OVERVIEW
Galatians not only follows the convention of ancient letters in its epistolary structure; it also contains many of the rhetorical mechanisms current in the discourse (both written and oral) of Paul’s day. These rhetorical principles and mechanisms lend aid to the interpretation of letters, and especially to a letter brimming with strong emotion and polemical language, as is Galatians. Difficult texts are rendered more intelligible to us, two millennia culturally and chronologically distant from them as we are, as we gain insight into the communication process and authorial meaning by means of rhetorical analysis of the letter.
According to ancient rhetorical guidelines this section of Galatians forms what is known as the exordium, or introduction (cf. Rapa, 109–19). The purpose of the exordium is for the author to acknowledge the situation giving rise to the need for communication and to secure rapport with his audience by establishing ethos. It is the speaker’s/writer’s character of trustworthiness, his credibility to write on this subject, and his right to be heard that is the burden of these verses. This rhetorical observation leads us to understand this section of the letter to extend to v.10 rather than ending at v.9, as it is treated elsewhere.
6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
10Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.
COMMENTARY
6 Paul expresses very strong emotion (“astonished,” thaumazō, GK 2513) at the thought of the Galatians’ moving away from the gospel of Christ. This expression of amazement is actually a form of rebuke (see Longenecker, 14), because they have “so quickly” turned from the one who called them by the grace of Christ (already mentioned as Jesus’ “giving of his life for our sins . . . according to the will of our God”) to embrace a different gospel. The Galatian churches are besieged by those who preach another gospel. Paul’s opponents are usually identified as “Judaizers,” those who attempt to force Paul’s converts to adhere to a Jewish law-oriented (nomistic) lifestyle. They are in essence, according to Paul, perverting the truth of the gospel he preached to the Galatians, and the Galatians are evidently prepared to follow after this “different” gospel for salvation. Rather than moving forward in the grace of Christ, who died and suffered God’s wrath in their place, they are in danger of “deserting” him “so quickly” for another way. Some have suggested that “so quickly” refers to the Galatians’ departure from the faith almost immediately after Paul preached to them; it is more likely, however, that it refers to the abrupt manner in which they turned from the truth of the gospel to the Judaizers’ “different gospel.”
7 This “different gospel” is not truly a gospel. “Some people” (Paul’s adversaries) have introduced confusion into the Galatians’ faith by preaching a different gospel from the one preached by Paul. Those who preach this “non-gospel” actually pervert (metastrephō, GK 3570) the truth; and perversion of truth is not truth, after all. So the alternative gospel proclaimed by Paul’s opponents is not really a gospel, as it does not lead to the redemptive grace of God in Christ. The church of Jesus Christ must be always vigilant to guard the truth of the message she proclaims (cf. 1Ti 6:20; 2Ti 1:14).
8 The truth of the gospel message is of such high value that Paul now verbalizes the unthinkable: if anyone, whether Paul and his companions or even an angel from heaven itself, a messenger who enjoys the presence and glories of God, should preach a gospel other than the gospel of salvation by faith in the person, word, and work of Christ, he or she should be “eternally condemned” (anathema, GK 353). This is extremely strong language, but the stakes could not be higher. At issue is God’s redemptive grace and the means for fallen humanity to receive that grace. Alternative gospels, such as those preached by Paul’s opponents, distort God’s intended redemptive activity and leave humanity to suffer the just result of sinfulness. These gospels do not reconcile people to God, do nothing to remedy human sinfulness, and thus must be condemned in the strongest possible way—particularly since God has provided in the gospel of Christ the way of escape, and that is the gospel the Galatians have already embraced. Bearers of false gospels may be persuasive and appealing, and their messages may resonate with their hearers at some level, but even Satan may appear as an “angel of light” (2Co 11:14). The church must take care to sift the teaching of God’s purported messengers, so as to protect against teaching that leaves its hearers in danger of eternal destruction.
Paul’s language of condemnation (literally he says, “Let them be damned”) is discomfiting to some in today’s inclusion-at-all-costs, nonconfrontation, and truth-is-relative culture. They would prefer that he had not written in such a straightforward manner, and consequently these words are often ignored or explained away. They suggest that Paul is driven by jealousy of the success of his opponents or that he is guilty of being emotionally distraught and so has spoken rashly. Thus his words here need not be taken all that seriously.
This, of course, will not do. A false gospel that is not the gospel does not lead people to life. Boice, 429, notes, “If the gospel Paul preaches is true, then both the glory of Jesus Christ and the salvation of men are at stake. . . . If men are taught a false gospel, they are being led from the one thing that can save them and are being turned to destruction (cf. Mt 18:6).”
9 The repetition of the anathema emphasizes what Paul has already said. But by way of reminding the Galatians that the gospel he proclaimed to them is the one they had in fact already accepted, he also reinforces the folly of following another way—a way that is not the gospel and, by implication, does not lead to life. This signals a theme he will expand on later in the letter (3:1–18).
10 The relationship of v.10 to the surrounding verses is debated. Some suggest that v.10 belongs with vv.11–12 as a literary transition from vv.6–9 and to vv.13–17. Others see it as an emotional outburst following vv.8–9 and therefore standing alone.
But understanding v.10 as a part of the letter’s exordium allows us to recognize that Paul is here attempting to gain or recapture credibility with the Galatians by suggesting that his words are trustworthy because he is a servant of God and isn’t concerned with pleasing other people. Together with reinforcing the notion of his apostolic authority, this verse reminds the Galatians of Paul’s character as a preacher of the gospel and prepares the way for his spirited defense of his apostolic authority and the truth of his gospel (cf. 1:11–2:14). Paul does not “please men,” because his gospel was given him by the risen Lord Jesus as was his commission to preach that gospel. He will now defend himself and his message on the same terms.
NOTES
6 “Astonished” (θαυμάζω, thaumazō) is a strong term of amazement or wonder, expressing deep emotion driven by incredulity or awe (cf. Mt 8:27; Lk 4:22; Rev 13:3).
Paul is astonished because the Galatians are “deserting” (μετατίθημι, metatithēmi, GK 3572) the one who called them, i.e., God the Father. This call of God is based on the sacrifice of Christ and thus is of highest premium in value and significance.
Paul’s astonishment results not only because the Galatians are deserting God but have done so “so quickly.” It is likely that “so quickly” (οὕτως ταχέως, houtōs tacheōs) refers to the precipitous or impetuous manner in which the Galatians are deserting God rather than referring to this taking place “so soon” after Paul’s preaching.
7 The NIV text reads, “which is really no gospel at all,” rightly suggesting that the “gospel” of Paul’s adversaries is not a gospel; it is not of the same type as the gospel of God’s redemptive grace in the person and work of Christ. Literally the text says, “which is not another,” employing ἄλλος, allos (“other,” “another”), used to distinguish between two examples of the same type or species.
Paul’s opponents are “throwing [the Galatians] into confusion” (ταράσσω, tarassō, GK 5429). The word implies an insidious harassment, disturbing at a deep level the otherwise tranquil faith of the Galatians.
The opponents of Paul are confusing the Galatians by “perverting” (μεταστρέφω, metastrephō) the gospel. This is a political term referring to a distortion or a misinterpretation brought about by means of persuasion or subterfuge.
8 In speaking of the Judaizers’ “gospel,” Paul uses the expression παρ jὃ, par ho. The NIV translation “other than” should be strengthened to convey the fact that this gospel is actually opposed to and indeed contrary to the truth of the gospel. Any teaching that is found to be in such opposition to the truth cannot have been divinely revealed.
The word translated “eternally condemned” is ἀνάθεμα, anathema. The term speaks of those who are under the curse of God, eternally condemned to miss out on the joys of his presence and goodness.
REFLECTIONS
The church throughout the ages has been tempted to dilute or pervert the message of the gospel, particularly with reference to its exclusionary character (cf. Jn 14:6) or its ethical practice. As early as Origen (AD 185–254), the teaching of a universal atonement had gained traction. Other early aberrations stressed legalistic practices (e.g., the Ebionites). Adding to or generalizing the message of the gospel makes it a “different gospel” that distorts the clear teaching of the Scriptures and puts people in danger of missing God’s redemptive purposes.
The church of Jesus Christ must at all costs avoid agenda-driven theology, as though the message of the Scriptures is a wax nose to be shaped to address our every cultural fad or each generation’s idiosyncratic self-understanding. Cultural and chronological relevancy are both necessary and important, and Scripture does indeed address the human condition in every place in every age. But we cannot allow the message of the gospel to be altered or distorted in the drive to apply the message of the Bible to ourselves.
The message of Galatians is that there is only one gospel—and that we as God’s people are responsible both to proclaim and live out the ethical implications of that gospel as a clarion call to a lost world that remains subject to the wrath of God.
OVERVIEW
This next section of Galatians is, in rhetorical terms, the narratio, the portion of the speech or letter where the speaker/author sets out the case to be argued. It is here that Paul will advance the case for his apostolic identity and the defense of his version of the gospel as over against the others who falsely claim to represent God and preach an alternative message. Paul will accomplish this by referring to a number of incidents from his past. The rehearsal of these incidents will demonstrate that he was not in a position to have received the gospel from any person or persons, but indeed did receive it from God.
Though already mentioned in the exordium, the issues raised here are of such import that Paul will now more directly address the question of his identity as an apostle of Jesus Christ and his credibility as a representative of the truth of the gospel message as he proclaims it. If he can demonstrate that he is a reliable and credible witness to the truth, his word—his “gospel”—can be believed and the Galatians can dispense with what would then prove to be the false message of Paul’s opponents.
11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
COMMENTARY
11–12 Using a formal epistolary construct known as a disclosure formula (“I want to you know, brothers . . .”) Paul begins his self-defense. “Know” (gnōrizō, GK 1192) is also used by Paul to introduce some of his more formal or solemn assertions (see Longenecker, 22; cf. 1Co 12:3; 15:1; 2Co 8:1). These factors together suggest that what Paul wants the Galatians to “know” is very significant. In fact, this statement regarding the origin of his gospel is that on which rests the entire demonstration of his case, which follows in 1:13–2:21 (cf. Burton, 35).
Paul’s self-defense lies in the fact that his gospel is not of human origin; it is not the product of human ingenuity or striving after righteousness (“not something that man made up”). Indeed, Paul did not receive it from any human source but directly from the Lord Jesus himself (no doubt having begun during his “Damascus Road” experience; see Ac 9:1–22). Though it is grammatically possible to construe Paul’s words as meaning that Jesus is the content or the “object” of the revelation (an objective genitive, translated “the revelation of Jesus Christ”) rather than the source, the “subject” producing the revelation (a subjective genitive, translated as “revelation from Jesus Christ”), it seems likely in light of vv.13–14 that he does indeed have in mind the revelatory disclosure to him by the Lord Jesus that began for him in his Damascus Road experience. It was out of this revelation that the aggressive, believer-persecuting Pharisee became the humble apostle.
This is why Paul’s gospel is to be trusted and why he is to be believed. The message that he preaches is not his own message; nor is it merely the result of strategic thinking about God and salvation. This is the word of God himself, conveyed to Paul by the resurrected Christ, who, again, “gave himself for our sins . . . according to the will of our God” (v.4).
OVERVIEW
Paul has narrated the basic facts of what he intends to present in his defense of his apostolic identity and the veracity of his gospel: he received this gospel by revelation, directly from the Lord himself. It is not of human but divine origin. He now takes up a full exposition of his case, beginning, as they say, “at the beginning.”
13For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.
COMMENTARY
13 Paul’s past life in Judaism is no secret to the Galatians, who, he says, “have heard” of it. Nor is his past a closed book to his opponents. The powerful and persuasive character of Paul’s preaching came, no doubt, in part because of this well-known past: he had continually and actively attempted to obliterate any evidence of the “Jesus cult.” His zeal against Christians is described in terms that make it clear that his intention in his previous way of life had been to remove from the scene any who followed Jesus as the Messiah. Now, he proclaims that very Jesus as the Christ, the hope of the Jewish people and of all humanity. Such a dramatic and stark transformation in identity and activity becomes for Paul, by implication, the evidence that his gospel is not his own but indeed must be from heaven.
14 Paul adduces here another factor regarding his previous manner of life; in addition to being zealous in his persecution and trying to destroy the church, he was zealous for Judaism and the Jewish way of living—the “traditions” that were shaped by the ritual practices that went into Jewish identity. It is these traditions, at least in part, that made up the “works of the law” and that are the issue in the Galatian churches between Paul and his detractors. Paul’s former zeal for the “traditions of [the] fathers” would no doubt have been approved by those who are now his opponents.
Others in Paul’s own age group did not advance beyond him with respect to Jewishness; nor could anyone ever claim that it was during this time that he had been influenced toward the nascent Christian movement. His intention had been to advance in Judaism and destroy the church of Jesus Christ (or perhaps his advance within Judaism would come in part by means of his destruction of the church).
15–16 These verses highlight God’s sovereign redemptive activity. Paul will not express the main point of his argument in this section until the latter part of v.16 and the first part of v.17 (“I did not consult any man, nor did I go up . . . to see those who were . . . before I was”), but vv.15–16 anticipate the assertion that Paul’s movement from zealous Pharisaic Judaism to Christianity cannot be the result of human persuasive skills or reasoning; it is the result of God’s will or good pleasure (eudokeō, GK 2305), his setting Paul apart for his purposes (aphorizō, GK 928), and his gracious call (kaleō, GK 2813). These terms express the fact that Paul’s redemption is all of God’s gracious initiative and further reinforce his contention that his gospel is not a human product but is indeed from God.
Paul had been busily engaged in his prior life in what he had believed was service to God; he worked to progress as a Pharisee and acted against what he perceived to be a threat to Judaism as he persecuted the church of Jesus Christ. But God had his own agenda for Paul’s life. “From birth” he had been graciously chosen by God and prepared to be God’s emissary to the Gentiles. At the appointed time, God “revealed his Son in [Paul]” so that he “might preach him among the Gentiles.” Paul felt no need, then, to consult with anyone else before he began his ministry of proclaiming the good news of the person, word, and work of Christ.
17 By stating that he had not even gone to Jerusalem to report to those who had preceded him in apostolic office, Paul implicitly lays claim to the fact that his identity as an apostle and the authority of his message are as valid as “those who were apostles before [he] was” (cf. 2:6). The opponents claimed that Paul’s apostolic identity and gospel were subordinate to the Jerusalem church, and therefore both his message and his status were inferior to the original apostles and to their own status and message (cf. Rapa, 81–96). Paul denies that he had gone to Jerusalem to submit his gospel to the mother church or to the apostles; rather, he “immediately” (eutheōs, GK 2311) went to Arabia. The word “Arabia” was used in Paul’s day to refer to the Nabatean kingdom, which extended from the Red Sea in the south to the Euphrates River in the north, east of the Jordan Valley (Paul uses the term at 4:25 to refer to the location of Mount Sinai, but here his use seems to be more general). It is uncertain just where Paul went, but he may not have gone far from Damascus, which over the years had been part of the Nabatean kingdom, though it was not in Paul’s day. Perhaps Burton, 58, expressed the uncertainty about Paul’s travels best when he wrote, “There is nothing to necessitate the supposition that he went far from Damascus, nor anything to exclude a far-distant journey.” In any case, the most likely explanation as to why he took this journey is that Paul’s newfound identity as a preacher of the gospel was becoming problematic in this city (cf. 2Co 11:32–33). In addition, perhaps he needed some time to rethink his understanding of God and service to God from the perspective of his encounter with the risen Christ. He may also have felt the need to remove himself from any tension that would have erupted between himself and his former Pharisaic colleagues on whose behalf he had traveled to Damascus in the first place (Ac 9:1–2). Later, still without traveling to Jerusalem, he returned to Damascus.
Again, this denial of his presence in Jerusalem serves to stress the fact that Paul’s authority and his message are independent of apostolic oversight and that he is not subordinate to “any man” (v.16). The Galatians have been persuaded to doubt the truth of the gospel as preached by Paul, in part because of the insinuation that his message was inferior and he himself was not an apostle on the level of those in Jerusalem, or even of these opponents who portrayed themselves as having the support of the mother church. Paul must protect the Galatian churches from being swayed to turn to “a different gospel,” and so he speaks with great earnestness, rehearsing the history of his conversion and apostolic commission in order to separate himself from any implied dependency on others.
NOTES
13 The ardor of Paul’s persecution of Christians is indicated in this verse by the manner in which he describes the activity. The phrase καθ jὑπερβολὴν, kath’ hyperbolēn (“intensely”) is a comparative construction that serves to heighten the sense of what it modifies—in this case, Paul’s persecution of the church. This suggests that Paul’s zeal for this activity was well known and, from the perspective of the Jewish believers in Jesus at that time, to be feared.
The impression that Paul was particularly zealous in this pursuit is further evidenced by his choice of verbs in the imperfect tense to describe the endeavor. “Persecute” (διώκω, diōkō, GK 1503) carries the sense of striving, of going whatever distance necessary to accomplish (in this case) nefarious ends; “destroy” (πορθέω, portheō, GK 4514) was used in classical Greek to speak of devastation, of the conquest and destroying of cities. This pictures Paul’s “previous way of life.”
14 “Advancing” (προκόπτω, prokoptō, GK 4621) is a term used of one who excels in education or moral development (cf. TDNT 6:704–7). It is used by Luke of Jesus (Lk 2:52); Paul uses it here in its imperfect form, and along with the use of imperfect verb tenses in v.13, this suggests his steady, continual progress in Judaism.
15 The word “God” (ὁ θεός, ho theos) does not appear in many manuscripts, but clearly God is the implied subject of the substantival participles “pleased,” “set apart,” and “called.”
The participles εὐδόκησεν (eudokēsen, “was pleased”), ἀφορίσας (aphorisas, “set apart”) and καλέσας (kalesas, “called”) speak of God’s divine initiative in carrying out that which he purposes to achieve (cf. Ro 1:1). In redemptive-historical terms, the words connote God’s sovereign hand accomplishing his eternal decretive will “by his grace” (διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, dia tēs charitos autou). God and Christ are together instrumental in the salvation of humanity.
16 “Any man” is literally “flesh and blood” (σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι, sarki kai haimati); Paul’s point about the nonhuman origin of his apostolic call and source of his gospel is dramatically underscored by the use of this terminology.
17 The word “immediately” (εὐθέως, eutheōs) actually occurs in v.16 rather than v.17; therefore some have suggested that Paul intends to say that he did not immediately consult any man or go up to Jerusalem. But the NIV reading is surely correct, and Paul is asserting that he went “immediately” after his conversion to Arabia; Burton, 53–54, notes that “by its meaning εὐθέως calls for an affirmation, not simply a statement of non-action.”
“Arabia” is somewhat vague; it does not specify exactly where Paul traveled. There is also nothing to suggest why he went or how long he stayed. Nevertheless, Paul is anxious not to leave out any information that may prove helpful to his Galatian converts. For more information on Arabia, see “Arabia,” in ABD 1:324–27.
OVERVIEW
As noted in the Introduction (p. 553), the Jerusalem visit of this section most likely coincides with the “acquaintance visit” of Acts 9:26–30, with the visit referenced in Galatians 2:1–10 being identified with the “famine visit” of Acts 11:30; 12:25. In this view, the Jerusalem Council visit is not reflected in the text of Galatians, since Paul probably wrote the letter before the Council.
Paul is careful here to adduce each of his visits to the Jerusalem apostles because he continues to write in defense of his apostolic identity and authority. If he can demonstrate his independence from the Jerusalem church and the original apostles, and if indeed he can show that they accepted the gospel he preached as legitimate, he has won the day for his beloved Galatians.
18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20I assure you before God that what I am writing to you is no lie. 21Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24And they praised God because of me.
COMMENTARY
18–19 Verse 18 begins with the word “then” (epeita). This same word is found also at v.21 and at 2:1, indicating that Paul is rehearsing a series of events that arose out of his Damascus Road experience. These events are to be understood in successive order, but their exact timing depends on how “after three years” is interpreted. The expression has been taken variously to indicate the time from Paul’s return to Damascus from Arabia or as referring to three years after his Damascus Road experience. If “after three years” is taken to be in contrast to the “immediately” of v.16b, as seems most likely, then Paul is speaking of what took place “in the third year” after his conversion experience (cf. Longenecker, 37). The exact amount of time he spent in Arabia or Damascus cannot be determined, as the amount of time between his Damascus Road experience and his first appearance in Jerusalem as a Christian is unknown. But it is the number of visits to Jerusalem and what happened to Paul during these visits that become significant to his argument here.
The Judaizers have claimed that Paul is subordinate to and dependent on the original apostles and the Jerusalem church, and the fact that Paul had been to Jerusalem to “get acquainted” (historeō, GK 2707) with Peter could have been used to support that contention. Paul responds by giving an account of his life from the point of his conversion, emphasizing especially his contacts with the Jerusalem apostles (or, more correctly, the sparseness of such contact), so as to refute these claims. His contact in Jerusalem with the apostles was limited to Peter and James, the Lord’s brother. Paul inferentially suggests that these men could not have been responsible for his gospel, for this is an “acquaintance” visit, and he only stayed with Peter for “fifteen days.” In other words, these men would not have had enough time thoroughly to appraise his gospel or authorize his mission to the Gentiles in any formal sense in that amount of time. Paul undoubtedly learned from Peter details regarding Jesus’ life and discussed with him much in the way of understanding discipleship and apostolic mission. But to have learned from Peter in this fashion is not the same thing as being dependent on him for his apostleship.
20 Paul has been countering the notion advanced by his opponents that his authority and his gospel are inferior, derived, or somehow secondhand to that of his opposition. He has, as noted by Longenecker, 39, pointed out in the preceding verses of this section that his authority and his message both resulted from God’s providential setting apart and call, and that his activities after his conversion demonstrate that he is not dependent on any approbation from Jerusalem. He now attests by oath (“before God”) that these things he has written in his defense are “no lie.” It is implied here by contrast that it is the salacious accusations made against him by his detractors that are not truthful.
21 Some time after Paul visited with Peter and James, he went on to Syria and Cilicia. Paul is merely rehearsing movement here and is not speaking strictly in chronological order. If that were so, he would mention Cilicia and then Syria (cf. Ac 9:30; 11:25–26). This reference to his travels serves to reinforce Paul’s claim that he was not under the authority of the Jerusalem apostles, who would have been expected to have kept Paul close under their supervision in Jerusalem, or at least in Judea, if this had been the case.
22 The result of all of this movement on Paul’s part is that he was “unknown” to believers in Judea. Literally, Paul says that he “remained unknown by face,” an idiomatic way of saying that he was not personally known to the Christians there. This reinforces the fact that he was not under the direct supervision of the Jerusalem church or the apostles, as Christians in that province would surely have had more intimate knowledge of him under those circumstances.
23–24 Though the Judean Christians did not know Paul personally, they nevertheless did know about him, at least at the time of his conversion (cf. Ac 9:19–31). They knew that the zealous Pharisee who had sought to destroy Christianity had himself come to faith in Jesus Christ. Still, Paul remained a relative unknown; Boice, 436, writes, “The Christians had heard of Paul’s conversion—at the time it happened. But after that he apparently dropped so completely from sight that he was almost forgotten . . . . This sense of the verse . . . is to stress his isolation from everything happening in Jerusalem.” Nevertheless, the Christians who heard of Paul’s conversion and his transformation from believer-persecuting Pharisee to a proclaimer of the gospel of Jesus Christ praised God for Paul and his ministry. The appropriate response for the church of Jesus Christ to any such transformation can only be to glorify the God of grace and mercy, who brings light out of darkness and causes the dead to live.
NOTES
18 “Then” (ἔπειτα, epeita) is a temporal adverb, expressing logical sequence. Used in a series, as in this section, it conveys chronological succession.
There is some question as to whether the verb ἱστορῆσαι, historēsai, has to do with visiting for the purpose of gaining information or insight, or merely for getting acquainted (for the former view, see G. D. Kilpatrick, “Galatians 1:18 ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν [historēsaī Kēphan; NIV, “to get acquainted with Peter”], in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson, ed. A. J. B. Higgins [Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1959], 144–49; for the latter position, see Fung, 73–74; see also the discussion in L&N 1:453]). In either case, there is nothing inherent in the word itself or the context in which Paul uses it that suggests he is dependent on Peter for his understanding of the person, word, and work of Jesus or for his identity and authority as apostle to the Gentiles. Certainly Peter, an eyewitness of what Jesus said and did, could give Paul good information about Jesus’ life and ministry; but Paul was not dependent on Peter for a proper understanding of the theological significance of Jesus’ person, word, and work.
19 Paul’s mention of “James, the Lord’s brother” raises two questions: (1), is James considered an apostle, and (2), what is meant by the term “brother?” The Greek construction behind the words “I saw none . . . only James” (εἶδον εἰ μὴ ᾽Ιάκωβον, eidon ei mē Iakōbon) is indeterminate; it does not, by itself, necessarily number James among the apostles. But Burton, 60–61, is surely correct in stating that Paul could not be suggesting that of all the people of Jerusalem, he saw only Peter and James, and thus the expression should be extended to include the entire sentence and thus suggests that James is taken to be an apostle.
The word translated “brother” (ἀδελφός, adelphos, GK 81) may variously mean a brother of the same parents, a stepbrother born of one mutual parent, or a cousin. There is nothing preventing us from taking the word in its most natural sense here, as a blood (step) brother of Jesus, particularly because Mark 6:3 indicates that Mary had given birth to as many as six other children. Lightfoot, 252–91, has an extended discussion of the birth brothers and sisters of Jesus born to Mary and Joseph (cf. Robert K. Rapa, “Jesus Christ the Cornerstone: Conceived of God and Born of a Woman,” in Foundational Faith: Unchanging Truth for an Ever-Changing World, ed. J. Koessler [Chicago: Moody, 2003], 81–102).
22 The expression “I was personally unknown” (ἤμην . . . ἀγνοούμενος, ēmēn agnooumenos) should be translated “I remained unknown,” as the construction is a periphrastic imperfect, stressing the continuing nature of the state being described. “By face” (τῷ προσώπῳ, tō prosōpō) is a colloquial means of saying “personally.”
OVERVIEW
Contrary to the manner in which this portion of Galatians is usually treated, this is not a “significantly different section” in Paul’s argument, as Boice, 437, maintains. We are able to appreciate that Paul writes these words to further his self-defense by recognizing the epistolary-rhetorical features of the letter. One such feature is the use of the adverb “then” (epeita) here, echoing its use in 1:18 and 1:21, indicating that Paul is moving his argument forward with what is now the third in a series of events that he had begun recounting earlier. Thus logically 2:1–10 belongs together with 1:18–24, serving as a continuation of Paul’s narrative assurance to the Galatians that he is truthful, in that he leaves out nothing of what had happened to him since Damascus. Paul will in these verses readily admit that he did confer with the Jerusalem apostles concerning the message of his gospel. But contrary to the implications drawn by Paul’s opponents from the fact of this meeting, these “pillars” (v.9) did not reprove or rebuke him, and they did not otherwise correct or add to his message. As well, they did not indicate that they saw themselves as his superiors. In fact, the pillars offered to Paul and Barnabas the “right hand of fellowship” (v.9), suggesting that these apostles saw Paul and Barnabas as on a par with them and regarded the gospel message Paul preached as legitimate. Throughout this section Paul will carefully speak of his freedom from dependency on these apostles for his identity or authority, while at the same time asserting that he is in concert with their purpose and message.
1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. 3Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4⌞This matter arose⌟ because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.
6As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message. 7On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
COMMENTARY
1 There are chronological uncertainties for us in Paul’s writing in this verse: Do the “fourteen years” intervene between his conversion (1:15) and this trip to Jerusalem, or from his prior visit to Jerusalem (1:18) and this one? Are the three years of 1:18 and the fourteen years of 2:1 to be counted concurrently, or consecutively? Is this visit to Jerusalem the famine visit (Ac 11), or is it the Council visit (Ac 15)? Various answers to these questions have been given. But Paul’s language suggests he is furthering his argument here in defense of his status and his gospel and his relative independence of the Jerusalem church leaders. What is being communicated here, therefore, is not how long it has been since his conversion, but the period of time that passed between his conversion and the time he met with the apostles and Jerusalem church leaders as a group (though he had met with Peter and James three years after his conversion). In that light, the three years of 1:18 and the fourteen years of 2:1 may be understood concurrently. Both are to be measured from Paul’s conversion, and fourteen years are not to be added from the time of his first Jerusalem visit of 1:18. Paul says that he has come to Jerusalem “again,” because he has, after all, been there once before (palin, “again,” referring back to the “then,” epeita, of 1:18), when he met with Peter and James.
This time Paul comes to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus. Barnabas was an important figure in the early church. He appears frequently in Acts (4:36–37; 9:27; 11:22–30; 13:1–14:28; 15:2–4, 12, 22, 36–41), usually in conjunction with the tension between the Jewish church and the Gentile mission or in his role as a mediating “son of encouragement” (cf. Ac 4:36). He is mentioned in Galatians here and at 2:9, 13, as a companion of Paul and one who, along with Peter, had to have his behavior corrected by Paul due to a failure to appreciate fully the Judaizing threat to the Galatian churches.
Paul also says here that Barnabas travels “with” (meta) him, but he “took Titus along” (symparalabōn, GK 5221). This implies that Barnabas and Paul are co-travelers, but that Titus is along at Paul’s behest.
2 Paul went to Jerusalem “in response to a revelation.” Acts 11:22–30 records the most likely circumstances under which this took place. It was during this visit that Paul “privately” set out before the Jerusalem authorities the content of his gospel. He did this, he says, in case he had “run . . . in vain.” The Acts record suggests that Paul had been actively engaged in proclaiming the gospel and teaching Christians for some time, both before and after his being brought by Barnabas to the church at Antioch. This visit to Jerusalem allows Paul the opportunity to confer more fully with the Jerusalem apostles about his understanding of the gospel and his mission (cf. 1:18–24). His detractors undoubtedly used the fact of this visit to suggest that this was the evidence that attested to Paul’s dependence on the apostles (cf. 2:4).
3 Paul is not dependent on the Jerusalem apostles, however, as demonstrated by the fact that Titus, a Gentile, was not compelled to be circumcised, as might be expected if Paul’s gospel was somehow distorted or incomplete. If Paul’s gospel needed correction, Titus’s presence with him in Jerusalem would have been the ideal moment for the other apostles to intervene and instruct him to that effect. The fact that Titus was not so compelled is for Paul “exhibit A” of the authenticity of both his apostolic identity and authority. This may indeed be precisely why Paul “took Titus along also”—to reinforce in the community of the “pillars” (v.9) the character of his Gentile mission as a “circumcision free” gospel proclamation. Titus’s non-circumcision, then, is proof of Paul’s authoritative status and of the viability of his gospel message.
4–5 Now the issue at stake is made clear: “false brothers” had penetrated the ranks of the new Christian movement. Their concern appears to have centered at least in part in the freedom of Jewish and Gentile Christians to associate (cf. 2:11–15) and the question of ritual implications for Jewish and Gentile Christians inherent in such association. Such relational association is now, in Christ, to be unrestricted, unlike in the previous period of redemptive history (cf. Paul’s discussion of his stewardship of this “mystery” in Eph 2:11–3:13). The Judaizers (the “false brothers”) preferred the old realities and wanted to return to what was, from Paul’s perspective, slavery. Paul’s response is to protect both the truth of the gospel and the integrity of the Galatians’ faith, by holding firm to his gospel with all its relational implications. Again, for Paul the gospel is the good news that God has reconciled sinful humanity to himself in the person, word, and work of Christ, breaking down the barriers of alienation between himself and sinful humanity and relieving enmity among different groups of people (cf. 1Co 15:3–4; Eph 2:11–22). For Paul’s opponents, this was not enough; they insisted that in addition to repentance and faith in Jesus, Gentiles must adopt Jewish ritual patterns (cf. Ac 15:1, 5; Gal 2:11–16).
6 Paul now addresses the question of his status vis-à-vis that of the Jerusalem apostles. “Those who seemed to be important” did not, in the final analysis, change Paul’s gospel or his identity as an apostle. Paul is not actually denigrating these men or their apostolic status. But his opponents were apparently suggesting that these “important” men are behind them and their message and that somehow Paul is not as significant as they are, nor is his message on a par with their own. So he reminds his Galatian converts that God is no respecter of persons and that the Jerusalem authorities did not detract from or add to his message.
7–8 In fact, these Jerusalem apostles recognized that Paul had been entrusted with apostolic office in behalf of the Gentiles, in the same way that Peter was entrusted with that responsibility in behalf of the Jews. The God who worked among the Jews by means of Peter’s ministry worked also through Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles. This demonstrates that Paul’s apostolic identity and apostolic ministry is equal to that of Peter’s. Therefore, his gospel is legitimate. The Galatians received the truth from Paul and therefore need not give credence to the claims of his adversaries.
9 The legitimacy of Paul’s identity as an apostle and of his gospel as the message of truth is now further reinforced by the notation that those who were “reputed to be pillars”—James, Peter, and John—extended to him and Barnabas the “right hand of fellowship.” This custom expresses the recognition that one is trustworthy, a partner in service, and suggests that the apostles are appreciative of Paul and Barnabas’s ministry endeavors and that collectively they see no lack or inferiority in the Gentile mission.
It is likely, however, that there is a touch of irony here in Paul’s use of the term “pillars,” as his opponents had all along been comparing Paul unfavorably to these men. Paul has referred to the apostles in progressively less-deferential terms throughout this section: “seemed to be leaders” (2:2), “seemed to be important” (2:6), and now “reputed to be pillars” (2:9). This circumstance reinforces the notion that Paul is considering both his need to demonstrate solidarity between himself and the apostles in terms of the gospel and their respective spheres of labor and influence and his need to distance himself from any semblance of dependence on them. Paul must balance his recognition of the position and authority of these men against his own position and authority, and he must not damage either in the process. Further, he must help his converts understand that his adversaries exaggerate the importance of these men in order to minimize his own significance in the eyes of the Galatians. And he must show that he and the Jerusalem apostles are in union with regard to their respective status and messages and that the apostles are not actually in league against him with his detractors.
10 The only suggestion that Paul references being made by the “pillars” relative to his conduct of ministry is that he “should continue to remember the poor.” This is of course why he was in Jerusalem, and so he acknowledges that he was “eager” to do so. Paul gives nothing away to those trying to minimize his status or his message in being candid about this request by the apostles or about his willingness to act on their request. This is particularly true since remembering the poor is in keeping with the ethic of Jesus (cf. Mt 19:16–21; Lk 6:35–38).
1 The text of 2:1 literally reads, “Then after fourteen years . . .” (῎Επειτα διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν, epeita dia dekatessarōn etōn). Lightfoot, 102, is followed by many when he argues that the “fourteen years” are to be understood as coming after the three years of 1:18 and added to them and that this Jerusalem visit must then be the Council visit. This judgment is made largely on his understanding of the adverbs “then” (ἔπειτα, epeita) and “again” (πάλιν, palin). But taking these temporal adverbs as a part of Paul’s overall epistolary-rhetorical framework reinforces the idea of logical chronological succession in his narrative. The section then helps to strengthen the claims Paul makes to truthfulness in his retelling of what happened, and so does not necessitate adding together the “three years” and “fourteen years.”
“I took Titus along also” renders συμπαραλαβὼν καὶ Τίτον, symparalabōn kai Titon. The singularity of the verb suggests that it was Paul who took the initiative to bring Titus to Jerusalem. This has led some to interpret the situation as Paul’s using Titus’s presence at the Jerusalem Council as a test case for the freedom of the gospel (cf. Luther’s lectures on Galatians in Luther’s Works [St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1964], 27:200). Given the above reconstruction of the background, it is more likely that this is the Acts 11 famine visit that is recounted in 2:1–10. This suggests that the passage is written from Paul’s perspective after the tensions between him and the Judaizers had crystallized more completely.
3 Paul says that “not even” (ἀλλ᾽ οὐδέ, all’ oude) Titus, who was, after all, a Gentile (“Greek”), had to be circumcised. The fact of Titus’s non-circumcision proves Paul’s point here if he is looking back to the incident with a renewed understanding and appreciation for all that this circumstance implied then, as a result of the ongoing Judaizing opposition to him and his gospel.
6 “Seemed to be important” (δοκούντων εἶναί τι, dokountōn einai ti, lit., “seeming to be something”) is a political expression used in some instances to suggest ironically that one’s words may not be as respectful as they sound (cf. Plato, Apol.; Betz, 86–87). The progression reflected by the language from v.2 to v.6 to v.9 suggests that Paul is using this ploy subtly to undermine the Judaizers’ claims regarding the “pillars” as over against himself.
OVERVIEW
These verses continue Paul’s self-defense, which began at 1:11. Paul has to this point used the adverb epeita, “then,” to mark the progressive stages in his explanation of how he received the gospel and in his relationship to the apostles and the Jerusalem church (at 1:18, 21; 2:1). Now at 2:11 he begins with the temporally less precise hote, “when.” This has led some to suggest that Paul has not related this Antioch episode in correct chronological order. In their understanding, the Antioch incident occurred before what is related in 2:1–10, but for polemical purposes Paul has placed it after that meeting in his retelling. But such a position raises more interpretive difficulties than does a straightforward reading of the text. It seems best, therefore, to take the order of events related in Galatians 2 at face value, assuming those of 2:1–10 to have preceded the episode referred to at 2:11–14.
The incident related here is complex and at the same time fascinating. Paul’s language in these verses is crisp and shorn of extraneous details, and the interpreter is left with a number of unanswered questions (e.g., What was the situation in the church at Antioch before and after this confrontation? Who “won” the battle between Paul and the others? What was Peter doing there? How long had he been there?). All Paul offers in these verses is his perspective on a previous confrontation between himself and Peter of which the Galatians were apparently aware. Paul uses the details of that incident to strengthen his case as he assiduously defends his apostleship and his gospel.
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”
COMMENTARY
11 Paul’s retelling here of his face-to-face censure of Peter presents a confrontation that is surprisingly harsh. This severity comes about because Paul recognizes that Peter’s behavior in this instance undermines the very gospel principles that are at issue for his Galatian converts and to which he and his adversaries represent polar opposites. Under such extreme circumstances Paul’s strident denunciation of Peter is stated in the strongest possible terms: literally Paul says that Peter “stood condemned before God” (cf. TDNT 8:568 n. 1). Such a declaration again speaks clearly to how seriously Paul took any potential threat to the truth of the gospel (cf. 1:8–9).
12 This verse clarifies the immediate circumstance to which Paul objects so strongly. Evidently, before “certain men from James” came to Antioch, Peter was present there, and while he was there he engaged freely and on a regular basis in table fellowship with both Christian Jews and Gentiles in the local church community (taking “used to eat with” as expressing habit or custom). When these Judaizers came on the scene, claiming representation of and authority from the Jerusalem church (“from James”), Peter was moved out of fear to withdraw from that table fellowship. Peter’s fear may have been precipitated by a growing tendency on the part of Jerusalem Jews toward persecuting any Jew who showed Gentile sympathies or associations. This tendency was being driven by increasing nationalistic tendencies among Jews sparked by a contemporaneous Zealot nomistic campaign (cf. Betz, 106–7). Peter’s withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentiles at Antioch once these Judaizers arrived was apparently due to his fear of what might happen to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and Judea if the Gentile converts offended Jewish sensibilities with regard to the practice of the law (“nomism”), as especially centering in the issue of circumcision of the Gentiles. Mark D. Nanos (“What Was at Stake in Peter’s ‘Eating with Gentiles’ at Antioch?” in The Galatians Debate [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002], 303) notes, “The issue at stake is how these Gentiles ought to be identified in the present age: it is the view of those Peter fears that they ought to become proselytes (Jews), the completion of which rite of passage is symbolized (for males) by circumcision.”
13 As if Peter’s withdrawal from fellowship with the Gentile brothers was not sufficiently condemnatory in itself, however, others in the party of Christian Jews in Antioch were enticed to follow Peter’s actions. The extent of damage done to Paul’s status and his gospel is seen in the fact that “even Barnabas,” Paul’s erstwhile companion in the Gentile missionary effort, followed Peter’s lead and acted in this same hypocritical fashion. Paul sees the inconsistency toward the truth of the gospel on the part of this “pillar apostle” and others (like Barnabas) who joined him in this hypocrisy as a threat to the Jew-Gentile equality promised in that gospel. The actions of Peter and those who were influenced by him, whatever their practical motivation may have been, served to contradict theologically Paul’s teaching that the barrier between Jews and Gentiles had been removed (see Eph 2:12–15). As the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul could not allow such potential bifurcation of God’s new people in Christ.
14 To acquiesce to Peter’s (hypocritical) actions would signal Paul’s implicit agreement to the attitude that was being explicitly communicated by the Galatian Judaizers. That attitude was one of condemning Gentile Christians to a second-class status. It would furthermore demand that they did, after all, have to become practical Jews to become fully a part of God’s new people in Christ (cf. 3:3). Thus Paul is moved to confront Peter publicly and directly. If he had not done so, his opponents at Galatia (who undoubtedly also knew of the Antioch incident) could have rested their case against him and his teaching. So Paul’s accounting of his face-to-face censure of Peter presents a confrontation that is exceptionally harsh, because Paul recognizes that it is the truth of the gospel that is really at issue here.
Peter had, though a Jew, lived “like a Gentile,” i.e., he ate like—and with—the Gentile believers at Antioch. But due to combined pressure from these Jewish Christians who claimed to be “from James” and the fear of possible retribution against believers in Jerusalem from nationalistic, nomistic Zealots, he withdrew and began to separate himself from Gentile believers. He began once again to practice ritual or cultic dietary restrictions and separation from “unclean” Gentiles. So by this behavior, Peter (a “pillar” apostle, after all) compelled the Gentiles in Antioch to become practical Jews, i.e., to “follow Jewish customs,” by living in a Jewish manner (ioudaizō, GK 2678, expressing artificial behavior by which Gentiles live as though they are Jewish; cf. Betz, 112 n. 497). In other words, Peter had been living in the manner of the Gentiles by no longer practicing the cultic behavior associated with the Jewish dietary restrictions and the avoidance of contact with non-Jews. After the appearance of emissaries from James, Peter turned back to the no-longer valid distinctions between Jew and Gentile (which had been expressed in part through the dietary restrictions of the Jewish nomistic lifestyle, i.e., living “like a Jew,” and thus including soteriological overtones). This was tantamount, as Paul saw it, to demanding that the Galatian converts not just act like Jews but actually become practicing Jews in order to secure their redemptive relationship to God (see Rapa, 172 n. 14). For Peter, this may have been mostly a practical matter in terms of avoiding complications in Jewish-Christian relations with their more nationalistic fellow Jews in and around Jerusalem. Such complications could have been neatly sidestepped by forcing Paul’s Galatian converts to proselytize in order to conform to Jewish identity. But for Paul, this situation became intolerable, particularly as the soteriological implications of the Judaizers’ demands became apparent to him. This situation presented a theological challenge to the very core of the gospel message. The implications of the Judaizers’ position were that a Gentile must first become a practicing Jew, submitting to circumcision and showing oneself zealous for the law, in order to become a Christian. Paul would not allow his converts—or the truth of the gospel message—to be brought into such a position of slavery (cf. 2:4–5).
NOTES
11 Putting the Antioch incident chronologically ahead of the Galatians 2:1–10 meeting in Jerusalem makes good sense if Galatians 2:1–10 represents the Jerusalem Council meeting. But if 2:1–10 represents the famine visit, as I have suggested, a number of difficulties arise from putting 2:11–14 ahead of 2:1–10, not the least of which is the fact that the proposed inversion cannot be sustained on historical or grammatical grounds; what’s more, Paul’s confrontation with Peter is better explained if the incident occurs before the apostles had taken a collective stance on Gentile inclusion in the church, as they will at the Jerusalem Council.
With reference to Peter, the NIV text reads, “he was clearly in the wrong.” This translates the periphrastic pluperfect participle ὃτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν, hoti kategnōsmenos ēn, which is more forceful than this translation implies. The expression should be strengthened to something like, “he stood condemned before God.”
12 Paul writes that Peter “was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group” (φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς, phoboumenos tous ek peritomēs), indicating these nationalistic, nomistic Jews, fleshing out what he had already hinted at in 2:7–9, where he refers to unbelieving Jews as “the circumcision” (ἡ περιτομή, hē peritomē, GK 4364; NIV, “Jews”; cf. also Ro 3:30; 4:9, 12; 15:8; Eph 2:11; Col 3:11; 4:11; Tit 1:10).
14 The term “Judaize” transliterates ᾽Ιουδαΐζειν, Ioudaizein, which the NIV translates “follow Jewish customs.” It is considered to be parallel to but not quite synonymous with the immediately preceding ᾽Ιουδαϊκῶς ζῇς (Ioudaikōs zēs, “live like a Jew”), as it refers to behavior that is simulated to avoid complication or persecution.
OVERVIEW
Theologically speaking, Galatians 2:15–21 is the most important section of the letter. These verses represent the rhetorical propositio, the proposition (or main premise), of the book of Galatians. The propositio functions in a dual role: to sum up the material content of the narratio (1:11–2:14) of Galatians and to establish the arguments for the later probatio (3:1–4:11; the probatio contains supportive discussion of the argument of the propositio). Thus, the proposition will serve as a recapitulation of prior thought and a basic introduction to what follows.
In the case of Galatians 2:15–21, the dual rhetorical role of the propositio is seen in Paul’s bridging from his expression of horror at Peter’s actions as recorded in 2:11–14 to a summary of the reason for that horror (2:15–16) and then to his statement of a proper Christian behavior pattern as opposed to an improper nomistic lifestyle (2:17–21). Paul believed that Peter should have recognized the hypocritical nature and theological gospel-damaging implications of his actions when he withdrew and separated himself from the Gentile Christians at Antioch. Peter, as a Christian Jew, should have known that the practical result of his actions at Antioch would be to force the Gentile converts to “do” something to be acceptable in the presence of God and “God’s people,” the Christian Jews. This was unacceptable to Paul and in fact contrary even to contemporary Jewish teaching (see Frank S. Thielmann, From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul’s View of the Law in Galatians and Romans [Leiden: Brill, 1989, 62]; cf. Rapa, 173 n. 18). This is expressed conclusively when Paul states in 2:15–16 the conceptual theological basis for his condemnation of Peter’s actions. These verses clearly and concisely communicate the substance of Paul’s gospel. The remaining verses in this section (vv.17–21) unpack what it means to live by this gospel message as opposed to living a nomistic lifestyle.
15“We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
17“If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”
COMMENTARY
15 This section begins with what has been termed the Jewish-Christian theological “self-definition” (Betz, 115; cf. Longenecker, 83). Paul writes, “We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners.’” Paul concedes in this terminology that he, Peter, and other Jewish Christians are “born Jews.” The implication is that these Christian Jews enjoy certain privileges by virtue of the Jews’ status as God’s people. These privileges, redemptive-historically speaking, include especially the possession of the law and the covenants (cf. Ro 3:1–2; 9:4–5). The “Gentile sinners” do not enjoy this privileged status. In the previous redemptive-historical household administration (or dispensation) of God’s relationship with his people, Jews were to maintain both social and ceremonial distinction from the Gentiles because the Gentiles were ceremonially unclean (cf. Jub. 22:16; 23:23–24). While often taken to extremes (cf. Lk 10; Jn 4), this attitude helps to explain the actions of the Judaizers, as well as Peter’s compulsion to join them.
Paul, however, uses the term “Gentile sinners” ironically here, as a means to get Peter’s (and now the Galatians’) attention. The point seems to be that, unlike the Jews, the Gentiles (“sinners”) had not been the recipients of God’s law and covenants. Therefore, they had generally lacked the opportunity to obtain God’s relational (and not redemptive) favor through them. Paul and the others, “Jews by birth,” had enjoyed that opportunity.
16 Even though Paul, Peter, and others had covenant opportunities not realized by Gentiles, they recognized that people are not justified by “observing the law.” These Jewish Christians had been born with all the rights and privileges of Judaism. But even at that, they recognized that such a status did not automatically equate to righteousness before God. Paul articulates that which he considers to be a given in the discussion when he states that these Jews “know” (eidotes, GK 3857, “we know”) that a person cannot be justified by observing the law.
The “we” inherent in v.16 (untranslated in the NIV but implied) must be, grammatically, the same as the “we” of v.15; i.e., Paul is speaking here of Christian Jews, who were born as Jews and who by their Jewish heritage together “know” that a person is not justified by observing the law. Paul assumes that this is “common knowledge” (Longenecker, 83), based, no doubt, on Psalm 143:2 (which Paul partially quotes at the end of this verse). Thus, Paul takes for granted Peter’s, and presumably his opponents’ (who believed, too, that Jesus is the Christ) tacit agreement to the statement that they “know” that justification comes about through Christ and not by observing the law.
But the contention at this point is not strictly over the identity of Jesus as Messiah but over the question of whether “observing the law” (ex ergōn nomou, “by works of the law”) had any continuing validity or purpose in the economy of God in Christ. The ultimate implication of Peter’s actions at Antioch—and the apparent teaching of the Judaizers—was that there was some continuing validity to law observance (whether or not Peter was aware that his actions implied as much). This is why Paul found it necessary to admonish Peter in this way. The conclusive theological ramification of Peter’s action is, in Paul’s mind, the nullifying of the redemptive work of Christ! This is precisely the difficulty Paul faces with his Galatian converts, and it is why he must refute Peter’s position here. If Paul can demonstrate to the Galatians’ satisfaction the correctness of his argument in his confrontation with Peter on the occasion of the incident at Antioch, he has in effect solved this aspect of his Galatian problem. There is no need to be made complete (cf. 3:3, “attain your goal”) by observing the law if Paul is right and Peter is wrong.
The expression “by observing the law” (ex ergōn nomou, “by works of the law”) almost certainly functions here as an objective genitive, i.e., as a description of what is required by the law. The law requires “works,” as one maintains ritual or ceremonial purity and identity by means of its practice. Paul is then arguing against the soteriological implications of the Judaizers’ teaching that to live like a Jew is to secure one’s place in the people of God (inferred, in part, from 2:11–14). The Judaizers’ position was based on their belief in the relative priority and permanence of the Mosaic covenant (cf. Ro 3:1–4). Thus, the works of the law were the nomistic observances related to the Jewish law that these Judaizers argued were integral to what it means to be Christian (see Rapa, 127–49).
But, Paul argues, that is not the means to justification; one is not justified by law observance “but by faith in Jesus Christ.” Two basic questions have been raised by this expression (ean mē dia pisteōs Iēsou Christou, “but only by faith in Jesus Christ”) as it occurs in the NT. The first has to do with how to understand the “but only” or “except” portion of the expression; the second has to do with whether we understand this verse to be telling us something about Jesus, or something about our faith in Jesus.
The words ean mē (“but only”) can be understood as referring to the entire preceding statement or the immediately preceding words. One may understand Paul to be saying that a person cannot be justified by works of the law except if they are accompanied by faith in Christ. But that would suggest that one could be justified by observing the law if that law observance could somehow be “accompanied by faith, a thought never expressed by the apostle and wholly at variance with his doctrine as unambiguously expressed in several passages” (Burton, 121). It is best, therefore, to take the “but only” (NIV, “but by”) expression to refer only to the words that follow, and to understand that justification is excepted by Paul here from any activity other than the means he establishes.
That means of justification as proclaimed by Paul in the gospel is “faith in Jesus Christ.” This expression becomes the second interpretive consideration in this part of the verse, the question of how to translate dia pisteōs Iēsou Christou (“by faith in Jesus Christ”). It is possible to interpret this as “faith in” Jesus Christ (objective genitive, i.e., Jesus as the object of faith), or as “by the faithfulness of” Jesus Christ (subjective genitive, i.e., Jesus as the subject acting faithfully, with faith). Either reading is grammatically and contextually possible and valid. The underlying theological inference in answering this question has to do with whether one believes that Paul is affirming something here about God, or about humanity.
It seems best to understand this expression as an objective genitive, i.e., that Paul is stating here something about humanity’s faith in Jesus, not about Jesus’ faithfulness. That this is the case may be seen by noting that this statement balances with the objective genitive “works of the law” (NIV, “observing the law”) expression, and functions then as a parallel objective genitive. As well, directly following this expression Paul asserts that “so we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus” (the same “we” as in v.15 and earlier in v.16), strongly suggesting that in this immediate context he is predicating something about humanity (i.e., Christian Jews’ faith in Christ) and not about God. Thus, the reading “faith in Jesus Christ” is the most viable and least complicated both theologically and contextually. On the one hand, this understanding reinforces Paul’s soteriological contention against the implications of the teaching of the Judaizers with regard to the Mosaic legislation as a religious system, as it states the (humanity-oriented) positive corollary to the negative “not . . . by observing the law.” On the other hand, it removes the necessity of justifying what would be Paul’s thought shift, in the narrow context of successive clauses within one verse, from having asserted something about God in one clause to stating something about humanity in the next. In other words, this view takes Paul’s argument to be conceptually consistent throughout the verse. Nevertheless, it is also important to recognize that faith in Jesus Christ certainly involves confidence in his faithful obedience to God. For Paul, trusting in Jesus includes trusting in his person and work. He never conceptually separates Jesus’ person from his work (defined as his earthly ministry [obedience], suffering and death, resurrection, ascension, and sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost). So, to have faith in Jesus Christ is to express, as an element of one’s faith, a confidence in his faithfulness to God and in God’s redemptive purposes.
17 The focus of Paul’s argument shifts at v.17, moving from matters of general agreement between Paul and the Judaizers (“not justified by observing the law”) to specific areas of disagreement. Paul will in this discussion also speak out against nomism as a lifestyle for both Jewish and Gentile Christians (cf. Longenecker, 82–83, 95).
Paul begins his explication of the thesis set forth in vv.15–16 by arguing specifically against the notion that faith in Christ somehow promotes antinomianism or libertinism. To that end, this verse makes three assertions, the third of which is crafted in the form of a rhetorical question. The verse ends with a vehement denial of the final assertion.
The assertive statements are as follows: “we seek to be justified in Christ”; “it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners”; and a logical, though incorrect, inference drawn from the first two statements, namely, “Christ is the servant of [NIV, “promotes”] sin” (stated in the form of a question). The first part of the verse contains the initial two statements and is a first-class condition. Thus the truth of these two statements is assumed. That is, Paul acknowledges that he, Peter, and others do indeed “seek to be justified in Christ,” and that they “are sinners.” But in the final clause, which expresses the consequence of the condition (“Christ is the servant of sin”), Paul firmly denies the third proposition by stating in the strongest possible grammatical manner his denial that such could be the case. He says “Absolutely not!” (mē genoito). It is not possible, in Paul’s mind, that the fact that seeking justification in Christ while at the same time acknowledging one’s sinfulness leads to the inference that Christ therefore promotes or induces sin. Though some evidently accused Paul of teaching exactly this (cf. Ro 3:5–8), he denies any such possibility here. But in what sense are these people “sinners,” and what does this have to do with Christ promoting sin? Answers to these questions are crucial to a proper understanding of Paul’s argument in this section.
Paul’s use of the emphatic “we” indicates that he has in mind the “we” of vv.15 and 16—the “Jews by birth” who “know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.” “We ourselves,” he now says, “are sinners.” It is clear that Paul’s meaning for “sinners” should, like the “we,” also be understood the same way in v.17 as in v.15. In the context of Paul’s propositio, this is best understood as an ironic mechanism intended by Paul to make a strong statement about the “sinner” Gentile-like status of himself and the Jewish Christians. In other words, Paul, Peter, and perhaps others had exercised their freedom in Christ to “live like a Gentile” (v.14). Having in certain matters of diet and association decided not to live like Jews, they had become, from the Judaizers’ perspective, “sinners” and “unclean.” They had put themselves, in terms of such behavior, outside the Mosaic covenant, as the Gentiles were. They had eaten like and with the Gentiles and perhaps disregarded other portions of the law as well (cf. Burton, 125). In doing so, they made themselves and their incipient Christian movement liable to charges of antinomianism, which was in fact one of the difficulties facing Paul in the Galatian congregation. The fact that the Judaizers offered the nomistic lifestyle of Judaism as a ready solution to such apparent antinomian propensities complicated the issue for Paul. The opponents could use Paul’s and Peter’s behavior to claim that Christ was the promoter of sin. Their becoming “sinners,” i.e., covenant breakers, from the Judaizers’ perspective makes the Christ preached by Paul to be the champion of sinful behavior. This was, again, an actual charge leveled against Paul, seemingly with some success (cf. Ro. 3:31; 6:1, 15; 13:14). His resounding, “Absolutely not!” to the notion of Jesus’ promotion of sinful behavior was intended to indicate just how far he wished to distance himself from such a preposterous contention.
18 Paul had no desire, either, to rebuild what his Gentile-like “sinful” behavior destroyed. He writes, “If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker.” By means of this true-to-fact first-class condition, Paul emphasizes the “why” of his previous “Absolutely not!”—answering the charge made by his opponents relative to his “sinful” status and the identity of Christ as sin’s promoter. The “I” is used by Paul here to personalize the charge meant for Peter and the others, perhaps in a diplomatic attempt to defuse the polemical nature of the situation. In an argument by “contrary reasoning” (cf. Burton, 130–31), Paul indicates that “to go back to the law (as a Christian) after having been done with the law (for both acceptance before God and living a life pleasing to him) is what really makes one a lawbreaker” (Longenecker, 90). One becomes a “transgressor” by engaging in the act of rebuilding that which one previously destroyed. That Christ is not the promoter of sin, says Paul, is evident in that Paul’s own behavior relative to the observance of the law is consistent. Paul annulled or destroyed the law as a religious system (ha katelusa, “what I destroyed,” an aorist once-for-all activity) when he placed his faith in Jesus Christ as the sufficiency for justification and its consequent ethical behavior. It is Peter’s and the others’ behavior—behavior undoubtedly serving as the conceptual backdrop for Paul’s thinking here—that in fact amounts to their “rebuilding” the law. To return to the law after believing in Christ, then, is to go back to a system that could never accomplish, and that never intended, the bringing about of redemption. In other words, there never was and will never be any “law observance” basis for one’s redemptive relationship to God.
19–20 These verses contain four propositions: (1) “Through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God”; (2) “I have been crucified with Christ”; (3) “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me”; and (4) “the life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Determining the meaning of each of these statements will aid in understanding Paul’s intention in this section.
Stating “through the law I died to the law” further expounds the assertion Paul made at v.18 that he is not a transgressor of the law. When Paul speaks of “dying to” something elsewhere, he means to say metaphorically that all relationship to that entity has been cut off (cf. “died to sin,” Ro 6:2, 10–11; “died to the law,” Ro 7:2–6). So here he contends that the believer cannot be a transgressor of the law because one who has trusted Jesus Christ has been cut off from any (intended redemptive) relationship to the law. Paul does not indicate that the believer is cut off from the law in any and every sense—the context of this statement is the propositio, in which he sets forth his thesis statement regarding justification and observance of the law—but in both the “legalistic” connotation and in the sense of the law functioning as the nomistic guideline for life (as argued by Paul’s opponents), the believer is “dead” to the law and thus no longer in relationship to it (cf. Burton, 132–33; Bruce, 142). This death to the law came about “through the law,” i.e., the believer’s death to the law is through the law because he died in Christ’s death (Ro 7:4). Paul will further expand on this statement in the probatio section of 3:19–4:7, particularly at 3:19–25.
“I have been crucified with Christ” speaks to the believer’s incorporation into the work of Christ. This is the basis of Paul’s earlier statements regarding the believer’s death to the law and living for God. This is a “Spirit-ual” identification with Christ (i.e., “of the Spirit,” “sourced” in the person of God’s Holy Spirit) in his death. It indicates that union with Christ by faith includes one’s being united with him in his experience of death to the old order, to the law.
The statement “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me” extends this incorporation into Christ beyond death to the law to life in Christ. The Christian’s life is “hidden with Christ” (Col 3:3). The believer is transferred by virtue of incorporation with the crucified Christ to the sphere of resurrection life in him (cf. Matera, 103; Bruce, 144). The believer’s life is now lived out under the ethic and guidance of Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit. Just as sin was the operative power of the former life, exercised through the law and the self, now Christ lives both in and through the believer.
Paul goes on to explain, “The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” The present life in the mortal body is, for the believer, a life that is lived “in Christ.” This is life lived in union with Christ, through faith in him who is the “Son of God.” This is a life of commitment to him who “loved me and gave himself for me.” The title “Son of God” both defines Jesus’ identity as God’s Servant and describes the close bond between him and the Father. It also emphasizes the greatness of Jesus’ sacrifice, as he gave himself up to be crucified in order to provide redemption for lost humanity. This sacrificial activity made the way clear for the faith life of union with Christ Paul describes here.
In these verses Paul has expressed the crux of his theology of the Christian life: the believer has died to the law by virtue of incorporation into Christ, with whom the believer has been co-crucified. Life is now lived in union with him in a daily existence of faith “outworked” (cf. 5:13–6:10). The law has no dominion over the believer, who lives now in the ethical sphere of Christ’s life by his Spirit, whose power it is that energizes and empowers one by faith in Christ’s person and work.
21 As a result of all of this, Paul says, “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” In typical rhetorical fashion, Paul ends the propositio by refuting the charge of his opponents against him (cf. Betz, 126; Longenecker, 94). The faith life of the believer does not in any way nullify the grace of God. In context, the specific “grace” being referred to by Paul and his accusers is undoubtedly the covenant grace of God toward Israel as expressed through the Mosaic legislation. But, contrary to the theology of the Judaizers, righteousness does not come by means of law observance. If that were so, Paul says, “Christ died for nothing!” If God had intended the law as the means of providing his redemptive grace, there would have been no need for Christ’s crucifixion and death. But the law could not provide and was never intended to provide this righteousness. This righteousness could only come through the gracious promise of God, and now specifically as realized in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
NOTES
15 Throughout redemptive history, the Jews enjoyed the privilege of revelation (in the reception of God’s self-disclosure) and relationship (by means of the covenant with God). This is what E. P. Sanders (Paul, the Law and the Jewish People [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983], 72–73) refers to as the “standard distinction” between a righteous Jew and a Gentile sinner. J. D. G. Dunn (Jesus, Paul and the Law [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1990], 150–51) notes that at the time of Paul’s writing, the term “sinner” was a technical term for those not having the law, and thus outside the covenant and consequently unclean. The term also has definite soteriological overtones (see Rapa, 173–74 n. 21).
The Mosaic legislation on which the Sinai covenant between God and Israel was based was never intended to be a redemptive covenant; it was intended as an extension of the Abrahamic covenant, as a means for Israel to maintain covenant discipline and express devotion to God (cf. Walter Kaiser, “Leviticus 18:5 and Paul: ‘Do This and You Shall Live’ [Eternally?]” JETS 14 [1971]: 19–28, esp. 21–23).
16 “Know” (εἰδότες, eidotes) is a perfect participle functioning as an adverbial participle of attendant circumstances; knowing that one cannot be “justified by observing the law” is the attendant circumstance to what Paul means by the term “Jews by birth.”
The NIV translates ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ex ergōn nomou, as “by observing the law.” This assumes that “observing” the law includes performing the “works” associated with the ritual observance of the Jewish law code as given by Moses and made up chiefly of Sabbath and feast day observance, dietary restrictions, and circumcision as a seal of identity.
The NIV’s “but by faith in Jesus Christ” translates ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως ᾽Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (ean mē dia pisteōs Iēsou Christou). The ἐὰν μή, ean mē, terminology is best understood as modifying only what comes after it, not to introduce an exception to all that precedes it, as one would ordinarily understand the English expression; it is therefore better to use a periphrastic translation such as “but only.” As noted above, διὰ πίστεως ᾽Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, dia pisteōs Iēsou Christou, may be translated either as “faith in” or “faithfulness of” Jesus Christ. For discussion, see Hays, 143–62; Barclay, 235–42; Dunn, 138–41; Longenecker, 87–88.
18 The phrase ἂ κατέλυσα ταῦτα, ha katelusa tauta (“what I destroyed”), refers to the law both as the ground of justification before God and as the means to living a proper life before him. Paul’s argument is that faith in Jesus obviates the law as the basis for either.
OVERVIEW
This section of Galatians is made up of Paul’s arguments in support of his thesis statements made in 2:15–21. Rhetorically, this is known as the probatio, meaning “confirmation” or “proof.” The probatio represents the point of writing where the author develops the supportive reasoning intended to demonstrate the logic or rightness of the ideas advanced in the propositio. In the probatio of Galatians, there is, of course, a very high premium on the discussion. The arguments that Paul makes here are instrumental in his demonstrating the truths of his previous thesis statements regarding faith in Jesus Christ as over against “observing the law” as the means to a right relationship with God (2:16). These arguments are thus crucial to Paul’s gospel and to the faith of his Galatian converts to Christ. Here Paul will either succeed or fail to make his case for his gospel and the Galatians’ continued adherence to it. To make that case, he will employ every communicative weapon available to him to drive home his thesis of the redemptive priority of faith in Jesus Christ (cf. H. R. Lemmer, “Mnemonic Reference to the Spirit as a Persuasive Tool,” Neot 26 [1992]: 359–88, esp. 361–62). Paul’s adept use of this methodology becomes the means to protect his beloved Galatians from straying and so prevent their “not acting in line with the truth of the gospel” (2:14).
The complexity of Paul’s discussion here prompts us to divide his argument into three sections: (1) vv.1–5, where he will support his thesis of redemption through faith in Jesus and not law observance by drawing on the Galatians’ own experience of salvation; (2) vv.6–14, where he will appeal to authoritative (Jewish) Scripture to illustrate his previously argued thesis; and (3) vv.15–18, reasoning from human experience generally.
OVERVIEW
As Paul begins his argument against the legalism of his opponents, he desires that the Galatians come to grasp fully the ramifications of their Judaizing tendencies. The most effective means of persuasion available to Paul to accomplish this purpose is the salvation experience of the Galatians themselves. He hopes to contravene the Galatians’ present Judaizing inclination and exclude the opponents’ “different gospel” from their further consideration. He will proceed by reminding the Galatians of their original response to his proclamation of the gospel among them. Paul will use six rhetorical questions to help the Galatians recall their salvation experience and thereby compel them to agree with the self-evident truths of his reasoning. This will have the desired effect of dislodging the Galatians’ resistance to Paul’s plea for them to turn back to the truth of the gospel.
1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? 5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?
COMMENTARY
1 Paul begins his reminder to the Galatians of their previous experience with an acerbic “You foolish Galatians!” This may appear quite harsh, as though Paul is questioning the Galatians’ ability to think (“foolish” is anoētoi, GK 485, literally “without mind,” not having the capacity of mental acuity). This is not so much Paul’s insulting his converts, however, as it is his assertive demonstration that he is passionately experiencing deep anguish and concern for them. He is frustrated at the Galatians’ lack of spiritual discernment and the self-contradiction of their “so quick” (see 1:6) departure from the truth of his gospel. In the propositio Paul had demonstrated that a doctrine of justification by observing the law effectively nullifies the death of Christ. For the Galatians now to throw off the truth of the grace of God as embodied in the person, word, and work of Christ and to embrace such a gospel of law observance is not rational (cf. Boice, 453–54). That is the dynamic that drives Paul to this stinging rebuke.
So Paul employs his first rhetorical question: “Who has bewitched you?” He probably does not really believe that charms and spells have been at work among the Galatians. Rather, Paul uses this term (baskainō, GK 1001, “fascinate,” “place under a spell”) figuratively to refer to his opponents’ perverting or confusing the teaching of the gospel (cf. 1:7).
That the Galatians could actually give credence to any such perversion of truth is all the more difficult for Paul to believe, given that, as he expresses it, “Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.” The statement related to Jesus’ crucifixion (proegraphē estaurōmenos, “clearly portrayed as crucified”) is Pauline shorthand for his previous teaching of the whole of Jesus’ life and ministry (cf. Hays, 196–98). This theologically loaded shorthand suggests a vivid and impressive verbal portrayal of the person and work of Christ by Paul in his original proclamation of the gospel, intended now to communicate by way of reminder the totality of his prior teaching. This was the gospel the Galatians had heard and to which they had positively responded. He reminds them of their previous response as a means of recalling that earlier portrayal—both to express his perplexity at their deviation from the truth of the gospel and to call them back to that truth. As noted by Bruce, 148, “The gospel of Christ crucified . . . so completely ruled out the law as a means of getting right with God that it was scarcely credible that people who had once embraced such a gospel should ever turn to the law for salvation.”
2 This leads to Paul’s second rhetorical question, masterfully crafted to bring the Galatians to articulate for themselves the conclusive argument against their current actions. Paul has just “one thing” he wants answered by these Galatians: “Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?” Paul presses the point of the Galatians’ experience of God’s grace to help them recognize their mistake in giving credence to the gospel of the Judaizers. He reminds them that they did not receive the Spirit of God by “observing the law,” as the Judaizers would have them do. Their reception of God’s Spirit came about by “hearing with faith” (NIV, “believing what you heard”). Paul wants the Galatians to recall their initial response to the gospel and their experience of God’s grace as characterized by the reception of the Spirit (cf. Lk 11:13), so that they will understand that it is Paul’s gospel and not law observance to which divine activity in their midst must be attributed. The Galatians should, then, perceive through their corporate recollection and answer to Paul’s question that their current proclivity to Judaize is indeed “foolish.” It is wrongheaded, and destined to lead them away from the God to whom they had earlier turned. Justification (2:16) and reception of the Spirit of God (3:2, 5) are in this manner conceptually and theologically linked: both are received through faith and not by observing the law. It should now be clear to the Galatians, by virtue of Paul’s recalling of his confrontation with Peter (2:16) and their recollection of their own experience with the gospel (3:2), that the way of faith is salvifically to be preferred over “works of the law.”
3 Paul’s third and fourth questions (both in v.3) underscore this point: “Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?” The “foolish” of this third question echoes v.1, reinforcing for the Galatians Paul’s frustration with (and for Paul, the hopelessness of) their abandonment of the gospel. The Galatians were “foolish” to ensnare themselves in the self-contradiction of moving back into the realm of the flesh (“works”) after having been delivered through faith in Christ into the realm of the Spirit. The Judaizers were teaching the Galatians the need for “observing the law” in order to perfect their salvation in Christ, to “attain [their] goal” (epiteleō, GK 2200, “be made complete”). The Judaizers’ understanding, presumably, was that since the Mosaic covenant completed and extended the Abrahamic, observing the law was the intrinsic complement to faith in Jesus the Messiah. So to their way of understanding, these works were necessary if Gentile converts were to participate fully in the community of God’s people. At the very least, the Judaizers taught obedience to the law as a means to proper Christian behavior (3:19–4:11). So Paul here again reminds the Galatians of their earlier experience (“after beginning with the Spirit”) in order to refute the Judaizers’ erroneous theological teaching. Thus he has consistently argued his primary point throughout: his contrast of “Spirit” and “flesh” here at v.3 corresponds to the “observing the law/faith in Jesus Christ” contrast at 2:16 and “observing the law/hearing with faith” contrast at 3:2. Salvation comes, Paul consistently insists, not through human effort of any type but by the gracious activity of God now displayed in the person and work of Christ.
4 Paul’s next question (“Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing?”) is somewhat enigmatic. The difficulty comes with the character of the Galatians’ suffering (epathete, from paschō, GK 4248). Most understand this suffering to be a reference to persecution for the gospel or an undefined misfortune or calamity the Galatians had undergone (so Lightfoot, Bruce, Fung). Indeed, this is the way the term is used elsewhere throughout the LXX and the NT. However, paschō may also be used in a neutral or even efficacious sense, referring positively to what was experienced (cf. Longenecker, 104). That is most likely the case here. Paul is calling to mind for the Galatians their positive experiences with regard to the gospel and the activity of the Spirit among them. In the immediate context (vv.1–5), Paul rehearses the Galatians’ experience of hearing the gospel and receiving the Spirit on the basis of faith. It is contextually appropriate that we understand these experiences as the positive manifestations of divine activity that make up the “so much” Paul writes about here. And these experiences are not “for nothing,” as the Spirit indeed acted among them as a corollary to their expression of faith in the person, word, and work of Jesus Christ. So by means of this question Paul again reminds the Galatians of their earlier positive spiritual experiences and reinforces his argument that what they had experienced and received came by faith and not by observing the law.
5 Paul now summarizes his argument by recapitulating v.2. His desire, of course, is that the Galatians realize that God had both supplied his Spirit to them and worked miracles among them by means of their expression of faith and not by law observance. Miracles (“works of power”) were a common phenomenon as the gospel penetrated new areas, as recorded throughout the NT. These miracles occurred as a means to authenticate both the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the messenger proclaiming that gospel. And of course the dynamic of the presence of the Spirit of God himself in the life of a new believer is the greatest NT miracle one might experience.
The Galatians’ recollection of these experiences would ideally serve to demonstrate Paul’s premise and persuade them to his position. Paul has challenged the Galatians throughout these verses to reconsider their Judaizing tendencies. By means of rhetorical questions he has caused them to recall their previous salvation experiences and to recognize that their salvation was a result of believing his gospel, and not by adhering to the observance of the law. If the Galatian converts would respond honestly to Paul’s questions, they would be forced to agree with him on this matter; they had been “foolish” to believe that it was proper to move from the realm of the Spirit to the realm of human effort, the flesh. They had indeed received the Spirit through faith and not law observance. The natural implication of this realization is that “if it was good enough then, it must be good enough now.” They would be persuaded to abandon the false gospel of the Judaizers and the accompanying doctrine of the completion of the Abrahamic covenant in the Mosaic. This “gospel” led ultimately to a vain practice of legalism, something from which Paul would save the Galatians. It is faith, Paul argues, and not observing the law that had initiated the Galatians’ (positive) experiences with Christ and their incorporation into the community of God’s people. Their own experience, rightly recalled and acted on, teaches the Galatians the truth of Paul’s position on the matter.
NOTES
2 The reception of the Spirit is the sine qua non of Christianity for Paul, as indicated both here and at 3:5; 5:18; cf. also Ro 8:2, 9, 14; 1Co 12:13; Eph 1:13–14.
The text of Paul’s writing in this verse neatly contrasts “works of the law” (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ex ergōn nomou) with “hearing with faith” (ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως, ex akoēs pisteōs). In both of these objective genitive constructions, the ἐξ, ex, functions to denote the source of something or the basis for its existence. In other words, the contrast here is between works which the law requires, as opposed to faith which results from hearing and embracing God’s word; cf. Ro 4:2–8; 10:17.
3 “Attain your goal by human effort” translates σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσθε (sarki epiteleisthe; lit., “Will you be made complete in/by the flesh?”). The “made complete” rendering of this expression points to the notion that the Judaizers claimed that Paul’s gospel was somehow “inferior” or “incomplete” (cf. Rapa, 89–94, and references there).
4 It is impossible from other biblical texts or sources to identify what suffering by the Galatians Paul has in mind here. In spite of the preponderance of commentary to the contrary, it is best to understand ἐπάθετε (epathete, “suffered”) contextually and to consider the possibility that Paul is reminding the Galatians of their joyous reception of the Spirit and the attesting miracles they experienced rather than an otherwise uncertain persecution or calamity.
OVERVIEW
Paul presses his position against the Judaizers’ legalistic teaching by turning for support of his argument from the experience of his Galatian converts to authoritative Jewish Scripture. He joins his reasoning in this section with his previous existential proofs by means of the catchwords pistis (GK 4411, “faith”) and pisteuō (GK 4409, “to believe”). He uses these words or their variants eight times in these nine verses. With this terminology, Paul links these sections thematically by virtue of his continued emphasis on justification by faith (vv.6, 8, 11, 13) and his denial of the efficacy of law observance (v.10), grounding this argument on the reception of the Spirit by faith. He also uses Jewish exegetical procedures as he employs this citation of Scripture.
Paul begins this section with a two-pronged approach. First, he assumes the Galatians’ answer to his question of v.5 must be that they experienced God’s miraculous activity among them and received his Spirit by faith and not by observing the law. Second, he capitalizes on that assumed answer, using the Galatians’ unspoken reply to meet the argument of his opponents on its own ground. To accomplish this, Paul will appeal throughout this section to Scripture. Highlighting God’s dealing with Abraham, as his opponents also undoubtedly did (cf. Barclay, 52–53), Paul will argue that the Galatians’ faith should replicate that of Abraham. Considered to be the model believer by both Paul and the Judaizers (cf. Burton, 152–53), Abraham personifies Paul’s point and is the one example that all participants in the Galatian controversy respected and held as a model for proper relationship to God (cf. Rapa, 182 n. 88). Paul’s use of Abraham, then, was intended to correct his opponents’ inaccurate view of Abraham’s faith and to provide the illustration that should prove conclusive for his Galatian converts.
6Consider Abraham: “He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 7Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. 8The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” 9So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.” 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, “The man who does these things will live by them.” 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
COMMENTARY
6 Paul begins his statement about Abraham with the term kathōs, “just as,” “even as.” This term is usually employed in the NT to indicate a comparison or to introduce a quotation from Scripture. It is therefore customarily interpreted here at v.6 as an abbreviated introductory formula to the quotation of Genesis 15:6 that follows. Verse 6 is then included with and understood to make a final statement to vv.1–5 (cf. KJV). But if Abraham is used here by Paul as the prototype believer in the sense of the rhetorical device of exemplum (“example,” “model”), as suggested by Betz, 137–38, the word does not function strictly as an introductory formula, and v.6 begins a new paragraph in Paul’s next line of argument. As a rhetorical mechanism, then, kathōs should be translated here as “consider” (so NIV). In this case, the word is to be understood as a verbal bridge between the rhetorical illustration of Abraham and the citation from Scripture, by which Paul now begins his Jewish exegetical argumentation (cf. Longenecker, 112; Barclay, 78 n. 8). This allows Paul to structure his proof more convincingly, using both conventional persuasive patterns and scriptural proofs to shape his reasoning.
Paul goes on to say that Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness” (cf. Ro 4:3; Jas 2:23). Paul specifically emphasizes Abraham in his quotation of Scripture by naming him before the statement of his belief (the LXX, which Paul quotes, has episteusen, “believed” before Abraam, “Abraham”). This textual interchange reinforces the fact that Abraham was declared by God to be righteous on the basis of his faith and not any work. In an implied contrast, Paul’s point seems to be that circumcision was not instituted by God until Genesis 17. Paul’s opponents no doubt coupled Abraham’s faith (Ge 15) with his obedient circumcision (Ge 17) in their teaching, as did Judaism generally (cf. Betz, 138–39; Longenecker, 112–13). But Paul has in mind the fact that faith must precede action in one’s relationship to God (cf. 2:16; 3:2, 5; Ro 10:9–10; Eph 2:8–10). The stress on Abraham’s faith is connected to the promise inherent within Genesis 15, as Paul will flesh out later (3:15–18). Abraham’s faith was faith in God and God’s promise of a Seed; the Christian’s faith is faith in God’s promised Seed. One is incipient and anticipatory, the other developed and retrospective (in the sense of looking back to the completed work of Christ). Yet both Abraham and his spiritual descendants express faith in God’s promise.
7 Paul’s “Understand, then” is his reminder to the Galatians that Abraham is the norm for all who are of faith. And he stresses that it is a faith that replicates Abraham’s faith which brings righteousness before God. It is not law observance that makes one a child of Abraham, despite the Judaizers’ claims to the contrary.
8–9 Paul fortifies this argumentation in vv. 8 and 9 once again by means of (authoritative Jewish) Scripture. The Judaizers’ teaching no doubt included the necessity of circumcision for Gentile converts as the means of demonstrating a relationship to Abraham. Paul has just said that this relationship comes by faith (vv.6–7). Now he sets out to demonstrate his case from Scripture.
Paul interprets Genesis 12:3 as scriptural foresight of salvation history, the gospel “announced in advance” by God to Abraham. The promise of Genesis 12:3, which like the declaration of Abraham’s righteousness by faith chronologically precedes the institution of circumcision, included the Gentiles with the Jews in the covenant of blessing. Abraham, the neither-Jew-nor-Gentile proto-believer, thus becomes for Paul the father of all who believe, whether Jew or Gentile. So Paul adds that all who believe as Abraham did are blessed through justification as a result of their faith.
10–14 In vv.10–14, Paul explains from Scripture the implications of his immediately preceding statements. There is no doubt that Paul’s quotes here reflect passages that were being used by his opponents in their attempts to persuade the Galatian converts of the scriptural necessity of practicing law observance. But Paul astutely turns this strategy against the Judaizers as he demonstrates from two of these same passages (Dt 27:26; Lev 18:5) that “there is no reference [in these passages] to faith, righteousness, or blessing, but rather only curse” (Longenecker, 116). Two additional Scripture references demonstrate that faith is the only essential for justification (Hab 2:4; Dt 21:23), just as Paul has contended. In these verses, then, Paul sets out to correct the Judaizers’ (mis)use of Scripture, and the Galatians’ wayward tendencies in giving ear to their teachings.
10 Paul indicates here that all who rely on law observance to justify themselves before God are under a curse. The use of “for” (gar) indicates that Paul’s reasoning advances the conceptuality of his previous statements, as he intends to explain the redemptive priority of faith over works of the law. He states that those who rely on law observance are not blessed with justification, as was Abraham. In fact, they are cursed.
The quotation of Deuteronomy 27:26 has engendered much debate. The primary question has to do with what is taken as Paul’s apparent quantitative view of “doing” the law in this citation. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that Paul’s quotation does not follow any extant Hebrew or LXX text (for discussion of the textual evidence, see Betz, 144–46 nn. 61–65; Bruce, 158–60). Because of this, some have suggested that Paul has fashioned this quote by twisting Scripture to meet his immediate polemical needs. The textual issue is complicated, but Paul may have quoted from memory or may have had before him a slightly different text from any now available. In any case, it is Paul’s intended meaning that is the significant question.
In that regard, from a contextual standpoint it is best to understand that Paul is not referring to Deuteronomy 27:26 in order to demand perfect obedience to the law or to indicate the curse as the consequence of failure to “do” it; his quotation from Deuteronomy is meant to emphasize the result of observing the law—that of being “cursed.” The law, unlike faith, which brings blessing (as the illustration of Abraham has just indicated), brings the curse to those who are “of” it, i.e., identified as “belonging to” or “oriented toward” the law (the hosoi . . . ex ergōn nomou, lit., “all those . . . of the works of the law”; cf. BDAG, 225). In other words, Paul quotes this verse to accent the negative result of any attempted redemptive use of the law, as he juxtaposes curse with blessing, and those oriented to law with those oriented to faith.
11 This juxtaposition continues as Paul writes, “Clearly no one is justified before God by law, because, ‘The righteous will live by faith.’” Paralleling the thought of v.10, Paul reiterates the fact that no one is justified by the law. Paul’s scriptural argument, then, essentially continues along the lines of the preceding verses: “righteousness” is the domain of faith, while “curse” is the stronghold of law.
There is a measure of textual confusion with Paul’s quote of Habakkuk 2:4 in v.11. The Hebrew text reads “the righteous will live by his faith,” while one text of the LXX reads “the righteous will live by my [God’s] faithfulness,” and another reads “my righteous one will live by faith.” Paul’s omission of the possessive pronoun “my,” however, would not have affected his argument in any case. Bruce, 162, has observed, “The faith by which one becomes righteous in God’s sight is faith in God, believing acceptance of his promise, as Abraham showed.”
Paul’s use of Habakkuk is probably his appropriation of an early Christian expression of faith. The early church would have used this “word of faith” as a vehicle to remind one another of the basis of life in Christ (cf. Longenecker, 119). The point Paul seems to be making with this quotation is that one who is “within this faith” shall live (ek pisteōs, “from within this faith”). In other words, Paul “strips faithfulness to its core of faith in God” (Fung, 144–45), thus expressing the validity of Habakkuk’s message as applied to his Galatian converts. Essentially, Paul is simply again emphasizing his previous point that the one who would emulate Abraham and share in his blessing is the one who exercises faith in God’s promise and integrity.
12 Paul can declare this because “the law is not based on faith; on the contrary, ‘The man who does these things will live by them.’” It has often been suggested that here Paul has badly misinterpreted or wrongly characterized Moses or has even made Leviticus 18:5 “Christian.” But Paul does not understand this verse to promise eternal life for law keeping. Indeed, in its context Leviticus 18:5 simply points to the blessing of life in the promised land of Canaan. Paul is undoubtedly thinking here of the concept of the guarantee of that life in the land based on faithful obedience to the law. Obedience then works the reward of life in the land, and while such obedience may be a demonstration of faith (and faithfulness), the dynamic of experiencing reward for obedience cannot be called (justifying) faith. By analogy, Paul here extends this imagery to the process of justification and draws the conclusion that “the law is not based on faith.” The law was never intended by God to result in justification, as the Judaizers taught, because the law and such (justifying) faith are incompatible as a means of righteousness before God. Thus the antithesis between faith and blessing on the one hand (v.11) and law and curse on the other (vv.10, 12) is continued here.
13–14 Paul’s point about justification by faith is now established. He again alludes to the “curse” brought about by employing the law as a means of justification (cf. v.10). Here in v.13, after suddenly changing the subject from curse to redemption, Paul joins the concept of the curse as found in Deuteronomy 27:26 (referred to in v.10) to the concept of curse as found in Deuteronomy 21:23. He interprets the former in terms of the latter by means of the Jewish exegetical principle of gezerah shawah (a verbal analogy from one verse to another; cf. Fung, 147–48). Paul adapts his citation of Deuteronomy 21:23 to the curses of Deuteronomy 27:26 in order to make the factual statement (“everyone is accursed who hangs on a tree”) an anathema (“cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”). So Paul is able to demonstrate that Christ’s death fit both the demands of the law for disobedience and the extension of the promise made to Abraham to all who express faith as Abraham did. Because the sinless Christ paid the price for sin in his death on the “tree,” anyone exercising faith in him and that death is redeemed, and hence justified. One who exercises faith in the work of Christ believes the promise of God (for forgiveness), and God credits it to him as righteousness. This is referred to as an “exchange curse”: Jesus takes on himself the curse of sin and the law and extends his righteousness to those who trust in him (cf. 2Co 5:21). So God fulfills the Abrahamic covenant in the cross of Christ, and Gentiles are included in the community of God’s people in the newly inaugurated age of the Spirit received by faith.
NOTES
8 Boice, 457, has observed that the fact that Paul personifies Scripture in this verse suggests that he rightly understood Scripture as God’s speech.
10 Existence under the law is here opposed by Paul to existence in Christ. By speaking of ὃσοι . . . ἐξ ἔργων νόμου (hosoi . . . ex ergōn nomou, “all those . . . of the works of the law”), Paul marks out a “specific mode of existence,” an existence that “does not serve as a basis for justification” (J. B. Tyson, “‘Works of Law’ in Galatians,” JBL 92 [1973]: 430).
The question of Paul’s intent in quoting Deuteronomy 27:26 and his supposed quantitative view of “doing” the law is discussed at length by E. P. Sanders (Paul, the Law and the Jewish People); Hans Hübner (Law in Paul’s Thought [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1984]; and Thomas Schreiner (“Is Perfect Obedience to the Law Possible? A Re-Examination of Galatians 3:10,” JETS 27 [1984]: 151–60). But any quantitative view misses Paul’s analogy: he is speaking here not of quantity, as though perfect obedience to the law were possible or expected, but of one’s redemptive orientation to God. Those redemptively oriented to God by law are cursed, while those who are redemptively oriented to God by faith (as now expressed in and through Jesus Christ) are blessed, together with Abraham.
11 The phrase ἐν νόμῳ (en nomō, “by law”) is the functional equivalent to ἐξ ἔργων νόμου (ex ergōn nomou, “of the works of the law”). Both expressions “reflect the Old Covenant with its demands and sanctions” (A. Caneday, “‘Redeemed from the Curse of the Law’: The Use of Deuteronomy 21:22–23 in Galatians 3:13,” TJ 10 [1989]: 192 n. 28; cf. Bruce, 161; Longenecker, 118).
The textual issues with the Habakkuk quotation are complex; the MT reads weṣadîq beʾemûnātô yiḥyeh, “the righteous will live by his faith”; LXX B has ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς μου ζήσεται (ho dikaios ek pisteōs mou zēsetai), “the righteous will live by my [God’s] faithfulness,’ while LXX A has ὁ δίκαιος μου ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται (ho dikaios mou ek pisteōs zēsetai), “my righteous one will live by faith.” Whatever the differences in the textual data, Paul uses the Habakkuk quote to contrast sharply with v.10—righteousness before God comes through faith and not the law.
12 As rightly noted by Longenecker, 120, the Leviticus 18:5 quote insists that “the law has to do with ‘doing’ and ‘living by its prescriptions’ and not with faith.”
13 “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law” (Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου, Christos hēmas exēgorasen ek tēs kataras tou nomou) is probably an early Jewish-Christian confessional formula expressing the redemptive, atoning, self-sacrificial nature of the death of Christ (cf. Betz 149–51; Longenecker 121–22).
OVERVIEW
In these verses Paul will summarize the supportive arguments that he has advanced since 3:1 in favor of the propositio (2:15–21). He has argued that both the Galatians’ own experience of God’s redemptive activity and the words of Scripture speak forcibly against the position of the Judaizers, making use of Abraham and the Abrahamic covenant to illustrate his point. He will now draw out the theological implications of that discussion, engaging the teaching of the Judaizers more directly and countering their theological position in an ad hominem fashion (cf. Longenecker, 125). He will focus on Jesus Christ as Abraham’s Seed, the Promised One in whom are contained all the potential and assurances of God’s commitment to Abraham.
15Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say, “And to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
COMMENTARY
15 Paul commences this section by drawing “an example from everyday life” (lit., “I am speaking according to human terms,” kata anthrōpon legō). Utilizing an argument “from the lesser to the greater” (i.e., what is true of agreements in the human realm is all the more true of an agreement between God and humanity), he begins by addressing the “brothers” with regard to a covenant between people. When such a covenant has been ratified, no one later changes that agreement by nullification or by adding new stipulations. However strictly this assumption may or may not have conformed to legal practice in the Roman Empire at the time, Paul’s point is that once a testament is enacted, for all practical purposes that testament established the disposition of one’s estate as an expression of one’s will.
16 With the inviolability of a covenant as the conceptual framework, Paul’s thought now shifts analogously to the agreement between God and Abraham, i.e., God’s covenant promise to Abraham (Ge 12:1–3). These covenant promises, Paul writes, were spoken to Abraham and his “seed.” Though the term was used within Judaism to refer to Abraham’s descendants as a united entity, Paul uses the inherent singularity of the collective noun spermati (GK 5065, “seed” (Hebrew zeraʿ, GK 2446) to make reference to one individual, Jesus Christ. Christ is the authentic son of Abraham, the true Seed through whom all the nations would be blessed. Paul again implicitly references here the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s promise to Abraham, subtly underscoring the law/faith dichotomy, with all its practical implications, for his Galatian converts.
17 Paul now draws his applicatory conclusions from the analogy contained in the previous verses (vv.15–16; cf. Longenecker, 132). Completing the thought he began there, Paul states that the law that appeared 430 years later does not invalidate the covenant previously established by God. Such invalidation would effectively do away with the promise he had made to Abraham (and by extension to Abraham’s Seed) in that covenant. The promise to Abraham has priority over the law, Paul insists, because it came 430 years before the law. The law is therefore powerless to invalidate the covenant agreement made between God and Abraham. The Mosaic legislation could not supersede the Abrahamic covenant, and the promise is not replaced by nomistic legal requirements. Interpreting the Abrahamic covenant through the lens of the Mosaic, as insisted on by the Judaizers, understands God’s redemptive purposes exactly backward, according to Paul.
18 Since it is true that the Abrahamic covenant cannot be replaced or superseded by the law, Paul now concludes that an inheritance based on God’s promise cannot be removed by law. Here Paul ties the promise to “inheritance,” the concept of God’s blessing. Inheritance was for the most part material in Jewish history, but it was also understood to be more than material possession in the land. It was also considered to include specific nonmaterial elements, such as God’s favor and relationship with him (cf. Ge 27). Given Paul’s argument relative to the promise and the Abrahamic covenant, these blessings are undoubtedly at the forefront of his thought here. And, Paul says, these spiritual blessings are obtained through God’s gracious promise, not law.
Paul has theologically argued in this section for the redemptive priority of the Abrahamic covenant and its promised Seed, Jesus Christ. Just as no one sets aside agreements among people, Paul says, it is also true that the agreement (covenant) between God and Abraham (and by extension Abraham’s Seed, Jesus Christ) is not set aside or annulled by the giving of the law some 430 years later. The inheritance intrinsic to the promise, therefore, cannot be claimed on the basis of law. It comes as a result of promise. So again in this section Paul implicitly underscores the soteriological priority of faith and promise as over against observing the law.
NOTES
15 The term “covenant” is διαθήκη (diathēkē, GK 1347, “covenant,” “will,” “testament”). It is used to express an otherwise inviolable agreement between parties, whether between superior and subordinate or between equals.
16 The Hebrew zera‘ is a collective noun used throughout Jewish writings to refer to Abraham’s descendants collectively (cf. b. Šabb. 146a; b. Pesaḥ. 56a, 119b; Gen. Rab. 4.5). Paul uses the singularity of the collective noun (σπέρματι, spermati) to turn the Judaizers’ argument that the promise to Abraham was also to his “seed,” which they interpreted as the Jewish people, to serve his contention that the promise was realized in the person and work of Christ. He will also include believers in Jesus in this promise at 3:29.
17 “430 years” apparently represents the approximate time from Abraham to Moses; cf. Burton, 182; D. H. King, “Paul and the Tannaim: A Study in Galatians,” WTJ 45 (1983): 340–70, esp. 366–68.
OVERVIEW
Paul has in the immediately preceding section given what some consider to be an “astonishing picture” of the law (Martyn, 353), seemingly calling into question its value or necessity. The sharp contrast between promise/law and faith/works of the previous section gives rise to the question of what function is served by having the law at all, since the promise preceded the law’s existence and has redemptive priority over it. Paul answers that question by speaking to his understanding of the purpose or function of the law. In the process of doing so, he will advance his case against his Judaizing opponents in terms now not of legalism per se, as above, but in terms of their insistence on a nomistic lifestyle to combat Gentile proclivities to sin (cf. Longenecker, 135–36). For that reason, this section is not to be understood as a digression or shift in thought in Paul’s argument against the legalism of the Judaizers, as many have understood it (e.g., Betz, 163). Rather, these verses directly address the issues of faith and law observance in God’s redemptive economy.
19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.
21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
COMMENTARY
19–20 As Paul’s argument moves ahead in light of his prior discussion, he must answer the inescapable question, “What, then, was the purpose of the law?” The law was necessary, he says, “because of transgressions”—i.e., because humanity is fallen and sinful, and that sin must both be restrained and shown to be sin, God gave the law to Israel, his “chosen” covenant people. As succinctly stated by Fung, 159, the law was given “to make wrongdoing a legal offense.” Paul’s point, in other words, is not that the law itself is evil or that it created sin but that the law revealed the true nature of humanity’s unlawful deeds. The law was never given to bring anyone to righteousness (as legalistically interpreted) or to perfection (as nomistically interpreted; cf. Longenecker, 139). Quite to the contrary: the law demonstrated one’s sinfulness. The law was “added” as a temporary, subordinate restriction to the promise, placed on humanity until “the Seed,” Christ, should come (cf. Burton, 188; Bruce, 176). The validity of the law as a revelatory agent ceased at the coming of Christ, who is the consummate revelation of God’s character and person (cf. Jn 1:14, 18; 14:7–10; Heb 1:1–4) and the fulfiller of the law (Mt 5:17–20). The law, ordained through the mediating agency of angels, made humanity’s powerlessness and helplessness more visible, until the Seed should come. Thus it stands over against the oneness of God’s person as inferior, having need of an intermediary agent to bring it into effect among the people of Israel.
21–22 Was the law antagonistic to the promise, then? “Absolutely not!” Paul responds. If law could have produced life and righteousness, then God would have provided for that reality. But because all humanity is in the sinful condition expressed earlier (at v.19), all are soteriologically helpless. No amount of law or identity as one who observes the law can remedy one’s condition. If law could have ameliorated that situation, Paul asserts, righteousness before God would have been based on law and Christ would not have suffered in and on humanity’s behalf (cf. 2:21). As it is, all humanity is condemned by law, in order that all humanity may potentially be made heirs of the promise that comes by faith (3:22; cf. Ro 5:12–21).
23 “Before this faith [tēn pistin] came” alludes to the previously mentioned faith that is like Abraham’s. The law kept the Jews in custody until the time for “this faith” to come. This understanding of Paul’s use of tēn as an article of previous reference (hearkening back to Abraham’s faith, and not faith in general) is crucial if one is fully to comprehend Paul’s argument here. Referencing specifically Abraham’s faith by using this epistolary mechanism, Paul clarifies the temporary nature of the law as opposed to the permanence of the Abrahamic covenant (promise) and faith. God had made a promise to Abraham, based on God’s character and faithfulness—a promise that was to be believed. God’s promise both involved Abraham’s physical descendants, the Jews, and included the Gentiles. The law (Mosaic covenant) was added to that promise in order to make humanity aware of its own sin and to protect Israel, the covenant nation, from the destructive results of sinful activity. So the law functioned in one sense as a pedagogue or guardian (v.24) to hedge in the Israelites and Gentile God-fearers until such time as the Seed should come and usher in the age of maturity, the age when all God’s people would demonstrate a faith like Abraham’s (this contra Barclay, 87 n. 31).
24 The law was, therefore, a paidagōgos (GK 4080, “pedagogue,” “one who leads a child,” i.e., “instructor,” “custodian,” “administrator of discipline”) to lead God’s people until the time of Christ. A pedagogue was “a slave employed by Greek and Roman families to have general charge of a boy in the years from about six to sixteen, watching over his outward behavior and attending him” (Burton, 200; cf. also Michael J. Smith, “The Role of the Pedagogue in Galatians,” BSac 163 [2006]: 197–214). By analogy, then, Paul is saying that the law both kept (or guarded) and disciplined the people of God until Christ, demonstrating both (1) the minority of the one under a pedagogue and (2) the temporary nature of such an arrangement. The law’s pedagogical function was to bring people to understand their sinfulness, their inability to do anything to rectify that condition, and to guide people to Christ, Abraham’s Seed and the personal fulfillment of God’s promise.
25 Paul goes on to say that since this faith has come, a pedagogue is no longer necessary. The supervisory function of the law, part of which is to point out one’s utter sinfulness (cf. Fung, 159), is now rendered obsolete in the person, word, and work of Christ, who fulfilled the law and personified God’s promise.
NOTES
19 The question of the involvement of angels in the giving of the law has been variously understood. Burton, 191, indicates that over 300 different interpretations have been proposed for the expression διαταγεὶς δι᾽ ἀγγέλων ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου (diatageis di’ angelōn en cheiri mesitou, lit., “ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator”). Jewish primary sources demonstrate a belief in an angelic presence at Sinai at the giving of the law; cf. Jub. 1.27–29; Ant 15.136; see also Ac 7:38; Heb 2:2.
20 The issue of what Paul means by a “mediator” as over against “God [as] one” has a long and varied interpretive history (cf. Lightfoot, 146). There are three views that appear to be most plausible: (1) The plurality inherent in the “a mediator . . . does not represent just one party” expression suggests a duality of parties—God and the Jewish people; (2) that duality has to do with a duality of groups—the angels and the Jewish people; and (3) the concept of a mediator itself suggests a plurality in contrast to the oneness of God. The view taken here is in keeping with option 3.
24 The word παιδαγωγός (paidagōgos, “pedagogue”) in the ancient world did not refer to a teacher (cf. Plato, Resp., 373C; 467D; Leg., 208C; Aristotle, Eth. nic. 3.12.8) but rather simply to one exercising custodial or disciplinary functions over children within a wealthy household. With regard to Paul’s use here, the pedagogue has been understood as one who is rude and insolent (cf. Betz, 177) or as an “imprisoning jailer” (Martyn, 363). As noted by Longenecker, 148, this is no doubt due to the caricature of pedagogues found in Greek literature. Paul uses the term in its customary way here to refer to the custodial function of the law.
OVERVIEW
Following his discussion of the purpose and function of the law, Paul moves to a discussion of what it means for believers to be people of true faith. Coming of age by means of the person, word, and work of Christ and faith in him, and thus out from under the supervision of the law, issues in one receiving a new identity, becoming part of a new community, and living out a new reality.
26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
COMMENTARY
26–27 By means of this faith in Jesus Christ, Paul argues, the Galatians and all believers are, like Abraham, children of God (he uses tēn pisteōs again here, continuing his focus on the replication of Abraham’s faith; cf. vv.23, 25). The one who mirrors Abraham’s faith by believing God’s promise as now personified in the Seed, Jesus Christ, has a new relational identity, having been “baptized into Christ,” and thus has a new ethical identity, having been “clothed . . . with Christ” (cf. 1Co 12:13; Col. 3:3). These metaphors speak of the total transformation that takes place by faith, as one is moved into the realm of relationship with God. This relationship is not one of static existence but is of an ongoing nature (the significance of the present tense este, “you are”). This relational and ethical transformation takes place on the basis of the person, word, and work of Christ and not on the basis of law. Paul will draw out the implications of the dynamic of this ongoing relationship in subsequent verses.
28–29 As a result of this new relational and ethical identity, distinctions that existed in the former economy have been done away with (cf. 2:11–14). These distinctions were important in the former economy as object lessons for the people of God as they worked out what it meant to understand God and his purposes and strove to comprehend how to comport themselves in a world system opposed to God. But now being “in Christ,” one’s ethnicity, life station, or gender is no longer relevant to one’s redemptive identity. Such outward distinctions remain, of course: Jews do not become Gentiles, and women do not become men; but these distinctions no longer carry the significance in God’s redemptive program that they once had. All alike are “Abraham’s seed,” and all alike will be included in the fullness of God’s redemptive promises. All alike have become “heirs,” Abraham’s spiritual offspring, because they are in Christ Jesus according to faith in the promise, not according to works of the law.
NOTES
28 This verse has often been made to carry the weight of questions regarding economic injustice or the role of women in the church. As valid as such questions are, Paul’s point here has to do with redemptive identity in Christ as a result of faith in contrast to the observance of law. It is doubtful that Paul’s words here can therefore be made specifically to address such questions.
OVERVIEW
In this section Paul will illustrate the contrast between the age of immaturity, characterized by the supervision of the law, and the age of maturity, which is the age of living by God’s Spirit received by means of faith in Jesus Christ. God’s people have moved in Christ into a new dynamic with respect to relationships between themselves and God and with one another in Christ. No longer under the tutelage of the Mosaic legislation, which Paul identified as the temporary extension of the Abrahamic covenant, Jewish and Gentile believers who replicate Abraham’s faith enter into the age of maturity before the Father.
Paul frames his illustration in legal terminology, but this terminology is notoriously difficult to decipher (legal terms used include klēronomos (GK 3101, “heir”), nēpios (GK 3758, “child”), kyrios (GK 3261, “lord,” “owner”), epitropos (GK 2207, “guardian”), and oikonomos (GK 3874, “administrator,” “manager,” “trustee”). The interpretive complexity in these verses arises in part out of the fact that it is not entirely clear as to which legal system Paul is making reference when he speaks about the father’s timing and the movement of the heir from minority to majority status. He may have the “Roman, Greek, Semitic, or some type of Greco-Roman-Seleucid hybrid used in the province of Phrygia” (Longenecker, 161). Precisely how this legal system reinforces his argument relative to observance of the law and the faith of Abraham is also at issue. In addition, Paul’s reference to the “basic principles of the world” (v.3) and “full rights as sons” (v.4) lends further complication to these verses.
What is clear, however, is that Paul uses this legal imagery to illustrate the movement in redemptive history from one age to the next. Expanding on the “heir” theme implied by his mention of inheritance, Paul furthers his earlier point regarding God’s people no longer living under the law (3:19–25), but now living out a new relational identity (3:26–29). In the old order, God’s people had not experienced God “in the flesh” among them (cf. “Immanuel”) and so were given in the Mosaic legislation certain object lessons to enhance their understanding of God’s character and his relational expectations of them as his people. The law was a necessary “pedagogue,” keeping and shepherding Israel as minor children, until the age of maturity came about in and through the person and work of the Seed, Jesus Christ. But now, in Christ, God’s people are considered to be adult children, having both the person and work of his Son and the presence of his Spirit to guide them in the ethical and relational living out of their faith. Thus, God’s people have grown beyond the need for “guardians and trustees” (v.2).
1What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. 4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. 6Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.
COMMENTARY
1–2 The heir, until coming of age, has no control over family assets or even his or her own inheritance. In this situation the heir is “no different from a slave,” functioning within the household as one who serves at the discretion of another (cf. Burton, 211–12). Paul speaks figuratively here to reinforce his greater point; there is, of course, a distinction to be made between the “master in waiting” and a slave. But in practical terms, both the heir and the slave are subject to regulations and limitations on their freedom, as dictated by the father. Subject to the promise of inheritance, this promise remains a distant hope until the heir enters into the age of maturity. Even though the heir stands to own it all someday, by virtue of inheritance, he or she remains under guardians and trustees until the time appointed by the father (the terms “guardians [epitropous] and trustees [oikonomous] recall Paul’s earlier use of paidagōgos [“guardian”] at 3:24–25 and point to his argument there that the law functioned as a means to shepherd and protect God’s people from the devastation of sinfulness while at the same time showing up sin for all that it is). The promise of inheritance is only realized or fulfilled at the father’s discretion and at the time established by his purposes, whether at his death or at another set time.
3 Paul now expands further the illustration of vv.1–2. The situation of the minor heir, Paul argues, is analogous to the position of Israel under the law (“we” here is no doubt referring to Jewish Christians, as it does earlier in Paul’s argument; cf. 2:15–16; 3:13–14, 23–25). In that previous period, God’s people were like children, and as children they experienced the compelling oversight of the law, an entity outside themselves, to regulate their behavior and relationships. Thus their existential reality was akin to slavery, in that they had no legally recognized voice with respect to their own identity. Due to their minority status, Israel’s slavery (their custody under and accountability to the law) remained in force until the coming of the Seed (cf. 3:23).
The law is identified here as the “basic principles [stoicheia, GK 5122, of the world” (i.e., the things belonging to an elementary age characterized by chronological or developmental immaturity; cf. Fung, 181–82). Stoicheia is used elsewhere variously to refer to “elements in a series,” “inherent components,” or “things in a row” and reflects the military term stoichos (“row,” “rank,” “line”) from which it probably derives (cf. Burton, 510–18). Paul’s point here seems to be that the Mosaic legislation given by God to his people living in the previous era of redemptive history represents elementary teachings that prepared Israel for the coming of Christ. These “basic principles” of the law, particularly in its condemnatory and supervisory functions, served in the age of immaturity to anticipate and prepare for the coming of Christ, the Seed of Abraham. To return now to life under that law, then, is for believers in Christ to retrogress by returning to life under the elementary things of the world.
4–5 Paul continues the unpacking of his illustration by incorporating into his argument a confessional formula from the early church, something he has done elsewhere in the letter (cf. 1:4; 3:1). This confession serves further to flesh out his meaning and to provide a subtle reminder to his Galatian converts that his gospel has continuity with the teaching of others, both with respect to the story of Jesus and the fact that the timing of Christ’s coming was fixed in God’s redemptive purpose. In fact, use of the confessional formula shows that Paul agrees on this latter point with Jesus himself (Mk 1:15; Lk 1:21), with Matthew (as seen with regard to Jesus in his “fulfillment” language; 1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 27:9), with John (Jn 2:17; 12:15, 38, 40; 19:24, 36, 37), and with the preaching of the apostles (Ac 2:16–41; 3:18).
The Seed was sent by the Father, Paul says, “when the time had fully come” (hote de ēlthen to plērōma tou chronou), when God the Father had determined that Israel and all humanity were prepared to enter into maturity through the person and work of Christ. In salvation history, as in the human realm, it is the Father who determines the timing of the consummation of his set purpose; in this case, he determined the appropriate moment for the filling up of his promise to Abraham by sending his son, Jesus.
The son was “born of a woman,” i.e., he was born fully human and was to function as humanity’s representative before the Father (fleshing out what it means that Jesus was “sent”; cf. Isa 49:1; Jer 1:5; Ro 8:3; Gal 1:15). The expression genomenon ek gynaikos (“born of a woman”) is probably not a veiled reference to the virgin birth, as many have supposed; similar language is used elsewhere of others (cf. Job 14:1; Mt 11:11; Lk 7:28). Rather, the expression suggests that Jesus, God’s Son, was sent by God into this world to be one of us, to stand before God in our place, and to live “under law” as our representative, subject as Israel was to the “basic principles” of the law in an age of immaturity. The promised Seed came “to redeem those under the law” (v.5; cf. 2:17–21), fulfilling God’s promise to Abraham by making believers into God’s children through faith. In Jesus’ representative living and suffering, God accomplished his redemptive purposes and moved his children from one age to another, from immaturity to maturity, and believers now “receive the full rights of sons.” That is, Paul says that believers now function in relationship to God as mature persons, carrying out his purposes on the basis of internal factors arising out of faith and not external compulsion imposed by the law. This is so, Paul asserts, because Jesus lived his life as a Jewish human being, representatively fulfilling the righteous requirements of the law and bearing the law’s curse in his death, and in his person and work ushering in a new relational identity and dynamic for God’s people.
6 Now by virtue of incorporation into the sonship of Jesus Christ, believers receive God’s Spirit, the “Spirit of his Son,” the Seed who lived and suffered representatively—as Paul has just demonstrated. As was true of the Son, the Spirit is “sent” by the Father into the life of the believer, implying the redemptive-historical significance of the presence of the Spirit in one’s life. This significance includes the new relational dynamic of intimacy and filial dependency expressed in the obedient life of the Son, now realized in the new order in the life of the believer by the Spirit and articulated by the cry “Abba!” (an Aramaic term for “Father,” denoting dependent intimacy while at the same time recognizing the dignity of the one addressed). The full significance of the presence of the Spirit in the believer’s life will be elucidated at 5:16–6:10, where Paul will argue against libertinism. In the age of maturity, the believer’s ethical life is not to be regulated by external compulsion through the law but by internal compliance brought about by a relationship with God in Christ, as mediated by his Spirit. The reception of God’s Spirit seals the work of Christ and enables the believer to live as God’s child (cf. Eph 1:3–14).
7 As mature children in Christ, then, believers experience a new relational dynamic. Believers in Christ live out this obedience to the Father, with sins forgiven, walking in the Spirit and so fulfilling the law of Christ, which is the law of love (cf. Ro 13:10). Because they are now mature by virtue of incorporation into the person and work of Christ, believers are no longer slaves but have the redemptive-historical status of sons and heirs.
NOTES
1 On the question of which legal systems Paul may have in mind as background for his argument here, note the literature cited by Betz, 202 n. 6; W. M. Calder, “Adoption and Inheritance in Galatia,” JTS 31 (1930): 372–74; William Ramsay, A Historical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (2nd ed.; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1900), 391–93.
3 The word στοιχεῖα, stoicheia, has occasioned a variety of interpretations due to the fact that Paul’s use of it in this verse does not exactly reflect its use more broadly: Greek writers would have used the term in reference to the natural world and its makeup, while Paul’s use is ethical in orientation (cf. Longenecker, 164–66; Burton, 510–18; A. J. Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World: An Exegetical Study in Aspects of Paul’s Teaching [Kampen: Kok, 1964, 31–46]; TDNT 7:670–83; Bo Reicke, “The Law and This World According to Paul: Some Thoughts Concerning Galatians 4:1–11,” JBL 70 [1951]: 261).
4–5 These verses have been examined extensively with regard to their provenance and application. Most agree that this is a pre-Pauline confession of the early church expressing the sending/redeeming activity of God in Christ. For full discussion of the issues surrounding this confessional formula, see “υἱός,” huios, “son” (TDNT 8:354–57, 363–92); υἱοθεσία, huiothesia, “adoption,” “sonship” (TDNT 8:399); E. Schweizer, “Slaves of the Elements and Worshippers of Angels: Gal. 4:3, 9 and Col. 2:8, 18, 20,” JBL 107 (1988): 455–68; James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (London: SCM, 1980), 39–40; Richard Longenecker, “The Pedagogical Nature of the Law in Galatians 3:19–4:7,” JETS 25 (1982): 53–62; Richard Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 163–205; and Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 100–136, 258–60.
6 The relationship between believers’ being children of God and the reception of the Spirit is a difficult issue; in chapter 3, Paul has seemingly argued from the Galatians’ reception of the Spirit to demonstrate they are children of God (3:2–5, 26); this is the same order he presents in Romans 8:15–17. Here the argument seems to be that God sent his Spirit into the lives of the Galatians “because [the Galatians] are sons.” The argument over which is the proper order has a long history (cf. Lightfoot, 169; Betz, 209). However, it is likely that Paul conceives of the two as being so “intimately related” that he “can speak of them in either order . . . , with only the circumstances of a particular audience, the issue being confronted, or the discussion that precedes determining the order to be used” (Longenecker, 173).
The Aramaic term ʾabbā (Greek ἀββά), abba, “father,” is not a casual term akin to the English “daddy”; it is a term of deep respect, nonetheless used intimately, to express the new filial relationship the believer has with the Father through the Son.
REFLECTIONS
Paul in this section completes the formal argumentation of his probatio (3:1–4:11), the supportive discussion of his propositio (the proposition of the letter, 2:15–21). He has argued that the gospel of faith in Jesus Christ apart from law observance is the true expression of faith in God, as evidenced by the Galatians’ own experience, authoritative Jewish Scripture, and what the Galatians know to be true even from generalized human experience (3:1–18). He has demonstrated that, correctly understood, the law functioned both to preserve and to protect Israel, while at the same time demonstrating the utter sinfulness of fallen humanity, clearly pointing to the need for Jesus’ life and death, and he has indicated how life in Christ provides a new relational reality for believers as children of the living God (3:19–4:7). Thus, Paul has demonstrated the fact that his gospel and his apostleship are both the “genuine article” and as such are to be embraced by the Galatians. They must therefore turn away from the “different gospel” promoted by the Judaizers. He will in the transitional closing section of the probatio (4:8–11) speak directly to his Galatian converts as a way to express his deep commitment to and soteriological fear for them.
OVERVIEW
The immediately preceding discussion of the new relational dynamic that obtains for God’s people, having moved in Christ from the age of immaturity to the age of maturity, leads to Paul’s expression of anguish over the Galatians’ current Judaizing tendencies. In this section he reminds the Galatians that before they knew Jesus Christ, they served idols or spirits that “by nature are not gods” (v.8). The suggestion inherent in these verses is that the Galatians’ practice of nomistic or legalistic, ritual law keeping will return them to an idolatrous activity that by implied analogy is like that earlier lifestyle. Paul is deeply concerned that his labor in their behalf in bringing the gospel to them, praying for them, and perhaps even in writing this letter to them may come to no purpose if they persist in their Judaizing ways. Their legalistic behavior will, if maintained, in effect invalidate the reception of the blessings of the promise inasmuch as they will have turned away from that promise to embrace nomistic law keeping as a way of life. The apostle would protect his beloved Galatians from such an eventuality by persuading them to reverse this course of action.
8Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.
COMMENTARY
8 Paul reminds the Galatians of their previous history, the time when they “did not know God.” Paul’s wording here includes the strong adversative “but” (alla; untranslated in the NIV), which highlights the contrast between vv.6–7 and v.8. Rather than functioning as children and heirs, the Galatians are effectively seeking to return to that period when they were ignorant of the one true and living God, to a period when in reality they were “slaves,” much like the Israelites in relation to the law. Though the former religious realities for Jews and Gentiles were, of course, vastly different, Paul expresses both in terms of slavery (vv.1–3 of Jewish experience under the law, v.8 of the Galatians’ idolatrous experience). In their former religious experience the Galatians had worshiped and served that which they believed to be gods, to be sure, but the reality behind their belief was oppressive idolatry and not God (cf. 1Co 8:5; 10:20).
9 “But now,” in contrast to “formerly,” the Galatians “know God,” or, more precisely, “are known by God” (cf. 3:26–29; 4:6–7). The Galatians do not merely have intellectual awareness of God, but they have experienced intimate familial relationship with him and have been identified as his “sons” (3:26) and as having received his Spirit (4:6). More important (the significance of the “or rather”), they are known by God. He has taken the initiative to come to humanity in the person and work of Christ, and by means of the proclamation of the gospel and hearing with faith (cf. Heb 4:1–2), the Galatians have been incorporated into Christ. This is why Paul asks, more than a little incredulously, how they can turn back to the “weak and miserable principles” of enslavement. Having come to know—and to be known by—the one true and living God, how can they desire a relationship that is anything other than what they have with God in Christ? How can they seriously entertain a return to the “basic principles” (v.3) of a former age when those principles, in contrast to their life of faith in Christ, are now to be characterized as “weak” and “miserable”?
Paul has melded together the pre-Christian paganism of the Galatians and the former law observance of the Jewish Christians and identified both as being under “basic principles” so as to put both into stark contrast with relationship with God in Christ. Both are seen by Paul to have been superseded by the age of maturity in Christ. Compared to maturity in Christ, then, the immaturity of these relational dynamics are “weak” and “miserable.” So he asks rhetorically if the Galatians really want to become enslaved again to these “basic principles.” He assumes, of course, that they will see the logic of his argument and turn away from any Judaizing tendencies—tendencies that will only result in such enslavement.
10 The “weak and miserable principles” the Galatians have apparently adopted are now illustrated by the mention of specific practice: “observing special days and months and seasons and years!” While there has been some debate over what these terms express, most agree that Paul references here the Jewish cultic calendar (cf. Betz, 217–19; Longenecker, 182; Matera, 157; Martyn, 414–18). The “days” may be Sabbath days or special festival days (or both); “months” may refer to regular cultic events and their observance (cf. Isa 66:23) or to the new moon that marked the beginning of each month (Nu 10:10; 28:11); “seasons” probably reflects the more important feasts of the Jewish year, such as Tabernacles or Passover; and “years” may be a reference to Jubilee or sabbatical years. In any case, Paul may not be striving for exactitude here so much as he has in mind the celebration of all types of days and periods observed by the Jews (cf. Burton, 234). A slavish dedication to any or all of these observances is not what maturity in Christ should develop. Paul would save the Galatians from taking up such a lifestyle.
11 So Paul expresses his concern. He is afraid that the Galatians may indeed carry out such a slavish existence by returning to relational (and soteriological) immaturity. This expression of anguish and concern suggests that though the Galatians had begun such practices, this is not the final word on the question. There is hope that they may yet be persuaded to forsake Judaizing tendencies and be restored to maturity in Christ.
NOTES
9 Paul refers here to Torah observance as τὰ ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα, ta asthenē kai ptōcha stoicheia, “the weak and miserable principles.” The word στοιχεῖα (stoicheia) recalls 4:3, referencing the Mosaic legislation, but here Paul adds the pejorative adjectives “weak” and “miserable.” This points to the life experience of those expressing religious devotion by means of law observance, particularly as compared to one’s relationship with God in Christ (cf. Ac 15:10).
REFLECTIONS
Paul thus ends his argument in this overall section (3:1–4:11) as he began it: Righteousness and its attendant ethical lifestyle is a result of faith in God’s promise, now displayed in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Such righteousness does not—for it cannot—come about as a result of law observance. The law was given by God to the people of Israel, negatively, for the purpose of protecting them from the ravages of sin. This negative purpose, therefore, was to show sin for what it is, i.e., to make humanity aware of the terrible nature and consequences of sin. Positively, the law was given to allow the believing Israelite a means to relate properly to God in an age of immaturity and thereby express his or her devotion to him. The law therefore did not contradict God’s promise, in that it was never intended to be a replacement for promise. The law was a temporary extension of the promise for the good of God’s covenant people. When Israel and all humanity reached a point of readiness for maturity, that maturity came in and through the person and work of the promised Seed, Jesus Christ. This is illustrated by Paul in terms of the heir and the age of maturity. The heir receives nothing of all that belongs to him or her until the proper time appointed by the father. In the same manner, the believer receives all the blessings of the promise in the age of the Spirit by virtue of incorporation into Jesus Christ by faith. Paul’s anxiety toward the Galatian converts is expressed in these terms. He fears for their position in Christ, due to their desire to live a lifestyle of nomistic and legalistic practice. His implied desire is that the Galatians heed his warnings in these chapters in order to escape such an existence.