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.
Original Meaning
PAUL’S ARGUMENT FROM experience (vv. 1–5), his thesis that everything in the Christian life comes by way of faith and not through the works of the law, now gives way to his subtle arguments from Scripture. In fact, the present passage is the first in a series of arguments for the truthfulness of Paul’s gospel (3:6–4:31). These arguments form the evidence from which Paul infers his case.
Because Paul’s argument here is complex, I will summarize it briefly before getting into the exposition of individual points. In essence, Paul contends that a person’s justification is by faith and not by works of the law and that this principle is not really new to the people of God. The evidence for these two ideas can be found in the Old Testament. (1) Acceptance by God solely on the basis of faith is as old as Abraham (vv. 6–7). For this point, Paul quotes Genesis 15:6. (2) Gentiles being accepted by God on the same basis as Jews is also as old as Abraham (vv. 8–9); again, Paul quotes Genesis (12:3; 18:18; 22:18). This is Paul’s positive point. Paul then moves to a negative point. (3) The law does not justify because its function is to curse (vv. 10–11). Paul proves this by referring his readers to Deuteronomy 27:26 and Habakkuk 2:4. (4) In fact, the law operates under a different system—not a system governed by faith but governed by doing (v. 12). (5) Paul addresses here, in parenthetical fashion, how it is that people who are condemned (those who live under the law like Jews) can escape the cursing function of the law (v. 13). The escape hatch is found in Jesus Christ, who was cursed by God to absorb the curse of others. Paul proves this by quoting Deuteronomy 21:23. Paul then sums up his point in verse 14: the redemption Christ provides permits Gentiles to enjoy the Abrahamic blessing (his point in vv. 6–9), which is nothing other than the promised Spirit (which is the point of the argument from experience). Before I expound each of these points, I will chart out Paul’s connections:
Faith → Abraham → Gentiles: Faith connects Abraham to the Gentiles.
Justification → Blessing of Abraham → Redemption → Holy Spirit: The justification Abraham experienced is similar to the redemption Christ brought, and both are considered the incorporation of Gentiles into the blessing of Abraham and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Law → Works of the Law → Curse: The law brings a curse so everyone who commits himself or herself to the system of the law decides to inherit the curse of God, rather than the blessing of Abraham and the promise of the Holy Spirit.
Paul’s argument is complex, but the following points are clear: (1) Paul is intent mainly on proving, not that merit-seeking is wrong, but that Gentiles are acceptable to God on the basis of faith in Christ rather than by observing the Jewish law. This is the point of Galatians because of the problems the Judaizers had stirred up. (2) The choice to live under the law is a choice to inherit the curse of the law because the desired items, called variously justification, the blessing of Abraham, redemption, and the promise of the Holy Spirit, come as a result of faith, whether in God (for Abraham) or in Christ (for Christians). Because this passage is so theologically rich and logically complex, I will have to explain the text in greater detail than I have normally been doing.
Acceptance by God solely on the basis of faith is as old as Abraham (vv. 6–7) The “Consider Abraham” of the NIV is a translation of a difficult expression. The Greek text reads literally, “Just as Abraham believed God….” It is difficult to know what to make of the “just as” (Gk. kathos). There are four main options: (1) To connect it with the last clause of verse 5 and translate: “… or the hearing of faith, just as Abraham believed.” While normally kathos introduces a subordinate clause, such a view is not preferable here because verse 5 is clearly a question that ends with “what you heard,” and it is also clear that Abraham did not receive the Holy Spirit. (2) To consider it as an inference and translate it, “Therefore, Abraham believed God….” The obstacle to this view is that kathos never means this. (3) To infer that it is shorthand for “just as it is written in Scripture” and that it therefore introduces a new sentence by way of proving the overall point of verses 1–5 (justification is by faith, not works of the law).1 (4) To consider kathos as an introductory expression for an example: “Take Abraham for an example.” This view is adopted by the NIV, NEB, and JB.2
Abraham, at any rate, is an example of faith from the Old Testament, but what is crucial here is that Abraham was justified by faith; that is, he was fully accepted by God not by observing the law but by faith. For Paul to choose Abraham is more than illustrative: Abraham was seen by Jews as the father of their nation and the quintessential Jew.3 One Jewish work of the era says: “For Abraham was perfect in all of his actions with the Lord and was pleasing through righteousness all of the days of his life” (Jub. 23:10). Jewish writings saw two features of his life: (1) he was considered righteous because he remained faithful through the test of God, and (2) Abraham’s faith of Genesis 15:6 was intimately tied to his submission to circumcision in 17:4–14. Thus, believing and keeping the covenant stipulation of circumcision were to be done together; believing without being circumcised was contrary to Abraham.
The significance of this background here in Galatians is that Paul proves Abraham’s prototypical role without reference to circumcision. Paul’s emphasis (and surely the Judaizers perceived his refusal to follow up Gen. 15:6 with an appeal to ch. 17) is that Abraham was pronounced as “acceptable to God” before his circumcision, making the implication clear: circumcision was not necessary. “As a result, Abraham becomes the prototype of the Gentile-Christian believer, as opposed to the Jewish (and Jewish Christian) observer of the Torah.”4 Abraham was accepted by God solely because he surrendered his entire life to God’s promise.
Paul immediately applies his observation about Genesis 15:6: “those who believe are children of Abraham.” For Paul (as for John the Baptist; cf. Matt. 3:7–10), Abraham’s descendants are those who simply believe; not those who believe and allow themselves to be circumcised. While Paul goes on in verses 8–9 to say that Gentiles are incorporated into Abraham’s blessing and so become “children of Abraham,” Paul also states that the “seed of Abraham” is only Christ (v. 19). That is, his particularistic reading of “seed” leads to the universalism of incorporating Gentiles (vv. 8–9) because faith in Christ is what connects one to God’s promise.5 But as of yet, Paul is not appealing to the inclusion of Gentiles.
I am sure that the Judaizers were offended by Paul’s reduction of Abraham’s response to Genesis 15:6. James, a contemporary of Paul, pointed to a combination of Abraham’s initial faith (15:6) and his faithfulness to God’s call when he sacrificed Isaac (22:1–19), though James was fighting another battle (those who thought credence was enough), and so he saw Abraham’s faith finding its natural active completion in obedience. Paul would never deny obedience as the natural active completion of faith; but when his opponents argued that circumcision (the “work of the law” for a converting Gentile) was necessary, Abraham as an example of justification prior to circumcision came immediately to his mind. So while the Judaizers may have been offended by Paul, and perhaps James would have been bothered by such an inference unless it were clearly explained, Paul knew that he had the Judaizers by the throat. The fact is, Abraham’s circumcision (Gen. 17) came after his pronouncement of acceptance (15:6). Thus his descendants are those who believe, those who opt for the faith system (along with Christ and the Holy Spirit); they opt out of the works system.
That Gentiles are accepted by God on the same basis as Jews is as old as Abraham (vv. 8–9) Having argued that Abraham was accepted by God because of his faith and that the true descendants of Abraham are believers, Paul now argues that Gentiles can be these true believers. Once again, he argues this by appealing to Scripture (Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18). His logic is this: (1) Abraham was justified by faith (Gal. 3:6–7); (2) Gentiles are justified in Abraham because all nations, that is Gentiles, will be blessed in connection with Abraham (v. 8; from Gen. 18:18);6 (3) therefore, since Gentiles are justified in Abraham’s promise, they must be justified as Abraham was: that is, by faith, not works of the law.
The law does not justify because its function is to curse (3:10–11) Paul’s point in verses 6–9 has been simple: Scripture teaches that Abraham was accepted by God because of faith; faith then is the foundation on which humans, including Gentiles, construct their relationship to God. This is his positive argument. Paul now moves to a negative argument: the law of Moses, when it governs a person’s life, brings a curse rather than acceptance with God.
Verse 10 can be read as the basis for verses 6–9: acceptance with God is based on faith because there is no other way—the law only brings a curse, so the law cannot bring acceptance with God.7 It can also be an inference: since Abraham was declared acceptable with God on the basis of faith, then it follows that those who opt for the “law system” are living under a curse since they have not followed Abraham. Whichever explanation is preferred, the net effect of these verses is to provide a negative argument: not only was Abraham declared fit for God by faith, but those who opt for the law will never be fit since the law brings a curse.
We need to explain once again the expression “who rely on observing the law.” This translates hosoi ex ergon nomou eisin (“they who are on the basis of law”). Put more idiomatically, it means “those who commit themselves to the law” or “those who base their salvation on the law” (cf. 2:16; 3:2, 5). The NIV’s use of the word “relying” here can lead to the idea of merit-seeking. But the critical point here is that Paul is not concerned with works-righteousness and merit-seeking. He is describing, in a catchy phrase, the alternative to “those who are of faith” (v. 9 reads hoi ek pisteos: “those who commit themselves to Christ on the basis of faith”). As in verses 2, 5, Paul is setting alternative approaches to God: either through faith or through obeying the law. But in so setting out these as opposites, Paul is not presenting various motives. J. D. G. Dunn clarifies our expression in the following words:
The phrase refers not to an individual’s striving for moral improvement, but to a religious mode of existence, a mode of existence marked out in its distinctiveness as determined by the law, the religious practices which demonstrate the individual’s “belongingness” to the people of the law.8
In other words, this expression does not describe a specific (wrong-headed) branch of Christians but is an apt description of all Jews, especially those who are caught in the web of thinking that their Jewishness is sufficient before God. It casts a dark shadow, of course, over all ethnocentrisms and nationalisms. If “those who are of faith” are all those who, since Abraham, have trusted in God’s promise, then “those who are of works of the law” are those who have chosen to base their salvation in their Jewishness, in their Jewish distinctives, and in their adherence to specific laws of Moses.
More importantly, those who are of the law are “under a curse.” Why? Paul quotes Deuteronomy 27:26: because “cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” It is here that the classical (Lutheran) view of the law in Paul finds its crucial piece of evidence. They argue that Paul is speaking here of the necessity of obeying every commandment for one’s entire life and that he is assuming that it is impossible to obey the law; thus he can argue here (by assumption) that people who choose the law also choose a curse because they will never do what they need to do. This view is sometimes described as the unfulfillability of the law. But there are two substantial problems with this view, so substantial that the view should not be held. First, there was no Jew (eccentrics like the author of 4 Ezra aside) in history who thought that a Jew had to be sinless with respect to the law in order to be acceptable to God. This is obvious from the tabernacle and temple systems; inherent to both is the tacit admission that sinlessness was impossible and therefore confession, atonement, and forgiveness were necessary. Indeed, this is why the pious Jew repented from sin and visited Jerusalem for Passover and why the pious Jew celebrated the Day of Atonement.9 Paul’s comments on his past assume his compliance with Jewish law with respect to sin, forgiveness, and atonement (Phil. 3:4–6).
Second, Paul himself thought the law could be fulfilled by the Christian who lived in the Spirit and lived a life of love (Gal. 5:14; cf. Rom. 13:8–10). So did James (James 2:8) and Jesus (Matt. 7:12; 22:34–40). What we need to observe here is that there is a difference between fulfilling the law and obeying the law on the one hand, and being sinless on the other. Judaism did not assume that one had to be sinless. What they assumed is that the one who undertook its obligation had to obey it thoroughly, an infraction had to be confessed, and atonement had to be made. Those who did do this, like Paul (Phil. 3:4–6), were considered “legally righteous,” though not sinless.
So, if Jews did not think sinlessness was necessary and if Jews, and Christians, thought the law could be fulfilled, then how is it that the “law brings a curse”? The answer to this, I think, is fairly straightforward and has to do with the purpose of the law. Though I must postpone our discussion of this topic until we expound 3:19–25, I can state my view here. The reason the law curses is because that is what the law does and all it can do. The law was never given to make someone righteous nor was it given to give salvation or life.10
What then does the quotation from Deuteronomy 27:26 mean? Probably many think that the emphasis here is on the word everything and that, because “those of the works of law” do not do everything, they are finally condemned. I dispute this view as outlined in the previous paragraphs. In addition to those arguments, there is no reason to place our emphasis on the word “everything.” The only reason interpreters do this is because they assume that the law must be perfectly done to be acceptable with God. But this view was not assumed by Paul (or the Judaizers or Pharisees), and so it should not be assumed here. What we should see here is the connection of “law” and “curse.” Then we should move on to Paul’s comments in verse 11 where he shows, in fact, that salvation is by faith, not by observing the law, because the law cannot bring salvation since it was not designed to do so (cf. vv. 19–25).
Once again, verse 10 means that those who opt for the law are cursed because they are choosing to omit the salvation that can come only through faith in Christ (now that he has come). In choosing for the law they are left to find what they can for salvation in the law; but it will not bring them salvation. It can only condemn (v. 22).
The law operates under a different system: it is not a system governed by faith but a system governed by doing (v. 12)11 Paul has established that the law does not bring acceptance with God; that, even as taught in the Bible (Hab. 2:4), it comes by way of faith. Paul now backs off to take one more swat at the law. The law, he argues, is not of faith (and faith saves); the law demands “performance.” He quotes Leviticus 18:5: “The man who does these things [i.e., the law] will live by them.” Here Paul contrasts the terms faith and does and, in so doing, he shows that the law is not a system of faith. Rather, it is a system of “doing.” Once again, however, Paul does not bring in merit-seeking but only that the law is not a faith system. This is critical for our perception of Paul’s logic.
The curse of the law fell on Christ so others might escape (vv. 13–14) Having established that acceptance with God is by faith in Christ and that those who opt for the law against Christ (as the Judaizers are in effect doing) are cursed by God, Paul now must explain how it is that Christ provides an escape for those who have lived under the law. I take these two verses to be a parenthesis, a pastoral aside.
It is probable here that Paul is speaking especially about Jewish Christians in the phrase “Christ redeemed us….”12 Evidence for this view is found in 2:15; 3:23–25; and 4:4–6, and in the emphasis of Galatians on Jews. Also, it must be added that Jews saw the law as their prerogative and argued that Gentiles were neither under the law nor did they know the law (Rom. 2:12–24). Finally, Paul states that the law lasted only until Christ (Gal. 3:19); how, we might ask, could Gentiles be under the law?
Once again, we need to learn to read the letter the way Paul intended it to be heard. I would contend that it was particularly the Jewish Christian who raised, at this point in the argument, the issue of what to do with the curse they incurred in living (especially previously) under the law. Even if Paul was not specifically referring to the Jewish Christian, the deliverance from the curse of the law would be of paramount importance for the Jewish Christian. If one opts for the view that “us” refers to all people, both Jewish and Gentile Christians, one might appeal to Romans 2:14–15 and argue that, since the law was written in the hearts of the Gentiles, and since Gentiles do not live sinlessly (or seek God’s method of atonement), they also are redeemed for the law’s curse.13 Furthermore, this view is strengthened by the “reversal” of the Galatians: by moving over to Judaism, they were now inheriting the law and its curse.
The term redeemed is drawn from the commercial world and describes “purchasing things,” “buying back a captive,” “liberating a slave through a ransom payment,” or “securing the interests of a family by offering a fee.”14 The essential idea is that (1) people are by nature slaves to sin and under the curse of the law, (2) Christ paid the price of freedom by dying on the cross, and (3) those who trust in Christ’s ransom price are set free from sin and the curse of the law.
How did Christ do this? Christ ransomed Jewish Christians from the curse of the law “by becoming a curse.” What Christ did was to die the death of a transgressor (this is the point of quoting Deut. 21:23). In so doing, he becomes the transgressor because Christ was publicly crucified (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21). But because he was innocent and sinless, he can die on behalf of those who have sinned and so absorb their curse. And because he was divine, he could perfectly satisfy the justice of God (see Rom. 3:21–26).
The redemption Christ accomplished not only freed Jewish Christians (Jews who believe) from the curse of the law; that redemption also made it possible for Gentiles to be incorporated into Abraham’s blessing (v. 14) without nationalizing.15 Moreover, since Christ has absorbed the curse of the law, the law’s murderous power has been exhausted. This means that the era of the law has come to an end, and that in turn means that Gentiles can be accepted by God without becoming Jews, without living according to Jewish distinctives. Put differently, the cross nullified Jewish privilege; this we have already seen in 2:15–21.
Furthermore, now that the curse of the law is over, the new people of God (both Jewish and Gentile) can “receive the promise of the Spirit” (v. 14; cf. Acts 2:33). Paul began his entire argument with this gift of the Spirit (vv. 1–5), and he later sees the Spirit as the power of God’s new people (5:1–26).
To sum up: (1) Paul proves here that Gentiles are acceptable to God because of faith; they do not have to live according to the law to find acceptance with God. In fact, Paul argues that the law era is now over because Christ has defeated its power by absorbing its curse. Abraham is the great example of how one is accepted with God: inasmuch as he was accepted by faith, so both Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians are accepted on the same basis. These people are “those who are of faith.” Those who think they still have to obey Moses both misunderstand the purpose of the law (see vv. 19–25) and will inherit a curse; they are “those of the works of the law.” (2) Paul also argues, negatively, that those who live under the law (i.e., the Judaizers and those who convert to their “gospel”) are going to inherit a curse. Salvation is found only in Christ and through faith; those who add Moses to Christ nullify Christ and those who are “of the works of the law” are not living by faith. You and I would probably give anything to know what the Judaizers had to say about Paul’s polemical arguments here. But we can only guess.
Bridging Contexts
THERE ARE TWO main topics discussed in this text, and it takes two different maneuvers to bring them into our world. First, we need to address the issue of Gentiles being admitted to the people of God by faith. The most important thing for Paul about Gentiles is that they were non-Jews. His perception, which came to him by revelation (cf. 1:16) and was his particular “mystery” (Eph. 3:1–13; Col. 1:24–2:3), was that God was now broadening out his people to include Gentiles. What we have, then, is a fundamental principle: universalism overrides the nationalism of Judaism. As we work through the passage, we find behind it this principle of universalism. We hurry to clarify that it was not that Gentiles were unacceptable to God prior to Christ, nor that Judaism had no place for Gentiles. This would be both inaccurate to the Old Testament presentation and potentially slanderous to Judaism.16 What we are saying is that there is a broadening of that scope and a centralizing of the universality of the truth of the gospel.
This fundamental issue here is both theological and sociological. It is theological in that Paul claims that the inclusion of Gentiles is by faith and that their inclusion is permitted without having to nationalize (i.e., their becoming Jews). Prior to Paul, conversion to Judaism implied nationalizing as well.17 Paul sees in his gospel a denationalizing of the people of God because all are accepted by way of faith. This theological principle has been revealed by God and pertains to the truth of the gospel. But sociologically, this notion was difficult for Jews to fathom because of how they perceived their past. To be a Jew was (and still is) a privilege. To no surprise, it was hard for Jewish Christians in Paul’s day to accept a completely “nationless” construction of the people of God. But this is exactly what he was urging on his converts. Paul wanted the Jewish Christians to relinquish their commitment to the law as what defined them. I believe Paul would have tolerated circumcision for their baby boys, but I also think he would have sharply criticized such behavior if he thought such behavior was being done to express the necessity of obeying Moses in order to be accepted by God.
We can apply to our world the related ideas that the gospel is for all and that social barriers must be broken down by the gospel. We find that the principle Paul is using is that God loves “all kinds of people” and works with “all kinds”; therefore, the church cannot construct barriers to prevent the inclusion of “some kinds.” We must apply Paul’s message to our world by seeing if our churches and our gospel minister to all kinds who believe. We must constantly explore the implications of this kind of universalism for the church today.18
Our second topic for consideration concerns how we are to apply the message of the “curse of the law” on those “who are of the works of the law.” If it is the case that “the curse of the law” is something largely incurred by Jews (and for Paul, the Jewish Christians as well), then how do we apply this to our world? I see three possibilities: (1) for the contemporary orthodox Jew who thinks the law needs to be obeyed and his nation respected for acceptance with God; (2) for the Gentile who has God’s law written in the heart; and (3) for those who cross over the lines of the truth of the gospel by adding various sorts of demands on top of the gospel in order to be acceptable to God.
First, for orthodox Jews. I do not wish here to get involved in the ongoing discussion of the relationship of the variety of American Judaisms to Christianity with its myriad of denominations. My view is that, at the most basic level, Christianity’s relationship to Judaism is unlike its relationship to all other world religions. These two religions are not opposites, though Christianity is the fullness and completion of Judaism. I base my view on Jesus’ teaching on the law (Matt. 5:17–20) and on the early church’s appropriation of the theology of the Old Testament as its own. Furthermore, I believe that Judaism is incomplete and that when practiced correctly, it is in search of what Christ brings.
Paul teaches that Christ is the “end [or climax] of the law” (Rom. 10:4) and that the law ended in some sense with the death of Christ and his absorption of the curse (Gal. 3:10–14, 19–25). This means that obeying the law is disobedient to Christ if that obedience is done in opposition to or completion of Christ; this, of course, is the message of Galatians. This means that the orthodox Jew fits into the mold of the Judaizers’ concerns in Galatians. While Jews today are more and more sympathetic to Jesus, they remain stubbornly opposed to the configuration of theology as taught by Paul.19 Christians need to take a stand here and lovingly and persuasively show that the glory of God’s covenant is revealed through Christ and that God’s promises find their ultimate “yes” in Jesus (2 Cor 1:20). I would contend that the message of Galatians on the “curse of the law” is directly applicable to contemporary orthodox Jews who believe that God accepts people on the basis of obedience to the law and its social distinctives (i.e., on the basis of being a Jew).
Second, for the Gentile who has God’s law written in the heart. Inasmuch as God’s will and law are written on the hearts of all people throughout the world—a teaching of Paul in Romans 2:14–15—we can apply the “curse of the law” to the Gentile. The unconverted Gentile feels the curse in the same way as the Judaizer and the Galatian Christian who converted to the Judaizer’s ways. A conviction coming through one’s conscience stings anyone who goes against what he or she knows to be God’s will. There is an indirect witness to this phenomenon through missionary stories about people who know right from wrong and who have established moral codes that conform to the Judeo-Christian ethic. The point remains the same: the Gentile who has never heard about God’s law can experience the curse of God’s law because that person has been given an internal (call it “innate,” if you will) witness to God’s moral will.
Third, for those who add demands on top of the gospel in order to be accepted by God. This is the primary audience of Galatians, those who added to the gospel of Christ and, in so adding, compromised the sufficiency of Christ and the power of the Spirit. This type of person, whether wittingly or not, adds conditions to the covenant God has established and thus forms an adequate analogy to the Judaizers. There are no conditions for acceptance with God apart from surrender to Christ and life in the Spirit. Additions bring God’s curse. I listed four such additions in the introduction to this book: (1) laws and regulations, (2) experiences, (3) education, and (4) cultural imperialism. Each of these could be explored for applications in our world. Our purpose here, however, is not to apply but to point out the method we need to have in order to make our applications consistent with the text.
Once again, “those of the works of the law” were primarily Judaizers and Jews. It also came to be applied to those Gentiles who converted to Judaism through the proselytizing efforts of the Judaizers. How do we apply this expression to our world? The immediate answer here is that we need to understand why Paul used this expression for these people: they were “of the works of the law” because they chose to embrace a system of religion that did not base itself exclusively on Jesus Christ. In so choosing, these people added the Mosaic law on top of Christ as the means of acceptance with God. For our application today we need to find people who (1) compromise Christ’s sufficiency with their addition or redefinition of the gospel, or (2) who propose that the law is the surest means of obeying God while they dispense with the Spirit as the sure guide of God’s people into the life he wants for them.
These kinds of teachers can emphasize nationalism, racism, denominationalism, or simply a legalism of Christian disciplines. Our surest way of discovering this form of heresy today is to examine how pure our systems of thought are (in comparison to the gospel of Christ) and how cleanly we allow them to operate in our churches. It is frequently the case that, although the gospel is pure, its operations in a local setting are anything but clean. A church can cloud the clear message of the gospel with all kinds of distortions and wrong-headed notions. A church’s health is defined by whether it worships God in his holiness, responds to him warmly in his love, and lives according to his will in loving holiness. We should inspect our own systems to see if acceptance with God is based solely on Christ and if we urge the power of the Spirit for Christian living. If any of these principles are missing, they may be because some form of “works of the law” is at work as a virus corrodes a computer system.
Contemporary Significance
WE CAN CERTAINLY apply to our world the twin ideas of God’s revelation that the gospel is for all and that it breaks down social barriers. Indeed, God loves “all kinds” of people and works with “all kinds”; therefore, the church cannot construct barriers that prevent the inclusion of “some kinds.” We must apply Paul’s message about the inclusion of Gentiles on the basis of faith to our world by examining whether our churches are ministering to all kinds who believe. In other words, is your church universalistic?
We can approach this problem of universalism by way of principle: universalism means acceptance of all, and thus we need to examine where and where not we are accepting all. This deductive logic: if it is true that God loves all, we must see if we are loving all. I would like to approach this another way since we have already proceeded by way of principle.
We can also approach this issue historically and socially: we can probe how Gentiles were treated by Jews in Paul’s world and then see which groups are in a similar relationship to us. One problem here is that Jews did not treat Gentiles in the same way in all places. For instance, some Jews formed enclaves, like the Essenes at Qumran (they were flourishing at the time of Paul), and had little contact with Gentiles. The entrance of a Gentile into the congregation at Qumran would have been treated with considerable alarm, and the Gentile would have been immediately expelled as unclean. Other Jews living in Palestine, in a place like Nazareth, rarely came into contact with Gentiles; when they did, they responded to them appropriately but no doubt developed little or no relationship to them. Yet other Jews living in Palestine, because of their business associations, had regular contacts with Gentiles. There were further variations in the Diaspora. Some Jewish communities assimilated themselves quite naturally and completely into the life of their Gentile community. The synagogue at Sardis, a few centuries after Paul, was in effect the city center. By exploring the social and historical situation we can gain insights into how the gospel might fit more appropriately in our world.
More particularly, we can say that Paul operated in Diaspora communities with Gentiles in a way that was different from the manner he had in Jerusalem, since the social meaning of interaction with Gentiles was completely different. Paul’s inclusion of Gentiles in most Diaspora churches was tolerable because it is likely that proselytes had already made their social impact on Jewish synagogue communities. But his startling demand that they need not convert completely to Judaism would have been uncomfortable for the Jews still in the synagogue and for many Jewish Christians. The theological problem was simple: Would Jewish Christians let the universalism of the gospel have its full realization? And would this realization be impeded by strong-minded people of a more traditional view? This social setting is one avenue for bringing the text into our world.
I think it appropriate here to find analogies for application: what kinds of people make us uncomfortable when they are included in our churches? (Let us assume that these new people are Christians; I am not talking here about the uncomfortable feelings many Christians have when known crooks or known sinners are enmeshed into a church without signs of conversion.) To repeat, what kinds of people are uncomfortable for us?
For many churches, people who join “their” church after a long relationship with another church from a different denomination are unsettling. Sometimes this discomfort arises from a Christian practice (like the gifts of the Spirit, raising hands while singing), at other times because of doctrinal variations (like eternal security, views of the future, variant translations of the Bible), and at still other times because of suspected doctrinal deviations (like the truthfulness of Scripture or the deity of Christ). I maintain that while different denominations seem to flow naturally from human sinfulness and the inability of Christian leaders to be infallible in their judgments, it is fundamentally important for churches to maintain a unity of the Spirit when people of diverse viewpoints are worshiping and living together. We do not really need the Spirit if we are identical. But we do need his Spirit to enable various people to live in unity. God wants people of variety to worship and live together because he takes delight in seeing the Spirit of God create one new people as a witness to the world of his grace.
Let us apply this universalism here to the racial problems in the United States as an example. Some people (mistakenly) think there is no problem of race in the U.S. churches. Nothing could be further from the truth. In addition, I would argue that God does not mean for there to be “black churches,” “white churches,” and “Hispanic churches.” The development today of the “black gospel” and the “Hispanic gospel” is, in my view, a distortion caused by what is taken to be the gospel: the “white gospel.” When whites learn that the gospel they believe has been shaped massively by their white culture, we shall make progress.20
We can apply our passage to the racial issue because both of the main issues arise in the interaction of blacks and whites. There is a nationalism (we have a “white gospel”) and a “works of the law” type of thing going on (we socialize into white suburbia). What Paul teaches is that the gospel of Jesus Christ is for all, all together, not all apart or each in its racial quarter. The issue separating Paul’s gospel from the Judaizer’s gospel was as much Jewish versus Gentile as it was Moses versus Jesus. And the issue separating black and white today is as much racial as it is religious. In fact, I would say that it is ninety percent racial; the religious elements separating blacks and whites are hardly known (besides whites being stiff in their worship style). Paul did not raise his gospel in our church and ask us to part, like the Red Sea, into two separate congregations. God gave to each of us the Spirit of God so that we could be one and worship together. The gospel of Christ allows black children to walk from Sunday school class to the worship service holding hands with little white children.
I have seen “mixed congregations” work. I also know that it takes effort to understand one another and to be flexible over issues that seem natural to one group and wrong to another. I know that the work is sometimes hurt by personal fights between leaders who have different racial, socio-economic, and ideological backgrounds. But I believe in God’s Spirit and I believe God wants us to work together.
I shall make some recommendations for better working together. First, I recommend that my white readers attend a black church for awhile. I recommended this to one of my students one time, and he is now pastoring in a black church in the inner city. I also recommend that my black readers attend a white suburban church for awhile. I ask that each observe and not judge. I suggest that each ask questions of each other. Perhaps it would be good for a black church in an inner city (Aren’t most in the inner cities? Have you every asked why?) to form a relationship with a white suburban church and let pastors lead worship services and preach in one another’s churches.
Second, I suggest that each person develop a raised consciousness about the issues of race. I ask that my white readers not write off Jesse Jackson every time he sees a racial issue at work. He is rarely completely wrong about the influence of race. I also ask that my black readers not write off Republican candidates as people who are only fostering white supremacy. How specifically can we develop a racially-sensitive consciousness? I know of only one way: whites get to know blacks and blacks get to know whites. Ask them to your homes and learn about each other.
I finish this section with a story. For several years my parents lived in Atlanta, and we visited them a couple of times. On one of the occasions we took a pilgrimage with our children, who were then twelve and nine, to the Martin Luther King, Jr., Center, off Auburn Street in downtown Atlanta. We visited the center, the museum, and the Ebenezer Baptist Church. We picked up literature and read a book about “M.L.” But mostly we absorbed the life that he lived—a life that fought hard but peacefully for racial justice, a life that pursued God’s justice both through biblical study and social work, a life that ended tragically because of the accurate gun of a racist.21
Our time in that center will not be forgotten. We were also surprised at the number of Atlantans we became aware of who have never been there and wondered why we would want to go there. We were disappointed that in Atlanta, the major city in the South where Martin Luther King, Jr., spent so much of his energy, segregation is still the rule in the churches. We were hurt because we knew that they knew that God’s message was for all kinds. We knew that their cute little white children were learning to sing a song that was not having the desired effects because of their institutionalized practices: “Red and yellow, black and white, all are precious in his sight; Jesus loves the little children of the world.” Their practices seemed to teach that Jesus loved only whites. Let the message of Paul about the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God have its intended power in our world today!