the powerlessness of both

Galatians 5:1-12

circumcision and uncircumcision. His remarks are especially noteworthy because they are paralleled in two other places in his writings (see Gal 6:15; 1 Cor 7:19). Comparison of Paul’s strikingly similar statements is helpful for appreciating his declaration in this particular instance. Paul’s comments on (A) Galatians 5:6; (B) Galatians 6:15; and (C) 1 Corinthians 7:19 fall into two broad parts. What follows is a very literal translation of each verse with the verse being identified by the letter (A, B, C) used in the previous sentence. First: (A) Neither circumcision counts as anything nor uncircumcision (B) Neither circumcision is anything nor uncircumcision (C) Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing Second: (A) rather [what counts is] faith working through love (B) rather [what is something is] new creation (C) rather [what is something is] keeping the commandments of God The first clauses of Paul’s statements are quite similar, declaring the worthlessness of both circumcision and uncircumcision. They are so similar in fact that the general wording appears to be a formula for Paul, almost certainly coined by Paul himself and employed in circumstances where circumcision was a controversial topic. The second clauses, however, are not at all nearly the same. Rather, one finds that Paul draws conclusions in these second clauses that are shaped in relation to the situations (historical and literary) that he faced in working with different congregations. And so one sees that much more is at stake than that circumcision and uncircumcision are of no real importance.20 Here in Galatians (5:6 and 6:15), Paul uses this formulaic declaration to announce the demise of an old world where circumcision and uncircumcision marked differences. These recognized differences actually showed the broken nature and spiritual bondage of that world as it was characterized by a way of religious thought that fed and lived off such differences. As stated in Paul’s second clauses in Galatians 5:6 and 6:15, in Christ Jesus one sees the advent of God’s new world (“new creation”) that is itself characterized by faith working through love. This love is mutual love (5:13), and it pervades and distinguishes new creation (6:15) in Christ Jesus from the old world order. Indeed, Paul’s focus on love in v. 6 anticipates both his instructions in 5:13 and the

253

254

Galatians 5:1-12

naming of love as the first characteristic of the fruit of the Spirit that is specified in 5:22. Furthermore, one grammatical issue in v. 6 still awaits recognition (maybe even resolution). The phrase faith working through love (Gk. pistis di’agap∑s energoumen∑) is ambiguous. The participle working (Gk. energoumen∑; from energein) can be read as either a middle or passive voice. Read as a middle voice participle, the word indicates “faith that itself is working through love”; while taken as a passive voice participle, it expresses the idea of “faith that is being made operative by love.” In other words, in the middle voice faith is the doer and in the passive voice love is the one that acts. Commentators differ over the interpretation of this uncertain matter. But, in the overall context of Paul’s thought as known from his letters, one sees that for him, faith is not the agent of love; rather faith is active in love (1 Cor 14:1a). In Christ Jesus faith generates love and through love becomes effective. Christ’s love and God’s sending of the Spirit empower believers to have faith and so to love. Finally, one should note that while Paul’s letters make frequent use of and reference to the words (and concepts of ) faith and love, at no other place (even in 1 Corinthians 13) are faith and love brought into such immediate combination with each other as here. Anguished Observations, 5:7-12 In the same way that he broke off argument at 4:12 in order to make an appeal to the Galatians, so now in 5:7 Paul puts aside the line of reasoning he developed in vv. 2-5 (6) so that he can appeal to his readers on the basis of their positive experience of Christian life prior to the arrival of those who have criticized Paul and his preaching and advocated circumcision and Law observance. Verse 7 engages the Galatians directly. Verse 8 begins to alter the focus of Paul’s remarks. The ensuing verses in this part of the letter have a variety of concerns and styles. Betz observes that vv. 7-12 are formed as a diatribe, a form of discourse characteristic of the speeches of ancient popular philosophers (especially Cynics and Stoics). Betz goes on to write, “Contrasted with the highly condensed section vv 1-5, [vv 7-12 are] freer, appearing like a rambling collection of pointed remarks, rhetorical questions, proverbial expressions, threats, irony, and, climaxing it all, a joke of stark sarcasm.”21 Furthermore, it is instructive to notice that Paul still does not employ verbs in the imperative mood (the form for giving commands that is typically used in parenetic materials) in addressing the Galatians. At this point in the letter, he appears to be bringing the body to a conclusion as he moves into clearly

Galatians 5:1-12

hortatory engagement with his readers. Imperative forms of verbs begin to occur in 5:13. Verse 7 is both Paul’s remembrance of an earlier time and his assessment of the situation in the Galatian churches at the time of his writing. He speaks metaphorically, using images drawn from athletic competition. First, he commends the Galatians for their having run well. Paul employs this image of running with achievement positively in other places in his letters (Gal 2:2; 1 Cor 9:24-26a; Phil 2:16; 3:13-14). Here, however, he expands the idea of mere running by adding the phrase who hindered you? The word translated “to hinder” (Gk. enkoptein) actually indicates “breaking into a race,” “getting in the way,” “cutting in,” or “tripping someone.” It is used here as in the rest of the New Testament in a religious sense.22 Thus, Paul recognizes the good of the Galatians’ former behavior, but then he queries the Galatians about certain undesirable developments. He suggests that someone has impeded their progress and, even worse, someone has hindered them “from obeying the truth” (Gk. al∑theia m∑ peithesthai). Paul’s Greek phrase does not use a definite article with “truth,” which indicates that the word truth is used qualitatively; although there can be no doubt that Paul has in mind “the truth of the gospel” as in 2:5, 14, so that “truth” and “gospel” are synonymous. Paul uses the images of the Galatians running in a race and being tripped by someone cutting in to characterize the situation he faces in Galatia. He feigns surprise as a rhetorical device as he creatively confronts the Galatians for having turned to a message that is other than God’s truth (1:6). Verse 8 is a pointedly sarcastic remark. “This persuasion” (Gk. h∑ peismon∑), Paul writes, using a word that is rare and ambiguous, is theologically illegitimate.23 The word has literal associations with being tied up with cables or, stated more eloquently, being pertinacious. Calling peismon∑ a “persuasion” indicates its quality as empty rhetoric or rhetorical gimmickry.24 Paul regards his adversaries as mere rhetoricians. For the Galatians to acquiesce to such influence is for them to abandon not Paul, but God. Indeed, God is “the one who is calling you” (Gk. tou kalountos hymas). Paul refers to God using the present tense participle, “the one who is calling,” because he recognizes that in the moment of his writing, God was calling the Galatians, exactly as God had called them in the first place (1:6).25 Nevertheless, if the pertinacious persuasion was not from God, then the implication is that it comes from someone/somewhere that is other than God and opposed to God. Some commentators go so far as to state that Paul

255

256

Galatians 5:1-12

sees that “this persuasion” (to which the Galatians have subscribed) is from God’s great adversary, whoever the human agents were who tripped up the Galatians (see 1 Thess 2:18—enekopsen h∑mas ho satanas—“Satan hindered us”).26 Paul observed that the Galatians were doing well in the life of the Spirit (through faith), but somehow someone hindered them, so that they were turning from obeying the truth of God who called them and turning to another message. He uses the imagery of “leaven” (Gk. zym∑ ) and a “lump of dough” (Gk. phypama)— stating that “a little leaven leavens the whole Leaven lump of dough.” [Leaven] By offering this The ancient world knew nothing of small observation, in v. 9 Paul uses a proverbial packets of yeast conveniently available at the saying to warn the Galatians of the danger of local grocery store. Rather, dough was made to rise by mixing in a portion of fermenting dough reserved from the ungodly persuasion that they are entera previous batch. Fermentation was “emblematic of a taining. Paul states this same proverb in process of corruption” (Beck, 105), and thus leaven another context—1 Corinthians 5:6—for the was absolutely prohibited in connection with any sacsame purpose, to warn his readers of the conrifices (Exod 23:18; 34:25). sequences of the error of their attitude and In the New Testament, the teaching of the actions. In 1 Corinthians 5, however, Paul Pharisees and Sadducees is described as leaven (Matt 16:11). Paul appeals to the proverb, “A little leaven introduces this maxim with the words Don’t leavens the whole batch of dough” in both Gal 5:9 and you know [that] (Gk. ouk oidate hoti), a 1 Cor 5:6-8 to warn his readers against giving evil a phrase that probably indicates that he is foothold in their communities. Non-Jewish writers quoting a piece of popular wisdom. He offers made similar connections between leaven and moral no explanation, interpretation, or explicit corruption (see Plutarch, Quaest. Rom. 109; Persius application of the proverb; but its meaning in 1.24) relation to the situation that he faced in H. F. Beck, “Leaven,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. George Arthur Buttrick et al. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962). Galatia is obvious, because the basic sense of the proverb is essentially self-explanatory. Nevertheless, one item regarding Paul’s imagery in this proverb is informative for modern readers of Paul’s maxim, viz., in antiquity leaven was used to symbolize evil and its power of corruption. Thus, this proverbial saying refers to a small but evil influence that, remarkably, comes to affect an entire situation for bad. Verses 8 and 9 deny the validity of a particular perspective and warn about the hindrance recognized in v. 7. In turn, v. 10 speaks a word of confidence and a promise of judgment. Paul begins in an emphatic way, employing the personal pronoun I (Gk. egø), which is unnecessary since the verb to have confidence (Gk. pepoitha from peithein) carries its subject in the personal ending of the verb. “I, myself,” says Paul. Then, he himself states that he has confidence in the Galatians in the Lord. The phrase in the Lord indicates the basis of Paul’s confidence in the Galatians. The Galatians themselves are not the source of Paul’s confidence; rather, he trusts “in the Lord.”

Galatians 5:1-12

This phrase is another way of saying “in Christ” (1:22; 2:17) or “in Christ Jesus” (2:4; 3:14, 26, 28; 5:6); it is not a way of saying “in God.” The phrase in God (Gk. en theø) occurs only once in Paul’s undisputed letters, and there it is coupled with “in the Lord” in a way that makes it clear that “in the Lord” is equal to “in Christ,” not to (of course) “in God” (1 Thess 1:1; compare 2 Thess 1:1). Thus, “in the Lord” Paul has confidence regarding the outcome of the situation among the Galatian churches. The positive result that Paul anticipates is that the Galatians “will not think otherwise,” i.e., they will agree with Paul in what he is thinking. Almost certainly Paul means to refer here to vv. 8-9, especially v. 8. Thus, Paul expresses his confidence in the Lord that the Galatians will see and agree that “this persuasion” is not from God (i.e., “the one calling you,” as in 1:6). What, then, is “this persuasion”? It is the conviction that circumcision and Law observance are necessary for the full and true experience of God’s grace that is now available to Gentiles (through Christ and the Law). In this context, what Paul expects will be the point of agreement between himself and the Galatians is that circumcision and Law observance are not necessary for experiencing God’s grace (2:21; 3:13-14, 21-22; 5:4, 6). After stating his trust in Christ that the circumstances in Galatia will turn out with himself and the Galatians being like-minded (v. 10a), in v. 10b Paul issues a warning that can also be read as an indirect threat. The focus of this threat is “the one causing you confusion” (Gk. ho . . . tarassøn hymas; see 1:7). The reference to a singular figure could be either to a generic referent (to no one in particular, but to an ideal figure who stands for all) or to some leader of the people (plural) “who cause [the Galatians] confusion” (1:7). Later in 5:12 Paul will refer to “the ones upsetting you” (Gk. hoi anastatountes hymas), another plural reference to those advocating circumcision and Law observance among the Galatians. Thus Paul recognizes a group of persons who are preaching circumcision (and Law observance)—see 5:11; and he may also refer to the leader of the group. Be that as it may, Paul promises judgment for the one (or for those) creating confusion for the Galatians. He writes of “the judgment” (Gk. to krima), using a definite article (the) with the word judgment, probably indicating God’s eschatological judgment (5:21; 6:7-9), not merely an earthly church punishment. The final clause in v. 10 speaks again of “the one causing [the Galatians] confusion,” now referring to him (the form hostis is masculine) as “whoever he may be” (Gk. hostis ean ∑). Either Paul did

257

258

Galatians 5:1-12

Translation of Galatians 5:7-10 7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion is not from the one who is calling you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough. 10 I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will not think otherwise; but the one causing you confusion will bear the judgment, whoever he may be.

not know the name or he preferred to avoid it, although the clause is probably meant to be sarcastic. Paul connects by contrast (Gk. de = a weak form of “but”) his remarks in v. 11 with the foregoing series of statements in vv. 7-10. Still, the clauses (or sentences) of this verse are not joined in an apparent way with anything that went before or comes after these remarks. [Translation of Galatians 5:7-10] Moreover, having studied these lines carefully, many commentators readily admit that the meaning of Paul’s sentences may be beyond our comprehension. Paul’s remarks comprise (1) an address to the Galatians, (2) two clauses (one of which is a question) forming a conditional statement, and (3) a connected confirmatory sentence related to the previous remarks.27 He writes, 1. Brothers and sisters, 2a. if I myself still proclaim circumcision, 2b. why am I still persecuted? 3. Then, the scandal of the cross has ceased to be an obstacle.

First, we see that Paul addresses the Galatians using familiar family language (“brothers and sisters”) that he has used and will use throughout the letter (1:11; 3:15; 4:12, 28, 31; 5:11, 13; 6:1, 18). His warm regard for the Galatian congregants shows through, despite his sharp rhetoric in other parts of the letter (e.g., 5:2-7). Second, the two uses of the word still (Gk. eti) are a significant factor in the problem of understanding Paul’s statements in this verse. The first use of “still” (Gk. eti)—in 2a above—with the verb to proclaim (Gk. k∑ryssein) seems at the plainest level of understanding to indicate that Paul had at some point previously preached circumcision. But when? Most interpreters contend that any preaching of circumcision that Paul would have done would have taken place during his pre-Christian life.28 In turn, the second use of “still” (eti )—in 2b above—can be read to mean that Paul had been and was being persecuted. Such experience formed part of Paul’s Christian life, but is it possible that persecution occurred during Paul’s pre-Christian period? Some interpreters read both uses of eti as a particular kind of temporal usage, so that they understand all of Paul’s remarks here to relate to his pre-Christian life and activities. But many other commentators argue against reading both uses of eti in a temporal fashion. They contend that such a reading is impossible because it implies that preaching circumcision and experiencing persecution

Galatians 5:1-12

were both part of Paul’s experience in his pre-Christian days, whereas in his pre-Christian days there would have been no persecution for advocating circumcision. Thus, other interpreters maintain that the first occurrence of eti is “temporal” (“I am still preaching”) while the second use is “logical” (“I am despite this fact persecuted”). In turn, another group of commentators reads the first use of eti as “additive” (“if from time to time I preach circumcision”) and the second as “temporal” (“why am I still persecuted”). Then, there are those scholars who do read both uses of eti as temporal usages, but who read with more nuance than was present in the suggestion noted above concerning the interpretation of both uses of eti as temporal.29 Put into the form of an amplified paraphrase, one can hear Paul say (taking both uses of eti as temporal): But I, brothers and sisters, if I still proclaim circumcision (as I did before my calling to preach Christ among the Gentiles), Why am I still persecuted (as I am and have been ever since I began to preach Christ and him crucified with no reference to observance of the Law)? Then, the scandal of the cross has ceased to be an obstacle (as it would cease to be if I proclaimed Christ and the Law together as compatible and complementary).

It is, however, true that readers will never know with absolute certainly whether Paul is replying to some false accusation, responding to a charge that was in part true, or simply developing an argument in which he aimed through sheer rhetoric to move the Galatians in the direction that he would have them go. Despite all efforts at determining what Paul means to say, his remarks remain enigmatic. Third, at this point Paul speaks of “the scandal” of the cross. The word scandal in Greek is skandalon, so that the roots of the English word are in the Greek itself. The word scandal carries into English something of the sense of the Greek word skandalon. Originally skandalon30 referred to the stick used in a trap, and then it came to designate the trap. In Paul’s use, the word skandalon is probably meant to name a “stumbling block,” i.e., something that would trip one up. The word had its origin in relation to literal things, but it came to have metaphorical use to refer to something that gave offense, caused embarrassment, provoked resentment, or aroused opposition. [Paul’s Use of Skandalon] Interpreters generally conclude that the phrase the scandal of the cross is of Pauline coinage, since it is not found elsewhere independently and it manifests Paul’s language

259

260

Galatians 5:1-12

and theological perspective. Thus, Paul writes that where (especially among Gentiles) circumcision is practiced and Law observance is understood to be a necessary part of the experience of God’s grace, the scandal of the cross “has ceased to be an obstacle” (or perhaps more literally, “has been abolished” or “has been rendered inopRomans 11:9: “And David says, ‘Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution erative”). The verb that Paul uses, katagein for them.’” (“to nullify”), has already occurred in 3:17 and 5:4 (it occurs in other of Paul’s letters). Romans 14:13: “Let us therefore no longer pass judgIn Paul’s writings, the word consistently has ment on one another, but resolve instead never to put religious significance, a characteristic of a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another.” Paul’s use of this verb that is almost exclusive Romans 16:17: “I urge you, brothers and sisters, to to Paul.31 keep an eye on those who cause dissensions and Paul’s remarks here relate particularly offenses, in opposition to the teaching that you have to the attempt to add the practice of circumlearned; avoid them.” cision and the observance of the Law to the gospel (the message of the saving signifi1 Corinthians 1:23: “but we proclaim Christ crucified, a cance of Jesus’ death—1:3-5; 2:21; 3:13-14, stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.” 21-22; 4:4-5). In this instance, as F. F. Galatians 5:11: “But my friends, why am I still being Bruce32 writes, one reasons that “if I myself persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision? In that can make some small contribution, somecase the offense of the cross has been removed.” thing even so small as the acceptance of circumcision, then my self-esteem is uninjured.” For Paul, the cross of Christ undercuts every human attempt to add personal achievement or merit to God’s own achievement of salvation in Jesus Christ. Thus, one might also observe (though Bruce does not) that “something even so small” could be “faith” as easily as is could be “the acceptance of circumcision.” Paul writes emphatically in v. 12, signaling his insistence with the postpositive adverbial use of kai (“indeed”).33 What he is insistent about is the wish (“I wish”; Gk. ophelon) that he has for those outsiders in Galatia who are upsetting the members of the churches that Paul had founded by introducing and insisting on circumcision and Law observance. Paul’s statement here has the ring of a sarcastic joke. Many readers after Paul’s own time have found the comment distasteful, even inappropriate, so that one wonders how this ironic wish would have impressed Paul’s first readers. However that may be, it is always necessary to remind oneself that Paul did not know that he was writing Scripture. His “joke” is risqué, although it takes its force from the clear relationship between the Paul’s Use of Skandalon Paul uses the word skandalon in the following verses: Romans 9:33: “. . . as it is written, ‘See, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make people stumble, a rock that will make them fall, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.’” (cf. 1 Pet 2:8)

Galatians 5:1-12

circumcision that his adversaries were advocating and the castration that Paul wishes for those opponents to perform on themselves. Paul’s language expresses his own disapproval of the practice of emasculation (and of ) circumcision of Gentile believers by implication). The practice of castration would have been repugnant both to his readers and to his opponents, though those adversaries were themselves advocating circumcision (see Deut 23:1-8—although compare Isa 56:4-5).34 Furthermore, in the history of interpretation, not all readers of Paul’s remarks in 5:12 have taken him to be referring to castration. The tendency among Latin (in contrast to Greek) interpreters was to understand Paul to be speaking about withdrawal from the church, not self-mutilation.35 While that explanation is not impossible, the context and the style of the remark make it far more likely that Paul’s statement is both sarcastic and off-color.36 Whatever Paul means by this wish, he expresses it with a grammatical form that indicates that he sees the wish as attainable (“I wish”; Gk. ophelon + future tense).37 In turn, Paul refers to those promoting circumcision as “the ones upsetting you.” The phrase “the ones upsetting” (Gk. hoi anastatountes), which was a way of referring to common political agitators and rabble-rousers, was used in Paul’s day to caricature and discredit one’s opponents.38 This manner of allusion (“the ones upsetting”) is a stronger negative way of referring to the same people that Paul mentioned in 1:7 (“certain people who cause you confusion”) and 5:10 (“the one causing you confusion”). Finally, while it is not at all likely that the Galatian believers were involved in this cult, the temple of the great mother-goddess Cybele39 was located in Pessinus,40 a city in Roman Galatia. Emasculated priests called galli served the goddess and her cult. [Attis and Cybele] These castrated priests were not Paul’s opponents in the Galatian churches, as is plain from the overarching concern with Law observance that is the larger issue of which circumcision is but a part. Nevertheless, in his crude wish Paul brings circumcision and castration together in such a way that a question is raised about the legitimacy of both forms of religion. Certainly for Paul both circumcision and castration did not amount to anything— both were, however, practices that expressed confidence in human effort to evoke approval from God/the gods by means of correctly executed prescribed religious activities. With his own confidence in what God had done in the cross of Christ, Paul had no place for such religious practices as either circumcision or castration. For him, these religious procedures were but deadly distractions from the truth of the gospel.

261

262

Galatians 5:1-12

Attis and Cybele The myth of Cybele and her mortal consort, Attis, exists in several forms. Every version recounts the circumstances under which Attis was led to castrate himself—either willingly or unwillingly. In many of these myths, the castration results in the death of Attis. The castration is etiological in most accounts: an explanation for why Cybele’s priests, called galli, were castrated (Ferguson, 225–27). (In ancient times, people sometimes applied folk etymology to identify the galli with the Galli [Gauls] or Galatae [Galatians], but this is highly questionable. The word seems to be ultimately of Akkadian or Sumerian origin.) A number of interpretations of the ritual have been proposed. It may have originally been associated with fertility magic. The castration may also have been seen as a blood sacrifice intended for either purification or expiation. Later, the act may have signified the initiate priest’s mythic identification with Attis. Ferguson believes, however, that there are stronger grounds for seeing the ritual as an act of assimilation to Cybele herself since the galli not only emasculated themselves but also assumed female dress and let their hair grow long like a woman’s (228). Ferguson concludes, Whatever ideas were later incorporated, the most probable explanation of the castration is that the sacerdotal function implied continence during the charge (the idea was not moral but ritual purity). The voluntary eunuch was always in the required state of purity. However, this does not apply to the higher priesthood, who administered the temples, for they were not castrated. (228)

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Anonymous Greek sculptor. Attis, companion of the Goddess Cybele, who, in a fit of orgiastic frenzy, is said to have emasculated himself. Hellenistic bronze. Head added in the 17th C. From “Les Bronzes de la Couronne,” the collection of Louis XIV. Louvre. Paris, France. (Credit: Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY)

Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1987).

CONNECTIONS Free but Not Unrestrained (5:1)

The word “freedom” is music to the ears of many regardless of their spiritual stance. For Paul, however, true freedom is also part of the birthright that every Christian must claim. We have been set free so that we might live free. It is a tragedy for anyone to submit again to slavery having tasted freedom in Christ. Many Christians, especially in the free-church tradition, cherish a heritage of asserting freedom to study the Bible, worship, and work for the kingdom of God according to the dictates of conscience and not the narrow constraints of some remote ecclesiastical authority.

Galatians 5:1-12

Christian freedom has a downside, however. Too often freedom to follow one’s conscience in serving God degenerates into freedom to mishandle the Bible, thumb our noses at fellow believers, and do as we jolly well please. How unlike Paul! “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free,” he writes (5:1). But no one should use freedom as an excuse to throw morality out the window: “But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature” (v. 13). Christians must try to strike a balance between legalistic rules and rank lawlessness. As we see in this chapter, the key for Paul was not more rules but more love. Love for Christ, and love for each other in Christ’s name, restrains godless behavior without promoting fixation on legal observance. The Hope of Righteousness (5:2-6)

Paul continues in chapter 5 to combat legal observance by Gentile Christians. At the same time, he sets forth a plan to resist the opposite error of moral permissiveness. Through the Spirit and by faith, Paul says, “we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness” (v. 5). Paul is no less concerned with righteousness (which involves right living, justice, morals, ethics, etc.) than anyone. He is certainly as concerned with the subject as the Galatian interlopers, and he is not willing to concede to them any deficiency in this area on his part. If Paul agrees with his opponents that righteousness is important, the two are worlds apart on the nature and source of that righteousness. Paul emphatically rejects the claim that observance of the Law has anything to do with true righteousness before God. What those who have become infatuated with circumcision fail to realize is that this is only the first demand of the Law. A cafeteria approach to the Law is ultimately a denial and a mockery. If one is in for the “penny” of circumcision, one is in for the “pound” of the entire law (v. 3; see also Jas 2:10-11). There can be no middle ground, Paul asserts. Those who want to be justified by the Law have, in fact, cut themselves off from Christ. They have fallen away from grace (v. 4). This is a hard word. It is, perhaps, even harder for those who grew up firmly convinced of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (or its watered-down cousin, “eternal security,” or its insipid second cousin twice removed, “once saved, always saved”). Is Paul truly saying that the Galatians’ salvation is in jeopardy because of their fascination with Law observance? That seems to be a question that Paul is not answering here. He is not addressing questions of perseverance or security in one’s

263

264

Galatians 5:1-12

salvation in this verse but rather the basis on which one is saved in the first place. We hear in this verse an echo of Paul’s rhetorical tour de force in 3:1-5, where he probed the Galatians as to the basis of their receiving the Spirit: was it by works or by faith? If it is the first, the second is superfluous—and vice versa. Paul concludes that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision are of any real importance (v. 6). This declaration—quite bold given the Apostle’s history and context—raises the issue of adiaphora or matters of indifference. Simply put, what is worth fighting about and what isn’t? Here, Paul sets circumcision firmly in the second category. And yet Paul has written a lengthly letter fighting about circumcision! If neither circumcision nor uncircumcision are important, it is terribly important for Paul that the Galatians do not give in to the pressure to accept circumcision. If they make this important, it becomes important—and not in a good way. Several scholars have noted that Paul seems to have believed (and based his mission to the Gentiles) in numerous Old Testament passages that anticipate a time when “the nations” would turn to the God of Israel (e.g., Ps 67; Isa 2:2-3; 60:1-7; Mic 4:1-2; Zech 8:22-23; see also Matt 8:11). These passages depict Gentiles coming to God as Gentiles, without first becoming Jews. If that is, in fact, how Paul saw things, one can easily see why Gentile circumcision was problematic for Paul and how he could claim that, in the end, it didn’t matter to God whether men were circumcised (and Jewish) or uncircumcised (and Gentile). Circumcision marks a boundary that no longer exists in Christ. The only thing that ultimately matters, Paul says, is faith working through love (v. 6). Here is the beginning of the Apostle’s moral instruction. Faith is not something abstract or otherworldly. It is something that has implications for life in the here and now. Faith is the impulse that leads us to love one another. Blunt Rhetoric (5:7-12)

In these verses, Paul drops all pretense of diplomacy. His rhetoric is blunt if not crude. “Who prevented you?” in v. 7 is more literally “Who cut in (enekopsen) on you?” This is likely a deliberate pun anticipating his harsh wish in v. 12 that those who are unsettling the Galatian believers would castrate (apokopsontai) themselves. Whoever it is who has become an obstacle in their path is surely not of God, nor does his (or their) rhetoric line up with God’s calling on their lives (v. 8). The Galatians must be careful around

Galatians 5:1-12

such people lest they become a corrupting influence on their faith (v. 9). Even so, Paul expresses confidence in v. 10 that the Galatians will come back to his way of thinking. Having read this far, one is tempted to wonder if this confidence is misplaced. It certainly seems as if Paul’s back is against the wall. It would be no small feat to convince a group of male Gentile believers of the necessity of circumcision. The interlopers must have been persuasive speakers indeed! Nevertheless, Paul expresses hope that the crisis has not yet reached the point of no return. The one who is leading them astray, whoever he may be (v. 10), will be judged by God in the end. Paul’s reticence to name the person or persons who are confusing the Galatians may be sarcasm. Paul likely knows exactly who is responsible for this tragedy and, by refusing to name names, dismisses their authority in the same way he dismissed the titles and honorifics attached to the Jerusalem “pillar” apostles in chapter 2.

Notes 1. The complex textual tradition of 5:1 is thought to be the result largely of the lack of a connecting particle, the absence of which brought about the various attempts of scribes to cope with this seeming grammatical infelicity—see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2d ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft/United Bible Societies, 1994) 528. 2. Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 256. 3. Betz, Galatians, 255. 4. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1982) 226—see also p. 214. 5. Betz, Galatians, 255. 6. J. Louis Martyn, Galatians (AB 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997) 447; and see Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1920) §1531. 7. See Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC 41; Thomas Nelson, 1990) 223–24. 8. Smyth §2964. 9. Betz, Galatians, 259. 10. For a discussion of this matter, see both Bruce, Galatians, 230 and Longenecker, Galatians, 227. 11. Ernest DeWitt Burton, Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1920) 275.

265

266

Galatians 5:1-12 12. LSJ, 908. 13. LSJ, 516. 14. Betz, Galatians, 261. 15. Longenecker (Galatians, 229) continues to point to connections between the elements of v. 6a and earlier portions of the letter. 16. H.-S. Choi, “PISTIS in Galatians 5:5-6: Neglected Evidence for the Faithfulness of Christ,” JBL 124 (2005): 467–90. 17. Burton, Galatians, 279. 18. See Smyth §§2803–12. 19. Martyn, Galatians, 472. 20. Ibid., 472. 21. Betz, Galatians, 264. 22. Gustav Stählin, “enkop∑, enkoptø,” TDNT 3:855–57. 23. Rudolf Bultmann, “peismon∑,” TDNT 6:9; LSJ, 1356. 24. Betz, Galatians, 265. 25. Pace Bruce (Galatians, 234), who writes that the present tense is used here (as in Rom 9:11; 1 Thess 2:12 [?]; 5:24) because there is no emphasis on the time in which God called them as there is in 1:6. 26. Bruce, Galatians, 234; Stählin, TDNT 3:856–57. 27. Smyth §2787. 28. For a different understanding of Paul’s remark, see Douglas A. Campbell, “Galatians 5.11: Evidence of an Early Law-observant Mission by Paul?” NTS 57 (2011): 325–47. 29. Frank J. Matera, Galatians (SP 9; Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 1992) 184. 30. Gustav Stählin, “skandalon,” TDNT 7:352–55. 31. Gerhard Delling, “katarge ,” TDNT 1:452–54. 32. Bruce, Galatians, 238. 33. Smyth §2881. 34. Richard L. Gordon, “eunuchs,” OCD, 569. 35. Longenecker, Galatians, 233. 36. D. F. Tolmie, “The Interpretation and Translation of Galatians 5:12,” AcT 29 (2009): 86–102. 37. Smyth §§1781, 1818, 1913; LSJ, 1277. Some few interpreters have argued that the grammar here is that of an unattainable wish—see François Vouga, An die Galater (HNT 10; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998) 126. 38. Betz, Galatians, 270. 39. Francis Redding Walton and John Scheid, “Cybele,” OCD, 416–17. 40. Stephen Mitchell, “Pessinus,” OCD, 1148.

Part Two: Freedom—The Spirit and the Law 5:13–6:10

Life in the Spirit Galatians 5:13-26

COMMENTARY Interpreters widely regard Galatians 5:13–6:10 as the final (often called “the third”) major portion of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. They frequently refer to these verses as parenesis or exhortation. What they mean by that designation, however, differs from one scholar to the next. First, there are commentators who do not think that this portion of the letter is a part of Paul’s original writing. These scholars contend that the entire parenetic section is a later addition by an editor who attached completely unrelated materials to Paul’s own letter. Few interpreters follow this line of exposition. Second, still other scholars see 5:13–6:10 as an original part of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. They judge the material in this section to be “parenesis,” which they define as generally ethical material that is strung together loosely without any Parenesis real regard for order or any particular Parenesis (or paraenesis) means exhortasituation. [Parenesis] Thus, the parenesis tion, advice, or counsel. The term is used of Galatians 5–6 is Pauline, though it in form criticism to denote “a text containing a is not specifically focused on the cirseries of admonitions, usually ethical and eclectic cumstances that Paul faced in Galatia in nature and without any reference to concrete situations” (Soulen, 140). In many Pauline letters, and addressed in Galatians 1:1–5:12. the Apostle follows his theological discussion Interpreters differ over the validity of with parenesis, exhorting believers to live out the this understanding of Paul’s parenesis, implications of the doctrinal groundwork previalthough most scholars no longer find ously laid. this interpretation persuasive because of Richard N. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 2d ed. (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981) 140. the noticeable number of thematic parallels between Galatians 1:1–5:12 and 5:13–6:18. For example, on the Spirit see 3:2, 3, 5, 14; 4:6, 29; 5:5, 16, 17, 18, 22, 25; 6:8—and on the Law see 2:16, 19, 21; 3:2, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24; 4:4, 5, 21; 5:3, 4, 14, 18, 23; 6:2, 13. Third, another group of scholars sees Paul fighting on two fronts in his letter to the Galatians. In the earlier part(s) of the letter

270

Galatians 5:13-26

(1:1–5:12), Paul is said to be opposing a pronounced tendency toward nomism, i.e., he denies the efficacy of Law observance as a sufficient means of establishing or maintaining a relationship with God. In turn, these scholars say that at 5:13 Paul takes a new direction in his letter. There, rather than confronting nomism, Paul is understood to be standing in opposition to a form of libertinism that either came from or that may come from a misunderstanding that his message about freedom means removal of restrictions against immorality. Paul admonishes the Galatians to avoid such misconduct. Instead, he advocates service to one another through love. Several minor variations of this construal appear in the works of a significant number of interpreters. Fourth, yet other scholars have, in a variety of ways, attempted to see 5:13–6:10 as an integral part of the letter by relating aspects of the parenesis to the issues addressed by Paul in 1:1–5:12. Above all, John M. G. Barclay1 has shown that 5:13–6:10 demonstrates its place in the overall construction of the letter. This parenetic section of Paul’s writing emphasizes the role and importance of the Spirit in the lives of believers and warns against moral dangers that come from the misuse of Christian freedom. Rather than seeing Paul fighting on two fronts, Barclay observes that Paul advances his earlier arguments regarding the situation in the Galatian churches. Barclay points out that Paul furthers his argument against the Law (5:18, 23b) while giving the Galatians assurance of the sufficiency of the Spirit for giving moral direction to life (5:16-18a, 22-23a, 25; 6:8b). Those arguments address both the place of Gentile believers in the life of the church and the role of the Spirit in the lives of believers. Thus, in 5:13–6:10 one sees Paul using ethical admonition in order to make and establish the same basic points that he advanced in 1:1–5:12. While Barclay’s analysis seems correct regarding the role of parenesis in Galatians, a close look at this section of the letter finds that it comprises a variety of statements that are not all simply hortatory in form or character.2 In fact, in this part of the letter Paul communicates through deliberative rhetoric that is only sometimes exhortation, whereas in other places it is descriptive of the situation faced by the Galatians at the time of Paul’s writing. Noting where Paul employs verbs of command is a helpful way to observe the character of his various remarks. See [Verbs of Command and Exhortation]. As is evident in this table, the so-called “hortatory” or “parenetic” section of Paul’s letter to the Galatians is a mixture of verbs expressing actuality (indicative) and intention (imperative and hortatory subjunctive). These distinct kinds of verbs occur in

Galatians 5:13-26

271

discernable portions of Paul’s Verbs of Command and Exhortation remarks. In Galatians 5:13-16 The following table charts the occurrence of Paul’s use of verbs of command and exhortation: one finds statements that employ verbs that issue commands. There, Paul uses 5:13-15 v. 13, implied imperative: “do not ____” (m∑ ____); imperative: imperative verbs to communi“become slaves” (douleuete) cate his admonitions. Then, in v. 14, future as imperative: “love” (agap∑seis)* Galatians 5:17-24 Paul disv. 15, imperative: “take care” (blepete) cusses ways of living in the community of faith. As he 5:16-26 5:16-24 comments on this topic, he v. 16, imperative: “walk” (peripateite) discusses pertinent matters (vv. 17-24, all verbs are indicative) using only indicative verbs. In 5:25-26 turn, in Galatians 5:25–6:10 v. 25, hortatory subjunctive: “let us direct” (stoichømen)** Paul again uses a series of v. 26, hortatory subjunctive: “let us not be” (m∑ ginømetha) imperative and hortatory subjunctive verbs as he seeks 6:1-5 v. 1, imperative: “restore” (katartizete) through exhortation to direct v. 2, imperative: “bear” (bastazete) the Galatians in their life as v. 4, imperative: “let . . . put . . . to the test” (dokimazetø) churches. The verbs that Paul uses 6:6-10 v. 6, imperative: “let . . . share” (koinøneitø) (in 5:13–6:10) seem to indiv. 7, imperative: “make no mistake” (m∑ planasthe) cate that in the overall section v. 9, hortatory subjunctive: “let us not be weary” (m∑ egkakømen) of his “practical” or “pastoral” v. 10, hortatory subjunctive: “let us work” (ergazømetha) remarks, he not only issues commands, as one would *Note that Smyth [§1917] refers to the “jussive future.” Daniel B. expect in parenetic material, Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids MI: but also discusses matters of Zondervan, 569–70) writes of the “imperatival future.” importance for the Galatians in **See also Smyth §§1797–99; Wallace, Grammar, 464–65. a more explicitly deliberative style3 (especially 5:17-24) than would be seen in his merely giving orders. With this mixture of genuinely hortatory remarks (5:13-16, 25-26; 6:1-10) and lines of descriptive (though deliberative) material (5:17-24; 6:3, 5, 8), one needs to recognize the different tones and purposes of Paul’s statements in order to give him an accurate hearing. Freedom and Its Opportunities, 5:13-15

Paul begins 5:13 with the postpositive word for (Gk. gar), which may simply connect v. 13 to what went before in v. 12 as an explanation for the earlier statement, or mark a step in logical progression so that it signals the beginning of a new line of

272

Galatians 5:13-26

thought, or formulate an epitome of what went before it in an unspecified number of lines of text. Different translations of the Greek text present one or another of these options. But the word for in this instance does not introduce an explanation of Paul’s remark in 5:12. Nor does it seem to epitomize Paul’s argumentative reasoning in 5:2-11(12). Rather, the reader should take Paul’s use of “for” as an indication that he is moving in a new, logically progressive direction. Moreover, Paul addresses the Galatians in a striking manner. His first word in the sentence is you in the plural form. The word is emphatic, showing Paul’s intensity and focus. Similarly, later in this verse Paul addresses the Galatians directly as “brothers and sisters” (Gk. adelphoi—lit., “brothers”). This salutation is both familiar and affectionate language, borrowed from the life of a family, so that Paul metaphorically expresses his regard for the Galatians as if they were members of his own family. Coming after the harsh words of 5:12, it is striking that this form of address assumes a warm regard for one another between Paul and the Galatians. Clearly his coarse wish in 5:12 was not intended for the members of the Galatian congregations; rather he spoke about the outsiders who had come among the Galatians advocating Law observance. Furthermore, Paul tells the Galatians, evidently only reminding them, that they “were called to freedom.” Here, the words of 5:13 echo the statement of Paul in 5:1a (“For freedom Christ has set us free”), although it is worth noticing that in 5:1a Christ was the actor, whereas in 5:13a (“For you yourselves were called to freedom”) the unnamed, assumed actor who called the Galatians was apparently God (see 1:6). Thus, we see both Christ and God involved with the liberation of the Galatians from the forces that had held them in captivity. In turn, one seemingly small matter in this first clause of 5:13 presents a puzzle for interpretation and translation. In the phrase For you yourselves were called to freedom, the words to freedom translate the Greek phrase ep’ eleutheria, which may be rendered in English in a variety of ways. The Greek phrase, like the English translation (“to freedom”), comprises two words, a preposition and a noun. The Greek preposition epi (which is shortened through contraction with the Greek noun eleutheria) can, in this use (with a dative object), be translated “on, at, in; with, by, near; over; because of, on the basis of; to, for; against; in addition to; about, concerning; of, from.”4 Translators, however, typically present two ways of rendering the preposition in this case: to and for. “For” has, in English, the advantage of matching most translations of 5:1a (“For freedom . . .”), although in Greek the

Galatians 5:13-26

preposition epi does not occur in 5:1a. Nevertheless, “for” here is understood to mean “for this reason.” On the other hand, “to” expresses a different quality from “for”; above all, it denotes space and is a function word that indicates “motion toward” a being or thing. “For” expresses the reason for and responds to the query Why? “To” expresses motion toward and responds to the query Whither? For and to are not equivalent. For freedom indicates the purpose of God’s call, while to freedom indicates the sphere to which God calls. One might ask, what difference does it make? Quite a large one. Is freedom a human experience, resulting from God’s call, or is freedom a divine realm into which God calls believers? In Paul’s apocalyptically structured worldview, human beings are almost certainly called to freedom under the sovereignty of God. Having informed or reminded the Galatians of God’s call to freedom, Paul continues with an enigmatic clause that literally says, “only do not this freedom an opportunity for the flesh” (Gk. monon m∑ t∑n eleutherian eis aphorm∑n t∑ sarki). As is often the case with sentences using “only” (monon) and “not” (m∑), one must supply a verb to complete the thought being expressed. In this instance, it should be some form of a command, almost certainly an imperative verb. Commentators have suggested verbs such as have, make, turn, use, convert. Any of these will work to fill out the thought that Paul is expressing, although a form of “to become” (ginesthai)—here, let . . . become—may be the simplest resolution of the matter, so that one understands Paul to be saying, “do not let this freedom become . . . .”5 In this second clause of v. 13, freedom occurs with a definite article, referring to the previous anarthrous (without an article) occurrence of eleutheria (“freedom”) in the first clause of the sentence. This usage is anaphoric—that is, the second use of “freedom” with an article points back to the first use without an article, so that one is to understand the occurrence of “freedom” with the article (lit., “the freedom”) to mean “this freedom.” Thus, Paul’s grammar indicates that the freedom to which he refers here is the same freedom to which the Galatians were called by God in the first place. Paul does not say, “Don’t abuse your freedom”; he tells the Galatians not to misuse the freedom to which God called them at first. Obviously, then, it is possible for believers to abuse the very freedom of God. In other words, as one sees here and as one will see in what follows, having been freed from enslavement to the Law and the Elements of the Universe, the Galatians are now warned by Paul of the danger of becoming enslaved once more, but now to

273

274

Galatians 5:13-26

the Flesh (about which he will write more in the ensuing lines of the letter). Paul warns the Galatians that in freedom, there can potentially be “an opportunity” (Gk. aphorm∑) “for the Flesh” (Gk. t∑ sarki). Paul’s word opportunity is striking, because in its original usage it meant a military base of operations from which attacks could be launched.6 By Paul’s time the word came to be used to mean “an opportunity.” It is worth noting that while Paul can use this word in an apparently neutral way (2 Cor 5:12—“we are giving you an opportunity to boast on our behalf ”), twice in Romans he writes of “Sin taking an opportunity through the commandment” (Rom 7:8, 11). Here in Galatians Paul uses the word with a decidedly negative force. He refers to “an opportunity for the Flesh” in the same way that he speaks of “Sin taking an opportunity” in order to work wickedness. Moreover, in his remark in v. 13 Paul employs this phrase (literally): “only not this freedom into an opportunity for the Flesh.” Paul’s use of “into” (Gk. eis) presents an awkward construction for those translating his remarks into English. Nevertheless, while one must look for ways to render Paul’s Greek into good English, we should note that “into” occurs between “freedom” and “opportunity” = “freedom into opportunity”; so that we see the implication of Paul’s remark that freedom can be turned into something else—in this instance among the Galatians, into something that is not good. Paul’s reference here to the Flesh is the first of several uses of the term in a new way (see 5:13, 16, 17 [2x], 19, 24; and in the second use in 6:8) that differs from the way that he has used it up to this point (see 1:16; 2:16, 20; 3:3; 4:13, 14, 23, 29—and 6:12, 13). Some interpreters consider this occurrence (and several of those that follow it) to be Paul’s use of a personified or semi-personified term.7 Prior to this point in the letter, Paul has used the word flesh (Gk. sarx) to mean something like “merely human,” “a person,” “human existence,” or “body.” Now, however, Paul speaks of the Flesh in such a way that one perceives the Flesh acting somehow inappropriately, lusting, effecting the vices that Paul refers to as “the works of the Flesh” (5:19-21), and in part yielding corruption to those who have so sown. Paul’s references to the Flesh are not simply a colorful way to talk about evil, nor are they merely instances of personification regarding the corruption of human nature; these references are not simply another way for Paul to talk about sin, nor are they merely expressions of aspects of humanity’s ethical failings. Here, going beyond any prior point in the letter, Paul personifies the Flesh. According to Paul, the Flesh can take opportunity in the freedom to which the Galatians were called by God to bring

Galatians 5:13-26

about, through abuse and misuse of that freedom, results contrary to God’s purpose in granting that freedom. This remark by Paul concerning the Flesh anticipates his further statements regarding the Flesh in the remainder of chapter 5 and the beginning of chapter 6. [Paul’s Usage of Sarx]

275

Paul’s Usage of Sarx Paul uses the Greek word sarx (“flesh”) to refer to at least six different things: 1. The physical matter that makes up the bodies of animals and humans (e.g., 1 Cor 15:39, 50; 2 Cor 12:7; Gal 1:16; cf. 2 Cor 3:3). 2. The human body itself (e.g., 1 Cor 6:16; 2 Cor 7:1, 5 [?]; Gal 4:13-14; 6:13). 3. Humanity, either the human race or an individual human person (e.g., Rom 3:20; 8:3 [?]; 1 Cor 1:29; Gal 2:16). 4. The morally neutral sphere of natural human existence (e.g., Rom 1:3; 4:1; 9:3, 5, 8; 1 Cor 7:28 [?]; 10:18; Gal 2:20; 4:23 [?], 29 [?]; Phil 1:22, 24). 5. The morally negative sphere in opposition to God’s value system (e.g., 1 Cor 1:26; 2 Cor 1:17; 5:16; 10:2; 11:18; Gal 6:12; Phil 3:3-4). 6. Rebellious human nature (e.g., Rom 7:5; 8 passim; 1 Cor 5:5; Gal 3:3; 5–6 passim).

Nevertheless, one interpreter has observed (in a way that is typical of much of the interpretation of “the Flesh” in Paul’s writings) that Paul speaks of the flesh not as a culprit but as the captive of sin. While there may be some validity in that reflection, the understanding seems to have the liability of too closely associating “flesh” with human nature, so that “flesh” is taken to mean an aspect of humanity’s sinful nature or even humanity’s ethical failings. Paul’s picture of the Flesh is harsher than that. For Paul, the Flesh looms large. It is practically on a For the understanding of sarx in the commentary, par with Sin, though Paul never makes such an see pp. 274–75. equation in any of his written remarks. For Paul, the Flesh takes advantage of opportunities, Richard J. Erickson, “Flesh,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne et al. (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, even opportunities that are created by freedom. 1993). Along these lines, commenting “On Paul’s Anthropology,” Ernst Käsemann writes of “the contrast of spirit and flesh in which Paul thinks the whole world and even the Christian community has been entangled since Christ.” Käsemann refers “to the technical use of ‘flesh’ in dualistic antithesis to the divine Spirit” and says that in Paul’s technical use, the “flesh” is “a hostile active power, opposed per se to the divine Spirit and struggling against it for mastery of the world. We meet this radicalization in Gal. 5.16ff . . . .”8 Thus, “sarx [flesh] not only appears as a power but is also personified.” Moreover, for Käsemann, en sarki (in the flesh) means “standing in, as it were, a cosmic sphere” and kata sarka (according to the flesh) “expresses the influence of a cosmic power.” With regard to Galatians, Käsemann says, “Spirit and flesh are here set over the human being in such a sharp dualism that [the human being] does not appear as the subject but as the object of the struggle between two worlds.”9 For Paul, human beings are not autonomously free individuals (see Phil 2:12-13, in Greek, not in the NRSV), so that freedom that is only from something leaves one free to be enslaved again by some new dominating force or situation. (See [Philippians 2:12-13].) Freedom must be both freedom from and freedom for. Mere freedom

276

Galatians 5:13-26

from the Law or the Elements of the Universe can simply free one up to be enslaved again by the Flesh. But freedom that is for something (that is right and good)—freedom for (as Paul will issue the prescription) love for others—is the true freedom that people can know in the context of human existence. Having warned the Galatians of the possible undesirable consequences of the Flesh’s abuse of freedom, Paul continues in the final clause of v. 13 beginning with the strong adversative conjunction but (Gk. alla). This word signals that what follows it (“through love . . .”) is the positive corollary to the negative warning that went before (“only do not . . .). Now, Paul’s positive directive, stated using an imperative verb, says, “through love be slaves to one another.” This remark tells the Galatians in five precisely chosen Greek words what they are to do. First, “through love” (Gk. dia t∑s agap∑s) states how the Galatians do or accomplish what Paul tells them to do. They are to act through love. Love itself, named as the first characteristic of the fruit of the Spirit (5:22), is the means and the power whereby the Galatians fulfill Paul’s exhortation to love. Second, Paul writes, “be slaves” (Gk. douleute), thus playing on the idea that the Galatians are truly free as a result of Christ’s work (5:1) in their behalf. Nevertheless, Paul tells the Galatians to serve one another, using language that is more starkly realistic (“be slaves”) than the more vague notion of simply serving. Free believers that they are, Paul still tells them to be slaves to one another. Paul is able to issue this “order,” using an imperative verb, because God had already called the Galatians (1:6) and had already sent the Spirit of his Son (4:6) so that the Galatians were then able to “obey.” They were not merely following instructions; they were, as some persons in the Wesleyan tradition might say, cooperating with grace. Third, Paul tells the Galatians to be slaves to one another (Gk. all∑lois). From Paul’s point of view, freedom and love produce this outcome. Thus, the Galatians are engaged in a fellowship that is marked by mutuality and interdependence—a fellowship where people will the well-being of others even at a cost to themselves. Paul begins another sentence with “for” (Gk. postpositive gar), in this instance introducing a statement (v. 14) that explains his previous admonition, through love be slaves to one another (v. 13c). Paul’s remarks in v. 14, however, raise significant questions. How is one to understand Paul’s positive concern here with the Law, especially in light of what he has said about the Law from the beginning of the letter through 5:12? Of what Law is Paul speaking? What does he mean by all the Law? What does he mean when he says that the Law has been made complete? Is the love

Galatians 5:13-26

277

command of v. 14 (“love your neighbor as yourself ”) a law for Christians to do in the same sense that Jews (and Jewish Christians) did (see 5:3—poiein; “to do” or “to keep”) Law observance? In 5:3 Paul refers to “the whole Law” (Gk. holos ho nomos), whereas here in v. 14 he speaks of “all the Law” (Gk. ho pas nomos). Some interpreters have tried to distinguish the meaning of these phrases by understanding “the whole Law,” on the one hand, to refer to the aggregate of prescriptions and prohibitions comprised by “the Law” and, on the other hand, “all the Law” to mean an ethical principle that epitomizes the larger body of statutes that is called “the Law.” It is not, however, clear to many interpreters that Paul drew distinctions between parts of the Law. Yet, in Galatians 5:3 (“the whole Law”) Paul speaks of the Law in a negative fashion, while here in v. 14 (“all the Law”) his reflections on the Law seem positive. It should come as no surprise that some scholars have charged Paul with inconsistency for apparently oscillating in his references to and explanations of the Law.10 But one should note that 5:3b makes a statement in the present tense and active voice, while 5:14a speaks in the perfect tense and passive voice. Paul seems to be saying that persons undertaking Law observance are themselves obligated to do (Gk. poi∑sai) the whole Law, whereas all the Law itself has been made complete (Gk. pepl∑røtai) by Christ himself in the reality pointed to in the saying, “Love your neighbor as yourself ” (see 1:4 and 2:20). Thus, the Law (as an obligation) can and does function in the lives of Gentile Christians as an enslaving power, although the Law as it has been made complete by Christ in neighbor-love is a source of freedom rather than subjugation. The Law, spoken of in the present tense active voice (5:3), is an entity capable of enslaving those who would pursue its observance (3:12). But the Law spoken of in the prefect tense passive voice as made complete by Christ himself (3:13, 14, 22, 26, 29; 4:4-7) is liberating (5:14) and community building. The Pauline churches were themselves testimony to the “completion” of the saying, “Love your Leviticus 19:18 LXX neighbor as yourself.” kai ouk ekdikatai sou h∑ cheir, kai ou This saying to which Paul refers is from m∑nieis tois huiois tou laou sou kai agap∑seis ton pl∑sion sou høs seauton; egø eimi Leviticus 19:18 LXX. He quotes the same verse kyrios. from the Septuagint in Romans 13:9. [Leviticus 19:18 LXX] This saying is widely attested in early Your hand shall not exact vengeance, and you Christianity. Jesus himself is remembered to shall not cherish anger against the sons of your have cited this verse from Leviticus in Matthew people, and you shall love your neighbor as your5:43 (partially); 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31, 33; self; I am the Lord. and Luke 10:27. In turn, the saying is quoted in

278

Galatians 5:13-26

James 2:8, where it is called “the royal law” (Gk. nomos basilikos) and where James’s readers are told that they do well if they “fulfill” (Gk. telein) it.11 Paul’s citation of this verse from Leviticus LXX may be based on the tradition of Jesus’ teachings known in the earliest church prior to the time of the writing of the canonical Gospels. If so, that may be why, looking back to this quotation, he speaks in Galatians 6:2 of “the law of Christ” (Gk. ho nomos tou Christou). Paul calls the verses cited from Leviticus “a single saying” (lit., “one word”; Gk. heis logos). Perhaps it is something akin to an argument from silence, but it seems noteworthy that Paul does not say that all the Law has been made complete “in one commandment”; rather, he says “in a single saying.” Interpreters of this passage sometimes note that v. 14 is not an order to fulfill the Law (“the Law has been made complete”); indeed, it is a statement that both directly recognizes the completion of the command to love (in the past with significance for the present) and indirectly states that when one loves one’s neighbor as oneself (all occurrences of the word you in this saying are singular), all the Law is made complete in the single encompassing reality that was brought to perfect completion by Christ (1:4; 2:20). Biting and Devouring Finally, in the last verse (v. 15) of this brief John Crystostom on Paul in Galatians: but important section of the letter (vv. 13-15), He does not accuse explicitly, but he speaks hypoPaul writes in a colorful way to warn the thetically, so as not to irk them. He has said not Galatians to look to the consequences of their “Since you bite one another” but “If you bite.” interactions with one another. Some of the Again, he has not said explicitly here, “You will be words that Paul uses—“bite” (Gk. daknein); destroyed by one another,” but instead he says “gnaw” (Gk. katesthiein); and “consume” (Gk. “Take care lest you be destroyed by one another.” He is expressing his concern and admonition rather analiskein)—suggest images of wild animals in than his condemnation. . . . He does not refer only a fury.12 [Biting and Devouring] Moreover, there may to biting, as the act of a person out of control, but be sarcasm in Paul’s tone as he selects language also to devouring, which implies malice. For the one that contrasts the imputed beastly behavior13 who bites satisfies the immediate passion of anger, of the Galatians with the love of neighbor to but the one who devours proves he is acting like an which they were called. Yet, even with the posanimal. By bitings and devourings he does not mean a literal biting and devouring. He refers to somesibility that sarcasm is present in this thing more pernicious. The harm done by one who statement, it is important to note that Paul’s tastes human flesh is not so great as that done by remarks in v. 15 form a particular grammatical the one who sinks his teeth into the soul. In proporconstruction known as a first-class conditional tion as the living soul is more precious than the sentence (ei + indicative in the protasis) that corruptible body, so much the worse is the harm itself implies that he assumes the conditions he done to it. (Homily on Galatians 5.15) is describing are real. While some interpreters Mark J. Edwards, ed., Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Ancient take Paul’s vivid statement to be nearly pure Christian Commentary on Scripture, vol. 8, gen. ed. Thomas C. Oden (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 1999) 82–83. hyperbole, others insist that the distinctive

Galatians 5:13-26

grammatical form of Paul’s remarks means that he knew or believed that the unsavory situation he describes actually existed. Certainly Paul’s use of vocabulary depicting a fight among wild animals is exaggerated, but his vividly expressed warning about dissension in the Galatian churches must reflect some reality that caused him to be concerned about the behavior of the Galatians toward one another. Commentators also differ concerning the nature of the divisiveness that Paul addresses. Some scholars conclude that whatever strife existed among the Galatians was the result of their differences of opinion regarding Paul’s opponents and those opponents’ message about Law observance. Still other interpreters argue that another problem, indigenous attitudes of (libertine) lovelessness among the Galatians, is the motivation for Paul’s warning. Given Paul’s immediately preceding reference to the Law and the accompanying citation of Scripture in v. 14, it seems best to see Paul here still fighting on one front against those who have come to Galatia advocating Law observance for the Gentile Galatian Christians. Actual evidence of libertine behavior among the Galatians has yet to come into plain sight. Spirit, Flesh, Law, and Christ Jesus, 5:16-24

Paul touches on several major topics (Spirit, Flesh, Law, Christ Jesus) in this next section that comprises vv. 16-24. He begins with an orator’s touch, remarking, “But I say” (Gk. legø de), in order to focus the attention of the members of his Galatian audience on his forthcoming statement. Having secured a hearing, he continues by issuing the last command that he will give until he resumes making such hortative remarks in v. 25. Even this imperative statement, Walk by the Spirit, does not stand alone as a strict commandment; rather it is coupled with what can best be described as a promise, You will not carry out the desire of the Flesh. Thus one sees that Paul gives the Galatians directions and makes a promise to them regarding the outcome of their following his instructions. The verb that Paul uses, walk (Gk. peripatein), is a second person plural form (“you”), which shows that his remarks are intended for all the Galatian believers, although given his comment in 5:12, it is not likely that he envisioned including his opponents (those who were advocating circumcision and Law observance) in his directions. Moreover, the use of the verb walk is consistent with the employment of that verb in the context of ethical remarks in certain Hebrew texts. The Hebrew word itself is hålak, which

279

280

Galatians 5:13-26

literally means “walk,” although in idiomatic Hebrew usage hålak is a metaphor for “live” (see, e.g., Isa 33:15).14 The same usage— “walk” meaning “a way of life”—occurred somewhat rarely in Greek ethics, but (under the influence of Hebrew Scriptures) it was used frequently in the LXX with an ethical sense. 15 Paul himself uses the verb peripatein (lit., “to walk”) to mean “to live,” “to behave,” or “to act” eighteen times in his undisputed letters, although his single use of the word in Galatians is in this verse (5:16). Many interpreters note that Paul addresses the Galatians here using the present tense, which may imply that he is urging them to continue doing what they already are doing (see 3:2-3, 5, 14; 4:6, 29; 5:5, 18, 25). That is a hopeful reading of Paul’s text, and it may be correct, though it also could be reading too much into the tense of a verb. Paul is specific about the nature of the “walk” that he admonishes the Galatians to take. It is a life lived in and by the power of the Spirit, who is clearly the Spirit whom God sent, the Spirit of God’s Son. The brief phrase pneumati peripateite (“in/by the Spirit walk”) is in part ambiguous, since the dative case in which Spirit occurs (pneumati) opens up more than one possibility for translation and interpretation: Is the dative (1) a dative of sphere16 or (2) a dative of means?17 In other words, is the Spirit “the sphere in which” or “the means by which” the Galatian believers walk? Do the believers “walk in the Spirit,” or do they “walk by the Spirit”? Given Paul’s apocalyptic worldview, a decision between these different ways of understanding his remark is difficult. On the one hand, Paul believes that God’s sending the Son (4:4-5) and the Spirit of his Son (4:6) brought into existence an orb (“in Christ”; Gk. en Christø [2:17]; “in Christ Jesus”; Gk. en Christø I∑sou [3:26, 28]; “into Christ”; Gk. eis Christon [2:16]; and “you have put on Christ”; Gk. Christon enedysasthe [3:27]) in which the believers now live and relate to God and to one another. But, on the other hand, Paul plainly perceives that God has sent the Spirit “into the hearts” (Gk. eis tas kardias) of believers (4:6) and that they are “led by the Spirit” (Gk. pneumati agesthe) (5:18). Whether Paul has in mind an apocalyptic orb in which believers now have their being or he means to indicate the effective agency of the Spirit in directing the lives of God’s adopted sons and daughters is not clear from either grammar or context. Thus, with regard to Paul’s admonition here in v. 16, as is often the case with his ambiguous remarks, there is no adequate resolution to the problem of the meaning of the statement; so perhaps it is simply best to let the issue stand in its ambiguity, recognizing the possibilities for interpretation. Indeed, it is not even

Galatians 5:13-26

unreasonable to understand that Paul could mean to exhort the Galatians to walk in the realm of the Spirit by means of the Spirit’s directions, i.e., both senses of the dative substantive occur at once. In turn, Paul uses one of his most puzzling phrases, the desire of the Flesh (Gk. epithymia sarkos). As noted in relation to the use of “Flesh” (Gk. sarx) in v. 13, for Paul there is at times a special usage for this term (see 5:13, 16, 17 [2x], 19, 24; and the second occurrence in 6:8) that names a suprahuman, cosmic power that (who?) opposes God and God’s work in relation to humanity.18 Much as with Sin (3:22; see also, e.g., Rom 5:12, 13, 21; 6:6, 14; 7:8, 9, 11, 17, 20), Paul’s perceptions and presentation of this matter seem again to be part of his understanding of the world, especially the sending of Christ (and the Spirit), in terms of his apocalyptic eschatological understanding of mundane reality. For Paul, the Flesh, which is not a constituent part of humanity, is a term that refers to an aggressively malicious power that can reside in a human community. In the context of such a community, the Flesh influences the members of the fellowship to engage in behaviors that bring about the destruction of the community as a place of vibrant fellowship. As Paul discerns and describes the situation in the Galatian congregations, the Flesh is the power that opposes God, that enslaves human beings, and that seeks the destruction of Christian communities that were brought into existence and sustained through the preaching of the gospel (e.g., 1:8, 11, 16; 2:2, 5; 3:2) and the presence and power of the Spirit (e.g., 3:2, 3, 5; 5:25). Not all interpreters agree with this understanding of Paul’s perceptions of the Flesh. For example, Burton comments on Paul’s references to the Flesh, saying that they are Paul’s way of speaking to the Galatians about “the power within them [the Galatians] that makes for evil.”19 But in this line of interpretation one loses sight of Paul’s fundamental apocalyptic outlook, and, in turn, one portrays Paul employing insights from modern psychology to admonish the Galatian believers. The “desire” (Gk. epithymia) of the Flesh is the manifestation of patterns of behavior that bring about the destruction of communities (especially, in Paul’s instance, churches) as healthy corporate entities. The phrase the desire of the Flesh is read by a number of scholars as Paul’s own manner of referring to what others in Paul’s day called “the Evil Impulse.”20 This phrase, the Evil Impulse, was important in rabbinic reflections on good and evil and the place of human beings in the conflict between those forces. (In such rabbinic discussions, the Evil Impulse was called the y∑ßer hårå>.) While rabbinic legends attributed the creation of the Evil Impulse

281

282

Galatians 5:13-26

to God, they also held that as God created the Evil Impulse, God gave humanity the power to rule over it: “Thus the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: ‘My children, I have created for you the Evil Impulse, (but I have at the same time) created for you the Torah [the Law] as an antidote. As long as you occupy yourselves with Torah [the Law], he [the Evil Impulse] shall not have dominion over you . . . .’”21 [The Evil Impulse] Paul would have been sympathetic to elements of the reflection on the Evil Impulse in rabbinic tradition, but it is clear from his letter to the Galatians that he would not have agreed with the tradition that the antidote to the Evil Impulse (Paul’s “desire of the Flesh”) was Torah and Torah observance. Indeed, Paul touches on this matter somewhat awkwardly in 5:18, a verse that we will return to below. For now, however, Paul’s phrase, the desire of the Flesh, signifies ideas that would have been part of Paul’s thought about the Flesh (and its aims at the destruction of human community, particularly community in Christ). Indeed, this phrase may help one to discern some of Paul’s assumptions regarding elements of the problem he dealt with in his letter. For example, the Flesh, if it is akin to the Evil Impulse, is not merely a personified element of humanity’s struggle with internal aspects of evil. Paul perceives the Flesh to be a real power actively opposing God’s will and hindering God’s work. But, as Martyn has observed, from an apocalyptic point of view, Paul sees the Flesh neither as an autocrat whose power is so great that it relieves humanity of all responsibility nor as nothing more than a proclivity that can be easily resisted.22 In fact, Paul’s remarks show that human beings (“you” plural) may be the subjects of the verb to carry out (Gk. telein23), as in “to carry out the desire of the Flesh,” but Paul’s perception is that the Flesh is the one that possesses (and directs the carrying out of ) evil intentions.24 Yet Paul’s admonition to the Galatians to walk by the Spirit indicates both that he views the Flesh as limited in its power and that he understands the Spirit (of God’s Son) to be

The Evil Impulse In Hebrew, the evil impulse or inclination is y∑ßer hårå>, drawn from the biblical assertion, “the inclination of the human heart is evil” (Gen 6:5; 8:21). In Judaism, this impulse is not personified as a demonic force that actively tempts a person to do evil. Rather, it has to do with the selfish gratification of legitimate bodily needs (be they for food, procreation, security, etc.). According to , when properly checked by the y∑ßer hatøb, leads to desirable results including marriage, business, and community. In Genesis Rabbah 9:7, Samuel ben Nahman is quoted as saying, “Without the Evil Inclination, no man would build a house, take a wife, beget a family, and engage in work.” It is thus an aspect of human personality that might be compared with the id or the libido in modern psychological thought: beneficial if properly controlled. The Evil Impulse must be controlled, however. Yannai states in j. Nedarim 9:1, “He who obeys his inclination is like an idolater. ‘There shall be no strange gods in thee’ [Ps 81:10] means, Make not the stranger in you your ruler!” Torah, prayer, and contemplation of death are said to help one in the struggle against the y∑ßer hårå> (b. Ber 5a; see also j. Sanh 10:1; b. Qidd 30b).

Galatians 5:13-26

283

the personal power of God in their midst, assuring them that by the Spirit they will not succumb to the Flesh. Finally, in v. 16 Paul’s word of assurance to the Galatians concerning the desires of the Flesh is a profound promise—not an admonition. Having told them to walk in the Spirit, Paul then says, “you will not carry out . . . [Gk. ou m∑ teles∑te].” He uses a striking grammatical form, the double negative particles ou m∑ coupled with an aorist subjunctive verb. This construction occurs “in negative predictions to denote strong denial.”25 Paul could not state his point more emphatically: walking in the Spirit, the Galatians certainly will not carry out the desires of the Flesh. Verse 17 is directly related to v. 16 as is indicated by the verse’s opening with the word for (Gk. gar). Commentators generally agree that here gar introduces an explanation that confirms Paul’s remarks in v. 16, particularly his promise to the Galatians. At the outset of interpreting this verse, it is important to see that while the Flesh and the Spirit are porFlesh against Spirit trayed as mutually exclusive, The body as such does not cause motion but is moved. It is not an they are not ways of saying agent but is acted upon. For desire is not of the body but of the soul. that the human sphere and . . . How then does Paul say the flesh struggles against the spirit? By flesh he the divine sphere are exclumeans not the physical body but the evil choice. . . . What then? Ought one to suppress the flesh? Was not the one who said this himself clothed with flesh? sive of or at odds with each . . . By flesh here he means earthly thoughts that are apathetic and heedless. other. Paul is not pitting This is not a condemnation of the body but a reproach of the apathetic soul. humanity and God against For the flesh is an instrument, and no one repudiates and hates the instrueach other in a metaphorment as such, but only the one who handles the instrument badly. . . . Yet, ical fashion. Human beings one may argue, even this is a condemnation of the body, to call the faults of are involved in the mix of the soul by the name of the flesh. Now I agree that the body is less precious than the soul, yet it is itself good as created. For what is less than truly good Flesh, Spirit, and humanity, may remain proximately good. Evil is not less than the good but opposed to it. but they do not constitute a . . . The Eucharistic mysteries too, and the whole church, are customarily sphere themselves, as do the called by the name of flesh in Scripture, which is called the body of Christ. . . . Flesh and the Spirit. In the But if he says the flesh struggles against the Spirit, he is speaking of two conflict between the Flesh opposing ways of thinking. The things that oppose each other are virtue and and the Spirit, human wickedness, not the soul and the body. For if the latter are opposed, each is the destruction of the other . . . but if the soul cares for the body . . . and the beings are themselves the body serves the soul . . . how can they be contraries and at war with one spoils (or at least among the another? (John Chrysostom, Homily on Galatians 5.17) spoils) of the strife, as this Mark J. Edwards, ed., Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, verse reveals. [Flesh against vol. 8, gen. ed. Thomas C. Oden (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 1999) 83–84. Spirit]

Even with this clarification, Paul’s meaning in v. 17 is debatable and requires further explication. First, the sentence is written in the indicative mood. Paul is describing, not exhorting. Whatever urging he might have done in relation to the situation depicted in v. 17 has already been offered in v. 16, to which v. 17 is related as an explanation. Second, v. 17 comprises four clauses that are clear

284

Galatians 5:13-26

when viewed independently. As will be seen, however, trying to comprehend the relationship of the clauses to one another is challenging. The clauses are as follows: (17a) For the Flesh desires against the Spirit, (17b) and the Spirit against the Flesh. (17c) For these things are opposed to each other, (17d) hina you may not do whatever you want. Whereas v. 16 was a combination of admonition and promise, v. 17 provides a pair of related explanations for what Paul said in v. 16. There (v. 16), Paul wrote that if the Galatians walked by the Spirit, they would not carry out the desires of the Flesh. Verse 17ab explicates v. 16 by referring to the opposition of the Flesh to the Spirit and the opposition of the Spirit to the Flesh. Paul’s explanation related to v. 16 can be taken further, however, and it is in v. 17cd. Using a demonstrative pronoun, these things (Gk. tauta), to refer to both the Flesh and the Spirit at the same time, Paul restates their mutual antagonism in v. 17c. Thus, v. 17ab say what v. 17c repeats in other words. In turn, while both v. 17ab and v. 17c begin with “for” (Gk. gar), the first two clauses (v. 17ab) explain, as the third clause (v. 17c) confirms. Then comes v. 17d. The debate over the interpretation of this clause begins with the first Greek word, hina, which, when coupled with a subjunctive verb (as it is here), normally introduces a purpose clause that begins, in order that.26 But occasionally (very rarely) this construction (hina + subjunctive verb) can introduce a result clause that begins, with the result that.27 Simply stated, does v. 17d present the purpose or the result of Paul’s comments in v. 17abc? Does the final clause of v. 17 say, “in order that you may not do whatever you want,” or “with the result that you may not do whatever you want”? The interpretive question that emerges is this: does the opposition between the Flesh and the Spirit exist for the purpose of keeping the Galatian believers from doing whatever they want? Or does that opposition occur with the result that the Galatians are kept from doing whatever they want? Interpreters are divided on this issue with no agreed resolution in sight. Yet this situation may exist because the problem is something other than whether the hina clause is either a purpose or a result clause. In fact, the clause is likely an example of a “purpose-result hina clause,”28 especially since the purposeful involvement of the Spirit means the achievement of results consonant with God’s will. In Galatians, Paul’s hope is through the Spirit (5:5), not merely the Galatians themselves.

Galatians 5:13-26

Equally puzzling and perhaps more important is the meaning of Paul’s phrase, whatever you want (Gk. ha ean thel∑te). The admonition and promise of v. 16 indicate that as believers align themselves with the Spirit, they will not bring to completion the desire of the Flesh. Thus, v. 16 anticipates the explicit mention of the opposition of the Spirit and the Flesh in v. 17abc. In turn, in saying that under the influence of the Spirit the believers “will not carry out the desire of the Flesh,” v. 16 seems also to anticipate Paul’s reference in v. 17d to “whatever you want.” If so, since v. 16 and v. 17 are related to each other, as they certainly are by the use of gar (“for”) in v. 17 (2x), so that v. 17 explains/confirms v. 16, Paul’s statement, “you will not carry out the desire of the Flesh” (v. 16), is perhaps a remark that Paul restates, saying, “you may not do whatever you want” (v. 17d). In other words, the conflict between the Spirit and the Flesh prevents the Galatians from doing whatever they want, which itself seems from the parallels in Paul’s sentences to be “the desire of the Flesh.” Whether Paul intends these lines for all the Galatians or for only those involved with Law observance is unclear, though the forthcoming statement in v. 18 introduces the Law into the discussion of the conflict between the Spirit and the Flesh in a way that makes it clear that the Law is at the heart of Paul’s concern about the Galatians and the desires of the Flesh. Certainly for those Galatians who were taking on Law observance, perhaps for the benefit of all those in the Galatian churches, Paul comments as he does in these verses, offering directions and observations meant to guide and inform the members of the Galatian congregations regarding the Spirit and the Flesh. This interpretation of Paul’s statement(s) in v. 17 is not an affirming reading of robust spirituality among the Galatians. In fact, it is quite negative. Because of the inroads made by the Flesh in the life of Galatian churches, the Galatians are unable to achieve good results in their lives as Christian communities. The influence of the Flesh, through Paul’s opponents’ advocacy for the Law and Law observance, has undercut whatever good the Galatians might have wanted to do, leaving them prey to the Flesh. Only the Spirit keeps them in check from doing the desire of the Flesh. Thus, Paul enjoins them to live in/by the Spirit, while also confronting them with the danger of the Flesh. Paul’s references to the lives of the Galatian churches are much less positive than he would likely have had them to be. His tone, even in this “indicative” portion of his parenesis, appears to be more urgent than if he were simply encouraging his readers.

285

286

Galatians 5:13-26

Nevertheless, with v. 18 coming immediately after v. 17, Paul follows one puzzling remark with another. Why at this point does he refer to the Law, placing it in tension with his reference to the Spirit? Perhaps the form and the language of Paul’s remarks can assist one in understanding better what he is saying. Verse 18 begins with the Greek word de, which can be translated “and,” “but,” or simply left untranslated. In this instance, de is probably best rendered “but,” because the statement that it introduces presents a contrast to what was stated in v. 17. Thus, now, despite recognizing the state of affairs in Galatia, in v. 18 Paul writes a firstclass conditional sentence, the form of which indicates that he regards his statement in the protasis of the sentence (the “if ” clause) to be true. Paul indicates that (at least some of ) the Galatians are led by the Spirit, an idea consistent with what he has said in 3:2-5, 14; 4:6, 29; 5:5. Therefore, some translators suggest using “since” rather than “if ” in this clause (the protasis) of v. 18, in order to portray Paul’s perspective without any doubt: “Since you are led by the Spirit. . . .” Yet from Paul’s letter it is obvious that not all Galatian believers were completely in agreement with him at the time of his writing, so that using “since” instead of “if ” may be an over reading of Paul’s grammar.29 Perhaps it is best to hear Paul say, “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law,” thus allowing for a degree of uncertainty in Paul’s remark. Paul addresses the Galatians as an assembly of believers, as is evident in his use of “you” in the second person plural verb forms. Furthermore, he says that they “are led by the Spirit.” The verb to lead (Gk. agein) is in the passive voice (agesthe), indicating that the Galatians are not themselves the actors, but the ones acted upon. In this instance, the one who acts is the Spirit. Restated in the active voice, Paul’s remark reads, “The Spirit leads you.” In v. 16 Paul admonished the Galatians to “walk by the Spirit,” using the active voice. “Walk by the Spirit” and “You are led by the Spirit” are complementary ways of saying the same thing, though the first statement is a command while the second statement is a description. Thus, Paul tells the Galatians that the Spirit leads and they have the responsibility to follow that leadership. The second clause (apodosis) of Paul’s conditional sentence states the conclusion expected based on the truth or reality of the stated condition (in the protasis). In other words, the second clause of Paul’s remarks (v. 18b) expresses what is true (“You are not under the Law”) when/because/if the “real” condition that was stated in v. 18a is true. Paul’s grammar at least indicates his belief in the truth of the statement, “You are led by the Spirit”; so he states to

Galatians 5:13-26

287

his audience, the Gentile Galatian believers, as a fact, “You are not under the Law.” Consequently, once again, somewhat unexpectedly, Paul brings the Law into the picture, and now he returns to an explicitly negative outlook on the Law. He uses the phrase under the Law that occurred in 3:23; 4:4, 5, 21 to refer Paul’s Vice Lists to the Law’s oppression of those who are under I wrote to you in my letter not to assothe Law. Paul’s basic point is that if believers are ciate with sexually immoral walking by the Spirit, if they are led by the persons—not at all meaning the immoral of this Spirit, then there is no need for the Law and, in world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, fact, the Law is an oppressive force. Moreover, as since you would then need to go out of the world. should be clear from all that Paul has said to this But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister point, under the Law there would be no protecwho is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an tion against the desires of the Flesh. (Indeed, a idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not reader might even suspect that Paul somehow even eat with such a one. (1 Cor 5:9-11) views the Law and the Flesh as allies in the oppression.) Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit In vv. 19-21 and 22-23 Paul presents two lists, the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prosthe first naming “the works of the Flesh” (Gk. ta titutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, erga t∑s sarkos) and the second specifying “the drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these fruit of the Spirit” (Gk. ho karpos tou pneuwill inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9-10) matos). Interpreters routinely refer to these lists as “catalogues of vices and virtues,”30 conFor I fear that when I come, I may find you not as I tending that as such these lists have their origin wish, and that you may find me not as you wish; I fear that there may perhaps be quarreling, jealin Hellenistic philosophy. [Paul’s Vice Lists] Betz, ousy, anger, selfishness, slander, gossip, for example, views these lists in relation to conceit, and disorder. I fear that when I come Hellenistic philosophy and observes that again, my God may humble me before you, and they are traditional in form and have little about that I may have to mourn over many who previthem that is distinctively Christian, for all ously sinned and have not repented of the the concepts listed except “love” (Gk. agap∑) impurity, sexual immorality, and licentiousness that they have practiced. (2 Cor 12:20-21) are common in Hellenistic philosophy. Nevertheless, some of these interpreters (including Betz) see that in Paul’s lists, certain of the items enumerated have gone through modification via Hellenistic Judaism. And, indeed, such lists can be found in the writings of both GrecoRoman philosophy (e.g., Epictetus, Discourses, 3.22.61; Fragments, 4) and (Hellenistic) Judaism (Philo, Sacrifices, 15, 22, 27, 32 [!], 36, 37, 54; and even 1QS 4.2-6, 9-11). Yet Betz also notes that Paul’s lists do not represent vices and virtues in the sense of Greek ethics; rather, they present manifestations of the power of evil (“works of the flesh”) and of the Spirit (“fruit of the Spirit”).31 In a similar way, but going a step further in assessing the nature of the lists, Martyn states that the identification of these lists as catalogues of vices and virtues seriously distorts Paul’s understanding, for Paul

288

Galatians 5:13-26

writes of neither vices nor virtues attributable to individuals (as in Greek philosophy), but rather of marks of a community under the influence of the Flesh and of marks of a community led by the Spirit.32 Interpreters have made several other general observations about Paul’s lists, which are of varying merit. For example, some commentators state that the vices (manifestations of the Flesh) are presented in a chaotic fashion,33 while others suggest that the fifteen items in the list of the works of the Flesh do have a discernable arrangement in four categories: three sins of sensuality, two sins associated with heathen religions, eight sins having to do with conflicts among people, and two sins that have to do with drunkenness and its natural consequences.34 Similarly, some commentators find a random order in the list of the nine items composing the fruit of the Spirit,35 but others see in the list a deliberate arrangement of three groups of three articles each.36 Furthermore, Gordon D. Fee makes a helpful observation related to the phrase the fruit of the Spirit. He states that more has been made of the singular “fruit” than the Greek language will allow. Fee notes that karpos (“fruit”) in Greek functions as a collective singular in the same way that “fruit” does in English.37 Thus, Paul does not really think of a contrast between many and one; rather, he has in mind the evident differences between the Conspicuous Vices manifestations of the Flesh on the one It would have been a long task to enumerate all hand and the Spirit on the other. the works of the flesh and make a catalog of Verse 19 begins the list of the works of vices, so Paul has wrapped this all up in one phrase: “and the Flesh, stating pointedly that such the like.” I wish that we could avoid these vices as easily works are evident (Gk. phanera from as we can see them! (Jerome, Epistle to the Galatians 3.5.19-21) phaneros). In fact, Paul’s remark begins Mark J. Edwards, ed., Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Ancient Christian with the word phanera, so that he literally Commentary on Scripture, vol. 8, gen. ed. Thomas C. Oden (Downers says, “Evident are the works of the Flesh,” Grove IL: InterVarsity, 1999) 88. thus emphasizing the explicit nature of these works. [Conspicuous Vices] They are conspicuous, visible to sensory perception in such a way that they are understandable for what they are.38 From Paul’s point of view there is nothing subtle about the works of the Flesh. They are as Paul lists them: sexual immorality, moral impurity, loose living, idolatry, black magic, hostilities, quarreling, jealousy, angry outbursts, selfish ambitions, dissensions, sects, grudges, binges of drunkenness, and drunken revels. Paul’s use of the word works to name these evident entities should not be confused with the “works of the Law,” for the former are manifestations of evil whereas the latter are a form of obedience or

Galatians 5:13-26

compliance to the commandments of the Law. For Paul the works of the Flesh are not merely transgressions of the Law per se; they are something more than that. They are the indication of the reality of evil (the Flesh) working to corrupt and destroy Christian community. Paul lists these fifteen plainly perceptible items, not at all meaning to give an exhaustive list, as is clear from his adding the words, and other things like these, to the illustrative catalogue that he does offer. In fact, Paul presents similar lists of “evils” at other places in his letters, most pertinently at Romans 1:29-31; 13:13; 1 Corinthians 5:10-11; 6:9-10; and 2 Corinthians 12:20-21. The lists at Romans 13:13 and 2 Corinthians 12:20-21 are most similar to this list in Galatians 5. Romans 13 and Galatians 5 share five common terms: loose living, quarreling, jealousy, binges of drunkenness, and drunken revels. Second Corinthians 12 and Galatians 5 share seven common traits: sexual immorality, moral impurity, loose living, quarreling, jealousy, angry outbursts, and selfish ambitions. All three lists share three terms: loose living, quarreling, and jealousy. Thus, Paul may have had a stock group of terms that he drew from in relation to particular situations, most likely using whichever terms seemed most appropriate to the problem(s) at hand. Scholars attempting to discern some structure to Paul’s list of “works” have perceived collections of similar items, as noted above. While no general structure for this list is likely, the words used do seem to form clusters, where words stand together with similar terms, occurring on the principle of like by like. (1) The first “works” mentioned are three terms commonly used by Jews against Gentiles in order to describe the abuse of God-given human ability for engaging in fitting sexual activity.39 (2) In turn, the next two words form a group associated with pagan religions. Hellenistic Jews regularly faulted Gentiles for idolatry and attributed the perceived negative elements of non-Jewish culture(s) to be the results of the fundamental sin of idolatry. Early Christianity inherited and shared this outlook. (3) Then, vv. 20-21 continue by listing a group of eight items that seem to name “works” in which strong conflict among persons is common. Here, perhaps still thinking about idolatry and its effects, Paul lists negative characteristics that would lead to the destruction of communities, especially in this instance the demise of Christian congregations. (4) Furthermore, in v. 21, Paul completes his list of the named “works of the Flesh” by referring to two ways that abuse of alcohol takes one into behaviors that preclude responsible, productive participation in community life.

289

290

Galatians 5:13-26

(5) Finally, not naming specific items, Paul adds, “. . . and things like these,” which is a broad swipe at all such corrupting behaviors. Paul concludes his comments on the works of the flesh by referring to and reiterating a warning that he had previously given to the Galatians. The exact time and situation of Paul’s original warning are unknown. The counsel itself Wrongdoers (“those practicing such things will not inherit “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not the kingdom of God”) has a close parallel in inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, where Paul states twice prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkin a short span that the unrighteous will ards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit not inherit the kingdom of God. [Wrongdoers] the kingdom of God.” Having just pointed out in 6:8 Here, however, Paul does not name “the that some of the Corinthians are guilty of wronging unrighteous” in general; rather, he names (adokeite) fellow believers, he [Paul] reminds them “those practicing such things” (Gk. hoi ta that “wrongdoers” (adikoi) will not inherit God’s kingdom. The earlier lists served to urge the church toiauta prassontes), referring to persons who to take severe action in excluding the man guilty of regularly act in ways such as those listed incest. The list here emphasizes the incompatibility among the works of the Flesh. “Those pracof certain behaviors with identity as a member of ticing such things,” says Paul, will not inherit God’s kingdom. Paul’s purpose in doing this seems the kingdom of God. The verb to inherit (Gk. to be twofold. On the one hand, he wants the kl∑ronomein) has occurred earlier in the letter church to become responsible in disciplining its members. Thus, his call for severe discipline in (4:30), though the usage here is eschatological chapter 5 is broadened in chapter 6 to include in nature and closer to Paul’s usage in matters of everyday life. On the other hand, he 1 Corinthians (6:9, 10; 15:50 [2x]) than to the wants to prevent those behaviors that make such way the word is used in the citation of discipline necessary. Thus, he reminds the church Scripture (Gen 21:10 LXX) in Galatians 4:30. that their wrongdoing toward fellow believers, Finally, Paul mentions “the kingdom of God,” which leads to disputes, is characteristic of those wrongdoers who have no share in God’s kingdom. an eschatological reference (see Rom 14:17; The Corinthians, who are called to share in that 1 Cor 4:20; 6:9, 10; 15:24, 50; 1 Thess 2:12) kingdom, are called to a quality of living that surto God’s triumphant reign over all creation passes that of the unrighteous (adikoi). after Christ’s defeat of all forces opposed to From Robert Scott Nash, 1 Corinthians, Smyth & Helwys Bible God’s sovereignty (see 1 Cor 15:20-28). A parCommentary (Macon GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2009) 160. allel term, “new creation,” occurs at 6:15 and 2 Corinthians 5:17 (see also Rom 8:21). Thus, Paul reminds the Galatians that their behavior does indeed count in God’s eyes and that it will play a key role in God’s eschatological evaluation of their very selves. Indirectly, Paul warns that the Galatians should not see his reservations concerning the Law as a license to conduct themselves in any manner that they please. For Paul, the way believers lead their lives is not to be taken lightly under any circumstances. So Paul issues his warning to the Galatians in such a way that it takes on the force of a threat. In vv. 22-24, in contrast with the list of the works of the Flesh, Paul gives a second list of “the fruit of the Spirit” that includes nine

Galatians 5:13-26

291

Paul’s Virtue Lists items with attendant comments conAnd not only that, but we also boast in our suffercerning the significance of this fruit for ings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, the lives of believers. [Paul’s Virtue Lists] This and endurance produces character, and character pronew list is not intended to offset that of duces hope, and hope does not disappoint us, because the works of the Flesh, but there are God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy similarities, especially in that both lists Spirit that has been given to us. (Rom 5:3-5) include ways of thinking as well as ways For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousof behaving. Despite efforts by J. B. ness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. (Rom 14:17) 40 Lightfoot and those who have followed him in dividing this list into three We are putting no obstacle in anyone’s way, so that no fault groups of three items, there is no clear, may be found with our ministry, but as servants of God we discernable order to the nine items. have commended ourselves in every way: through great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, Perhaps the first and the last words given imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger; by (“love” [Gk. agap∑ ] and “self-control” purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, holiness of [Gk. enkrateia]) do receive emphasis spirit, genuine love, truthful speech, and the power of because of their positions in the list, but God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand other suggestions about the order of the and for the left; in honor and dishonor, in ill repute and good terms seem forced. The list of the fruit repute. We are treated as impostors, and yet are true; as unknown, and yet are well known; as dying, and see—we of the Spirit includes love, joy, peace, are alive; as punished, and yet not killed; as sorrowful, yet patience, kindness, goodness, faith, genalways rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having tleness, and self-control. Paul does not nothing, and yet possessing everything. (2 Cor 6:3-10) offer comparable lists of the fruit of the Spirit in other letters. He does, however, Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. Let your list some commendations of God’s sergentleness be known to everyone. The Lord is near. Do not worry about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplivants in 2 Corinthians 6:6-7, and in cation with thanksgiving let your requests be made known Philippians 4:8 he lists “things” that are to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all underto be “considered” for the benefit of standing, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ believers. In these two brief lists, only in Jesus. Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is 2 Corinthians 6 are there parallels to the honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever items in the list of the fruit of the Spirit is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think in Galatians 5. Both 2 Corinthians 6:6-7 about these things. Keep on doing the things that you have and Galatians 5:22-23 mention “love,” learned and received and heard and seen in me, and the God “patience,” and “kindness”—words that of peace will be with you. (Phil 4:4-9) occur in Paul’s undisputed letters fortyseven, four, and six times respectively. No strong case can be made for Paul’s having a stock list of the fruit of the Spirit that he drew on from time to time in his correspondences. Rather, this list in Galatians 5 seems to have been crafted for the situation that Paul faced when he wrote to the Galatians. Perhaps Paul chose the word fruit (Gk. karpos) both to distinguish the nature of the characteristics of the Spirit from those behaviors typical of the Flesh (“works”) and to emphasize (in a fashion similar to that in the teaching of Jesus in John 15) that such

292

Galatians 5:13-26

spiritual fruit is the essential result of the symbiosis of the Spirit and the believers. It is important, however, to distinguish between “fruit of the Spirit” and “gifts of the Spirit” (as described in 1 Cor 12). Paul states that the “gifts” (Gk. charismata) are “manifestations” (Gk. phanerøseis), somewhat akin to the “evident” (Gk. phaneros) works of the Flesh; whereas the “fruit of the Spirit” is more subtle, being qualities and experiences that were not popularly thought of as evidence of the Spirit’s presence in Paul’s day.41 Between Paul’s list of “gifts” and the “fruit of the Spirit,” there is only one common term, faith (Gk. pistis), and commentators often observe that the word is used in different senses in the two passages.42 It is not, however, at all clear that the uses of pistis in 1 Corinthians 12:9 and Galatians 5:22 are different. In both texts, faith is the result of the Spirit. In Galatians 5:22 faith is fruit of the Spirit, while in 1 Corinthians 12:9 one reads about faith that “to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the advantage . . . to one is given . . . to another faith by the same Spirit. . . .” From Paul’s perspective, faith is not a human work or trait. It is both a gift of the Spirit and a striking characteristic of the fruit of the Spirit. Of the ninety-one times in Paul’s undisputed letters that pistis appears, twenty-two of those occurrences are in Galatians. If pistis does not mean faith here in 5:22, but rather “faithfulness” as most translations and almost all interpreters would have it, then that is the only instance of the twenty-two uses where pistis does not mean faith. Moreover, among the ninety-one occurrences of pistis in Paul’s letters, in only one other text where pistis appears is it consistently taken to mean “faithfulness,” viz., in Romans 3:3, a reference to “the faith or faithfulness of God” (Gk. h∑ pistis tou theou). But this usage in Romans is remarkable, referring to God and not to human beings. Pistis used in connection with God calls for extraordinary interpretive measures,43 which have been undertaken by others elsewhere. Nevertheless, “faith” and “faithfulness” are not contrary notions, so that even if pistis is read as “faithfulness” in Paul’s list of the fruit of the Spirit, faithfulness is the Spirit’s fruit and not merely the product of human effort. But it seems more likely that in Paul’s list pistis is “faith” itself, although however one understands pistis, along with the other eight characteristics of the fruit of the Spirit, it is a divine quality that results from the Spirit. In v. 23 at least two items require attention. The first is the last word in Paul’s list of the fruit of the Spirit, self-control (Gk. enkrateia), which was an element introduced into Greek ethics by Socrates. By Paul’s day, enkrateia was a central concept of

Galatians 5:13-26

Hellenistic ethics, and from there it seems to have been taken over by Jewish and Christian writers, although the term did not play a significant part in biblical religion.44 The word egkrateia occurs only once in the New Testament, here in Galatians 5:23. Nevertheless, for Paul “self-control” is fruit of the Spirit, not simply a virtue resulting from disciplined human behavior. It occurs in Christian community, not merely in the life of an individual. Second, Paul refers again to the Law. His remark (“There is not a Law against such things”) may be intentional understatement for rhetorical effect,45 for the fruit of the Spirit do not transgress the Law. They are all lawful, although the fruit of the Spirit do not themselves constitute law. For Paul, the presence and power of the Spirit (and the resultant fruit of the Spirit) are a sphere in which believers live and with which the Law has nothing to do. Or, put another way, when vv. 22-23 are read in conjunction with vv. 19-21, one hears Paul saying that as people do not need to transgress the Law in order to do evil, they can do good without merely obeying the Law.46 The believers do not need to have their lives regulated by the Law, for they live in the realm of the Spirit. Thus, following his list of the fruit of the Spirit Paul can make a concluding statement that parallels his closing warning/threat at the end of his list of the works of the Flesh. Now, however, instead of making a stern statement, Paul speaks to inspire confidence among the Galatians that the Spirit will not lead them astray with the result that they will live in ways that are contrary to the Law. Finally, in v. 24, Paul concludes his descriptive reflections (vv. 17-24) with a straightforward statement about “those who belong to Christ Jesus” (Gk. hoi tou Christou I∑sou; lit., “the ones of Christ Jesus”). Having identified these persons, Paul states not only who they are but also what they have done in their relationship to Christ Jesus. They “crucified the Flesh with its passions and its desires.” Earlier (2:19-20) Paul spoke of his being crucified with Christ, seeming to indicate that such an experience characterized the lives of all believers. Now, however, it is not that those of Christ are being crucified—rather, they are carrying out the crucifixion of the Flesh, so that the power of the Flesh no longer has dominion over their lives. The mention of the crucifixion of the Flesh’s passions and desires emphasizes the completeness of the undoing of the Flesh’s evil power, so that its outward works are destroyed and its inclinations and cravings are also eliminated. In Paul’s historical context, this imagery of crucifixion is brutal, emphasizing the severity of the problem faced by the believers and the radical nature of the necessary resolution of their peril.

293

294

Galatians 5:13-26

Saint Jerome in Penitence in the Wilderness

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Luigi Asiolo (1817–1877). Saint Jerome in Penitence in the Wilderness. Museo Civico Correggio (Credit: Alfredo Dagli Orti/The Art Archive at Art Resource, NY)

St. Jerome (c. 347–420), one of the four Latin Fathers of the Church (along with Sts. Augustine, Ambrose, and Gregory the Great), is particularly famous for translating the Bible into Latin, known as the Vulgate Bible. The saint spent four years in the Syrian Desert as a hermit, mortifying his flesh and elevating his spirit through study.

Paul’s verb, to crucify (Gk. stauroun), occurs here in the aorist tense, indicating simple past action. Many interpreters contend that this aorist tense should be treated as if it were a perfect tense, thus being translated “have crucified” (perfect) rather than “crucified” (aorist). The use of the perfect tense implies action completed in the past that has continuing significance for the present, while the aorist has no such meaning. The aorist simply states that something occurred. Some commentators make much of this aorist when it is read as a perfect, though there is no reason to read the aorist here as anything but an aorist. Paul seems simply to say that those of Christ Jesus crucified the flesh (sometime in the past), and they did so in a thoroughgoing way. Their actions mean that even though they live “in the flesh,” they are not “of the Flesh.” Yet, while their victory is won, it is still paradoxically incomplete, a part of Paul’s eschatological “already and not yet.” Believers participate in a real victory, won in the past, yet now repeated every day.47

Life By Means of the Spirit, 5:25-26

The sections of Paul’s letter are not hermetically sealed units of thought, so interpreters wrestle with the relationship of vv. 25-26 to the portions of the letter that precede and follow them. Neither v. 25 nor v. 26 is connected to the material before it by a conjunction or another connective word. Both verses contain hortatory verbs, a commanding style not seen since the use of an imperative in 5:16, but which recurs seven times in 6:1-10. Verses 25 and 26

Galatians 5:13-26

use first person plural verb forms, whereas v. 24 uses third person plural forms, and 6:1 employs third person singular, second person plural, and second person singular forms. Moreover, 6:1 begins with the epistolary address, “Brothers and sisters,” which usually marks the beginning of a new section in a letter. Consequently, some interpreters view vv. 25-26 with the preceding lines (either vv. 16-24 or 19-24). Others construe Paul’s statements so that vv. 25-26 are combined with what follows in 6:1-10. Another group of commentators contends that v. 25 concludes the statements that precede it and v. 26 introduces the materials in the verses that follow it. And a number of scholars understand vv. 25-26 as a transitional passage between 5:16(19)-24 and 6:1-5(10). It seems that (1) the lack of a connective between vv. 25 and 26 and what went before, (2) the use of hortatory subjunctives in vv. 25b-26a, and (3) the employment of the greeting (“brothers and sisters”) in 6:1 are best accounted for by viewing vv. 25-26 as a transitional passage between 5:16-24 and 6:1-10. This conclusion does not mean that vv. 25-26 are a pair of isolated statements, but that they function in their context in a particular way—to form a bridge between what went before and what comes after them. Paul returns to his hortative style in v. 25, writing a first-class conditional sentence that indicates that he assumes the veracity of the condition, “we live in/by the Spirit.” Here, to live in/by the Spirit is the same as to walk in/by the Spirit (5:16) and to be led by the Spirit (5:18). Paul speaks of the Spirit using a dative case, pneumati, that indicates the means by which or the orb in which he says that he and the Galatian believers live. Remarkably, in the next clause of the sentence, let us also follow the Spirit, Paul begins by immediately repeating “Spirit” in the dative case (pneumati). Thus, Paul writes pneumati, pneumati, creating a strong emphasis on the Spirit by (1) ending a clause with “the Spirit,” (2) beginning the next clause with “the Spirit,” and so repeating “the Spirit” in a back-to-back construction. Paul’s second clause comes in the form of an admonition, let us also follow the Spirit. The word translated let us follow (Gk. stoichømen from stoichein), is a military word (consult the commentary above on 4:3) that basically means “to form a line” or “to get in line with.” Some interpreters have argued for and translated the word as if it were the verb peripatein (“to walk”), understanding it to be a metaphorical way to say “to live.” Clearly in this context the word indicates one’s “conduct,” but how should the word be translated? Gerhard Delling48 has questioned the equating of stoichein

295

296

Galatians 5:13-26

Roman Troops on the March Conrad Cichorius. “Roman Troops on the March; Council of War.” 113 AD. Bas-relief. Die Reliefs der Traianssäule, Table 8. Attributed to Apollodorus of Damascus. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-US-1923)

and peripatein, because no ancient Greek author outside the New Testament used the word in this way. He suggests that a more accurate rendering is “be in harmony with.” Thus, many interpreters understand the verb stoichein to mean “to follow,” so that Paul is heard to say that believers (he and the Galatians in particular) are all to march in line following the Spirit as the leader. As Paul addresses the Galatians, it is remarkable that he presents no specific Christian ethic. Even in what he does offer, interpreters have noticed that there is little that is specifically Christian. Paul’s ethical thought generally agrees with other of his contemporary authors who express ethical concerns.49 But Paul’s ethical reflection is notable in one way. For Paul, the believer must be indwelled by the Spirit in order to do what is good and right. Good itself occurs through the operation of divine grace. Because of the Spirit’s presence in the lives of both believers and Christian communities, good can be and is done. Paul can exhort the Galatians because of the presence of the Spirit in their hearts (4:6). The result of God’s sending the Spirit of his Son makes them able to hear because of the Spirit in their lives. So, in a brief statement, 5:25 expresses the whole of Pauline ethics. Paul reiterates in this concise remark much of the emphasis he brought concerning the Spirit throughout the letter, especially in 5:16, 17, 18, 22-23. Again, he states the indicative (“we live in/by the Spirit”) and the imperative (“let us also follow the Spirit”) of the gospel. Believers are enabled by the powerful experience of the Spirit to perceive God’s will and work and to

Galatians 5:13-26

participate in them. This verse (v. 25) both concludes what Paul has said throughout the letter (particularly in 5:16-24) and anticipates his subsequent remarks that will come in chapter 6. Verse 26 explicates in negative terms what Paul advocated in v. 25b (“let us also follow the Spirit”). Anticipating 6:1-10, at the outset of v. 26 Paul says, “Let us not be conceited.” In form this exhortation begins with a hortatory subjunctive, i.e., a first person plural verb in the subjunctive mood that is used to command oneself and one’s associates.50 With this remark Paul informs the Galatians that in following the Spirit there are things that believers do not do. The Greek word for “conceited” (Gk. kenodoxos) literally means “glorying in vain things.” It can denote “bragging.” Kenodoxos may also be understood as “empty pretentiousness.”51 The basic idea is repeated in 6:3 and provides something of a key to understanding Paul’s discussion in 6:1-5 (to which we will return below). The second and third clauses of v. 26 are participial phrases: (26b) “provoking one another” (Gk. all∑lous prokaloumenoi); (26c) “begrudging one another” (Gk. all∑lois phthonountes). These phrases describe ways in which persons who are “pretentious braggarts” can bring strife to a community. Paul recognizes that those bragging can present some pretention that itself provokes others in the community; then, those provoked can themselves envy or begrudge the braggarts and whatever pretense those boasting introduced in the first place. Consequently, the community is put into turmoil. The concepts present in the language of this remark are not common in the New Testament, but such wording is prominent in diatribe material and in other Hellenistic philosophy.52 The verb for “begrudging” (Gk. phthonein) has a cognate in the noun “grudge” (Gk. phthonos); the noun appears in the list of the works of the Flesh (5:21)—implying a significant problem in the Galatian communities. Here, Paul is denouncing pride, provocation, and envy as problem makers in the lives of the Galatian congregations. And, in the context of Paul’s letter to those churches, one must wonder whether that of which some boast is Law observance.

297

298

Galatians 5:13-26

CONNECTIONS Freedom in Community (5:13-15)

In v. 13, Paul reprises the rallying cry of v. 1: Christians are called to freedom. But freedom can be abused, and the Galatian believers must not fall into the trap of permissiveness while escaping (Paul devoutly hopes!) the trap of fixation on legal observance. Freedom and responsibility must be carefully balanced. Paul is no libertine. The last thing he wants to do is give believers a license to lead lives of self-indulgence (v. 13). Rather, they must exercise their freedom within the context of Lord of the Flies a community in which members freely William Golding’s novel Lord of the Flies (1954) “become slaves to one another.” A similar tells the story of a plane full of British schoolnote is sounded in Ephesians 5:21: “Be boys crashing on a deserted island. At first, the boys subject to one another out of reverence for manage to create a makeshift society with democratic Christ.” The following verses expand on ideals. It isn’t long, however, before they fall prey to their the theme of using freedom rightly. Here baser instincts. Free from any adult authority, the boys quickly slide one might consider a sermon or lesson on into animalistic barbarism. They are free, but they find it the difference between freedom lived out in is far too easy to let this freedom degenerate into somecommunity and freedom as merely exerthing else—something dark and troubling. cising one’s prerogatives as an individual, detached from one’s obligations to others. Humans exist in relationship with one another. This fact makes it terribly important that we exercise our freedom with our neighbors in mind. Quoting Leviticus 19:18, Paul urges the Galatians to love one’s neighbor as oneself. This single commandment, he says, is an adequate summary of the entire law. [Lord of the Flies] Failing to love one’s neighbor is a misuse of freedom. Unrestrained freedom will eventually result in a Lord of the Flies scenario in which humans reduce themselves to the level of brute animals, biting, devouring, and being consumed by one another (v. 15). In the verses that follow, Paul outlines a far better way. Living by the Spirit (5:16-24)

Verses 16-18 provide a concise summary of Paul’s answer to the Galatians and their infatuation with the Torah. The basis of Christian ethics isn’t Torah observance but living by the Spirit. Do that, Paul says, and matters like circumcision become superfluous. It is possible to have correct ideas about Christ, salvation, faith, and grace, and still behave shamefully. It is precisely this reality that makes many believers flee to new forms of outward piety to keep

Galatians 5:13-26

everybody in line and force them to act like Christians—whether they want to or not. Paul would never dispute the fact that people who have been transformed by Jesus ought to act like it. He would, however, reject the idea that the way to improve our behavior is through a program of religious works. Instead, he saw transformation as an inside job. It is not the result of rule keeping or external acts of piety but of the Holy Spirit’s work in the heart. Living by the Spirit (v. 16) is the key to a Christ-centered lifestyle. Christians don’t always remind people of Jesus by the way we live, but Paul insists that even the most demanding set of rules would only clean us up on the outside. To be truly transformed requires a work of divine grace on the inside. Our character improves to the extent that we give the Spirit permission to change us. Living by the Spirit is a struggle, however. It doesn’t come naturally to anyone—obviously! Paul is quite candid about the opposition that exists between what the Holy Spirit works to produce in a believer’s life and where our natural impulses, oriented to self rather than God, tend to lead us. We cannot, therefore, divide the world into “good” people and “bad” people. All of us are a mixture of both. In The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn lamented, If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?53

Those who perform the works of the flesh “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (v. 21). Again, we hear the language of inheritance Paul developed in great detail in chapter 4. There, the matter of who inherits turns on one’s relationship to God through faith in Christ. Here, the matter of who does not inherit at least includes the factor of how one acts. One’s behavior does, after all, figure into God’s judgment for Paul (cf. Rom 2:13)—only not the way the Galatian Torah observers have been taught. Paul’s admitted reservations about the Torah are not meant to be a permission slip for immorality! “For freedom Christ has set us free” (v. 1), but Christ didn’t set people free so they could behave however they please. As Paul has already discussed, the purpose of freedom is love. Christ has set us free from the cultic obligations of the Law, but he has also set us free for loving our neighbors as

299

300

Galatians 5:13-26

ourselves within a community. Simply following the Law is a grave danger to faith; so is license. How might a preacher or teacher help the faithful hold these truths in their proper tension? A sermon or lesson on “Good versus Evil” might begin with the observation made above that people do not need to violate the commandments of the Law in order to do evil and that they can do good without merely keeping the Law. Our definitions of good and evil need to transcend such a wooden, religiously partisan outlook. Is it possible to do evil while remaining within the confines of the letter of the Law? Is it possible to do good without reference to compliance with the Torah? Of course, we understand that both of these things are possible. This fact in itself suggests that followers of Christ need to look deeper than outward conformity to the practice of religion to find their moral compass. The Fruit of the Spirit (5:16-24)

Living by the Spirit is the alternative Paul suggests. If the works of the flesh are obvious, then so is the fruit the Spirit produces in the life of a believer. Paul suggests nine “symptoms” of the Spirit’s work. Practically speaking, what do these characteristics of a Spirit-led life look like? One way to answer this question is to suggest an opposite for each of them, perhaps something like this: Love Joy Peace Patience Kindness Generosity Faith Gentleness Self-control

Hatred Gloom Strife Intolerance Cruelty Stinginess Unfaith Harshness Self-indulgence

But can spirituality, or the lack thereof, really be captured on a continuum with two end points, one obviously preferable to the other? That doesn’t sound like the narrow path between two extremes Paul is inviting the Galatians to travel. There is ample evidence in daily life that it is possible to misconstrue what these positive qualities are all about and overshoot them completely. For example, might we think we’re being loving when in fact we have settled for being merely sentimental?

Galatians 5:13-26

Rather than seeing each of these pairs as the ends of a continuum, what if we are actually dealing with the three points of a triangle? The base consists of two “inauthentic” qualities that are exaggerated opposites of each other. The truly godly attitude would then be at the apex of the triangle—above them both, and often uncritically claimed by people who are actually situated nearer to the base. If that is the case, then maybe the actual situation is more like this: Sentimentality Giddiness Impassibility Enablement No Personal Boundaries Indulgence (of Others) Zealotry Passivity Asceticism

Love Joy Peace Patience Kindness Generosity Faith Gentleness Self-control

Hatred Gloom Strife Intolerance Cruelty Stinginess Infidelity Harshness Self-indulgence

To the extent that this schema is accurate, the struggle of flesh versus Spirit requires Spirit to fight on two fronts simultaneously. In the end, however, Paul is confident that the victory is already won: “Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (v. 24). Even so, this victory is yet incomplete, and there are some practical matters of application that Paul has yet to address in his concluding chapter. Be Guided by the Spirit (5:25-26)

There is little in Paul’s ethical teaching that is specifically Christian except for its source: a follower of Christ must be led by the Spirit to live rightly. It is not a matter of personal discipline or will power—much less peer pressure to conform to external religious requirements. Paul’s plea is for those who claim to live by the Spirit to go one step further and be guided by the Spirit (v. 25). This will result in avoiding negative consequences for the community: conceit, competition, and envy (v. 26)—a trio not unlike the biting, devouring, and consuming referenced in v. 15. The ethical rubber meets the road in how those who live by the Spirit behave toward one another in the community of the faithful.

301

302

Galatians 5:13-26

Notes 1. John M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth: Paul’s Ethics in Galatians (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1988) 1–35. 2. This analysis was suggested by a reading of J. Louis Martyn, Galatians (AB 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997) 481–82. 3. George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press) 33–36, 144–52. 4. Barclay M. Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (Nördling: C. H. Beck, 1993) 67. For a discussion of the use and translation of epi, see BDF §§233–35, especially §235.4. Further information pertaining to the translation and interpretation of epi is available at BAGD, 287 (“epi,” II.b.e [“of purpose, goal, or result”]); LSJ, 622; Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1920) §§1457, 1473. 5. Max Zerwick and Mary Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (5th rev. ed.; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1996) 575. 6. LSJ, 292. 7. Ernest DeWitt Burton, Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1920) 293 (semipersonified); Martyn, Galatians, 486 (supra-human apocalyptic, cosmic power). See the famous treatment of sarx in Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (2 vols.; New York: Scribner’s, 1951 & 1955) 1:232–39. 8. Ernst Käsemann, Perspectives on Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 25–26. 9. Quotations of and allusions to Käsemann’s remarks on sarx are taken from David Way, The Lordship of Christ: Ernst Käsemann’s Interpretation of Paul’s Theology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991) 56. 10. Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 1–41, especially 26–28. 11. Further extra-biblical references to Lev 19:18 (in early Christianity) occur in Did. 1.2; Barn. 19.5; and Justin, Dial. 93.2. See Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches of Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 276 n. 34. 12. Burton, Galatians, 297. 13. Betz, Galatians, 276. 14. BDB, 234; William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1971) 79–80. 15. Heinrich Seesemann and Georg Bertram, “pateø, ktl,” TDNT 5:940–45; Roland Bermeier, “peripateø, EDNT 3:75–76. 16. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 1996) 153–55. 17. Ibid., 162–66. See the discussion here also of the “dative of agency.” 18. Burton (Galatians, 301) is typical of many interpreters when he refers to the rhetorical personification of Flesh but then denies that Paul had a conception of the Flesh that was actually personal. 19. Burton, Galatians, 298.

Galatians 5:13-26 20. See Joel Marcus, “The Evil Inclination in the Letters of Paul,” IBS 8 (1986): 8–21, esp. 8–10. 21. Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Hebrew University/Magnes Press, 1979) 472. 22. Martyn, Galatians, 493. 23. LSJ, 1771–72; BAGD, 810–11. 24. Compare the perspective of Betz, Galatians, 278–79. 25. Smyth §§1804, 2755 (quotation from §2755). 26. Smyth §2193. 27. Wallace, Grammar, 473; see also A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (4th ed.; Nashville: Broadman, 1923) 997–99. 28. See Wallace, Grammar, 473—who (as many grammarians and commentators) classifies the hina clause in Gal 5:17 as a result clause; although elsewhere (p. 472) he writes, “. . . many instances of purpose clauses [in the NT] shade off into result as well, especially when the divine will is in view.” And then (p. 473) he says, “In other words, the NT writers employ the language to reflect their theology: what God purposes is what happens and, consequently, hina is used to express both the divine purpose and the result.” 29. Wallace, Grammar, 690. 30. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1982) 246 is typical. An overview of the matter is found in John T. Fitzgerald, “Virtue/Vice Lists,” ABD 6:857–59. 31. Betz, Galatians, 282. 32. Martyn, Galatians, 496. 33. Betz, Galatians, 283; Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC 41; Thomas Nelson, 1990) 253–54. 34. J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (London: Macmillan, 1865) 210; Burton, Galatians, 304; Gordon D. Fee, Galatians (Pentecostal Commentary Series; Blandford Forum, Dorset, UK: Deo Publishing, 2007) 212. 35. Fee, Galatians, 217; Longenecker, Galatians, 260. 36. Lightfoot, Galatians, 212; Betz, Galatians, 286; Martyn, Galatians, 498–99. This is a popular idea, affecting the texts of the Nestle-Aland 28th ed. and UBS 4th ed., both of which arrange the nine items in the list of the fruit of the Spirit in three groups, each group with three items. 37. Fee, Galatians, 217. See LSJ, 879. 38. Rudolf Bultmann and Dieter Lührmann, “phaneros,” TDNT 9:2–3. 39. Martyn, Galatians, 496. 40. Lightfoot, Galatians, 212. 41. Burton, Galatians, 313. 42. E.g., Burton, Galatians, 313; Bruce, Galatians, 254. 43. Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1980) 77–85, esp. 79–80.

303

304

Galatians 5:13-26 44. Walter Grundmann, “egkrateia, ktl,” TDNT 2:339–42; Betz, Galatians, 288. 45. Burton, Galatians, 318. 46. Betz, Galatians, 289. 47. Compare Martyn, Galatians, 500. 48. Gerhard Delling, “stoicheø,” TDNT 7:666–69. 49. Betz, Galatians, 292. 50. Wallace, Grammar, 464. 51. LSJ, 938; Albrecht Oepke, “kenodoxos,” TDNT 3:662; Betz, Galatians, 294. 52. Betz, Galatians, 295. Betz’s discussion of 5:13–6:10 views Paul’s statements in relation to diatribe literature and Hellenistic philosophy in a far-reaching manner. 53. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago, vol. 1 (New York: Harper Collins, 1974) 168.

Freedom and Responsibility Galatians 6

COMMENTARY Directions and Observations, 6:1-10

Interpreters view 6:1-10 in a variety of ways, differing over the relationship of these verses to one another. Some scholars have argued that the statements made here are little more than a loosely assembled group of admonitions and remarks that have nothing to do with the preceding portions of the letter. Others agree that the materials in 6:1-10 are loosely constructed, but they do not see these verses as being completely unrelated to Paul’s concerns in the rest of the writing. In turn, those critics who see the verses here as being a more organized set of statements still perceive the structure of the material in an assortment of ways. To begin, one should note that there are interpreters who contend that Paul’s sequence of nine exhortations (5:25, 26; 6:1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10) indicates that the actual section of the letter in which 6:1-10 occurs is 5:25–6:10. This matter was discussed above, and reasons were given for viewing 5:25-26 as a distinct unit of Paul’s composition. Thus, here, let us attend to the various ways that the majority of commentators see relationships among the verses of 6:1-10. Scholars view the verses of 6:1-10 in several distinct manners, seeing paragraphs in the material in the following ways: • vv. 1-10; • vv. 1-5, 6-10; • vv. 1-6, 7-10; • vv. 1-5, 6, 7-10; • vv. 1-2, 3-5, 6, 7-10; • vv. 1a, 1b, 2, 3-5, 6, 7-8, 9-10.

306

Galatians 6

There are different reasons for interpreters dividing the passage (6:1-10) in these ways. There is, however, yet another way to discern structure in Paul’s lines, viz., to note his use of particles at the outset of some verses. Seen from this point of view, the verses form smaller paragraphs in the following way: 6:1, 2-6, 7-10. Verses 1 and 2-6, however, seem related thematically, so that one may simply understand vv. 1-10 as two paragraphs: vv. 1-6, 7-10— although one should still see v. 1 as standing somewhat independently of vv. 2-6. Thus, v. 1 begins with the rhetorical address, “Brothers and sisters” (Gk. adelphoi; lit., “brothers”), a manner of greeting that would have solicited the Galatians’ attention to what Paul was about to say. Verse 2, then, begins with the Greek word for “one another” (Gk. all∑løn), not being explicitly connected to v. 1. Verse 3 follows, beginning with the particle gar (“for”) that connects v. 3 with v. 2. Next, v. 4 uses the particle de (“but”) to form a connection with the previous remark in v. 3. Verse 5 presents another instance of a sentence’s being connected by the particle gar (“for”) with the preceding sentence. And then v. 6 is connected with v. 5 by the particle de (“and”). Verses 7-10 are linked in a similar way. Verse 7 begins without a particle, issuing a stern warning (“Do not be misled”; Gk. m∑ planasthai). Verse 8 uses “because” (Gk. hoti) to connect with v. 7. Verse 9 uses de (“and”) to connect with v. 8. Paul’s Hortative Assertions And v. 10 uses a pair of particles, ara oun (“so At a glance Paul’s verb usage appears as then”), to connect with v. 9 and to signal the follows: end of the paragraph to which v. 10 belongs as Moods Future tense an inferential conclusion. imperative v. 1 imperative yes v. 2 Appreciating the structure of Paul’s statev. 3 ments in 6:1-10 is one key to understanding imperative yes v. 4 the substance of his hortative assertions. And yes v. 5 another aspect of his remarks that helps one to imperative v. 6 see important dimensions of his comments is imperative v. 7 yes to notice the striking number of commands v. 8 yes + yes v. 9 hortatory subjunctive yes that he issues using verbs in the imperative or v. 10 hortatory subjunctive (hortatory) subjunctive moods. In turn, Paul As this chart indicates, in 6:1-10 Paul seems conalso makes several statements regarding the cerned to give directions to the Galatians and to future, which are discernable by his use of speak with them about the future. future tense verbs. [Paul’s Hortative Assertions] Bearing, Boasting, and Sharing, 6:1-6 Paul’s salutation, “Brothers and sisters” (Gk. adelphoi), repeats the greeting that he has already employed seven times (1:11; 3:15; 4:12, 28, 31; 5:11, 13) and that he will repeat again in 6:18. His

Galatians 6

307

rhetoric is designed to get and to draw in the attention of his Galatian audience. He raises a seemingly generic situation, referring to “a person” (Gk. anthrøpos) whom he then refers to as “such a one” (Gk. ho toioutos) who may be involved in “some” (Gk. tis) infelicity. The circumstances of this apparently general problem could, however, easily be a concrete matter about which both Paul and the Galatians have further specific information. Nevertheless, though Paul mentions this issue in an indirect way, his remarks have certain elements that make Restoring an Errant Brother or Sister even his indefinite comments And their spirit and their deeds must be tested, year after worth noting. year, in order to upgrade each one to the extent of his Paul states that “even if a person insight and the perfection of his path, or to demote him according to should be discovered in some his failings. Each should reproach his fellow in truth, in meekness transgression,” there is a merciful and in compassionate love for the man. Blank No-one should speak to his brother in anger or muttering, or with a hard [neck or with process that others must employ in passionate] spiteful intent and he should not detest him [in the dealing with that person. [Restoring stubbornness] of his heart, but instead reproach him that day so as an Errant Brother or Sister] His descripnot to incur a sin for his fault. And in addition, no-one should raise a tion of how the erring Christian is matter against his fellow in front of the Many unless it is with found out and dealt with is reproof in the presence of witnesses. . . . (1QS 5:24–6:1; García striking. First, he uses the Greek Martínez, 9) verb prolambanein. The verb If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out means “to overtake” or “to come the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to upon by surprise” or “to discover.” you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take In this context, the verb is in the one or two others along with you, so that every word may be conpassive voice and is well translated firmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member “to be discovered.” Second, Paul refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a states that the one in the wrong is Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on involved in a “transgression” (Gk. earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will paraptøma), which is a word used be loosed in heaven. Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on by biblical (especially LXX) earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in authors with an ethical, religious heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am sense.1 Hans Dieter Betz notes that there among them. (Matt 18:15-20) Paul does not use the Greek word My brothers and sisters, if anyone among you wanders from the hamartia (“sin”) to name the truth and is brought back by another, you should know that whoever offense, observing that Paul regards brings back a sinner from wandering will save the sinner’s soul from “sin” as applying to the predeath and will cover a multitude of sins. (Jas 5:19-20) Christian situation.2 In these remarks to the Galatians, Paul If you see your brother or sister committing what is not a mortal sin, you will ask, and God will give life to such a one—to those whose clearly has the Christian commusin is not mortal. There is sin that is mortal; I do not say that you nity in view, and only in v. 10 will should pray about that. (1 John 5:16) he recognize the larger world in which the Galatian Christians Florentino García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, 2d ed., trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson (New York: Brill, 1996). lived.

308

Galatians 6

Third, Paul directs his instructions to the Galatians, particularly to “you who are the spiritual ones.” The recognition of “the spiritual ones” (Gk. hoi pneumatikoi) raises some questions because that same term seems to have been used by an elitist group in the Corinthian church as a self-designation; in turn, Paul used the name in an ironic fashion in order to confront those self-styled “spiritual ones” in Corinth with their distinct lack of spirituality. Whether Paul uses “spiritual ones” in Galatians in an ironic way is debated, but there is really no indication that Paul is using sarcasm at this point in the letter.3 Rather, Paul appears to be calling on those in the congregations who were more mature in their spiritual growth than some others, in order to Church Fathers on Galatians 6:1 direct their dealings with any Now Paul speaks to those who were spiritually members(s) of the churches who might stronger, lest by becoming proud in their own good have gone astray. This emphasis is conlife they should think it right to despise and reject one who had perhaps been overtaken by sin. And so they must be told sistent with Paul’s steady focus on the that people struggling with sin are to be spurred toward Spirit throughout the latter chapters of reform with kindness. If they were to be more harshly punthe letter (3:2, 3, 5, 14; 4:6, 29; 5:5, 16, ished with coercive authority they would not accept reproof. 17, 18, 22-23, 25; 6:8, 18). Thus, one They would begin to defend themselves against seeming to mark of spirituality is the ability to deal be base and worse. If you protect a person from strife and with those who go wrong, not in a conarrogance he will become meek in relation to you, since humility tends to make even the proud humble. demnatory fashion but in a sympathetic (Ambrosiaster, Epistle to the Galatians 6.2.1-2) way. [Church Fathers on Galatians 6:1] Fourth, perhaps most remarkably, what is to be Paul does not say “punish” or “pass judgment” but restore. done with such members according to Nor did he even stop there, but showing that he strongly Paul is that they are to be restored desired them to be patient with those who stumbled he (Gk. katartizesthai), which means that adds in a spirit of gentleness. He does not say “in gentleness” but in a spirit of gentleness, showing that this also is they are to be “put in order”4 or brought the will of the Spirit and that the capacity to correct back to a previous good condition. another’s faults is a spiritual gift. (John Chrysostom, Homily Regarding this particular usage of on Galatians 6.1) katartizein, Liddell, Scott, and Jones’s Greek-English Lexicon suggests that the The Spirit-led person should correct a sinner gently and word is used here metaphorically and meekly. He must not be inflexible, angry or aggrieved in his desire to correct him. He should stir him up with the promise should be translated, “restore to a right of salvation, promising remission and bringing forth the testimind.” Others have pointed to a parallel mony of Christ. (Jerome, Epistle to the Galatians 3.6.1) passage in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QS 5:24–6:1) where the members of the There is no surer test of the spiritual person than his treatintimate community that produced the ment of another’s sin. Note how he takes care to deliver the scrolls are instructed to “rebuke one sinner rather than triumph over him, to help him rather than punish him and, so far as lies in his capacity, to support him. another in truth, humility, and charity” (Augustine, Epistle to the Galatians 56 [1B.6.1]) and then told that no one is to rebuke “his companion with anger, or illMark J. Edwards, ed., Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Ancient Christian temper, or obduracy, or with envy Commentary on Scripture, vol. 8, gen. ed. Thomas C. Oden (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 1999) 92–93. prompted by the spirit of wickedness.”5

Galatians 6

Fifth, Paul himself states that an erring member of the Christian fellowship was to be restored in “a spirit of gentleness.” Paul probably has in mind both the human spirit and the Holy Spirit, for his phrase, en pneumati praüt∑tos (“in a spirit of gentleness”), recalls the fruit of the Spirit, particularly “gentleness” (Gk. praüt∑s), which is a manifestation of the Spirit in the lives of the believers. The restoration as Paul describes it is without harshness; he makes no provision for punishment and seems at least as concerned with the handling of the case as with the offense that precipitated the entire situation. Sixth, Paul tells those who are being recruited for the restoration of their fellow Christians that they are to be aware of their own part in the restorative process. Thus, Paul insists that those handling the situation are to engage in self-examination. The statement that Paul makes has the quality of a maxim: “Look to yourself lest you also may be tempted.” Paul’s wording in this final clause of v. 1 is remarkable because he shifts from writing in second person plural forms (“you” plural) to write in second person singular forms (“you” singular). Obviously Paul recognizes and therefore communicates to his readers that in administering this process of mending wrongs, the one who works for the restoration of another is liable to fall into temptation—most likely the temptation of looking down on the other person and feeling superior because one has not oneself fallen into the difficulties from which one attempts to restore one’s fellow Christian. Thus, Paul speaks not only to all but particularly to each Christian engaged in the rehabilitation of another who has gone wrong. He warns that in the process of restoration there are temptations that must be faced even by one bringing aid to another, so that this situational admonition has both communal and individual dimensions of concern. Verse 2 delivers yet another exhortation in a form that some interpreters regard as a maxim. The commanding quality of the remark is evident in the verb “bear” (Gk. bastazein6), which occurs in the imperative mood in the first clause of the sentence. The structure of the initial clause is notable in its word order. It literally reads “of one another the burdens bear” (Gk. all∑løn ta bar∑ bastazete), giving emphasis to the word for “one another” (Gk. all∑løn)—a word first used in the letter at the beginning of the parenetic materials at 5:13 and repeated since then in 5:15, 17, 26; 6:2. Thus, one sees that Paul steadily emphasizes the life of the community in his remarks in the parenesis of the letter. His word for “burdens” (Gk. ta bar∑ 7) could refer to any particular difficulties that might be faced by believers in their daily lives, but

309

310

Galatians 6

following v. 1 it may be that Paul means to speak of the temptations faced by members of the community that had the capacity to lead them astray. In any event, the language is metaphorical and is to be understood as hardships faced in human life. In conjunction with Paul’s admonition, Betz cites a maxim found in a story by Xenophon about Socrates and Aristarchus, wherein Socrates says, “One must share one’s burdens with one’s friends, for possibly we may do something to ease you.”8 Although the point of view of the two sayings is not exactly the same, the basic idea of sharing burdens for the benefit or relief of the one experiencing difficulties does seem similar in Paul’s and Xenophon’s statements. One also sees in the remarks the importance of community for the wellbeing of those who make up the “one another.” The second clause of v. 2, “and so you will bring to completion the Law of Christ,” presents a challenging set of issues for interpretation. First, the verb, “bring to completion” (often translated, “to fulfill”) (Gk. anapl∑roun), occurs differently in the earliest and best manuscripts of the text. The textual tradition includes manuscripts that read “fulfill” (Gk. anapl∑røsate), which is an aorist imperative verb, and “will fulfill” (Gk. anapl∑røsete), which is a future indicative verb. Both readings are well attested, and both make sense in the context, but as Bruce M. Metzger explains in behalf of the Editorial Committee of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, the diverse attestation of the future tense and the likelihood that scribes would conform the future to the preceding imperatives (“restore” and “bear”) probably indicate that the future tense reading is to be preferred. Thus, the text most likely reads, “and so you will bring to completion the Law of Christ.”9 Second, Paul writes the puzzling phrase, “the Law of Christ” (Gk. ho nomos tou Christou). These words are a bit baffling because at 2:21 Paul said, “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness is through the Law, then Christ died for no purpose,” thus seeming to put the Law and Christ at odds with each other. In turn, Paul continues to cast the Law in a negative light throughout much of the rest of the letter. But now one finds Paul speaking of “the Law of Christ.” We have seen a similarly puzzling statement in 5:14, where Paul speaks in an explicitly positive way about the Law, but never so much as in this verse with the phrase “the Law of Christ.” This oddity has presented a significant problem for interpreters, so that a variety of interpretations have been offered for Paul’s phrase. These understandings of “the Law of Christ” include the following:

Galatians 6

311

1. The Law of God as enunciated by Christ (as a replacement for the Law of Moses?)—just as the Law of Moses is the Law of God put forth by Moses, so the Law of Christ is the Law of God given by Christ.10 2. The Mosaic Code.11 3. The whole tradition of the teaching of Jesus.12 4. A phrase that Paul took from his opponents and used as a reference to his own understanding of the Law as presented in 5:14. Thus, the one who loves fulfills the Law, and since such love is Christ’s love, the Law can be called Christ’s Law.13 5. The Law of Love, a reference to Leviticus 19:18 as defined in 5:14, often understood as a reference to Christ’s own self-giving love embodied in his self-giving death in behalf of others (1:4; 3:13; 4:4-5).14 There are still other ways that interpreters have suggested for understanding what Paul means by “the Law of Christ.” These understandings are, however, usually variations of or combinations of the options listed above. Much can be said for all of these interpretations, but in light of what we have seen in Paul’s letter to this point (and from what can be known of Paul’s thought as expressed in his other letters), the following seems to explain Paul’s phrase: as we saw in relation to 5:14, Christ himself “made complete” (Gk. pl∑roun) the Law as epitomized in the single saying, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The Law of Christ is Christ’s own perfect living out of the saying regarding love in Leviticus 19:18 (not explicitly called a commandment by Paul) as cited in 5:14. Through living in this manner, Christ made the Law his own. Thus, believers bring to completion the same Law that Christ himself “made complete,” as they again (the Greek prefix, ana-, on the verb, anapl∑roun [“again bring to completion”], both intensifies and emphasizes the repetition of the completion of the love-saying) bring to completion the saying to love one’s neighbor as oneself. They fully complete Christ’s Law especially through burdenbearing love.15 In this way, as believers again bring to The Royal Law completion the saying about love, they bring to compleYou do well if you really fulfill the royal law tion the Law of Christ. [The Royal Law] according to the scripture, “You In the context of chapter 6, one sees that Paul has shall love your neighbor as yourself.” advised the Galatians to bear one another’s burdens in an (Jas 2:8) explicitly defined way in 6:1. As the Galatians deal with one another in a spirit of gentleness in order to restore anyone of the Christian community who has gone astray, they fulfill the Law of Christ. Verse 2a is a brief restatement of the more elaborate

312

Galatians 6

directive of 6:1. In turn, v. 2b is a pronouncement cast in eschatological language that states what such love amounts to (bringing to completion the Law of Christ). While the future tense of the verb “to bring to completion” (“you will bring to completion”) suggests a future orientation of the saying, still the present tense of the admonition to bear one another’s burdens shows that there is an important existential dimension to Paul’s exhortation. To love as Christ loved in the present is an anticipation of Christ’s perfect love that will be fully revealed and experienced in God’s eschatological “new creation” (Gk. kain∑ ktisis; 6:15). Paul begins v. 3 with the postpositive particle gar (“for”), which introduces the verse as an explanation or reason for his remark in v. 2b. Verse 3 seems to be still another maxim,16 stated now in the third person singular rather than the second person. The maxim, however, seems self-evident, so that one wonders why Paul felt compelled to make such a remark. But the statement is actually more than a warning about generic pride. In this particular context, this warning against pride is focused on spiritual pride. Paul seems to be concerned to counsel the Galatians regarding the danger of an inflated view of oneself in terms of one’s spirituality. He is most likely warning his readers against the danger of having an exaggerated opinion of oneself as a result of comparing oneself to another person—here, most likely a person who has gone astray and is in need of restoration. The one working for restoration, Paul cautions, is in danger of self-delusion through making an inappropriate comparison of himself or herself with the brother or sister who has been discovered in some transgression. Such an inflated sense of oneself could easily result in a disinclination to bear the burdens of others in need of restoration, so that an exaggerated sense of one’s selfimportance thwarts spiritual maturity and hinders gentle restoration of another. In opening v. 4, Paul uses the particle de, which is most often translated “but” or “and.” In using this particle to connect v. 4 with what has gone before in v. 3, Paul seems to use the word to create a contrast between the last clause of v. 3, “he deceives himself,” and the first clause of v. 4, “let each person put his own work to the test.” Thus, de serves to introduce an objection or correction to what went before it.17 In this case, perhaps one should translate with the phrase, “Now rather than being self-deceived,” so that v. 4 presents a command that instructs “each person” how to avoid selfdeception. The first part of the verse is a command that has the quality of a maxim: “Let each person put his own work to the test”; and the second part has a future cast that could envision either an existential or an eschatological future: “and, then, the boast will be

Galatians 6

in regard to himself alone and not in regard to another.” Perhaps the statement is best understood to have both the existential and the eschatological future in mind, for as one sees in Paul’s apocalyptic outlook, self-examination ultimately has meaning only in relation to God’s final judgment. Nevertheless, to test one’s own work (Gk. dokimazein) was regarded in antiquity as the most important responsibility of a philosopher, an obligation that Paul here presents as a duty of the Christian.18 Such self-examination meant assessing one’s life exclusively, one’s words and conduct, not making a comparison of oneself with others. Moreover, the goal of self-examination was to identify an achievement of one’s own as a basis for boasting (Gk. kauch∑ma), with boasting being understood not as bragging but as the appropriate identification of a legitimate accomplishment, not a false attainment or the achievement of another. For the ancients, true achievement was not found by comparing oneself with others.19 And so Paul stresses personal responsibility as he directs the Galatians in their work to restore any of the Christian community who somehow committed a transgression. Verse 5 is another maxim, though introduced as it is with the word “for” (Gk. gar), it functions not merely as a maxim but also as an explanation of the statement that went before it in v. 4. In fact, the remark may even provide an explanation for everything that went before v. 5 in vv. 1-4. Furthermore, in the context of Paul’s discussion of the setting right of an erring believer through a spirit of gentleness, the statement certainly has an important existential meaning or aim, although it is also possible that the remark is to be understood in an eschatological light, regarding personal responsibility at final judgment. What is most puzzling about this statement is the conflict that some see between this verse (“each will bear his own load”) and v. 2a (“bear one another’s burdens”), so that one wonders who is to bear what. The seeming paradox between v. 5 and v. 2a is probably deliberate and not really inexplicable. For one thing, Paul uses the word “burden” (Gk. baros) in v. 2 and the word “load” (Gk. phortion) in v. 5. The words are essentially synonyms. There is no contradiction, however, because the idea of bearing another’s burden, i.e., undertaking to be of service to another who is struggling with some difficulty, does not in any way eliminate the reality of bearing one’s own load, i.e., taking responsibility for the difficulty that one faces in one’s own life. In other words, Paul tells the Galatians both that there are problems that can be borne for another and that there are problems that must be handled personally—the two are not mutually exclusive. Each believer has difficulties for which he or she is to take

313

314

Galatians 6

responsibility—and at the same time there are opportunities for believers to help one another in relation to such difficulties. Finally, the future cast of the language in v. 5, as in vv. 2 and 4, is ever a reminder that God’s future impinges upon humanity’s present and future, claiming the lives of believers in the present for the future. Having admonished the Galatians to care for one another and to carry themselves in a manner befitting the presence and influence of the Spirit in their lives (the life of each one of them), in v. 6 Paul makes another statement that connects to the foregoing lines through the use of the postpositive particle de (“and”). Nevertheless, interpreters often judge the statement in this verse to be a new subject with no direct relation not only to the context but also to the topic of the epistle as a whole.20 Some commentators contend, however, that the situation that Paul indicates here is an instance of mutual help. Thus, they suggest that v. 6 relates to v. 2a and what follows it, so that the verse is understood to deal with the theme of helping others rather than attending to acts of self-aggrandizement. Furthermore, interpreters sometimes cite a portion of the Hippocratic oath that parallels Paul’s remark in v. 6. In that oath one finds words that were spoken by one who was an initiate to the medical profession, “to hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine.” In turn, since Paul’s thoughts in this section run in the direction of service, especially mutual service, it is reasonable to understand that he is exhorting the Galatians to a particular form of mutual service. Clearly Paul is not making an indirect or veiled appeal on his own behalf. He seems to have in mind a class in the churches of remunerated early Christian teachers, indicating that teaching was a serious activity and that it was not undertaken lightly in the earliest Christian communities. For Paul, the Galatians’ attitude toward their teachers was a specific example of their outlook on life in general. Finally, it is important to note what was being taught (“the word”; Gk. ho logos) and what was being shared (“all good things”; Gk. panta agatha). The message was “the gospel” (perhaps influenced by Lev 19:18, since logos occurs in 5:14 in reference to the text from Leviticus) and that which was shared was “all good things,” most likely a reference to both material and spiritual goods. Sowing, Reaping, and Working the Good, 6:7-10 Verse 7 comprises an introductory clause and, then, a pair of proverbial sayings, which themselves lead into the two lengthy

Galatians 6

clauses of v. 8. Verse 7 begins with a word of caution, “Do not be misled.” Interpreters note that while this warning has existential relevance to the situation that Paul and the Galatians faced, the counsel given also has about it an eschatological ring, occurring as it does in conjunction with the future tense verb “will reap” (therisei from therizein). The initial warning is often translated, “Do not be deceived,” but the verb, planasthai, indicates something being led or, better, misled; it can even mean “cause to wander,”21 so that it indicates not merely deception but diversion. Paul is saying that one is not to be redirected, which is precisely the problem with the Galatians’ following Paul’s opponents by accepting “another gospel” (1:6). Paul’s next words, “God is not mocked” (Gk. theos ou mykt∑rizetai), have the quality of a proverb in their brevity and aphoristic character. The verb translated “to mock” (Gk. mykt∑rizein) is related to the Greek word for “nose” (Gk. mykt∑r) and in the active voice means “to turn up the nose” or “to sneer at,” whereas the passive voice (as here) is usually rendered “to be mocked.”22 J. Louis Martyn captures the spirit of the verb, however, by translating the line, “to thumb your nose at God.”23 Paul is clearly warning against acting defiantly toward God, and he does so using colorful language. Then, in the last two clauses of v. 7 Paul offers what apparently is a common traditional maxim that is intended to support what he has said as a warning in the first parts of the verse. The saying draws from the practices of agriculture, focusing on the continuity between what one sows and what one harvests. Many instances of this same kind of saying occur in both the LXX and Greco-Roman philosophical writings.24 Paul’s maxim fits well into the general body of such sayings. In the first place, his proverb is certainly related to the present, affirming his warning about the danger of misguided behavior that sneers at God, but in its context Paul’s maxim is also an eschatological pronouncement, looking toward the occurrence of divine reward and retribution at the Last Judgment. In Paul’s saying there is a correspondence between sowing and reaping, i.e., what is sown determines what is reaped. Different sowings produce different crops. Now, in v. 8, in conjunction with the imagery presented in Paul’s agricultural proverb, Paul reintroduces the dualism of “flesh” (Gk. sarx) and “spirit” (Gk. pneuma) that he employed in earlier portions of the letter, especially in 4:23-29 and 5:13-24. As he brings this set of opposites into play, Paul shifts from focusing on “whatever a person may sow” to refer to that “to” which one

315

316

Galatians 6

sows—in other words he alters his focus from the seeds sown to the soils into which one sows. Verse 8 begins with the Greek word, hoti, which means “because,” indicating that v. 8 follows v. 7 as a causal explanatory exposition of that previous verse. Often commentators observe that in v. 8 Paul’s metaphorical language takes on the character of allegory. Moreover, his language of “flesh” and “spirit” is complex in that he seems to use the word flesh differently in the two occurrences of the word in this verse. In turn, Paul’s uses of the word spirit requires one to ask whether Paul is referring to the human spirit or God’s Spirit, or both. Different interpreters read this verse of Paul’s letter in remarkably different ways. In v. 8 Paul seems to work with an apocalyptic (eschatological) point of view. His explanation in v. 8 of his remarks in v. 7 takes his reflections on sowing and reaping to a whole new level. Paul says, remarkably, that one sows either “to” (lit., “into”; Gk. eis) “his own flesh” or “to” (again, lit., “into”) “the Spirit,” juxtaposing one’s selfcentered, misguided actions against one’s appropriate spiritual behavior. On the one hand, Paul’s phrase “to his own flesh” (Gk. eis t∑n sarka heautou) conspicuously contains the qualifier “his own,” making clear that such sowing is merely focused on the self. In the context of this letter, such sowing is turning to circumcision and Law observance for the basis of one’s relationship to God.25 On the other hand, Paul writes “to the Spirit,” indicating that the aim of this sowing is God’s own Spirit. In this case, the one so sowing is most likely to be committed to cultivating the fruit of the Spirit. In turn, Paul says that the one sowing to his own flesh “will reap ruin from the Flesh,” now naming the personified evil that produces ruin in the life of one sowing in such a fashion. And then Paul states that the one sowing to the Spirit “will reap eternal life from the Spirit.” Thus, he recognizes that an investment of the self in the Spirit brings benefits from the Spirit (“fruit of the Spirit”). Understood this way, the sequence is (1) sarx/human flesh, (2) Sarx/suprahuman Flesh, (3) Pneuma/divine Spirit, and (4) Pneuma/divine Spirit; so that Paul’s exposition of v. 7 (in v. 8) uses the dualistic categories of flesh/spirit (or Flesh/Spirit) in an allegorized narrative that presents a twofold eschatological promise: ruin from the Flesh for the one sowing to his own flesh and eternal life from the Spirit for the one sowing to the Spirit. Three times Paul uses the future tense verb “will reap” (therisei from therizein) in vv. 7-8. He says that one will reap what one sows, and then he says that from the Flesh one will reap “ruin” (Gk. phthora) and from the Spirit one will reap “eternal life” (Gk. zø∑ aiønios). “Ruin” indicates “corruption”26 or “eternal

Galatians 6

annihilation,”27 and “eternal life” signifies life possessed by God and by Christ that by virtue of a relationship to God in Christ belongs to the believer while still in the body and after the resurrection.28 Verse 9 connects with vv. 7-8 by means of the (often untranslated) particle de (“and”) and through the idea of reaping that is present in each of the three verses. Paul begins v. 9 with an appeal (v. 9a) that is followed by a supporting eschatological promise (v. 9b). The appeal is made using a hortatory subjunctive verb that is really an admonition to oneself (Paul) and to one’s colleagues (the Galatians, if not all Christians). This appeal employs the Greek verb enkakein, which is often translated “to grow weary.” At the root of enkakein, however, is the Greek word kakos, which is itself understood differently from the basic ideas of merely growing weary. Rather, kakos is routinely recognized to indicate something more negative than “growing weary”; it can even refer to evil.29 Thus, enkakein is better understood to mean “to act badly,” “to treat badly,” or “to leave off (wickedly).”30 It may also be understood to mean “to behave remissly.”31 If enkakein is translated “to grow weary,” as it often is, one must understand clearly that such weariness is a failure to discharge responsibilities, not merely getting tired; thus, a better translation of Paul’s exhortation may be, “Let us not be remiss . . . .” This rendering casts the reference to the potential behavior of Paul and those to whom he speaks in a more active and thereby more negative light than does “to grow weary,” especially when the verb is understood simply as “to get tired.” Paul is speaking of negligence. [The Sin of Sloth] What are Paul and the Galatians not to be remiss in doing? Paul says it is (in Greek) to kalon, which is usually translated “what is good” (REB) or “what is right” (NRSV). Above all, the word kalon means “beautiful.” In terms of that which is the beautiful, kalon, when used in a moral manner (as it seems to be used here), means “beautiful” in the sense of “noble,” “honorable.”32 Moreover, with the article, to kalon (an abstract usage)33 can mean “moral beauty,” “virtue,” and “honor.”34 In the context of Paul’s particular discussion in 6:1-10, to kalon probably is used to refer to spiritual gentleness and burden-bearing love. Thus, to paraphrase Paul in other words, “Let’s not be negligent in bringing to completion the Law of Christ.” Or, in English translation, one might capture the sense of the word more precisely by rendering to kalon as “what is right.” Then, a more careful, more literal translation would read, “And let us not be remiss in doing what is right.” Following this exhortation (v. 9a), Paul writes a word of explanation (“for”; Gk. gar) that takes the form of an eschatological (or

317

318

Galatians 6

apocalyptic) promise. He not only focuses his remark in relation to the future by using a future tense verb, “we will reap” (Gk. therisomen from therizein), but also speaks of a “distinct” or “specific” time (Gk. kairos . . . idios35) at which a harvest will be gathered. Both the notion of an appointed time and Image Not Available the image of harvesting are due to lack of digital rights. well-known elements of Please view the published apocalyptic eschatological commentary or perform an Internet perspectives on reality search using the credit below. (see Matt 8:29; Mark 13:33; Luke 21:8; John 4:36; Rev 14:15, 16), and while Paul’s remarks here have existential relevance, his outlook is in nature Jacob (Jacques) de Backer (1545–1600). The Seven Deadly Sins: Sloth. Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte. Naples, Italy. (Credit: Alinari /Art Resource, NY) primarily an apocalyptic eschatological one. Moreover, Paul qualifies his promise with a conditional element that approaches being a threat. He says that believers will reap at a particular time “if [they] do not give up” (Gk. m∑ ekluesthai). Paul’s word, ekluomenoi (from ekluesthai), is striking.36 It is a combination of ek (“from” or “out of ”) and luein/luesthai (“to loose” or “to destroy”) that lexicographers define, in part, as “to be exhausted,” “to lose heart,”37 and “to fail.”38 Ekluesthai is sometimes compared with enkakein in v. 9a and taken to express more negative force than enkakein. Therefore, the word is often translated “to give up,” which does seem to express what its components and usage mean, although it is possible that Paul may have something in mind even more negative than giving up, viz., failure. Such abandonment of or failure at the work of reaping a harvest seems to mean that those giving up on the task do not experience the benefits of the harvest itself. This observation raises a question: What is the harvest? According to v. 8b, the positive reaping that Paul has in mind for believers is a harvest of eternal life from the Spirit. As noted earlier, this eternal life is part of God’s future, but it is also part of the present that God is already transforming through the presence and The Sin of Sloth When Paul warns the Galatians against growing negligent in doing good (v. 9), he is alluding to what later Christian tradition identified as the sin of sloth (Latin, acedia). Far from mere laziness, this sin also includes the attitude of spiritual or moral apathy. It is the failure to do the things one should do: “Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, commits sin” (Jas 4:17).

Galatians 6

the power of the Spirit (3:2-5). Thus, a harvest of the crop of the Spirit probably should be understood as a harvest of the Spirit’s fruit—so that those reaping from the Spirit in the present are experiencing the harvest of the fruit of the Spirit now (5:22-23). Verse 10 brings Paul’s parenetic remarks to an end. He clearly signals that he is drawing to a conclusion by using a pair of particles, “So then” (Gk. ara oun), that normally introduces an inference formed from preceding statements. Then, Paul’s next phrase, “as we have time” (Gk. høs kairon echomen), again uses the word time (Gk. kairos), which echoes his previous phrase in v. 9b, “at a specific time” (kairos). Remarkably while v. 9b sounds a strong eschatological tone, the use of kairos in v. 10a is clearly existential in its pitch.39 Paul’s exhortation to the Galatians in v. 10b employs a hortatory subjunctive verb, “let us work” (Gk. ergazømetha from ergazesthai), in an encouraging attempt to motivate the Galatians—apparently both responsible and irresponsible members of the community—to pursue actively the well-being of others. Here Paul means the welfare of all humankind. That understanding of “all” (Gk. pantas from pas) is clear from Paul’s next remark, which names the Christian community in distinction from “all.” Paul’s admonition is for the Christians, including at least Paul and the Galatians if not all believers (“we”/”us”), to work “what is good (Gk. to agathon) “to all.” The word translated as “good” is similar in construction to “good things” of v. 6 and “what is right” of v. 9a. Here, Paul enjoins the Galatians to take action that will bring to agathon (“what is good”) to all.40 Having articulated the universalistic statement about working for the good of all (a sentiment hinted at in 3:28 and 5:13, though not fully expressed there), Paul seems in v. 10b to back away from his initial universality. Commentators are often baffled by the coupling of clauses in v. 10, i.e., by the joining of v. 10a and v. 10b. Again, some interpreters see Paul as being inconsistent, though many commentators perceive here a Pauline paradox: the two clauses of v. 10 are seen to be related in that v. 10a encourages believers to care for all humanity, while then v. 10b does not retract the foregoing universal concern but rather (v. 10b) qualifies the previous directive (v. 10a) by telling Paul’s Christian readers to be especially concerned for one another—in the context of expressing concern and care for “all” humanity. Paul’s final phrase, “those of the household of faith” (Gk. hoi oikeioi t∑s pisteøs), uses a metaphor for the early Christian community that plays off the most basic unit of society in the

319

320

Galatians 6

Greco-Roman world. By casting Christians in this image Paul, implies that all believers are related as family (in the inclusive Greco-Roman sense of a household) or that they are at least bonded together in a social system that gave a meaningful role to each person in relation to the others. Mutual concern and care would be the ideals of such a household-based society. Of course, all households were not the ideal, but Paul’s metaphor would have been familiar to his Galatian congregations. Moreover, Paul labels the early Christian community “those of the household of faith.” Here Paul seems to use the word faith in the same way he employed it in 1:23, i.e., to refer to the whole of early Christianity.41 Closing Remarks, 6:11-18

As Paul brings the letter to a close, he moves in a rapid but intensely focused fashion through a series of remarks that reiterate the main points of letter. He gives the letter a personal touch and then immediately begins to polemicize against the same people whom he has criticized throughout the epistle. His remarks about his opponents at this point are not as elaborate as his comments about them earlier in the letter, but in their brevity Paul’s criticisms have a stinging quality that actually goes beyond anything he has said previously. He accuses his adversaries of ignoble motives, duplicity, and manipulation. Then, having finished with his opponents, Paul reiterates the heart and soul of the message that he preached. He refers to the cross and speaks of its capacity to transform lives and to change and rearrange human value systems. With the mention of the cross, Paul is led to speak of the new creation, which is the outcome of God’s apocalyptic activity through Christ for the sake of humanity. And, nearing the very end of the letter Paul pronounces a benediction of peace and mercy before he warns away any who might be moved to present him with further difficulties. Paul closes the letter in striking fashion, not only referring to the grace of “our Lord Jesus Christ,” but also to the “spirit” of the Galatian believers, whom he once again calls “brothers and sisters.” Finally, he says, “Amen.” Paul’s “Autograph,” 6:11 At v. 11 of chapter 6, Paul states that he had taken the pen in hand to write what interpreters often call an epistolary autograph, which means that at the conclusion of the letter, Paul himself wrote the last few lines in order to give a personal mark to the document and perhaps also to give the letter an authenticating touch. Obviously

Galatians 6

321

St. Paul Writing an amanuensis had been responsible for the physical production of the letter up to this point. Scholars discuss how much Paul was likely to have written himself, and suggestions include (1) v. 11 alone; (2) vv. 11-16; and (3) vv. 11-18. There is no way to know which, if any, of these opinions is correct; but if Paul continued to write in his own hand past v. 11, then grammar (copulative particles) and content (unity and flow of subject matter) probably favor his having written all of vv. 11-18 himself. Still, the remark in v. 11 generates further discussion of Paul’s concluding lines. Specifically, why did Paul write in “large letters” (Gk. p∑lika grammata)? Adolf Deissmann contended that Paul wrote in an inelegant manner because he used “the stiff, heavy uncials of a manual laborer.”42 Making his case that Paul’s Saint Paul writing. From an early ninth-century manuscript version of Saint Paul’s letters. Württembergische Landesbibliothek Stuttgart, HB II 54. autograph with its large letters was the (Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-US-100) result of clumsy writing, Deissmann produced examples of single letters written in The manuscript is ascribed to the Monastery of St. Gallen under the scribe Wolfcoz. The picture follows an early different hands, even one letter with only medieval tradition of depicting the author of a text. It is the greeting and the conclusion in the believed to be one of the earliest depictions of Saint Paul in handwriting of the actual sender. Against European art. The inscription says, “S(AN)C(TU)S PAULUS” Deissmann’s explanation of Paul’s large and “sedet hic scripsit” (“he sits here and writes”). letters, most interpreters contend that the enlarged handwriting was meant to create emphasis, since Paul reiterates the main points of the letter in his concluding remarks in vv. 11-18. Yet Paul would not likely have had a practiced handwriting, so he may have found it convenient to write emphatically in larger letters than a scribe would have produced. Without the original (and perhaps even with it), it is impossible to resolve this debate. [“Such Large Letters”] Furthermore, the Authorized Version (KJV)—along with Luther,43 Calvin,44 and others—interprets Paul’s words to refer to the notable length of the letter itself: “See how large a letter” (AV); “he is referring to the length of the epistle” (Luther); and “he mentions that this long letter . . .” (Calvin). No contemporary commentator reads Paul’s remark to refer to the length of the letter. The Greek word that Paul uses here is gramma (“letter”), and it is

322

Galatians 6

“Such Large Letters” It is not that the letters were larger (though indeed the word would bear this sense in Greek) but because the marks of his own handwriting were known to them. So when they recognized the angles and contours of his own letters, they would feel that they had encountered him. . . . Paul wrote his letter in great characters because the meaning of the characters was great and had been traced out by the Spirit of God, not merely by pen and ink. (Jerome, Epistle to the Galatians, 3.6.11)

plural (grammata). As such, in Paul’s usage it refers to a letter of the alphabet, not to a written message, which would have been singular in form and to which Paul would have referred using the Greek word epistol∑ (“letter” or “epistle”—e.g., Rom 16:22; 1 Cor 5:9; 2 Cor 3:2; 1 Thess 5:27, etc.).

A Further Polemic Against Law Observance, 6:12-13 Paul shifts his focus in v. 12 to refer again to those who had come among the Gentile Galatian believers with a message about the necessity of cirBy so large he seems to be indicating not the cumcision and Law observance for Gentiles size but the poor form of the characters, all but converts to Christianity. Paul speaks of these saying, “Although I do not write well, I have nonetheless been compelled to write for people in unflattering phrases. First, he says that myself, so as to silence those who slander they want to make a good showing (Gk. thelousin me.” (John Chrysostom, Homily on Galatians euprosøp∑sai), in particular, in the flesh (Gk. en 6.11) sarki). In its origin, Paul’s word (euprosøpein) meant “to look well” in a purely physical sense, Mark J. Edwards, ed., Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, vol. 8, gen. ed. but in its use over time, it came, as in Paul’s use, Thomas C. Oden (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 1999) 100. to refer to “winning the good opinion of one’s neighbors.”45 Paul qualifies this desire with the phrase in the flesh, here referring to actual human flesh such as would be subject to circumcision.46 In other words, Paul accuses his opponents of trying to force the Galatians to undergo circumcision so that they (the opponents) would look good in the eyes of still others (such as those to whom Paul refers as “false brothers and sisters” [2:4], “certain people from James,” and “those from the circumcision [2:12]). Paul continues by declaring explicitly that “these force you to be circumcised” (Gk. houtoi anankazousin hymas peritemnesthai). Again, it is those whom Paul regards as adversaries who insist that the Galatians take on this key element of Law observance. These people, Paul says, “try to force” the Galatians to be circumcised. The idea of trying to force the Galatians comes from understanding the Greek verb anagkazein (“to force”47) to be a conative present, so that “the present may express an action begun, attempted, or intended.”48 Yet some interpreters contend that it is possible to read the verb differently, to see the Galatians as already being circumcised; but in this context Paul is arguing against circumcision, not rebuking the Galatians for something they have already experienced.

Galatians 6

Paul says that the “only” (Gk. monon) reason that these people advocate circumcision is for the purpose of not being persecuted for the cross of Christ. His reading of the motives of his opponents is not only unfavorable but also claims that their motives are contrary to the essential message that Paul understands and presents as the gospel—“For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2); “Who bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was put on display as being crucified” (Gal 3:1). Paul had both persecuted the church of God beyond measure, trying to destroy it (1:13), and been persecuted himself because of the “scandal of the cross” (5:11). Now, facing the situation in Galatia, he insists that those outsiders among the Galatians are themselves merely attempting to avoid suffering affliction for the sake of the cross of Christ. They are seeking to please others so that they will not be put in peril themselves. Elsewhere (2 Cor 11:23-29) Paul catalogues his own experiences of persecution. There one sees clearly from the list of difficulties that Paul had faced in his ministry that he had known persecution from both Jewish and Roman authorities—and other difficulties even from outlaws. For Paul to accuse his opponents of evading suffering for the sake of the cross was for him to call into question in a stark way (for Paul the starkest of ways) the legitimacy of his adversaries’ ministry and message. [Paul’s Sufferings] Verse 13 employs the postpositive explanatory particle gar (“for”), which both connects v. 13 with v. 12 and introduces a statement that explicates Paul’s disparaging remarks in v. 12. The first phrase of the verse has brought about debate concerning the identity of those to whom Paul refers. When Paul writes, “those who are circumcised” (Gk. hoi peritemnomenoi), does he mean to name (1) his opponents among the Galatian congregations, i.e., the same people to whom he referred in v. 12, or (2) circumcised Gentiles, perhaps in the Galatian churches? Ernest DeWitt Burton offers several “decisive” (Burton’s word) reasons that hoi peritemnomenoi does not designate Paul’s opponents, arguing that Paul means to name circumcised Gentiles in general, not specifically the circumcised Galatians. The chief (and most persuasive) among these reasons is that it is doubtful that Paul could have said in an unqualified way that his opponents did not keep the Law.49 But, on the other hand, in defense of the interpretation of “those who are circumcised” as being Paul’s adversaries, J. Louis Martyn states, “There is no convincing reason to think that between v. 12 and v. 13 Paul changes his frame of reference, suddenly using the participle hoi peritemnomenoi to speak of a

323

324

Galatians 6

Paul’s Sufferings But we have this treasure in clay jars, so that it may be made clear that this extraordinary power belongs to God and does not come from us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our bodies. For while we live, we are always being given up to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus may be made visible in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us, but life in you. (2 Cor 4:7-12) Are they ministers of Christ? I am talking like a madman— I am a better one: with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless floggings, and often near death. Five times I have received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I received a stoning. Three times I was shipwrecked; for a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from Rembrandt Harmensz van Rijn (1606–1669). St. Paul in Prison. 1627. Oil on wood. Staatsgalerie, Stuttgart, Germany. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons, rivers, danger from bandits, danger from my own people, US-PD-100) danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers and sisters; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, hungry and thirsty, often without food, cold and naked. And, besides other things, I am under daily pressure because of my anxiety for all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I am not indignant? (2 Cor 11:23-29)

group other than [his opponents]”; and he adds, “linguistically, Paul simply refers to ‘the circumcised people.’ The context, and the syntax of vv 12-13, indicate that he speaks of [his opponents] (v 12a = v 13c).”50 Nevertheless, noting the interpretive conundrum, Betz writes, “A decision on this problem is impossible.” 51 Although Betz may be right that no utterly final decision can be formed on this matter, the position of Burton seems removed from the clear concerns of Galatians, while Martyn’s arguments about continuity and consistence suggest a more plausible solution to this interpretive issue—in other words, Paul speaks of his opponents (not others) in both v. 12 and v. 13. Paul continues, stating that hoi peritemnomenoi (“those who are circumcised”) “do not themselves observe the Law.” Here again, commentators differ over the sense of Paul’s statement. Operating with the assumption that “those who are circumcised” are Paul’s opponents in Galatia,52 this phrase (“do not themselves observe the Law”; Gk. oude . . . autoi nomon phylassousin) may be understood in two ways: (1) being away from Jerusalem and the temple, no one could fully follow the precepts of the Law—see the laws of Leviticus, especially regarding temple services; or (2) being Christian Jews, those to whom Paul refers may have themselves

Galatians 6

practiced a modified form of the Law—see Acts 15:28-29 (apparently the regulations followed initially by Cephas in Antioch, Gal 2:11-14). For Paul, circumcision meant complete observance of the Law (5:3), although from the letter to the Galatians one sees that along with circumcision those with whom Paul contests apparently advocated only portions of the Law: following a prescribed religious calendar (4:10) and probably table regulations (2:12). Moreover, Paul says that despite (“but”; Gk. alla) their own lax attitude (from Paul’s point of view) toward Law observance, his adversaries desired for the Galatians to undergo circumcision in order that (a purpose clause in Greek) they would be able to boast in the Galatians’ flesh, meaning that these promoters of Law observance could brag about the Galatians’ circumcision. Above, in considering 6:3-4, we focused on the phenomenon of boasting in antiquity, especially on Paul’s thought on the matter. Here, not surprisingly, he indicates that his opponents’ boasting is illegitimate because it implies Law observance, which he says they do not in fact practice. Christ’s Cross, New Creation, and a Benediction, 6:14-16 Paul continues in v. 14, using de (“but”) to connect the following remarks loosely with what he had said about his opponents and boasting in v. 13. The particle (de) is adversative and marks a contrast between the statements about boasting that are made in the two verses. Here, Paul’s statement employs a cliché in the form of a voluntative optative in Greek, m∑ genoito, which literally means “may it never be.” This phrase “has lost its optative ‘flavor,’” but it still registers abhorrence (in twelve of fourteen uses in Paul’s letters) in expressing the negative form of an obtainable wish—here, “But let me not . . . !”53 Paul considers the boasting of his opponents (v. 13) and, then, in v. 14 declares his desire never to boast in that way. His remark, “let me not boast,” is qualified by the Greek words ei m∑, which are translated “except.” Thus, Paul states the exception to his passionate wish not to boast: “except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This stance is consistent with the position he takes in 1 Corinthians 1:31, where he cites Jeremiah 9:22-23 LXX, saying, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” Nevertheless, here in Galatians, Paul seems again to present a paradox. Will he boast in regard to himself alone, as he advises in 6:4 (apparently not), or will he refrain from boasting except in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ (as he says here that he will)? Obviously the latter. Paul puts aside all claims of human achievement and focuses on the crucifixion of Christ as God’s divine accomplishment that

325

326

Galatians 6

emanates grace (1:3; 6:18). Thus, “the verb ‘boast’ in 6:13-14 becomes another literary [and theological] vehicle that sharpens the contrast between the opponents and Paul.”54 The opponents care about circumcision (as the leading element of Law observance), whereas Paul cares about and focuses on crucifixion55—remarkably, on three crucifixions: Christ’s, that of the universe (Gk. kosmos,56 sometimes translated “world” or “cosmos”), and his own. Of course the reality of Christ’s crucifixion (3:1, 13) provides the very real basis of the metaphor of the crucifixion of both the universe and Paul, so that Paul’s talk of the universe’s and his crucifixions speaks of a new divinely created reality (6:15) that means the transformation of all present relationships (3:28) through a divinely wrought act of delivery (1:4) and redemption (3:13; 4:5) ending in unprecedented freedom (5:1). For Paul the matter of crucifixion is much more than a mere metaphor. He says that through Christ’s cross (Gk. di’ hou), he and the universe had been crucified with regard to each other. [Di’ Hou] Paul’s verb to crucify (Gk. stauroun) occurs in the perfect tense, indicating a past action that has continuing significance for the present, so that Paul does not merely look back to a previous event (the cross of Christ) in order to remember it at a later time. Rather, the cruciDi’ Hou fixion of Christ himself brought into being a new reality The phrase di’ hou is that had continuing and continuous effects on Paul and, as ambiguous and may mean Paul says, also on the universe. For Paul the cross radically either “through which” (referring to the cross) or “through whom” reshaped reality, so that all facets of creation were brought (referring to Christ). The former into new patterns of relatedness—Paul and the universe, as seems more likely, given that here a result of Christ’s crucifixion, were redefined in relationPaul is speaking about boasting in ship to each other. The lasting effect of the cross, for Paul, the cross and being crucified to the was that God had acted in such a way that the foundations universe. of creation had been shaken to their bases. As Charles B. Cousar writes, “. . . the death of Christ and participation in it involve a change of lordship. To share in the death is not to be a party to a paper transaction, as it were, but to live in the ‘new creation,’ where the ‘Lord’ is Jesus Christ.”57 Through the cross of Christ, Paul saw the death of one universe and the advent of another, the new creation. Previously Paul’s world had been defined in terms of Law observance and non-Law observance. Yet the cross had been the implement not only for the crucifixion of Christ but also for the death of this world defined by Law observance and non-Law observance (3:13). By virtue of the cross, Paul came to see the universe in a new way. No longer did he view what had once passed for reality in the same framework that he had used for comprehending the universe. “[Paul] became

Galatians 6

327

as much a stranger to his previous com- Crucifixion rades . . . as their [Law/Not Law] world became a stranger to him (cf. 1 Cor 4:8-13).”58 In v. 15, Paul states his reason for boasting only in the cross of Christ and not in circumcision, uncircumcision, or any other element of practiced religion. What counts, he says, is God’s new creation. Old categories of distinction and separation (3:28) that were employed in holding apart especially the sacred and the profane had died and in their place came God’s new creation. Readings of this verse that take “new creation” (Gk. kain∑ ktisis59) in a strictly moral sense miss the mark in understanding Paul’s apocalyptic cosmology. His opening word in this verse is “for” (Gk. gar), which introduces an explanation of his Anonymous (Byzantine Empire). Crucifixion. 10th C. Ivory. (Credit: Wikimedia remarks in v. 14. Having said that the Commons and Walters Art Museum, CC-SA-3.0) cross alone was the basis and focus of his An elaborate halo surrounds the head of Christ, who is own legitimate boasting, and having rec- flanked by the Virgin and St. John. Small representations of ognized that the cross brought about the the sun and moon above the cross symbolize the cosmic mutual deaths of the universe to him and importance of the crucifixion. him to the universe, now Paul continues by explaining that the cross had made both circumcision and uncircumcision completely irrelevant, because such religious markers of status and separation did not exist in God’s new creation. Remarkably, Paul does not attack circumcision, declaring it impotent. He does not analyze circumcision (alone) and declare it irrelevant. He does not compare circumcision and uncircumcision and declare them equals. Rather, the cross had brought Paul out of one universe and into another that he calls “[the] new creation.” In this new creation, God was at work (4:4-6), sending the Son and the Spirit, in the process of replacing the old universe with the new one (3:28).60 In this new creation, both Law observance and veneration of the stoicheia (“elements of the universe”; 4:3, 9) have no place. As Martyn notes, “Because the old cosmos had fallen into the hands of powers alien to God . . . the result is that, far from repairing the old cosmos, God is in the process of replacing it.”61 Paul’s apocalyptic eschatological vision comes through sharply in 6:14-15. The cross itself had cosmic effects on all aspects of the

328

Galatians 6

universe, annulling the religious claims of both circumcision and uncircumcision—as well as bringing to an end the power of all other religious markers of distinction, especially those that are intended to aid humanity in distinguishing that which is regarded as sacred from that which is considered profane. It is understatement to observe that Paul’s understanding of the new creation is almost completely different from his perception of the universe before his apocalyptic (revelatory) encounter with the risen Jesus Christ (1:15-17). [A New Creation] That experience A New Creation opened up for Paul a whole new way of compreSo that we henceforth have known hending everything—especially God, Christ, and the no one according to the flesh, and even if we have known Christ according to universe, including himself and humankind. the flesh, yet now we know him no more; As one sees from examining vv. 12-15, as Paul draws so that if any one [is] in Christ—[he is] a near to the end of his letter, his statements become new creature; the old things did pass away, concise and conceptually difficult. Verse 16 certainly lo, become new have the all things. (2 Cor is no exception to this observation. A seemingly 5:16-17) simple sentence, the assertion names a particular group of persons, delivers benedictory words, and names a particular group of persons. Ambiguities abound. In his initial clause, Paul speaks of “as many as will follow this rule” (Gk. hosoi tø kanoni toutø stoich∑sousin). This reference is a general one that does not specify whom Paul has in mind. The verb stoichein first occurred in 5:25 (see the discussion there) and, here as there, means “to follow,” although here the verb is in the future tense, signaling the conditional nature of the benediction that Paul is about to pronounce. In turn, he refers to what these people “follow” as kanøn, which is translated “rule,” “principle,” or “standard.” This kanøn is not a rule in the sense of a legal regulation; rather, it is a way of being or doing something. Thus, Paul is almost certainly referring to the statement made in v. 15—“neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything, rather what is something is [God’s] new creation.” The people who will follow this rule are those upon whom Paul now invokes a benediction that includes a declaration of “peace” (Gk. eir∑n∑) and perhaps also “mercy” (Gk. eleos). Burton observes that this sequence is backwards, since mercy brings peace,62 and his observation has generated much discussion among scholars. Yet even more scholarly reflection has come in relation to Paul’s final phrase, the Israel of God, with many interpreters noting the unprecedented combination of “Israel”63 and “of God” in this phrase. Others, however, have noted that in Paul’s own time there were formulaic statements—from scriptural blessings to benedictory elements in synagogue liturgy— that might have inspired Paul’s own wording in v. 16:

Galatians 6

329

• “Peace be upon Israel!” (Ps 125:5 and 128:6; LXX 124:5 and 127:6); • “May the mercy of the Lord be upon the house of Israel forevermore” (Pss. Sol. 9:11); • “May the mercy of the Lord be upon Israel forevermore” (Pss. Sol. 11:9);64 • “Bestow peace, happiness, and blessing, grace, loving-kindness, and mercy upon us and upon all Israel thy people” (Shemoneh Esreh [Babylonian recension]—Nineteenth Benediction, Birkat haShalom).65 Of course there is no definitive way in which one can show a connection between Paul and these texts (including these particular psalms). But as one can see, the formulation of blessings using language like peace and mercy, and also mentioning Israel, was not unprecedented in Paul’s world. Nor was the use of this particular language unusual for Paul: he uses peace twenty-six times in his undisputed letters—three times in Galatians. Mercy appears only four times in these letters—once in Galatians, although Paul uses the verb to have mercy (Gk. eleein) ten times, Mercy and Peace though none is in Galatians. Finally, Israel By contrast, it is striking to note that in (Gk. Isra∑l) is mentioned sixteen times by Paul, Romans 9–11, a passage concerned with though it occurs only once in Galatians. the fate of Israel, two of four uses of mercy occur; [Mercy and Peace]

six of ten uses of to have mercy occur; eleven of

sixteen uses of Israel occur; and there are no uses A first step in interpreting Paul’s benediction of peace in Rom 9–11. The topics of mercy and is to note the way that he words this verse Israel coalesce in Paul’s letters in Gal 6:16 and Rom (v. 16). He writes (I offer here a wooden trans9–11, raising issues of interpretation that cannot lation): “And as many as this rule follow, peace be pursued in the context of this commentary. upon them and mercy and upon the Israel of God” (Gk. kai hosoi tø kanoni toutø stoich∑sousin, eir∑n∑ ep’ autous kai eleos kai epi ton Isra∑l tou theou). There are at least three ways to understand the wording of this sentence. The three readings of v. 16 follow:

1. “And as many as this rule follow, peace upon them, and mercy upon the Israel of God.” Reading 1 leaves untranslated the second use of kai in the second clause of the verse between mercy and upon and reads the second clause of the Greek sentence as referring to two groups, one on which Paul pronounces peace and another on which Paul pronounces mercy. Thus, this reading envisions two distinct groups and two distinct blessings. 2. “And as many as this rule follow, peace upon them and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” Reading 2 translates both kai’s in the

330

Galatians 6

second clause of the sentence, while apparently understanding the statement to declare one blessing on two distinct groups. 3. “And as many as this rule follow, peace upon them and mercy, that is to say upon the Israel of God.” Reading 3 takes the second kai in the second clause as an explicative or epexegetical kai that means “that is to say” (or “even”)—thus understanding the sentence to pronounce one blessing on one group. Minor variations in translation are possible for each of these readings, but the issue of the basic sense of the statement comes down to three options. Paul either blessed two groups using independent benedictions, two groups using a single benediction, or one group using one benediction: Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Group as many as this rule follow the Israel of God as many as this rule follow the Israel of God as many as this rule follow, that is, the Israel of God

Benediction peace, mercy peace and mercy peace and mercy

Grammar alone, however, will not resolve this interpretive issue, for tied up with this problem of grammar is the perhaps even more difficult interpretive issue of the identity of those persons to whom Paul refers using the phrase the Israel of God (Gk. ho Isra∑l tou theou). What does this phrase mean? How does it fit into Paul’s sentence (v. 16)? What does Paul intend to tell the Galatians through the use of the phrase? Suggestions concerning the meaning of the phrase, i.e., the identity of the group, include: • the Jews; • “all Israel” (Gk. pas Isra∑l) as in Romans 11:26, an eschatological designation; • Jewish Christians; • The church of Jews and Gentiles; or • Christian Galatians who are loyal to Paul. Given the evidence, it is difficult to judge between these options. Yet Richard N. Longenecker comments cogently with regard to this issue of the identity of the Israel of God: Yet all of the views that take “the Israel of God” to refer to Jews and not Gentiles, while supportable by reference to Paul’s wider usage (or nonusage) of terms and expressions, fail to take seriously enough the

Galatians 6

331

context of the Galatian letter itself. For in a letter where Paul is concerned to treat as indifferent the distinctions that separate Jewish and Gentile Christians and to argue for the equality of Gentile believers with Jewish believers, it is difficult to see him at the very end of that letter pronouncing a benediction (or benedictions) that would serve to separate groups within his churches—whether he means by “the Israel of God” a believing Jewish remnant within the broader Church of both Jews and Gentiles, a nonjudaizing group of Jewish Christians in Galatia, or an eschatological Israel that is to be saved at the time of Christ’s return. Certain elements within Paul’s other letters may be used to support one or the other of these views, but Galatians itself cannot easily be used in such a manner.66

Longenecker continues by taking the insights of this clarifying observation in his own interpretive direction.67 While this commentary does not follow his path past the present point, Longenecker’s argument that was just cited provides a point of departure for advancing the present work. Among the possibilities for interpretation of this difficult verse (v. 16), as noted above, several commentators and grammarians understand the second kai in the second clause of the verse to introduce an explanation of who “as many as will follow this rule” are—i.e., kai is explicative or epexegetical,68 so that the verse reads, “And as many as will follow this rule, peace be upon them and mercy, that is, upon the Israel of God.” Read this way, Paul is understood to be writing about one group that he specifically refers to with the phrases as many as will follow this rule and the Israel of God, meaning former Jews and former Gentiles who were part of the new creation. As Longenecker observes, in this letter to the Galatians, where Paul has argued so vigorously Translation of Galatians 6:14-16 for there being no distinctions between Gentiles 14 But let me not boast except in the and Jews, there is no sensible way to see Paul cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through blessing separate groups at the end of the letter. which the universe has been crucified to me, and [Translation of Galatians 6:14-16]

I to the universe. 15 For neither circumcision nor

uncircumcision is anything, rather [what is someAt the time of Paul’s writing, non-Christian thing is] new creation. 16 And as many as will Jews would not have affirmed that “neither follow this rule, peace be upon them and mercy, circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything” that is, upon the Israel of God. (v. 15a). Nor would Paul’s opponents in Galatia have agreed with such a statement. It is uncertain what some others in early Christianity would have thought about the rule of Galatians 6:15, but Paul, many of his converts, and still others in the early Christian movement (e.g., Antioch; Acts 11:19-26) would not only have agreed with but would themselves have even advanced this point of view.

332

Galatians 6

At this juncture, however, it is important to recognize that Paul’s remarks are not intended to be about ethnic, historical Israel. Paul is fighting a battle in the context of early Christianity, and at times in that conflict he employs arguments that, when taken out of context, can be misunderstood and misused to do much damage. It only takes a careful reading of Romans (especially Rom 9–11) to see plainly that Paul neither believed that God had abandoned Israel completely nor thought that the church had replaced Israel in God’s divine purposes. One can take Paul’s writings out of their specific contexts and extrapolate from them to some conjectural point that they were never meant to address, but Paul’s letters were letters, documents addressing particular historical situations, and that must never be forgotten. Paul’s point in v. 16 is that for those who in Christ have put aside all religious markers of differentiation (3:28), there is a blessing— of peace and mercy (6:16)—as they live as delivered (1:4) and redeemed (3:13; 4:5) sons and daughters of God (4:5-7) in God’s new creation (6:15). And so, from this point of view, v. 16 is understood to pronounce a single benediction that Paul intends for a single group. A Personal Declaration, 6:17 Most Greek and English versions of Galatians treat v. 17 as a separate paragraph. It is a pointed, though somewhat cryptic, remark that stands by itself in the closing verses of the letter. Verse 16 pronounces a benediction as part of Paul’s final remarks in the main parts of the letter, and v. 18 is the stylized benediction to the whole epistle. Verse 17 begins with an ambiguous adverbial genitive phrase in Greek, tou loipou, which can be taken as communicating either a temporal (“from now on”) or logical (“finally”) nuance. Interpreters are divided over this matter, but a choice for either reading does not greatly affect the sense of the statement. The verb (parechetø; “let [no one] cause”) that follows the phrase (tou loipou) is present tense, so that the logical reading may be better suited to the present tense of the verb: “Finally, let no one [continue to] cause . . . .”69 Paul’s words seem carefully chosen at this point: he refers to “troubles,” using the word kopos,70 which is often translated “work,” though in some contexts the idea is of an effort that is tiring, thus “troubles.” In turn, Paul registers the personal nature of this matter, using the word moi, which is translated “to me.” Then, he refers to “no one,” using the word m∑deis, so that his complete phrase reads, “Finally, let no one cause [or ‘continue to cause’] me troubles.”

Galatians 6

The second clause of the verse continues with the explanatory particle gar (“for”), indicating that Paul is about to explain his initial hortatory remark (“Finally, let no one cause me troubles”). The reason that no one is to cause Paul difficulties is, as he says, because “I myself bear the marks of Jesus in my body.” Paul starts the clause with the pronoun egø (“I”), which is emphatic in its usage, both because it occurs (when it could have been done without) and because it is placed at the beginning of the clause (thus the translation “I myself ”). Again, Paul’s language indicates that he is speaking of a very personal matter. The word translated “bear” is bastazein in Greek, a term used by Paul earlier in the letter to speak of bearing “judgment” (5:10), “burdens” (6:2), and a “load” (6:5). From Paul’s usage, “to bear” something is not of itself a pleasant task. And so, here, when he speaks of bearing “the marks of Jesus” (Gk. ta stigmata tou I∑sou), he is not referring to an agreeable symbol of some kind. Commentators frequently refer to the first-century practices of branding slaves or of adherents to religious cults wearing tattoos to signify their allegiance to a particular god or group. They suggest that there are possibly parallels between branding, tattooing, and Paul’s marks. But that interpretation is not likely, even though branding was certainly an oppressive practice. More likely is that Paul speaks of the scars that were borne in his body (he says “in,” not “on,” his body) as a result of the hardships he had experienced and the sufferings that he had endured in his labors as an apostle of Christ.71 His phrase of Jesus (Gk. tou I∑sou) is genitive and implies that Paul’s marks belonged to Jesus. In 2 Corinthians (4:7-12 and 11:23-29), Paul speaks explicitly of his hardships and sufferings. “The painful wounds he has endured and continues to endure in his preaching are like those endured by Jesus, in the sense that Paul’s own injuries are inflicted by the same powers that crucified Jesus . . . . For this reason his scars are nothing other than the present epiphany of the crucifixion of Jesus.”72 In his reference to the scars that he bore as a result of suffering in service to the gospel, Paul points to his own body as testimony to the reality of the suffering of Christ. The scars borne by Paul in service to the gospel were themselves evidence of his participation in the death of Jesus (2 Cor 4:10; Gal 2:20)—so that the life of Jesus might also be manifested in his body. Concluding Benediction, 6:18 Paul concludes his letter to the Galatians with another benediction. He speaks of “grace” (Gk. charis), as he does in the conclusion of all

333

334

Galatians 6

of his undisputed letters (Rom 16:20; 1 Cor 16:23; 2 Cor 13:14; Phil 4:23; 1 Thess 5:28; Phlm 25). This theme of grace was first sounded in this letter at 1:3 and then repeated at 1:6, 15; 2:9, 21; 5:4. Furthermore, Paul writes of “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Gk. h∑ charis tou kyriou h∑møn I∑sou Christou), a phrase found in the benedictions of all his undisputed letters, except in 1 Corinthians 16:23, which simply omits “Christ.” Then, he adds the phrase with your spirit (Gk. meta tou pneumatos hymøn), which also occurs in the benedictions of Philippians “With Your Spirit” and Philemon. [“With Your Spirit”] How does the blessing refer to the letter? Not These words form typical phrases for the discord, not slavery to the law, not biting and end of a Pauline letter, but in the context of railing, but the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ is asked to be “with your spirit.” Not with the flesh only; not Paul’s communication to the highly charged with the soul only. For having been made spiritual they controversial situation in Galatia, they have ceased to be cheaply embodied. In the Spirit express the nature (grace) and the subject both body and soul are embraced. The grace of the (the Lord Jesus Christ) of the gospel as Paul Lord Jesus is not given indiscriminately to all but to understood, preached, and taught it. those who are ready to be called brothers by the Moreover, the depth of Paul’s concern is regapostle—faithful brothers and intimate brothers, as the word amen signifies in Hebrew. (Jerome, Epistle to istered in his reference to the spirit of the the Galatians 3.6.18) Galatians. This mention of the spirit of the Mark J. Edwards, ed., Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Ancient Galatians is not a reference to the Holy Christian Commentary on Scripture, vol. 8, gen. ed. Thomas C. Oden Spirit, but the recognition of the depths of (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 1999) 105. the very being of the Galatians. Only when God’s Spirit (in the form of the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ) comes into harmony with the spirit of the Galatians will that which has gone wrong in Galatia be set right. Almost at the end of his correspondence Paul addresses all of the Galatians directly, referring to them as “brothers and sisters,” i.e., speaking to them in the same way that he has greeted them at other key points in the letter (1:11; 3:15; 4:12, 28, 31; 5:11, 13; 6:1). As noted before, this wording is the language of family, and it both implies and recognizes a deep bond that was more than friendship in antiquity. To this final benedictory statement, Paul adds the word amen (Gk. am∑n73). The word occurs here and in the ending of other of Paul’s letters, though there are significant text-critical problems with several of these occurrences. They are quite likely scribal additions. There is, however, no problem related to this use of am∑n in Galatians 6:18. Am∑n can simply be an acclamation or response in worship. Sometimes stated at the conclusion of prayers, doxologies, benedictions, or even books, it denotes concurrence. Or am∑n can express the hope for one’s prayer (or, here, benediction) to be fulfilled. In this final word, one sees Paul’s hope for agreement between himself and his beloved Galatian congregations.

Galatians 6

335

CONNECTIONS Dealing with Transgressions (6:1-6)

Christians are free from the Law, but they are not free from mutual support and accountability. In cases of “transgression,” it is up to the more spiritually mature in the congregation to restore the offending party, literally to set him or her in order. Paul’s teaching here is not different in spirit from the more elaborate procedure for church discipline found in Matthew 18:15-20. In both passages, the ultimate goal is not condemnation but restoration. When done right, church discipline results in the healing of relational rifts, not the excommunication of undesirable members. Paul even warns against the self-deception that can creep into such procedures when those who are in charge of them think too highly of themselves (v. 3). Even those who possess the Spirit must be mindful of the logs in their own eyes (Matt 7:1-5). There is a contrast between the exhortation to bear one another’s burdens in v. 2 and the assertion in v. 5 that all must carry their own loads. This is a contrast but not a contradiction. Some point out the use of two different words for burden or load, suggesting that baros (v. 2) implies a heavy burden that could not be easily carried by one person and that Burdens and Loads: Present and Future? phortion (v. 5) is the common word for a This seems to contradict the words above soldier’s pack, a relatively lighter load. [Burdens [in 6:2]. . . . But one must see that he was there telling us, as sinners in the present life, to and Loads: Present and Future?] The words, support one another and be a help to one another in however, need not be forced into such neat the present age. Here he is speaking of the Lord’s definitions; they are essentially synonymous. judgment of us, which is not based on the sin of More likely, the contrast should be seen another or by comparison with others but according from the perspective of the individual to one’s own work. (Jerome, Epistle to the Galatians Christian’s experience. One must always be 3.6.5) ready to help another carry his or her load, Mark J. Edwards, ed., Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, vol. 8, gen. ed. Thomas C. but always be hesitant to unload one’s own Oden (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 1999) 95. 74 burdens upon another. When, then, is it appropriate to ask for help in bearing one’s own burdens? This is a question pastorally minded preachers and teachers would do well to pursue. In any event, Paul’s meaning is rather clear. Helping another with his or her burdens does not preclude carrying one’s own load as well. The burden-bearing love Paul describes completes the commandment to love one another (Lev 19:18) that the Apostle advocates in 5:14, and so fulfills the “law of Christ” (6:2). This section ends with a word about taking care of one’s teachers (v. 6). Perhaps only loosely connected with what comes before, this

336

Galatians 6

aphorism continues the theme of mutual service and support. The church is supposed to be a place where people step in to minister to each other’s needs. This obligation doesn’t stop with Bible teachers. On the contrary, Paul says, those who are taught the word must share with their teachers. Although Paul never demanded this right for himself (1 Thess 2:9; 1 Cor 9:3-15), he is equally clear that others are justified in doing so (1 Cor 9:13-14; see 1 Tim 5:18). Reaping and Sowing (6:7-10)

Verse 7 begins with a pair of proverbial sayings: “Do not be deceived” and “God is not mocked.” The first saying warns against being misled or pulled in another direction—which is exactly what the Galatians were doing (3:1)! The second saying is a commentary on the first, explaining where the false teachers are leading them. By turning away from the grace of God to submit to circumcision, the Galatians were, in effect, mocking God and the saving work God had done through Christ. It will not end well for the Galatians if they continue on this course of action. But God is not to be sneered at. The maxim about sowing and reaping found in vv. 7-8 presages the dire consequences that await them if they don’t come to their senses. There is a correspondence between sowing and reaping, Paul says. Sowing “to the flesh,” that is, with an orientation to life that leaves God out, results in phthora: corruption or ruin. But sowing “to the Spirit” produces eternal life. This dualism between flesh and Spirit is something we have seen many times before in Galatians. Will the end of the Galatians be destruction or eternal life? Preachers and teachers should note the eschatological, even apocalyptic impulse here. The choices we make in this world have consequences in the next, Paul says. The language of sowing and reaping may not speak to everyone today, as separated as many are from agrarian life. The imagery of finance or investments may speak more powerfully to some: Paul urges the Galatians to invest in that which will provide them a favorable return rather than in the Ponzi scheme of law observance In any event, most everyone understands what it means to cultivate something—an attitude, a skill, a relationship, etc.—even if they have never realized that this is an agricultural metaphor. What would it mean to cultivate the Spirit as opposed to cultivating the flesh? How would our lives be different depending on what we spent our time and effort cultivating? Holding forth the promise of a future harvest, Paul exhorts the Galatians not to “grow weary” in doing what is right (v. 9). As

Galatians 6

discussed above, the word here has clear negative connotations. Paul is warning his readers not simply against getting tired but also against sloughing off their responsibilities (which are described in vv. 1-8, 10). His concern is not fatigue but negligence. A sermon or lesson on the sin of sloth might be developed based on this exhortation. Verse 10 brings Paul’s parenesis to an end with the exhortation to work for the good of all—and especially one’s fellow Christians—as the opportunity arises. Losing Galatia? (6:12-13)

The false teachers want to “make a good showing in the flesh,” but their avoidance of the cross and its implications reveals the true state of their hearts. In fact, Paul accuses them of not even obeying the entire Law with which they have become so fixated. As we have seen before in Galatians, their motives are suspect. As far as Paul is concerned, they only want to win the Galatian believers over to their side so they can tout them as religious trophies (v. 13). The clause houtoi anankazousin hymin peritemnesthai in v. 12 might legitimately—if somewhat speculatively—be rendered “these people (who) are compelling you to be circumcised.” If so, the point is not that the interlopers are trying to foist their circumcision practice upon the Galatian Christians. In fact, they are already succeeding. What would it mean for our understanding of this letter if it were found that Paul had, in fact, lost his argument? Goodacre levels evidence that this is, in fact, the case in a series of blog posts from 2006.75 He notes three things. First, Galatia falls out of Paul’s discussions of his collection for the Jerusalem church between 1 and 2 Corinthians. Second, there is a striking absence of travel plans in Galatians, suggesting that “Paul is writing to the Galatians already conscious that he has made his last visit to them.”76 Third, there is no reference to Galatia or the crisis in Galatia in the book of Acts. Only a few passing itinerary references point to Paul having traveled through that region at all. He goes on to argue that some—perhaps many—in Galatia had already submitted to circumcision, making Paul’s loss practically inevitable.77 All of this is circumstantial, of course, but it proceeds logically from the biblical evidence and ought to be considered as we seek to understand what was going on among the Christian communities of Galatia. Paul seems to have failed to persuade the Antiochene Jewish believers in Galatians 2:11-14. Was he any more successful among the Galatian Gentiles? Perhaps a teacher or preacher could

337

338

Galatians 6

expound upon the importance of taking a stand for the truth even when the odds are not in one’s favor. Boasting (6:14-16)

What is worth boasting about? In contrast to the intruders, who seek to boast about the “flesh” of their Galatian converts, Paul boasts only in the cross of Christ. It isn’t about what humans do— be it circumcision or any other outward ceremony. It’s about what Christ has done. Yet again Paul draws a contrast between a “fleshly” life oriented around human effort and conformity to religious rules and a “spiritual” life oriented around the gift of God’s grace received through Jesus Christ. The cross is all that matters, Paul says. Just as he previously asserted that he had been crucified with Christ (2:20), he now adds that the world has been crucified to him, and he to the world (v. 14). In the words of 2 Corinthians 5:17, the old has passed away, and everything has become new. Are you circumcised? Are you uncircumcised? It doesn’t matter either way, Paul says. The only thing that matters is God’s new creation (v. 15). Apart from a personal note in v. 17 and a conventional closing formula in v. 18, Paul brings his letter to a close here by pronouncing a blessing of peace and mercy on those who “follow this rule.” After six chapters of excoriating the Galatians for giving in to the appeal of another gospel, it may seem odd that Paul would conclude with a positive word about following a rule. The word here is not nomos (“law”) but kanon, which can mean both a rule of conduct and a rule for measuring. Being crucified to the world and alive to God’s new creation is Paul’s “rule.” It is the measuring stick by which he gauges his own fidelity to Christ and to the gospel. Badges of Honor (6:17)

We can almost hear Paul’s petulance as he gripes, “Finally, let no one make trouble for me” (v. 17). The Apostle has fought long and hard for the Galatians, and he has nearly reached his limit. He simply doesn’t need the aggravation the Galatian interlopers have caused him. The reference to carrying the marks of Jesus branded on his body indicates the degree of suffering Paul has been willing to endure for the sake of Christ (see 2 Cor 11:22-33). These wounds seem to be the “signs of a true apostle” (2 Cor 12:12) for Paul more than even impressive miracles. These wounds are also, it seems, a logical result

Galatians 6

of having been crucified with Christ (2:20) and crucified to the world (6:14). Perhaps one could develop a sermon or lesson on “Badges of Honor.” The false teachers in Galatia considered circumcision—a mark on the body—a sign of genuine faithfulness. But Paul has been emphatic throughout Galatians that such a mark does not ultimately matter to God. But Paul is not without his own marks: his sufferings for the cause of Christ. Although these marks cannot save him, they do display his devotion to Christ, and they command respect. Who are the heroes of faith today whose “marks” should be celebrated as badges of honor? Parting Words (6:18)

Paul concludes this letter as he does most of his letters: with a blessing on his readers (see 1 Cor 16:23-24; 2 Cor 13:13; Phil 4:23; 1 Thess 5:28; Phlm 25). Here, the Apostle wishes the Galatians “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Words that might have been stock phrases or conventional Christian platitudes take on a deeper significance in a letter like Galatians that has so much to do with grace. The grace of God through Christ is precisely what the Galatians need. It is what Paul fears the interlopers who have bewitched them will take away, and what he has agonized so deeply to impart to them.

Notes 1. T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Leuven: Peeters, 2009) 531. 2. Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 296. 3. Eduard Schweizer, “pneumatikos,” TDNT 6:436–37. 4. LSJ, 910. 5. Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: Penguin Press, 1997) 105. 6. Friedrich Büchsel, “bastazø,” TDNT 1:596. 7. Gottlob Schrenk, “baros,” TDNT 1:555–56. 8. Betz, Galatians, 299—citing Xenophon, Memorabilia 2.7.1-14. 9. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2d ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft/United Bible Societies, 1994) 530.

339

340

Galatians 6 10. Ernest DeWitt Burton, Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920) 329. 11. Todd A. Wilson, “The Law of Christ and the Law of Moses: Reflections on a Recent Trend in Interpretation,” Currents in Biblical Research 5 (2006): 123–44. 12. C. H. Dodd, “ENNOMOS CHRISTOU” in his More New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1968) 134–48. 13. E.g., Betz, Galatians, 300. 14. Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (London: A. & C. Black, 1931). 15. Gerhard Delling, “anapl∑roø,” TDNT 6:305. 16. Betz, Galatians, 301. 17. Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1920) 644. 18. Walter Grundmann, “dokimos, ktl,” TDNT 2:260. 19. Betz, Galatians, 302–303. 20. Burton, Galatians, 335. 21. LSJ, 1411. 22. LSJ, 1152. 23. J. Louis Martyn, Galatians (AB 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997) 552–53. 24. For examples, see Betz, Galatians, 306–30,8 and F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1982) 264–65. 25. Basil S. Davis, “Severianus of Gabala and Galatians 6:6-10,” CBQ 69 (2007): 292–301. 26. Burton, Galatians, 342. 27. Betz, Galatians, 309. 28. Burton, Galatians, 343. 29. LSJ, 683. 30. Walter Grundmann, “enkakeø,” TDNT 3:486. 31. LSJ, 469. 32. LSJ, 870. 33. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 1996) 226–27. 34. LSJ, 870. 35. LSJ, 818. 36. Burton, Galatians, 345. 37. “eklyomai,” EDNT 1:419. 38. LSJ, 513. 39. Compare Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC 41; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990) 282. 40. Martyn (Galatians, 554) notes that Paul takes exception here to his opponents’ “insistence on drawing distinctions within the human family, continuing the separation of Jew from Gentile, observant from nonobservant.”

Galatians 6 41. Betz, Galatians, 310. 42. Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (4th ed.; Grand Rapids MI: Baker, 1965—German original, 1922) 170–74. 43. Martin Luther, Lectures on Galatians 1535, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Walter A. Hansen, vol. 26 of Luther’s Works (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1964) 130. 44. John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries 11; Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1965 [Original, 1548]) 115. 45. Deissmann, (Light, 98–99) suggests that the word originally could have been used by physicians. 46. See the very different understanding of Paul’s words in Eduard Lohse, “euprosøpeø,” TDNT 6:779. 47. Walter Grundmann, “anankazø, ktl,” TDNT 1:344–47. 48. Smyth (§1878) adds that “the idea of attempt or intention is an inference from the context and lies in the present only so far as the present does not denote completion.” 49. Burton, Galatians, 351–54. 50. Martyn, Galatians, 563 n. 56 and 563. 51. Betz, Galatians, 316. For a detailed discussion of this matter, see Bruce, Galatians, 269–70. 52. Georg Bertram (“phylassø,” TDNT 9:240–41) is typical of some scholars who persist in reading this passage as focused on Jews rather than Jewish Christians (or Christian Jews). 53. Wallace, Grammar, 481–83. 54. Charles B. Cousar, A Theology of the Cross: The Death of Jesus in the Pauline Letters (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 142. 55. Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 2012) 131–32. 56. Hermann Sasse, “kosmos,” TDNT 3:868–95, especially 885 and 892–94. Sasse writes, “When the kosmos is redeemed, it ceases to be kosmos.” 57. Cousar, Theology, 143. 58. Martyn, Galatians, 564. 59. Werner Foerster (“ktizø, ktisis, ktl,” TDNT 3:1000–35, especially 1034) is typical of those reading Paul’s remarks on ktisis under the influence of anthropological and existential considerations. 60. Martyn, Galatians, 565. 61. Martyn, Galatians, 565. 62. Burton, Galatians, 357–58. 63. Walter Gutbrod, “Isra∑l, ktl,” TDNT 3:356–91, especially 380–82, where one encounters some unfortunate stereotypical anti-Jewish rhetoric. 64. For further discussion and listing of texts from the Psalms of Solomon, see Peter Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church (SNTSMS 10; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969) 78.

341

342

Galatians 6 65. Cited in Richardson, Israel, 79; see also Betz, Galatians, 321–23; Martyn, Galatians, 565–67. 66. Longenecker, Galatians, 298. 67. Ibid., 298–99. 68. See the following: BAGD, 391–93, especially 393; BDF §442.9; LSJ, 857–58; Martyn, Galatians, 565–67; Max Zerwick and Mary Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (5th ed.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1996) 577; Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek (English ed.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963) §455. Zerwick suggests interpreting the kai as a “neutral use”—so that “Gal 6,16 «peace upon them (= the new creation) kai (= «that is»?) upon God’s Israel.» 69. In favor of the temporal reading of tou loipou, see C. F. D. Moule, An IdiomBook of New Testament Greek (2d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959) 161. 70. Friedrich Hauck, “kopos, kopiaø,” TDNT 3:827–30. 71. Otto Betz, “stigma,” TDNT 7:657–64, especially 663. 72. Martyn, Galatians, 568–69. 73. Heinrich Schlier, “am∑n,” TDNT 1:335–38. 74. Frank Stagg, Galatians–Romans, Knox Preaching Guides, ed. John H. Hayes (Atlanta: John Knox, 1980) 21. 75. Mark Goodacre, “Paul’s loss of Galatia I,” NT Blog, 17 October 2006, ; “Paul’s loss of Galatia II,” NT Blog, 27 October 2006, (accessed 2 September 2014). 76. Goodacre, “Paul’s loss of Galatia II.” 77. Mark Goodacre, “Were the Galatians already circumcised? I,” NT Blog, 3 November 2006, (accessed 2 September 2014).

Bibliography Barclay, John M. G. “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case.” JSNT 31 (1987): 79–93. ———. Obeying the Truth: Paul’s Ethics in Galatians. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1988. Beasley-Murray, G. R. Baptism in the New Testament. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1962. Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1982. Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. 2 vols. New York: Scribner’s, 1951 & 1955. Burton, Ernest DeWitt. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920. Calvin, John. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians. 1548. Trans. T. H. L. Parker. 1965 repr. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1996. Campbell, Douglas A. “Galatians 5.11: Evidence of an Early Law-observant Mission by Paul?” NTS 57 (2011): 325–47. Choi, H.-S. “PISTIS in Galatians 5:5-6: Neglected Evidence for the Faithfulness of Christ,” JBL 124 (2005): 467–90. Cosgrove, Charles H. The Cross and the Spirit: A Study in the Argument and Theology of Galatians. Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1988. Cousar, Charles B. A Theology of the Cross: The Death of Jesus in the Pauline Letters. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Dahl, Nils Alstrup. “The Messiahship of Jesus in Paul.” In The Crucified Messiah. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974. 37–47. ———. “Paul’s Letter to the Galatians: Epistolary Genre, Content, and Structure.” Presented for private circulation among the members of the SBL Paul Seminar, no date. Dana, H. E. and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Toronto: Macmillan Company, 1929/1955. Davis, Basil S. “Severianus of Gabala and Galatians 6:6-10.” CBQ 69 (2007): 292–301. Deissmann, Adolf. Light from the Ancient East. 4th ed. Grand Rapids MI: Baker, 1965. Dodd, C. H. “ENNOMOS CHRISTOU.” In More New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1968. Dunn, J. D. G. Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. Louisville: WJKP, 1990. Eco, Umberto et al.. Interpretation and Overinterpretation. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

344

Bibliography Fee, Gordon D. Galatians. Pentecostal Commentary Series. Blandford Forum, Dorset, UK: Deo Publishing, 2007. ———. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Feldman, Louis H. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 2d ed. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1993. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament.” CBQ 40 (1978): 493–513. Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. Our Mother Saint Paul. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. Hanson, Paul D. The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Harris, Murray J. Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 2012. Hays, Richard B. The Faith of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11. SBLDS 56. Chico CA: Scholars Press, 1983. Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Holladay, William L. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1971. Hooker, Morna D. “PISTIS CHRISTOU,” NTS 35 (1989): 321–42. Jeremias, Joachim. The Prayers of Jesus. SBT 6. London: SCM Press, 1967. Jewett, Robert. A Chronology of Paul’s Life. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1980. ———. Perspectives on Paul. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Keck, Leander E. “The Poor among the Saints in the New Testament.” ZNW 56 (1965): 100–29. Kennedy, George A. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. Kümmel, W. G. Introduction to the New Testament. 17th ed. Nashville: Abingdon, 1975. Lightfoot, J. B. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. London: Macmillan, 1865. Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. WBC 41. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990. Luedemann, Gerd. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Lührmann, Dieter. Galatians: A Continental Commentary. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. Luther, Martin. Lectures on Galatians 1535. Ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Walter A. Hansen. Vol. 26 of Luther’s Works. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1963. Lyons, George. Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding. SBLDS 73. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985.

Bibliography MacMullen, Ramsay. Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981. Malherbe, Abraham J. Moral Exhortation, A Greco-Roman Sourcebook. LEC 4. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. ———. Paul and the Thessalonians. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. ———. Paul and the Popular Philosophers. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Marcus, Joel. “The Evil Inclination in the Letters of Paul.” IBS 8 (1986): 8–21. Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 33A. New York, 1997. Matera, Frank J. Galatians. SP 9. Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 1992. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2d ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Moffatt, James. An Introduction to the New Testament. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1918. Muraoka, T. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Mußner, Franz. Der Galaterbrief. 3rd ed. Freiburg: Herder, 1977. Newman, Jr., Barclay M. A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament. Nördling: C. H. Beck, 1993. O’Brien, Peter T. Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul. NovTSup 49. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Polhill, John B. Acts. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman, 1992. Räisänen, Heikki. “Galatians 2.16 and Paul’s Break with Judaism,” NTS 31 (1985): 543–53. ———. Paul and the Law. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Ramsay W. M. St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen. 7th ed. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1903. ———. A Historical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. New York: Putnam’s, 1900. Richardson, Peter. Israel in the Apostolic Church. SNTSMS 10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th ed. Nashville: Broadman, 1923. Rohr, Richard. Falling Upward: A Spirituality for the Two Halves of Life. Hoboken NJ: Jossey-Bass, 2011. Sanders, E. P. Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies. London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990. ———. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Schlier, Heinrich. Der Brief an die Galater. KEK 7. 14th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. Schoeps, H. J. Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History. Philadelphia: Westminister, 1959.

345

346

Bibliography Schreiner, Thomas R. Galatians. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary Series on the New Testament. Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 2010. Schubert, Paul. Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1939. Schweitzer, Albert. Paul and His Interpreters. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1912. ———. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. London: A. & C. Black, 1931. ———. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. New York: Macmillan, 1968. Schweizer, Eduard. Jesus. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1971. Smyth, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1920. Soards, Marion L. “Righteousness in the NT.” NIDB 4:813–18. Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr. The Gulag Archipelago. Vol. 1. New York: Harper Collins, 1974. Stagg, Frank. Galatians–Romans. Knox Preaching Guides. Ed. John H. Hayes. Atlanta: John Knox, 1980. Tolmie, D. F. “The Interpretation and Translation of Galatians 5:12.” AcT 29 (2009): 86–102. Urbach, Ephraim E. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Hebrew University/Magnes Press, 1979. Vermes, Geza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. New York: Penguin Press, 1997. Vouga, François. An die Galater. HNT 10. Tübingen, BRD: Mohr [Siebeck], 1998. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 1996. Way, David. The Lordship of Christ: Ernst Käsemann’s Interpretation of Paul’s Theology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. Wette, W. M. L. de. Kurzgefasstes exegetische Handbuch zum Neuen Testaments; Kurze Erklärung des Briefes an die Galater und der Briefe an die Thessalonicher. Zweiter Bandes dritter Theil; Zweite verbesserte und vermehrte Auflage; Leipzig: Weidmann’che Buchhandlung, 1845. Williams, Sam K. Galatians. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 1997. Wilson, Todd A. “The Law of Christ and the Law of Moses: Reflections on a Recent Trend in Interpretation.” Currents in Biblical Research 5 (2006): 123–44. Winston, David. “Solomon, Wisdom of,” ABD 6:122–23. Wright, N. T. Justification. Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 2009. Zerwick, Max and Mary Grosvenor. A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament. 5th rev. ed. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1996. Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek. English ed. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963.

index of modern authors B

H

Barclay, J. M. G. 8, 248, 270, 302

Hanson, P. D. 241

Beasley-Murray, G. R. 185, 225

Harris, M. J. 341

Betz, H. D. 27, 53–54, 67, 96, 113–17, 150, 183–86, 213, 222, 225, 239–41, 244, 254, 265–66, 287, 302–304, 307, 310, 324, 339

Hays, R. B. 92, 121, 182

Bruce, F. F. 61, 66, 114–15, 148, 162, 184–85, 191, 197, 222, 238, 241, 260, 265–66, 303, 310, 339–41 Bultmann, R. 266, 302–303 Burton, E. D. 27, 98, 113, 115–17, 169, 171, 183, 185, 212, 222, 239–41, 252, 265–66, 281, 302–304, 323–24, 328, 340–41

C

Hengel, M. 41, 106, 184 Holladay, W. L. 302 Hooker, M. D. 92, 116

J Jeremias, J. 199, 239 Jewett, R. 113

K

Calvin, J. 150, 184, 239, 321, 341

Käsemann, E. 275

Campbell, D. A. 266

Keck, L. E. 115, 183

Choi, H.-S. 266

Kennedy, G. A. 302

Cosgrove, C. H. 182

Kümmel, W. G. 8, 113

Cousar, C. B. 326, 341

Lightfoot, J. B. xiv, 4, 222, 241, 303

D Dahl, N. A. 116, 120, 141, 182, 185 Dana, H. E. 185 Davis, B. S. 340 Deissmann, A. 321, 341 Dodd, C. H. 340 Dunn, J. D. G.

E Eco, U. 183

F

Longenecker, R. N. 8, 27, 54, 113–17, 143, 170, 182– 85, 230, 239–41, 250, 265–66, 303, 330–31, 340, 342 Luedemann, G. 113, Lührmann, D. 27, 47, 54, 113, 183, 303 Lyons, G. 8, 53, 117, 240

M MacMullen, R. 238 Malherbe, A. J. 239 Marcus, J. 303 Martyn, J. L. 21, 27, 40, 54, 93–94, 113–17, 122, 136, 148, 152, 182–85, 212, 224, 239–41, 244, 265–66, 282, 287, 302–304, 315, 323–24, 327, 340–42

Fee, G. D. 27, 54, 66, 114–15, 183, 240, 288, 303

Matera, F. J. 115, 266

Feldman, L. H. 115–16

Metzger, B. M. 114, 241, 265, 310, 339

Ferguson, E. 239, 262

Moffatt, J. 7–8

Fitzmyer, J. A. 183

Muraoka, T. 339

G Gaventa, B. R. 240

Murphy-O’Connor, J. 113 Mußner, F. 117

348

Index of Modern Authors

N Newman Jr., B. M. 302

Wette, W. M. L. de 53 Williams, S. K. 183 Wilson, T. A. 340

O O’Brien, P. T. 27

P Polhill, J. B. v, 14, 74, 117

R Räisänen, H. 116, 302 Ramsay, W. M. 4, 8, 238 Richardson, P. 341–42 Robertson, A. T. 303 Rohr, R. 180, 186

S Sanders, E. P. 100, 116, 183, 189, 238 Schlier, H. 114, 342 Schoeps, H. J. 150, 184 Schreiner, T. R. 116 Schubert, P. 27 Schweitzer, A. 7–8, 340 Schweizer, E. 183, 192, 238, 339 Smyth, H. W. 53, 115–16, 184–86, 225, 240–41, 244, 265–66, 271, 290, 302–303, 340–41 Soards, M. L. ii–iii, v, xv, xvii, 56, 114, 117 Solzhenitsyn, A. 299, 304 Stagg, F. 54, 105, 109, 111, 117, 233, 235–36, 241, 342

T Tolmie, D. F. 266

U Underhill, E. 26 Urbach, E. E. 303

V Vermes, G. 141, 339 Vouga, F. 5, 8, 266

W Wallace, D. B. 116, 184–85, 239–40, 271, 302–304, 340–41 Way, D. 302

Winston, D. iv, 238 Wright, N. T. 109, 117, 126, 133, 158, 174–75

Z Zerwick, M. 115, 302, 342

index of scriptures NAHUM

PSALMS

EXODUS

GENESIS

2:13

140

1:27

174

9:16

155

12:5

233

6:5

282

12:40-41

145

67

264

8:21

282

20:18

151

76:20

151

HABBAKKUK

12:1-3

141, 144

23:18

256

81:10

282

2:4

12:3 155

131–32,

34:25

256

125:5

329

128:6

329

ZECHARIAH

13:14-17

144

LEVITICUS

143:2

155

8:22-23

13:15

144

16

139

15

126

18:5

137–38, 154

ISAIAH

15:1, 5, 7, 18-21

144

2:2-3

264

9:10-17

194

19:15

67

15:4-6

217

21:8-14

228

13:1-2

193

19:18

15:5, 18

144

33:15

280

13:10–15:19 201

15:6

128–32

42:14

212

13:10-19

16

236

7, 277, 298, 311, 314, 335

44:9-20

201

16–21

215, 220, 243

49:5-6

37

SIRACH

NUMBERS

49:15

212

24

194

16, 21

223

44:19-21

128

17:1-8

144

4:37, 41, 45, 49 151

52:13–53:12 102 53:1

122

17:5

128

9:23

151

54:1

17:7-8

144

10:13

151

226–27, 237

17:9-14

216

12:5

151

56:4-5

261

17:15-21

217

15:23

151

60:1-7

264

1 MACCABBEES

17:23-27

41

16:40

151

60:5

74

1 246

18:18

131–32

33:1

151

60:7

41

2:52

21

236

151

66:13

212

21:1-7

216

66:20

74

21:10

230, 290

21:8-14

229

21:9-10

237

21:9

223, 228–29

22

141

22:17-18

144

22:18

131, 141

25:1-6

216

25:31

41

36:13

264

WISDOM

DEUTERONOMY 1:17

67

JEREMIAH

10:17

67

1:4-5

37

12:21

37

9:22-23

325

21:23

36, 139– 40, 179

10:1-16

201

23:1-8

261

ESTHER

27:26

36, 133– 35, 140, 155–56

8:17

150

4:1-2

33:2

136–37

85

MICAH 264

193

BARUCH 3:29-30

194

128

2 MACCABBEES 2:21

34

8:1

34

14:38

34

MATTHEW 4:18

43

4:21

71

5:8

223

5:43

277

6:13

207

7:1-5

335

7:15-20

210

350

Index of Scriptures

8:5-13

32

13:34

212

11:26

76, 108

22:3-21

39

8:11

264

21:8

318

11:27-30

74

22:3

46

8:29

318

11:29-30

2

23:14

23

10:2

71

JOHN

11:30

4, 105

23:26

14

12:46-50

44

1:40-41

43

12:17

79

26:9-18

39

13:55-56

44

1:41-42

43

12:2

71

28:30

56

16:11

256

3:16-17

194

12:25

16:17

43

4:36

318

4, 74, 105

ROMANS

17:1

71

7:3-5

44

13–14

3

1:1

32, 38

17:1, 4

43

8:34-36

32

13:1-3

76

1:3

275

58, 80

18:15-20

307, 335

11:25

155

13:1

1:5

163

19:19

277

15

291

13:2, 7

58

1:8

168

22:39

277

13:4–14:28

2

1:12

166–67

25:40

234

ACTS

13:14-51

3

1:24

48

26:37

71

1:15

43

14:1-7, 19

3

1:29-31

289

58

26:40

43

1:21-22

48

14:1

2:13

299

26:41

207

2:14-39

43

14:14

58

3:3

292

2:23

193

15–16

68

3:5

143

15

4, 56– 57, 72, 105, 135

3:19-20

148

3:20

45, 95, 275

3:21-22

92

3:22, 26

91

3:30-31

166

3:30

168

4

129

4:1

275

4:3

155

4:13-15

148

4:16

92

5:3-5

291

5:6

193

5:12-14, 20

148

5:12, 13, 21

281

6–8

32

6:1-11

172

6:6, 14

281

6:16

163

7

35

7:1-25

148

7:5

275

7:8, 11

274

3–4; 8

71

1:14-15

19

3:25

132

1:16

43

4:36-37

57, 58

1:19

71

6:1

107

3:17

71

7:38, 52

150

MARK

3:31-35

44

7:38, 53

151

5:37

43, 71

8:1

41

6:3

44

8:3

35

9:2

71

8:27-39

32

9:2, 5

43

9:1-31

40

10:42-45

32

9:1-22

39

12:1-11

188

9:15

50

12:31, 33

277

9:20

108

13:33

318

9:26-31

46

14:17-21

109

9:26-30

4, 52

14:33

71

9:26-27

58

14:36

198, 233

15:36-41

81

14:37

43

10–11

43

11 LUKE 4:13 5:10

207 71

6:14

71

8:51

43, 71

2, 53, 57

11:2-3

53

11:2

80, 109

11:18

53

11:19-26

80, 108, 331 76

9:28

71

11:19

9:28, 33

43

11:20

76

10:27

277

11:22, 25

76

15:1-35

2–3

15:1-29

6

15:5

226

15:13-21

44

15:19-20

68

15:23

14

15:28-29

4, 325

15:29

14

15:36-41

58

15:41

46

16:6

3

16:11–17:14 56 16:16

56

17:15

56

18:1

56

18:11

56

18:18-23

56

18:22

4

18:23

3–4

19:1, 8-10, 22

56

21

74

21:17ff

4

21:18-26

44

21:25

4

7:8, 9, 11, 17, 20 281 8

275

Index of Scriptures 8:3-4

194

8:3

194, 275

16:26

163

351

10:4

194

4:2

45

10:11

194

4:7-12

324, 333

8:9-11, 13-16 197

1 CORINTHIANS

10:13

207

4:10

333

8:9

197

1:1

15

10:18

275

5:12

274

8:15, 23

188

1:7

252

10:19-21

202

5:16-21

89

8:17-23

188

1:9

200

11:1

205

5:16-17

328

8:18-30

251

1:10-17

71

11:2-16

175

5:16

208, 275

8:19-25

252

1:23

121, 260

11:17-34

77

5:17

8:19, 23, 25

252

1:26

275

12

292

25, 49, 194, 290

8:21

290

1:29

45, 275

12:2

32

5:21

139

23

6:3-10

291 291

8:32

138, 141

1:31

325

12:3

8:35

102

2:2

26, 323

12:9

292

6:6-7

9–11

158, 329, 332

2:5

168

12:13

172, 175

6:13

211

4:1-5

25

13

254

6:14–7:11

56

9:1

45

4:3-4

61

13:11

180

7:1, 5

275

9:3

23

254

7:2-4

56

9:3, 5, 8

275

4:14

211

14:6, 26

59

7:6, 13, 14

58

9:7

48

4:15

212

14:33b-36

175

7:12

45

9:17

155

19

8–9

74

9:33

260

4:20

290

15:1-4

23

8

56

10:9

109

5:5

275

15:1

32

8:1

32

10:11

155

5:6-8

256

15:3

102

8:1–9:15

73

10:12

172, 175

5:6

256

15:3, 4

155

8:6, 16, 23

58

10:16

122

45

8:21

45

11

74

5:10-11

289

15:9

35

10:2

275

11:2

155

6:9-10

168

10:15

168

260

287, 289, 290

15:14, 17

11:9

129

11:18

275

11:13-36

231

6:16

275

15:20-28

290

11:22-33

338

11:26

330

7:14

48

15:23-24

197

11:22

13

11:32

156–57

7:19

253

15:24, 50

290

323–24,

12

176

7:21-24

174

15:39, 50

275

11:23-29 333

13:12

181

7:21

32

15:50

188, 290

11:26

63

13:13

289

7:28

275

15:51-58

225

11:30-33

42

11:31

45

11:32

56

12:7-9

234

12:7

234, 275

4:8-13

4:16-17

5:9-11

327

205

287

14:1a

15:1-8

15:7

15:19b

14:1–15:13

231

8

202

16:1-4

73, 74

14:13

260

8:4-6

202

16:22

23

16:23-24

339

16:23

14, 334

194, 290, 291

8:6 9:3-15

336

14:22

45

9:3-7

71

12:9

234

15:4

155

81

12:12

338

15:23-24

74

9:8

143

74

15

211

15:25-33

1:1

12:14

9:12, 19-23

26

275

58

73

1:17

12:18

15:25-29

9:13-14

336

73

58

287, 289

15:26

2:13

12:20-21

9:19

32

56

56

260

2:14–6:13

13:1

16:17

334

275

339

16:20

3:3

13:13

3:17

197

13:14

334

14:17

9:6

9:24-26a 10

194, 197

255 176, 207

2 CORINTHIANS

352

Index of Scriptures

EPHESIANS

2:20-24

128

1 THESSALONIANS

4:17

318

5:19-20

307

3:12

91

1:1

257

4:24-25

181

1:6

205

5:21

298

1:8

168

1 PETER

6:5-8

32

2:5-9

26

1:3-4

188

2:7-8

212

2:8

260

PHILIPPIANS

2:7

235

1:7

72

2:7, 11

211

2 PETER

1:19

197

2:9

336

3:10, 12

1:22, 24

275

2:11

212

2:5-11

17

2:12

290

1 JOHN

2:6-11

194

2:18

256

4:9-10

194

2:6-8

197

307

32

3:2, 5, 6, 7, 10

5:16

2:7

168

2:8

92

3:7

166–67

REVELATION

2:12-13

198, 275

4:13-18

225

1:1

32

2:16

255

5:28

3:12

224

2:17

168

14, 334, 339

12:1-6

225

3:3-4

275

14:15, 16

318

3:4-11

39

21

225

3:4-9

34, 35

3:4-7

13

3:5

21

3:6

35, 39, 51, 99, 134, 248

2 THESSALONIANS 1:1

257

3:7-9

205

1 TIMOTHY 2:7

45

5:18

336

3:8

35, 39

3:9

35, 39, 91

PHILEMON 5, 6

168

3:13-14

255

10-21

32

4:4-9

291

10

211

4:9

205

25

334, 339

4:14

72

4:23

14, 334, 339

COLOSSIANS 2:8-10

192

2:8, 20

192

2:18

192

2:20

192

3:9-11

181

3:11

172

3:22-24

32

4:10

58

HEBREWS 1:1-4

149

1:2

188

2:2

150–51

5:12

192

11:13

188

JAMES 1:1

14

2:8

278, 311

2:10-11

263

192

index of sidebars and illustrations Sidebars

Evil Impulse, The

282

Paul’s Physical Infirmity

430 Years

145

Feminine Images of Ministry

212

Paul’s Public Rebuke

234

Abba

199

Flesh against Spirit

283

Paul’s Sufferings

324

Abraham

126

“Foolish Galatians”

120

Paul’s Usage of Sarx

275

Allegory

237

Four Senses of “Jerusalem”

221

Paul’s Use of Skandalon

260

“Give Us Free!”

243

Paul’s Vice Lists

287

129

Paul’s Virtue Lists

291

83

Alternative Interpretations of Hagar

223

God’s Promises to Abram

Ambrosiaster on “Angels”

149

Gospel, The

19

Paul’s Visits to Jerusalem

Greek Letter Format

14

Philippians 2:12-13

198 160

Anathema Ancient Exegetical Strategies

23 127

Inheritance

188

Phrourein

Anti-Semitism?

34

Ishmael and Isaac

229

Pistis Christou

Antioch

76

James the Just

25

Jesus Christ the Life-giver

Apostle Paul, The

44 155

Are Pagan Gods Real?

202

John Son of Zebedee

71

Attis and Cybele

262

“Judaizers”

85

Baptism in Buffalo Bayou

181

Barnabas

58

“Bequeathed through Angels” 151

4

91-92

Purpose of a “Custodian”, The 180 “Remember the Poor” Restoring an Errant Brother or Sister

74 307

158

Roman Troops on the March

296

Law Gets in the Way, The

133

Romans 8:19-25

252

Leaven

256

Royal Law, The

311

Saint Jerome in Penitence in the Wilderness

294

Sarah and Hagar

222 217

Law and Sin, The

Biting and Devouring

278

Leviticus 19:18 LXX

277

“Born of a Woman”

233

Lord of the Flies

298

Making the Universal God One’s Own

102

Sarah, Abraham, and Hagar

175

Simon Peter

Mercy and Peace

329

Sin of Sloth, The

318

Mirror Reading

248

Slave Market, The

139

“My Children”

211

Slavery in the New Testament

32

New Creation, A

328

New Jerusalem, The

225

Social Dimension of Justification, The

89

Noachic Laws, The

135

“One Fiery Color”

175

Our Babel-like Existence

174

Burdens and Loads: Present and Future?

335

Christianity and Judaism

224

Church Fathers on Galatians 6:1

308

Circumcision

246

Conspicuous Vices

288

Correspondences

221

Crucifixion

327

Crucifixion in the Dead Sea Scrolls

140

Di’ Hou

326

Dia t∑s Pisteøs

166

Diatribe Diversity and Unity in the New Testament

97

Male and Female

Outline of Paul’s Life

56

Paidagøgos

162

Parenesis

269

106

Passionate Prologue, A

15

Egyptian Slave

201

Paul in Arabia

41

Elements of the Universe

192

Paul’s Adversaries

Ethnic Galatians

3

6

Paul’s Declarations

247

Paul’s Hortative Assertions

306

South and North Galatia Theories

43

2

St. Paul Writing

321

“Such Large Letters”

322

Syria and Cilicia

46

Table Fellowship

109

“Those from the Circumcision” 80 “Through God” Titus “To Abraham and His Offspring”

200 59 141

354

Index of Sidebars and Illustrations

“To Bless”

132

“Traditions of My Ancestors, The”

37

Translation of Galatians 1:10

31

Translation of Galatians 2:3-5

63

Translation of Galatians 2:6-10 66 Translation of Galatians 3:1-5 122 Translation of Galatians 3:19-20

153

Translation of Galatians 5:5

250

Translation of Galatians 5:7-10

258

Translation of Galatians 6:14-16

331

Verbs of Command and Exhortation

271

“Who Has Bewitched You?”

178

Who Is Cursed?

136

“With Your Spirit”

334

Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing

210

Wrongdoers

290

Illustrations Abraham, painting Anonymous, Crucifixion, ivory Apostle Paul, The Apostle John, The (Glocker), painting Apostle Paul, The (Rembrandt), oil on canvas Asiolo, Saint Jerome in Penitence in the Wilderness Attis, companion of the Goddess Cybele, sculpture Baptism in Buffalo Bayou, photograph Barnabas Bataille, “Heavenly Jerusalem,” tapestry “Born of a Woman” Boulanger, The Slave Market, oil on canvas Building of the Tower of Babel, illumination on parchment Burne-Jones, The Nativity, oil on canvas Cave, Titus, drawing Christ Pantokrator in the Cathedral of Cefalù, fresco Circumcision knife

126 327 25 71 25 294 262 181 58 225 233 139 174 233 59 155 246

Crucifixion 327 Crucifixion (Anonymous), ivory 327 Cyprus, Cilicia, and Syria, map 76 de Backer, The Seven Deadly Sins: Sloth, painting 318 Doré, “The Giving of the Law on Mount Sinai,” 151 Dying Gaul (Epigonus), marble 3 Egyptian slave, bronze sculpture 201 English school, Paedagogus and children, engraving 162 Epigonus, Dying Gaul, marble 3 Ethnic Galatians 3 “Giving of the Law on Mount Sinai, The” (Doré), engraving 151 Glocker, The Apostle John, painting 71 God’s Promises to Abram (Tissot), gouache on board 129 “Heavenly Jerusalem” (Bataille), tapestry 225 Hollar, Sarah and Hagar, drawing 222 Izmel 246 James the Just, the Lord’s brother, icon 44 Jesus Christ the Life-giver 155 John, Son of Zebedee 71 Map of Cyprus, Cilicia, and Syria 76 Map of Nabatean Kingdom 41 Map of South and North Galatia 2 Map of Syria and Cilicia 46 Nativity, The (Burne-Jones), oil on canvas 233 Paedagogus and children (English school), engraving 162 Paul in Arabia, map 41 Paul’s Sufferings 324 Rembrandt, St. Paul in Prison, oil on wood 324 Rembrandt, The Apostle Paul, oil on canvas 25 Roman Troops on the March, bas-relief 296 Roman votive altar 202 Saint Barnabas, illustration 58 Saint Jerome in Penitence in the Wilderness (Asiolo), painting 294 Saint Peter, icon 43

Sarah and Hagar (Hollar), drawing 222 Sarah, Abraham, and Hagar (Stomer), oil 217 Seven Deadly Sins: Sloth, The (de Backer), painting 318 Simon Peter 43 Sin of Sloth, The 318 Slave Market, The (Boulanger), oil on canvas 139 South and North Galatia Theories, map 2 St. Paul in Prison (Rembrandt), oil on wood 324 St. Paul Writing, drawing 321 Stomer, Sarah, Abraham, and Hagar, oil 217 Syria and Cilicia, map 46 Tissot, God’s Promises to Abram, gouache on board 129 Titus (Cave), drawing 59

index of topics A Abba 123, 198–99 Abraham 9, 41, 71, 90, 92, 126– 33, 136, 141–42, 144–49, 153, 155, 157, 166, 175–77, 179, 183, 185, 215–18, 220–21, 223, 227– 31, 237, 239, 345 Acts x, 1–6, 13–14, 23, 32, 35, 39–46, 48, 50, 52–53, 56–59, 65, 68, 71–72, 74–81, 85, 91, 105, 107–109, 113, 117, 132, 135, 150–51, 155, 193, 198, 218, 226, 240, 254, 286, 299, 314, 325, 331, 337, 345 Adoption 166, 176, 188, 195–97, 200, 239, 250, 252

B Barnabas 4, 6, 55, 57–59, 66, 69– 70, 72–76, 81, 109, 114 Bewitch(ed) 5, 20, 120, 122, 177– 78, 323, 339 Boast 274, 291, 297, 312, 325–26, 331, 338 Boasting 10, 48, 297, 306, 313, 325–27, 338 Brothers and sisters 24, 32, 63–65, 67–68, 72, 85, 110, 142, 166, 205, 211, 214, 227, 231, 258–60, 272, 295, 306–307, 320, 322, 324, 334

C

Adversaries 6, 72, 228–29, 255, 261, 320, 322–23, 325

Calendar 6, 21, 42, 85, 204, 233, 239, 325

Allegory 9, 187–88, 214, 218–20, 223, 225, 227, 230–31, 236–37, 241, 316

Call 4, 9, 15, 19–20, 22, 33–39, 50–51, 53, 57, 113, 192, 215, 229, 231, 273, 283, 290, 320, 323

Amen 18, 320, 334

Calvin 150, 184, 239, 321, 341, 343

Anathema 23 Ancyra 3

Canon xx, 1, 7, 214

Angels 9, 147, 149–53, 179, 192, 233

Cephas 3, 34, 43–44, 52, 55–56, 66, 69–72, 75, 77–87, 98, 107– 108, 115, 325

Antinomies 146

Certain people from James 322

Antioch 1–4, 9, 41, 43, 46, 56–58, 62, 74–82, 84–87, 106, 108, 110, 114, 199, 325, 331

Childbirth 211, 240

Apocalyptic 18, 25, 27, 33, 133, 146, 194, 207, 224, 226, 240–41, 280–82, 302, 313, 316, 318, 320, 327–28, 336, 344 Apostle 13–16, 22, 24–25, 34, 37, 44–45, 48, 50, 52–53, 59, 70–71, 74, 113, 122, 177, 184, 202, 208, 234, 236, 239, 264, 269, 333–35, 338–41, 343–46 Apostolic Council 2, 56–59, 105– 106 Arabia 39–42, 52, 56, 113, 220 Attis 261–62

Children 9, 58, 130, 132, 140, 144–45, 161–62, 164, 166, 176, 181, 199, 211–12, 217–18, 220– 22, 226–28, 230–32, 235, 237, 252, 282 Christ xi, xiii, xvii, 3, 5–7, 9–10, 14–27, 29, 31–35, 37–42, 44, 46– 52, 56, 61, 63–65, 69–70, 76, 82, 87, 89, 91–12, 116–17, 120–24, 127, 130, 132, 136–42, 144, 146, 149–50, 154–58, 161–64, 166, 168–82, 184–85, 188, 192, 194– 200, 202, 208, 212–13, 221, 223, 229, 232–38, 243–45, 247, 249– 54, 257, 259–64, 266, 272,

275–83, 290–91, 293–94, 298– 302, 308, 310–12, 317, 320, 323–28, 331–36, 338–40, 343–44, 346 Christ in me 101–102 Christ Jesus 9–10, 15, 20, 29, 35, 39, 63–64, 91, 93, 116, 132, 141– 42, 164, 166, 169–71, 173, 176, 208, 252–54, 257, 279–80, 291, 293–94, 301 Church(es) xiii, xvii, xx, xxiii, xxv, 1, 4, 7, 13, 14, 16, 16–17, 19–20, 23, 24, 26–27, 33–36, 34, 40, 42, 43–47, 48, 50–53, 55–63, 69–71, 74–77, 79–82, 85, 86–87, 89–90, 92, 97, 103–11, 113, 114, 117, 119, 125–26, 127, 134, 135, 144, 171–72, 174–76, 181–83, 194, 198–99, 204, 205, 208, 211–12, 221–24, 226, 227, 229, 230, 232, 234, 239, 249, 255, 257, 260–62, 265, 270–71, 277, 278, 279, 281, 283, 285, 290, 294, 297, 302, 307–308, 314, 323–24, 330–32, 335–37, 339, 341, 343, 345 Circumcised 6, 53, 57–59, 62–63, 66, 69–70, 75, 80, 85, 89, 105, 166, 168, 247–48, 264, 322–24, 337–38, 342 Circumcision 4, 6, 9–10, 21, 23, 26, 31, 41, 55, 58–59, 62, 66, 72– 73, 78–80, 82, 85, 89, 96, 114, 124, 127, 136, 144, 168, 174–75, 180, 204, 216, 218, 220, 226, 228–29, 231, 246–49, 252–54, 257–61, 263–65, 279, 298, 316, 322–23, 325–28, 331, 336–39 Community xx, 6, 16, 44, 46, 49, 51, 63, 67, 72, 76–77, 79, 84, 96, 98, 110, 171, 174, 180–82, 271, 275, 277, 281–82, 288–89, 293, 297–98, 300–301, 308–11, 313, 319–20 Compelled 62, 66, 312, 322 Compulsion 62

356

Index of Topics

Cosmos 17, 326–27

Epistolary autograph 320

Covenant 87, 89–91, 126, 135– 36, 143, 145–46, 175, 177, 179, 188, 219–21, 236, 246

Eschatological 18, 25, 45, 70–71, 106, 146, 207, 252, 257, 281, 290, 312–13, 315–19, 327, 330–31, 336

Creation 10, 33, 88, 127, 130, 137, 157, 194, 251–53, 281, 290, 312, 320, 325–28, 331–32, 338, 342 Cross 10, 26, 92, 100, 111–12, 121, 125, 136, 141, 179, 182, 184, 196, 229, 251, 258–61, 320, 323, 325–27, 331, 337–38, 341, 343–44 Cross of Christ 229, 251, 260–61, 323, 326–27, 338

Eschatology 17, 74, 241, 344 Ethics 263, 280, 287, 292–93, 296, 298, 302, 343 Exegesis v, 86, 92, 127, 129, 134, 141, 144, 216

Genesis ix, 126, 128–29, 131–32, 141, 144–46, 155, 174, 183, 215– 16, 219–21, 223, 227–30, 237, 243, 282

F

Curse 23, 36, 100, 132–39, 141– 42, 146, 148, 159, 179, 185

Faith in Jesus Christ 89, 91, 93– 94, 99

Curse of the Law 36, 100, 133, 135, 138–39, 142, 179

Faith of Jesus Christ 18, 87, 89, 91–95, 130, 155–58, 163, 170, 182, 344

Cursed 36, 100, 133–36, 139–40, 179 Cybele 261–62, 266

D Damascus 2, 4, 39–42, 49–52, 56, 105, 113, 296 Dead Sea Scrolls 140, 307–308, 339, 346 Diatribe 97, 116, 120, 215, 254, 297, 304 Dietary prescriptions 79 Dietary regulations 85 Dietary restrictions 79, 81–82 DSs 140, 240

E Election 90, 111 Elements of the universe 133, 139, 187, 191–93, 201, 203, 239, 245, 273, 276, 327 Epexegetical 330–31

G Galli 3, 261–62

Crucify 294, 326

Crucifixion 4, 100, 117, 140, 179, 183–84, 233, 293, 325–27, 333, 344

Fruit of the Spirit xv, 122, 128, 137, 254, 276, 287–88, 290–93, 300, 303, 309, 316, 319

Evil Impulse 281–82

Faith vii, xv, xix–xx, 5–7, 9–10, 18, 20, 25, 27, 29, 47, 49, 52, 82, 87–89, 91–95, 99, 101–103, 106– 107, 109–12, 119, 121–30, 132–33, 135–38, 141–42, 146–48, 151, 154–64, 166–71, 175, 177– 78, 181–85, 199, 204, 213, 227, 230–31, 235–37, 246, 250–54, 256, 260, 263–65, 271, 291–92, 298–301, 319–20, 339, 344

Crucified 26, 36, 99–102, 111–12, 116, 121–22, 185, 198, 259–60, 293–94, 301, 323, 326, 331, 333, 338–39, 343

218, 223–26, 231, 233, 236–38, 243–45, 252, 262–63, 267, 270– 77, 298–99, 305, 326

False brothers and sisters 63–65, 67–68, 72, 85, 322, 324 Family 44, 110–12, 126, 133, 142–43, 162, 174–75, 196, 199, 205, 215–17, 223, 227, 258, 272, 282, 320, 334, 340 Father xvii, 15–18, 24, 27, 48, 123, 180, 187–90, 197–99, 202, 211, 217, 223, 229, 232–33, 307 Flesh 10, 20, 39, 95–96, 101–102, 122–24, 178, 206–08, 216–18, 221, 224–25, 228, 230–31, 234, 237, 273–76, 278–79, 281–85, 287–94, 297, 299–302, 315–16, 322, 324–25, 328, 334, 336–38 Foolish 5, 20, 27, 120, 122–23, 142, 177–78, 193, 205 Forensic 89, 104, 111, 129, 251 Free woman 216, 218, 225, 230– 31, 237–38 Freedom vii, xxiii, 7, 10, 25, 29, 31–32, 49, 63–65, 82, 97, 139, 162, 164, 174, 179, 200–01, 215,

Gentiles 3–4, 6–7, 21, 37–38, 46, 48, 50–51, 55, 59–60, 66, 68–70, 72–76, 79–80, 83–85, 87–89, 96, 98, 105, 107–108, 113–14, 116, 121, 123, 126–27, 131–32, 135– 36, 138, 141–42, 144–46, 160, 166, 173–74, 177, 183, 191, 198, 218, 224–26, 246, 257, 259–60, 264, 289, 322–24, 330–31, 337, 344 Gifts of the Spirit 292 God xix, 5, 7, 9, 14–27, 30–39, 41–42, 45, 47–53, 56, 59–61, 65– 70, 73–74, 78, 80, 82, 88–95, 98–105, 107, 109–12, 116, 119, 122–33, 135–54, 156–61, 163–66, 168–71, 174–76, 178–83, 185, 187–88, 191, 193–04, 208–09, 212, 215, 217–18, 220–21, 223, 227–28, 231–34, 236–37, 239–40, 244, 246–47, 250–57, 260–66, 270, 272–76, 280–84, 287, 289– 92, 296, 299, 303, 307, 310–18, 320, 322–34, 336, 338–39, 342, 344 God the Father 15–16, 24, 48 God’s sending the Son 280 God’s Son 17, 33, 38, 47, 51, 102–103, 123, 159, 187–88, 195– 96, 198, 202, 251, 280, 282 Good of all 319, 337 Gospel vii, 5–6, 9, 11, 13–14, 18– 27, 29, 31–34, 38–40, 42–43, 45, 47–49, 51–53, 55–56, 59–63, 65– 66, 69–76, 79–82, 87, 89, 92, 105–10, 114, 120, 122, 131–32, 141, 155, 169, 175, 177–78, 181, 187, 206–07, 210–12, 224, 229– 30, 234–35, 244, 247, 250, 255,

Index of Topics 260–61, 281, 296, 314–15, 323, 333–34, 338 Grace vii, 14, 16–18, 20, 22, 24, 27, 29, 37–38, 49, 66, 70, 88, 102–105, 116, 121, 129–30, 147, 164, 176, 180–81, 188, 210, 247, 249–50, 257, 260, 263, 276, 296, 298–99, 310, 320, 326, 329, 333– 34, 336, 338–39

H Hagar 9, 214, 217, 220–24, 226– 29, 236–37 Handwriting 321–22 Hanged 139–40 Hanging 140, 179 Heir 128, 144, 148, 176–77, 184, 187–91, 193, 199–00, 218, 223–24 Hippocratic Oath 314 Hope xiii–xiv, xxi, 18, 92, 234, 236, 250–52, 263, 265, 284, 291, 334 Hortatory Subjunctive 270–71, 297, 306, 317, 319 Household of faith 319–20 Idolatry 135, 193, 201, 229, 288–89

I

40, 42–46, 51–53, 55–80, 85, 105–109, 113–15, 212, 219, 221– 22, 224–26, 237, 246, 265, 303, 324, 337, 346 Jerusalem Church 33–34, 40, 44– 45, 52, 55–57, 61, 63, 71, 74, 79, 107–109, 337 Jesus x, xiii, 4, 7–10, 13–22, 24, 29, 32–36, 38–40, 42–45, 47–50, 56, 58, 63–64, 71, 76, 82, 87, 89, 91–95, 99, 103, 105, 108–109, 112, 114, 116, 121–24, 127, 130, 132, 138, 141–42, 151, 154–58, 163–64, 166, 168–71, 173, 176, 179–80, 182, 185, 188, 194–95, 197–98, 200, 202, 208, 223, 232– 33, 235, 238–39, 246–47, 250, 252–54, 257, 260, 277–80, 291, 293–94, 299, 301, 311, 320, 323– 26, 328, 331, 333–34, 338–39, 341, 343–46 Jesus Christ 7, 14–18, 20, 22, 24, 32–34, 38–40, 42, 47–49, 56, 64, 82, 87, 89, 91–95, 99, 103, 105, 116, 121–24, 127, 130, 138, 141, 154–58, 163, 168, 170, 182, 188, 194–95, 197–98, 200, 202, 223, 247, 250, 260, 320, 323, 325–26, 328, 331, 334, 338–39, 344 Jewish Christian 79, 87, 98, 103, 154, 206, 220, 224, 231, 249–50

Infirmity 234

John v, x, 8, 14–15, 19, 32, 43–44, 54–55, 58, 66, 70–72, 102, 117, 149, 155, 183–84, 188, 194, 199, 221, 223, 238–41, 248, 266, 269– 70, 278, 283, 291, 302–303, 307–308, 318, 322, 327, 341–46

Inheritance laws 130, 189–90, 196

John Calvin 184, 239, 341

Isaac 71, 141, 214, 217–18, 221, 223–25, 227–30, 236–37

Josephus 85, 143, 145, 150–51

Imperative 87, 129, 244, 246, 254–55, 270–71, 273, 276, 279, 294, 296, 306, 309–10

Ishmael 41, 223–24, 228–31, 236–37, 241 Israel of God 231, 328–31

J James x, xii, xxiv, 7, 14, 34, 43–45, 55–56, 58, 66, 68, 70–72, 76, 78– 81, 83–84, 99, 106, 108–109, 115, 128–29, 239, 278, 322, 345 Jeremiah ix–x, 37, 325 Jerusalem 2–4, 7, 9, 33–34, 39–

Judaism xii, 34–37, 39, 50–51, 79, 90–91, 111, 116, 127, 140, 143, 177, 179, 183, 194, 214, 222–24, 231, 237, 248–49, 282, 287, 345 Justification 27, 88–89, 93–96, 104, 106, 109–11, 117, 126–27, 132–33, 158, 163, 170, 174–75, 177, 181, 183, 249–50, 346 Justified 61, 87–88, 90–96, 111, 116, 132, 135, 137, 142, 148, 163, 249, 263, 336 Justify 50, 88, 94, 104, 106, 111, 116–17, 126, 131, 166

357

K Kanøn 328 Kingdom of God 19, 182, 194, 262, 287, 290–91, 299

L Large letters 321–22 Law vii, 5–7, 9–10, 20–21, 25–27, 29, 31, 33–39, 45, 51, 62, 64–66, 68–69, 74, 78–79, 84–85, 87, 89– 92, 94–101, 103–106, 110–11, 114, 116–17, 119–28, 130–42, 144–54, 158–66, 173–74, 176–81, 185, 187–90, 195, 200–06, 208– 11, 214–15, 218, 220–22, 224–26, 228–31, 235–36, 238–39, 243–50, 254, 257, 259–61, 263, 266–67, 269–70, 272–73, 276–79, 282, 285–90, 293, 297–300, 302, 310– 12, 316–17, 322–27, 334–38, 340, 343, 345–46 Law observance 6–7, 9–10, 21, 29, 35–36, 38, 62, 64–66, 69, 84–85, 87, 90–91, 96–99, 103–104, 119– 21, 124–25, 127–28, 130, 132–35, 137–38, 142, 144, 159, 163–65, 173, 177, 187, 200–01, 203–06, 208–11, 214–15, 224–25, 228, 230–31, 243–50, 254, 257, 260– 61, 263, 270, 272, 277, 279, 285, 297, 316, 322, 325–27, 336 Law of Christ 7, 21, 278, 310–12, 317, 335, 340, 346 Law-free 62, 74, 78, 114, 130–31, 141, 210, 218, 228, 230, 235 Law-observant 6, 34–35, 39, 64, 68, 74, 87, 96–97, 99, 130, 133, 144, 174, 206, 226, 229, 266, 343 Libertine 279, 298 Lord Jesus Christ 7, 17, 92, 320, 325, 331, 334, 339 Luther xiii, xxiv, 51, 54, 111, 150, 185, 223, 249, 321, 341, 344 LXX xii, 16, 27, 34, 37, 40, 47, 95–96, 102, 122, 125, 128, 131, 133–34, 136–37, 139–40, 143, 145, 150–51, 155, 174, 196, 226, 230, 277–78, 280, 290, 307, 315, 325, 329

358

Index of Topics

M

233–34, 291, 322, 344

Maxim 256, 309–10, 312–13, 315, 336

Promise(s) 9, 112, 126–27, 129, 133, 136, 141–42, 144–49, 151, 153–58, 166, 176–77, 179, 181, 188, 200, 215–18, 220–21, 224, 227–28, 230, 235–38, 256–57, 279, 283–85, 308, 316–18, 336

Mediator 149–53

Provincial 2, 49

Marks of Jesus 333, 338 Martin Luther xiii, 51, 54, 111, 185, 249, 341

Mercy 156–57, 320, 328–32, 338 Messiah 15, 21–22, 36, 50, 58, 92, 116, 126, 141, 158, 175, 185, 188, 343 Mirror-reading 5, 8, 103, 248, 343 Mock 315 Mount Sinai 43, 145, 149, 151, 219–21

N Nabatean 41

R Revelation x, 25, 33–34, 37–40, 42–43, 49, 51, 56, 59, 72, 101, 131, 160–61, 225 Righteousness 32, 35, 39, 44, 51, 88–89, 92, 99, 104–105, 111, 116–17, 128–29, 136, 146, 151, 154, 163, 250–51, 263, 291, 310, 346

S

New Creation 10, 33, 127, 130, 194, 253, 290, 312, 320, 325–28, 331–32, 338, 342

Sarah 9, 214, 217, 222–29, 236–37

North Galatia 2–3, 5

Scandal 200, 258–60, 323 Scapegoat 139

O Opponents 5, 72, 103, 120, 130, 134, 136, 143, 177, 210, 214, 216, 218, 248–49, 261, 263, 279, 285, 311, 315, 320, 322–26, 331, 340 Opportunity 174, 273–74, 337

P

101–103, 123, 125, 130, 141, 149, 159, 180, 187–88, 191, 194–00, 202, 216–17, 221, 223–25, 228– 30, 232, 251, 276, 280, 282, 296, 327 South Galatia 2–3, 5 Sphere 20, 47, 83, 102, 104, 130, 163, 252, 273, 275, 280, 283, 293 Spirit vii, xv, 5, 7, 10, 18, 20, 26– 27, 29, 83, 101, 119, 121–28, 132–33, 136–38, 141–42, 144–46, 154, 157, 166, 175–79, 182–83, 188, 197–00, 204, 208, 215, 217– 18, 221, 224–25, 228, 230, 232, 240, 247, 250–52, 254, 256, 263– 64, 267, 269–70, 275–76, 279–88, 290–301, 303, 307–309, 311, 313–16, 318–20, 322, 327, 334– 36, 343–44 Spirit of God’s Son 123, 188, 198, 251, 280 Supervisor 159, 161–65 Syllogism 152

T

Scripture xi, xix–xxi, xxiii–xxvi, 10, 15, 74, 83, 96, 102, 126–27, 129, 131–36, 138, 140, 142, 149, 154– 58, 175, 178, 180, 215, 227, 230, 236–37, 260, 278–79, 283, 288, 290, 308, 311, 322, 334–35

Table Fellowship 4, 53, 58, 77–82, 84, 109, 111

Second Temple Judaism 248–49

Those from the circumcision 79– 80, 322

Seed 126, 130–31, 141, 144–46, 149, 153, 157, 176–77

Tavium 3 Telling the truth 209 Territorial 3

Paidagøgos 161–162, 179

Self-examination 309, 313

Those of Repute 60, 66–68, 70, 72–73

Pauline ethics 296

Sending 9, 78, 123, 187–88, 194– 98, 232, 254, 280–81, 296, 327

Titus x, 13, 27, 55, 57–59, 62–63, 65–66, 85, 105

Sending formula 194

Tradition(s) xx, 25, 34–37, 41, 51, 71, 141, 151, 197, 225, 229, 262, 265, 276, 278, 282, 310–11, 318, 321

Perfect tense 100, 146, 277, 294, 326 Personification 274, 302 Personified 131, 155–57, 274–75, 282, 316 Pessinus 3, 261, 266

Septuagint xii, 151, 226, 228–30, 277, 339, 345 Sickness 206, 208, 234

Peter x, 4, 13, 27, 43, 52–53, 56, 66, 69–71, 76, 79–80, 83, 85, 106–109, 235, 341, 345

Sin 17, 32, 96–99, 120, 133, 136, 139–40, 148, 154, 156–59, 164, 188, 224, 274–75, 281, 289, 307– 308, 317–18, 335, 337

Pharisaic 13, 31, 36, 203

Sinner 89, 96–98, 307–308

Pharisee 21, 99–100, 248

Sins 17, 24, 64, 102, 139, 224, 288, 307, 318

Philo 114, 128, 183, 191–94, 223, 237, 287 Pillars 60, 66, 71–73, 77, 90, 107 Poor 4, 7, 55, 66, 73–74, 115,

Slave girl 216, 218, 221, 230 Son x, xv, 9, 16–17, 33, 38, 41, 43, 47, 49, 51, 57–58, 60, 71,

Transformational 89, 129 Truth vii, 9, 11, 22, 40, 51, 63, 65–66, 74, 79, 81–82, 109, 111, 179, 192, 209–10, 215, 234, 255– 56, 258, 261, 286, 302, 307–308, 338, 343 Truth of the gospel vii, 9, 11, 22, 65–66, 74, 79, 81–82, 109, 210, 255, 261 Typology 219

Index of Topics

U Uncircumcised 4, 53, 58, 62–63, 66, 69–70, 109, 136, 166, 168, 247, 264, 338 Under the Law 38–39, 51, 123, 136, 159–61, 188, 195, 200, 202– 03, 214–15, 286–87 Universe 49, 133, 139, 159, 187, 191–93, 201–03, 239, 245, 273, 276, 326–28, 331

W Walk 106, 179, 271, 279–83, 286, 295 Warden 133 Weakness 100, 206, 234, 240 Whole Law 6, 21, 135, 247–49, 277 Will xiv, xvii, xxi, xxiii, 3, 5, 9, 15, 17–18, 24, 26, 37–38, 44–45, 58, 60, 62, 66–67, 70, 72, 74, 80, 85, 87, 89, 95, 99, 103, 107, 112, 125, 130–33, 136–40, 142–45, 147–49, 151, 154–56, 165–67, 171, 176, 179–81, 188–90, 193, 196, 198, 201, 204, 210–19, 225, 227–28, 230–31, 233, 238–39, 246–48, 251–52, 257–60, 265, 273–74, 276, 278–79, 282–85, 287–88, 290–91, 293, 296–99, 301, 303, 306–308, 310, 312–13, 315–16, 318–19, 323, 325, 328, 330–31, 334, 336, 339 Works of the Flesh 274, 287–93, 297, 299–300 Works of the Law 5, 20, 27, 87, 89, 91–92, 94–96, 106, 110–11, 121–25, 132, 136, 146, 177–78, 250, 288

X Xenophon 310, 339

Y Yoke of slavery 244–45

359