Galatians 4:21-31

Please read the passage first.

Paul now offers his seventh and final argument, this time an allegory based upon the biblical woman, Hagar and Sarah. I invite you to read the story in Genesis 16, 21, and the genealogy of Ishmael in 25:12-19. Paul uses the allegory to suggest the difference between the two covenants. Interestingly, some ancient rhetoric thought of allegory as a weak argument. Yet, others thought that “darkly hinting expressions” can be quite effective. The power of the flow of his argument is that he ends by emphasizing the contrast between slavery and freedom. I invite you to reflect upon how shocking it must have been that those who valued Jewish tradition are actually children of Hagar and Ishmael, while Christians are actually children of Sarah and Isaac. Paul confronts the audience, again, with a metaphorical contrast. The contrast is between spiritual freedom and spiritual slavery (in this instance, in particular, the notion "son[s] of the slave girl" versus the "son[s] of the free woman"), but also the metaphorical contrast between flesh and promise. He further suggests the salvation history under which he understands the relationship between Law on the one hand and Christ on the other. As Paul sees it, the Law is not the timelessly valid form of the divine will. It is a positive historical entity.

Paul wonders if they have listened to the witness of Scripture. It is not enough to be descended from Abraham, for Ishmael is an example.  It is necessary to be a spiritual rather than physical descendant.  Isaac's birth pre-figured Christians.  Pau now endeavors to reinforce his argument by means of an allegorical interpretation of the Genesis story of Hagar and Sarah, with their respective sons Ishmael and Isaac. Paul calls his interpretation allegorical in verse 24.

In verse 26, for Paul, the Christian is now part of a spiritual city symbolized by Jerusalem. His reference suggests it was common in early Christian communities to make such reference. One can see this in Hebrews 12:22, 11:10, 16, Revelation 3:12, 21:2, 9ff.

In verse 29, Ishmael represents Jews while Isaac represents Christians. 

In verse 30, Law and Gospel cannot co-exist.  The Law must disappear.  Lightfoot was of the opinion that in Paul's day half of Christianity clung to the Law. Calvin and Luther unite in saying that Paul refers to both the ceremonial and moral law. Luther refers to the scholastics, who teach this distinction. However, later, so would John Wesley.

According to Betz, the argument goes something like this:

Hagar¢ Slave woman¢ Ishmael¢ Flesh    ¢ Jerusalem         ¢ Judaism

Sarah¢ Free woman  ¢ Isaac     ¢ Promise¢ New Jerusalem¢ Christianity

 Lightfoot breaks out the allegory in this way.

Hagar the bondwoman - Sarah, the free woman

Ishmael, the child of the flesh - Isaac the child of promise

Old Covenant - New Covenant

Earthly Jerusalem - Heavenly Jerusalem

Muhammad developed an elaborate argument to say that life was in Abraham because he lived before the law. Of course, they went a quite different direction, continuing with food prohibitions, stated times of prayer, facing toward Mecca, and ultimately, seeking to shape Islamic Law and culture throughout a people.

For Tolmie, in this passage Paul uses the authority of Scripture to present an allegorical exposition of the Hagar-Sarah stories dominated by a metaphorical contrast between two kinds of adoption as children, one characterized by slavery and the other by freedom. He does so in order to urge the Galatians not to yield to the opponents, but rather to remain "free." Furthermore, the metaphorical contrast is used to vilify the opponents as their "gospel" is categorized as religious "slavery."

Galatians 4:12-20

Please read the passage first.

Paul is making a series of emotional appeals. From the standpoint of rhetoric or the art of persuasion, Paul is trying to get them to identify with him. He pleads, he uses their former behavior toward him to shame them for their behavior now, vilifies his opponents, and he expresses affection. Betz thinks Paul is now arguing from perspective of his friendship with them.

In verse 13, the illness may have prolonged Paul's stay in Galatia.  He took the opportunity to preach the Gospel. Of course, they would know precisely what Paul meant here, and we do not have that advantage.

In verse 16, in telling them the truth Paul is their friend. The truth he is not telling them, says F. F. Bruce, is the same as what he told them when first he came among them, and on that occasion it won their friendship for him. For this truth is nothing other than the good news of divine grace. If it is true, then the other gospel brought by the trouble-makers is self-evidently false.

In verse 19, Pannenberg goes so far as to say that Christ is to achieve form in the life of every Christian as in that of Jesus born to Mary. Paul is not envisioning two stages in Christian experience, being justified by faith and having Christ formed within on. Rather, one implies the other.

In verse 20, Paul is going through inward questioning about them. F. F. Bruce says that Paul may have the concern here that they will concentrate on the uncompromising severity of his language and overlook the underlying concern and affection. He would like to be present so they could hear the tone.

Galatians 4:1-11

Please read the passage first. A warning is in order, for this reading has stimulated much theological discussion. I will do my best to make it clear. 

Paul makes his fifth argument for his gospel, in which he focuses upon another aspect of his vision of salvation history. The implications of his arguments are radical and dangerous to those who saw the future of the church intimately interwoven with the future of Judaism. He stresses that the coming of Christ means the “fullness of time” has come, and for that reason, the time of Law, which meant slavery, is giving way to faith in Christ, which means becoming children of God. Paul has compared the Law to a prison-warden and a slave-attendant. Now, he compared its role to that of the guardians and trustees appointed to take care of a minor and his property. Thus, Paul offers another illustration that comes from law courts.  Though the Jews are chosen as heirs, yet they are only slaves to the Law.  Any Christian who wants to submit to this slavery is back to a state of childhood.  Paul now expands upon the image of being children of God.  The heir is the state of the world before, the Gospel.  Jews and Gentiles are under tutors, all having a system of ordinances.  Is the father of the heir represented as dead or living?  Since the point is the circumstance of the child, it is likely the father is living.  Is the imagery from Roman or Jewish Law?  It is likely the Romans.

Of particular note is the reference in verse 3 to “elemental spirits.”   Paul develops the theme of Christian freedom from slavery to the Law and to the elemental spirits of the world. J. Louis Martyn offers an interpretation of stoicheia that suggests the term refers to the elemental substances from which everything in the natural world is composed. He argues that the rival missionaries in Galatia may have sought to convince the Galatians that their worship of pagan divinities was an ill-informed worship of the natural elements that ought to point them to a truer form of religion. Abraham, who moved through the contemplation of the heavenly bodies to discern the God who made and ordered them, would exemplify such religion. Their point would be that the Law provided the true understanding of the natural world and the heavenly bodies, and therefore, regulated the calendar of human religious observance in a manner that enabled correct celebration of holy feasts at the proper times. Of course, Paul disparages this in verse 10. In fact, uses a variety of ways to describe the human plight, and stoicheia of the world is one, others being sin and death that Adam brought into the world.

In verse 4, God sent Jesus when the time was right to serve as the agent of redemption and adoption. Theologically, this notion of the sending of the Son is the New Testament origin of the notion of the Trinity, and it has its counterpart in the sending of the Spirit that we find in the Gospel of John,.  "Fullness of time" is the messianic or eschatological era, which completes the long wait of centuries.  One might translate it more precisely as “when the time had reached its full term.” "Fullness" means much more than an end of a period of time. "Fullness" suggests that one period of time has ended so that another can begin. It can denote the legal transition from childhood to adulthood. Furthermore, as a slave fulfills the time of his or her service, he or she becomes free; a new status is taken on, a new era has begun. First, it was the fullness of time in relation to the giver.  The moment had arrived in God's plan.  Second, it was the fullness of time in reference to the recipient.  The human race had to reach a mature age.  Law had worked out its educational purpose and God now superseded it with the sending of the Son.  Negatively, it was the purpose of the Law to deepen the conviction of sin and thus to show the inability of all existing systems to bring people near to God.  Positively, it assumes a moral and spiritual expansion. Barth says that the entire notion of the fullness of time pictures time as an empty vessel, not yet filled, but waiting to be filled up at a particular time. “Fullness” suggests a vessel, plan, concept, or form being filled full. The Old Testament promises are without content apart from the coming of the reign of God in the man, Jesus, and therefore defective in themselves, yet, being related to this event, they are not for nothing. Time has a similar character. It has the defect and advantage of being a time hastening toward the time of Jesus and is then destined to move away from His time. The new age brought in by Jesus is not a refutation of the old age. The old age had fulfilled its time, its purpose. All time from the moment of creation was moving toward this new time of redemption and release. A new age has begun. No longer does the Law hold sway; it is the season of grace! Christ has inaugurated a new regime.

"Sent" includes concept of pre-existence.  The significance of this passage for Pannenberg is that Christology begins with the primitive Christian interpretation of the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ. Messiah implies the thought of divine sonship. It early had the sense that in the man Jesus the preexistent Son of God came to earth. Only God could be behind this event, namely, the sending of the Son into the world. the sending of the Son coincides with his birth from a woman. We are to think of Jeremiah, the servant of the Lord, and Paul as he describes himself in this letter. The point is that the Son has entered the sphere of earthly existence with its conditions and relations. This applies to all his earthly course that we find mention not only of his birth but also of the subjection of his earthly course to the Mosaic Law.

In verses 5-6, as God redeems and adopts the believer, he or she can call God, the Almighty, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, "Abba, Father." "Abba" is an Aramaic word best translated "Daddy." "Abba" probably originated among Jews in Palestine. It probably relates Jesus referring to God in this way, and possibly to the Lord’s Prayer. The point is the freedom such adopted children can have in prayer. It suggests the power of response to divine love in prayer issuing forth in freedom related to adopted children. Putting Aramaic and Greek forms together symbolized Jewish and Gentile unity. It is most likely that Jesus used this word in reference to God. The word became significant to later generations of those followed Jesus. Through the grace of Jesus Christ, believers are heirs of the riches of the Kingdom of God. These verses remind the believer of the basics of faith in which they stand and offer the good news that anyone who calls God "Abba" is part of the family. The abolition of the Law and rescue from bondage was a prior condition of the universal fellowship of God family.  Though Mosaic Law is uppermost in his mind, Paul extends it to all systems. 

The negative aspect of redemption is freedom from slavery.  The positive is adoption as children.  However, it is not just an inheritance, but new life, in which Paul associates the Trinity.  The presence of the Spirit is thus a witness to being children of God.  We should note that here, the gift of the Spirit is the result of adoption as children. H. B. Swete says that the mission of the Son is to give the rights of being in the family of God and the mission of the Spirit is to give the power of using them. H. Schlier (1971) said that God bestows on us not only the status of children through the sending of his Son, but also the character and knowledge of children through the sending of the Spirit. God bestows on us the character and knowledge of children because we are already in the status of children. For Pannenberg this passage shows that reconciliation occurs as humanity is taken up into fellowship with the Father of the Son, a taking up that occurs through the Spirit, who assures that this reconciliation is no longer coming solely from the outside. We ourselves enter into it. The goal of the sending of the Son is to be found in others. As Paul sees it, a special link exists between the death of Jesus by which believers are liberated from the dominion of sin, Law, and death. Therefore, the sending of the Son aims at the reconciliation to God of the world. The Spirit brings the mission of the Son to its completion. Where this freedom of the Spirit is, our reconciliation to God has reached its goal.

In verse 8, Pannenberg says Paul implicitly gave Christian theology the task of a natural theology in saying of the gods that the Galatians had worshiped prior to their conversion that in contrast to the God of the Christian message; they are by nature no gods. This statement implies that the God of Paul’s gospel is the only true God by nature. The formulation by Paul fits in with the philosophical question of natural theology as to the question as to what is by nature divine. For him, Christian thinking could not evade discussion of the philosophical criterion of the genuinely divine that we must regard as the origin of the world. The God of Christian proclamation would need to meet the philosophical criterion.

In verse 11, the Law is the beginning instruction.  The child must be taught by rote.  However, Paul is speaking of both Jew and Gentile here.

Galatians 3:23-29

Please read the passage first.

Paul now offers the second part of his fourth argument, making the point that we have liberation from the Law because faith replaces it. By their faith, Christians are already the seed or descendants of Abraham. The social barriers that Law establishes find their reconciliation by faith. Paul can appeal to their acceptance of baptism, and thus, he appeals to their Christian experience in community and as individuals. Baptism and faith belong together. In the missionary setting in particular, baptism is acceptance of the Christian message. It establishes participation in Christ and in the Christian community.

This text begins with verse 23, as Paul continues to describe what the true nature and function of the Law have been for humanity. Instead of being the gateway to justification before God, the Law was a watchful jailer, keeping people from any further transgressions (3:19). At times, the Law may have seemed more like a benevolent guardian, but it was still keeping men and women imprisoned. The Law served this necessary but inferior purpose until the "time of faith" arrived. “Faith” here could mean both the subjective opening to faith and the objective teaching of “the faith.”

In verse 24, Paul clarifies that "time" as "until Christ came." Paul describes the Law before Christ's coming as being "our pedagogue" (NRSV: "our disciplinarian"). In Roman and Greek families, the pedagogue was a slave whose entire job was to supervise carefully young children, in and out of the home. The pedagogue was not primarily a teacher but was an "enforcer," making sure strict rules of discipline and correct behavior were practiced.

The time of justification is now here, Paul declares in verse 25. The pedagogue is now relieved of its duties. The Law is no longer in charge. Actually, the transformation that occurs during this time is twofold. First, faith in Christ replaces the guardianship of the Law. Second, the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise now goes into effect. According to Paul's previous argument, the heir to the Abrahamic covenant/promise could only be Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:8). Now that this Christ has come, all the Galatians, all the Gentiles, become true "children of God" through their faith in Christ.

I think Pannenberg is particularly instructive on what is happening in verses 23-25. We have a historically conditioned argument in that the time of the Law ended with the coming of the message of eschatological salvation. The gospel could not have initiated a new epoch in salvation history if in content it had not been independent of the validity of the Law. The relationship to the Law is not constitutive for the concept of the gospel. If we miss this point, he says, we fail to see the distinctiveness of the New Testament gospel message of the saving presence of the divine rule. Pannenberg makes it clear that the coming of Christ is the end of the epoch of Mosaic Law. The Law is not the definitive form of the righteous will of God. The Law is a provisional entity related to a world that is perishing. All forms of Law, while provisional, have a role in the world before the arrival of the end. In fact, New Testament ethical reflection primarily focuses on unfolding the implications of the fellowship of believers with Christ, a point to which we will soon come in the course of this letter.

In verse 26, Christians are “in Christ.” In verse 27, their baptism is “into Christ.” Such phrases imply a state of fellowship or union together with Christ of all believers. Paul describes those who have experienced this baptism as being "clothed with Christ." The metaphor itself intends to suggest more than a mere exterior layer, but to "take on the character of" or "to become as" Christ himself. Such images bring into focus the intense connection between Christ and those who follow Him. For F. F. Bruce, putting on Christ is a way for Paul to write of the spiritual transformation that occurs as believes participate in Christ.

Paul's excitement over the power of this baptismal unity becomes evident in verse 28. In particular, of course, breaking down the wall between Jew and Gentile was precious to Paul. Yet, for the Jew, this cleavage was the most radical within the human race. One might also note that the cleavage between owner and slave was significant as well. Yet, from what we can tell, some early bishops were slaves. In terms of Christian communities, in a practical way, he did not want anything to disrupt the present fellowship of the community. Paul applied the principle to women as well, in Philippians 4:3 and I Corinthians 11:10. Luther says that one might extend the list indefinitely: There is neither preacher nor hearer, neither teacher nor scholar, neither master nor servant, and so on. For him, in the matter of salvation, rank, learning, righteousness, influence count for nothing. Dissolving these differences also suggests that in Christ there is no hierarchy - morally (Jew/Gentile), economically (free/slave) or socially (male/female). All distinctions are removed, religious caste, social rank, sex.  "One heart beats in all, one mind guides all, one life is lived by all."

Paul's argument concludes by returning to the theme of 3:7, 9, 14 and 16 - the identity of the true descendants of Abraham. The argument turns on the identity of the Christian fellowship with Christ. Physical descendants are no longer important, but those who believe in Christ and belong to him. There is no longer any doubt about who can lay claim to the promised Abrahamic inheritance - it is all those who "belong to Christ." The promise of righteousness that God granted to Abraham and his offspring is fulfilled. All those in Christ may lay claim to God's promised gift.

Galatians 3:19-22

Read the passage first.

This passage is the first part of Paul’s fourth argument against his opponents. Paul will again approach his view of salvation history, in that the Law served a temporary purpose in the plan of God for saving humanity. Although the Law has a purpose, Paul explains it in a way that clearly suggests its inferiority to the way of faith. Paul seems to anticipate a question his readers may have at this point. The last thing he would want is to suggest that one can cut oneself from the faith of Abraham, and the faith that many people in the history of Israel. Yet, one might why God gave the Law in the first place. Lightfoot says that the Law has a purpose, but it is inferior to the promise at four points: 1) It condemns rather than gives life; 2) it is temporary, 3) it did not come directly from God to humanity, 4) it is a contract whereas the promise is unconditional.

In verse 19, the sinfulness of humanity led to the enunciation of the Law. At least part of the positive purpose of the Law was to limit sin.

In verse 20, the giving of the Law in Exodus and Deuteronomy does not include angels, but it was part of Jewish tradition that angels were present. Interestingly, within some parts of the Jewish tradition, namely, apocalyptic, the Law itself will be done away by the coming of the Messiah. It would be quite natural for Paul, convinced as he was that Jesus was the promised Messiah, to also say that God has provided a way of salvation apart from the works of the Law.

Verse 21 stresses that if Law could give life, then justification would have come through it.

In verse 22, the Law brings the universal human plight of sin to awareness. We should stress that the Law brought captivity and imprisonment, for Paul will hold out to his readers the possibility of being set free. 

Galatians 3:15-18

Please read the passage first.

Paul makes makes his third argument, this one from experience, namely, that of making a will. The argument is from minor (a human will) to major (the divine will or testament). His argument does sound strange, for even after “ratification” of a will, human beings can change it or annul it and make a new one. This fact would weaken his argument. However, the general point is clear. The divine will or covenant that God gave to Abraham, one he has shown that rested on faith, came over 400 years before the Law came. The Law cannot nullify the faith that Abraham and that made him right with God. Verse 16 refers to Genesis 15:7, a promise to the descendants of Abraham. Yet, Paul uses the passage to refer to Christ. The argument is a difficult one.

As Luther comments upon this passage, he says that Law has two purposes, one civil, in restraining people from doing harmful things upon threat of punishment, and the other is spiritual, to convince us that we are sinners. The Law must break the power of self-righteousness in order to prepare the way for Christ. The Law brings sin and death, but then the Gospel enlivens. 

Galatians 3:10-14

Please read the passage first.

Paul continues his second argument, part two of the argument, only this time from a negative perspective. In verse 10, for him, Deuteronomy 27:26, makes the argument that everyone who relies upon the works of the Law is under a curse. Quite likely, the meaning is that even if someone could obey the Law in in its entirety, one would still be under a curse. He will make the reason for this clear in verse 11, where he refers to Habakkuk 2:4, which says that the “righteous,” those who are right with God, will live by faith. He contrasts this in verse 12 with reference to Leviticus 18:5, which says that those who obey the Law will live. His point is that Law demands a way of life that it cannot produce. For Paul, the way of life that was open to those who perfectly obeyed the Law is now closed. We find the reason for this in verse 13, where Christ fulfills another Scripture, this time Deuteronomy 21:23. In that passage, anyone who hangs upon a tree is cursed. Joshua 10:26-27 has five Canaanite kings hung, and then taken down by sundown. Paul has experienced the full “curse” of the Law, so that human beings now have the faith open to them. Christ has “redeemed” or “ransomed” those under the Law in this way. The reference is to a form of slavery from which humanity has been redeemed. Luther and Barth emphasize that in the crucifixion, the innocent one, Christ, took upon himself the sin of Paul, the readers of this letter, and every person in the world. In line with Adam, we justly receive punishment, for we are guilty. Christ was not. He was not a sinful man, of course, but he bore the weight of sin. He bore this weight during his life, as he was considered to be unstable (beside himself in Mark 3:21), received rejection from his family, was judged as a friend of sinners, a deceiver in John 7:12, and a blasphemer in Matthew 9:2 and 26:26. Pannenberg stresses that this passage is among many that show Jesus as the representative of humanity. For him, giving one’s life vicariously for society is a special case in human history. In this case, then, because of who Jesus is, he has vicariously given his life for humanity, in every time and place.

In verse 14, the Spirit becomes the pledge of the final appearing of Christ, of the redemption and perfecting of the world reconciled in Christ. He is the assistance that we need to move toward this final goal.

Galatians 3:6-9

Please read the passage first.

This passage his the first part of his second argument in favor of his gospel and in opposition to the argument of his opponents. The argument is a positive argument, in that makes the affirmative case that the Scripture, properly read, is the basis for salvation by faith, apart from the works of the Law. The argument assumes respect for Scripture, and is thus, an argument from scriptural authority. Clearly, Paul assumes that his readers share, with him, regard for what the Scripture says. His opponents apparently connected being a child of Abraham through obedience to the Law, but especially circumcision. Essentially, Paul introduces his distinctive understanding of salvation history, one that begins with Abraham. He was a child of faith, and therefore becomes the father, the ancestor, of all those who have faith. His primary reference is to Genesis 15:6. Paul wants to make the point, scripturally, that if Gentiles have faith in Christ, if they believe the gospel, they share in the same affirmation of Abraham. The blessing they receive is that of justification, of being right with God.

Galatians 3:1-5

Paul offers his first argument, in which he makes an appeal to their experience, as a Christian community, of the Holy Spirit. He does so by a series of rhetorical questions. One reason this appeal might be persuasive is that people are not prone to doubt their own experience. The use of rhetorical questions can, in itself, be persuasive. One way to think of the argument is that the opponents of Paul recognize that they began with Christ, but now, they need to complete their faith, they need to bring it to completion, through the Law. For Paul, their argument denies the significance of the death of Christ and exchanges liberty for bondage.
             In verse 1, the word "bewitched" is interesting. Martin Luther said that Satan has sometimes even distorted his vision of Christ. The devil has this uncanny ability to make us believe a lie until we would swear a thousand times it were the truth. The cross was central to the gospel has Paul preached it. The cross 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.

The phrase “public display” has come in for some discussion. Luther thought of the “public display” as powerfully put forward in preaching. Betz agrees. Gunther Bornkamm prefers the idea of a notice or proclamation publicly set up, a decree promulgated by authority. Karl Barth refers to Christ being on public display before humanity in terms of the gentleness of God toward humanity. The likeness of God becomes accessible and visible to us. True, this entry of the Logos into humanity is a veiling, a kenosis (self-emptying) and passion. God bends down to us in a form familiar to us. God does not meet us as a stranger. In Jesus Christ, we find one like God and like us. Now, if this public display in the cross could happen, it may be that just the mention of his death set into motion a whole series of reflections.

In verse 2, the contrast is between faith and works. Luther says that his opponents regard faith as an easy thing, “but I know from personal experience how hard it is to believe. That the Holy Ghost is received by faith, is quickly said, but not so quickly done.” He suggests that “reason” experiences offence because people will rely upon “carnal security” and people will “do no good at all.” F. F. Bruce says Paul assumes that they had received the Spirit and that they knew that they had received the Spirit when they heard and believed. The implication is that there is no higher privilege for mortal human beings than the gift of the Spirit. Since this gift was received through believing the gospel and not through obedience to the Law, the superiority and sufficiency of the gospel called for no further demonstration. The Spirit is the guarantee of final salvation.

In verse 3, the rhetorical question appeals to their beginning in the Spirit, but ending in the “flesh,” a word that could refer to general human weakness, but likely refers to circumcision of males, something the original readers would have supplied, given the nature of the debate.

In verse 4, F. F. Bruce points out the large degree of silence in Acts about these churches.

In verse 5, Paul could appeal to both their experience of faith and “signs and wonders” as a result of their belief in what they heard, apart from any “works of the Law.”

Throughout this section, Paul has brought to their attention the role of the Spirit in their community and individual life.

Galatians 3:1-4:31

Briefly, this entire section, which some scholars would extend to 5:1 and others to 5:12, is the portion of this letter that deals with doctrine. What Paul is doing is offering counter arguments to the arguments that his opponents have presented. Frank J. Matera summarizes this section by saying that they already enjoy the gifts of the Spirit in 3:1-6, they are already children of Abraham in 3:7-29, he rebukes them for returning to their religious infancy in 4:1-11, he makes a personal appeal in 4:12-20, and he appeals to the Hagar and Sarah analogy in 4:21-31. My studies suggest at least seven arguments, and each post will, I hope, help us understand better the argument of the opponents of Paul, as well as the argument Paul is presenting. 

Galatians 2:15-21

I invite you to read the passage first.

One way to read this section is as a continuation of the argument of Paul with Peter. Betz suggests that verse 14b-21, which he views a speech by Paul to Peter, is a summary of the letter. However, in the context of this letter, it reflects his concern with his opponents in Galatia. Paul is stating that it is impossible for him to turn back and accept again that it is possible for human beings to be justified by means of the Law. He is also making a forceful statement that his apostleship, far from being inferior to that of Peter, as his opponents suggest, is on equal footing with that of Peter.

            The text is concerned with the theological fall out created by the actions of Peter and the others in Antioch.  Jews by birth and Gentiles sinners shows the most basic insider/outsider distinction.  Despite his privileged position as a Jew, Paul now declares that the Law does not offer justification.  Nothing human beings can do, not even obeying the Law, can create this rightness.  Nowhere here does Paul dismiss the Law as useless.  He only denies that it serves any purpose in justifying anyone before God. 

            This text forms the crux of Paul's aggressively polemical letter to the churches of Galatia: Those who seek to justify themselves by obeying the Law given to God's people Israel are doomed to failure in the light of God's justifying and salvific work in Christ's death and resurrection.

In 2:15, Paul is still narrating his encounter with Peter. After having accused Peter of hypocrisy “before them all” (2:14), Paul reminds Peter that they share a common bond in their Jewish heritage (“we are by nature Jews and not Gentile sinners”), clearly an attempt to temper his harsh words. However, Paul’s conciliatory gesture is not a precursor to compromise, for he continues by asserting that freedom from the Law is brought to the believer through justification by faith (2:16).

The specific point in question was table fellowship between Jews and Gentiles. While Jewish Law forbade (and forbids) observant Jews to eat Gentile meat, no prohibition prevented shared meals, provided basic dietary restrictions were observed. Paul accuses Cephas of hypocrisy in his vacillation between strict separatism and a more accommodating stance toward Gentile table fellowship, depending on who (and especially whether "the circumcision faction," v. 12) was watching.

            In characteristic fashion (see also Romans 9:3; 2 Corinthians 11:22), Paul emphasizes his own Jewish identity (v. 15) in order to make the point that he came to acceptance of Jesus as the promised Christ/Messiah from within the Jewish tradition, not as one of the "Gentile sinners," a harsh and asymmetrical phrase found only here in the entire Bible. The obvious rhetorical balance for "Jews" would simply be "Gentiles" as Paul writes in the preceding verse. It is unclear what point Paul is seeking to drive home by lumping all non-Jews into the category of "Gentile sinners," especially since his audience in Galatia would have included a sizable number of people who would have been considered Gentiles by the Judaizing faction Paul is opposing. Betz suggests that “Jews by birth” was a self-definition of Jewish Christians. This was how Paul began to distinguish early Christianity from Judaism. “Gentile sinners” was how Paul began to distinguish between Jewish sinners and non-Jewish sinners.

To be "justified" (or "reckoned as righteous," v. 16) is a prominent theme in Galatians - more prominent, in fact, than in any other book in the New Testament except Romans (see, e.g., in addition to this verse, 2:17; 3:8, 11, 24; 5:4).

The term has an important place in theology. Luther, as one can imagine, expounds upon the notion that justification means no “self-merit” when it comes to being made right with God. Christ is no Law-giver, but a Life-giver, a Forgiver of sins. Barth will also stress justification, nothing that as Paul gained the insight that one becomes right with God through faith, he also became convinced of the impossibility of justification through the Law. He has quite good discussion of the phrase “faith of Jesus Christ,” the debate being over whether it is an objective genitive (faith in Jesus Christ) or a subjective genitive, “faith of Jesus Christ.” If the latter, which Barth thinks likely, it would that the faith of Christ, revealed in the cross, is the basis for “our” justification. To return to the courtroom imagery, the faithfulness of Jesus (presumably in his death on the cross) is the basis of the judge’s (God’s) verdict of “not guilty” that is handed down to the defendant (believer). This does not apparently negate the significance of the “faith” of the believer in Jesus (“and we have come to believe in Christ Jesus”).

In verse 16, we find one of the most succinct and dense statements about faith in Jesus Christ anywhere in the letters of Paul. The first clause, “a person is justified not by the works of the Law,” draws on courtroom imagery to describe the status of the believer before God. Here and in other places in his letters, Paul seems to envision God as a judge, while the believer is a defendant who stands accused of a crime (i.e., exhibiting sinful behavior, or in some cases simply possessing a sinful nature). The question, then, is the way in which the defendant can gain an acquittal (i.e., be “justified”). Paul here asserts that Torah observance (“works of the Law”) is not sufficient for such a verdict. Rather, he continues, a person is justified “through the faith of Jesus Christ,” or, “through faith in Jesus Christ.” Faith is the means of justification. Barth stresses that the point Paul is making is not that faith is “better,” but rather, salvation is through Christ and not Law.

In any case, verse 17 lets us know the argument of those who advocated that Gentiles must become Jews before they can become Christians. As Betz puts it, the phrase "found to be sinners" means that the opponents of Paul were calling Gentile Christians "sinners" because they have not come under the grace of Torah. They do not abide by key portions of the Law, and are therefore "sinners." Yet, Christ is not the servant of sin. 

In fact, Paul has died to the Law in order to live to God. To "build up again the very things" he once tore down (v. 18) would be, for Paul, to transgress into his former state of captivity to the law from which his faith in the "Son of God" (v. 20) has freed him. In this context, Paul's faith in Christ is his renunciation of the world, including its established moral precepts. Paul expresses that renunciation as his having "been crucified with Christ" (v. 19), an expression he uses here and in Romans 6:6 to describe the utterly profound nature of his conversion in baptism.

Verse 19 could have two meanings. In either case, it seems like linking this phrase to the death of Christ, by interpreting it as referring to the fact that the believer participates in the death of Christ, is preferable. First, it could mean that Christians are dead with Christ and thus to Mosaic Law, and so already share the life of the risen Christ. Second, it could mean that Christians are dead to the Law in order to obey a higher law of faith and the Spirit.  This means that the Jewish people in particular need to die to the Law in order to receive the freedom that God offers in Christ. A change of lordship has occurred, and one cannot be under Law and under Christ.

Barth says it has become impossible for Paul to try to go further along this impossible way of the Law. Now, we might ask, in what sense can we die to the law through the law?  First, its character was immediately present.  Second, it reveals sin.  The Law provides no remedy.  Paul finds a valid use for the Law in v. 19, but hardly one his opponents would expect.  If it was shocking for Paul's listeners to hear him declare that he had died to the Law, it was even more startling to hear him claim he had also died with Christ.  Under the Law, a right relationship with God was dependent upon how obediently Paul followed the works of the Law.  Paul specifies two unmerited, unexpected acts of God's Son that makes commitment to Christ, not to the Law, so easy.  Because Christ loves me and gave himself for me, Paul will not nullify the grace of God.

In verse 20, by faith Christ becomes the subject of all the living acts of a Christian.  Though Christians are still living in the flesh, they already have the Spirit. In the previous verse, death was release from past obligations.  In the present verse, it is annihilation of old sins.  Crucifying and rising are tied together.  The "now" is his new life in Christ.  Barth says that for Paul, his life in the flesh has become an opportunity for faith in Christ, the Son of God, who loved me and has given himself for me. The bridge behind him has been broken. The boats on which he might have set out on the way back have been burned. He has no basis for any other life. Any such life that seeks justification by the Law would only mean that he rejects the grace of God, that he thinks Christ might have died in vain, that he transgresses the true law under which he stands. Pannenberg stresses that here, Paul can refer to the cross as an expression of the love of Christ, while in Romans 8:39, it expresses the love of the Father.

Paul concludes this portion of his argument by casting in absolute terms the contrast between justification through faith and justification through works: If the Law justifies, then God's grace has been nullified and "Christ died for nothing" (v. 21). Justification through faith in Christ and not through works of the Law is, of course, a fundamental and recurrent theme through all of Paul's writings (see, for example, his discussions of and variations on this theme in Romans 3:9-20, 6:1-14, 8:9-17, 11:1-16; 2 Corinthians 5:14-21; Ephesians 2:1-10; Philippians 3:2-11.) It is not an exaggeration to say that justification through faith is the center of Pauline theology, and increasingly became so as Paul sought to spread the message of the gospel to an ever wider and more influential audience.  

Galatians 2:11-14

            I encourage you to read Galatians 2:11-14 at this time.

Tolmie thinks that 2:11-21 recounts Paul’s version of the incident at Antioch in order to show how he stood firmly for the truth of the gospel. Many others would concur with him. It constitutes the third defense Paul offers of his apostleship and of his gospel, that he personally confronted Peter at Antioch. I will present this segment in two sections, but mindful that they may well constitute one flow of thought.

Lightfoot takes this passage as occurring immediately after the “apostolic congress” in Acts 15:30-45. This would seem likely to many other scholars as well.

            In verse 11, Betz says that Cephas stands between Torah and freedom, and therefore is self-condemned. Luther stresses that one must always stand up for the truth.

“For defending the truth in our day, we are called proud and obstinate hypocrites. We are not ashamed of these titles. The cause we are called to defend, is not Peter’s cause, or the cause of our parents, or that of the government, or that of the world, but the cause of God.”

            In verse 12, Betz says that the term “drew back” refers to the military tactic of withdrawal. In “keeping himself separate,” Peter followed Jewish ways when they were present. Paul says Peter did his out of fear, pleasing people rather than his own conscience. Lightfoot notes that the people to whom Paul refers are from the Jerusalem church.  They may have come invested with some power as James.  Chrysostom seems right in suggesting that the disciples in Jerusalem continued to practice circumcision among Jews, not seeing it as practical to make such a radical break with the Law. It did not serve the larger missionary strategy. However, it also appears that they early recognized that one should not require this practice among Gentiles. In fact, the account of the council in Acts 15:5 identifies the opponents of Paul as those who had converted from the sect of the Pharisees to following Christ.

            Separation at the agape meal, which symbolized Christian fellowship, was serious indeed. It might be helpful to provide some textual background for this quite Jewish concern. The Letter of Aristeas (Second Century BC) articulates the reason for such separation, namely, to prevent Jews being perverted by contact with others or by mixing with bad influences, for Moses hedged them in on all side by the Law. In Jubilees 22:16, we read the admonition, “Eat not with them … for their works are unclean.” Such texts remind us that any religion rooted in the clean and unclean establishes barriers between those who are “clean” and those who are not. Such Law separates by its nature. In fact, the vision that Luke records in Acts 10, a vision Peter received concerning unclean foods, reflects how deeply embedded such separation can come. One way to read the passage is that even after spending so much time with Jesus, it took a revelation from God in a dream to convince Peter that what God has made is not unclean.

Luther stresses in all of this that Paul opposes Peter, not because Peter was malicious, but because he was inconsistent in the application of principle. All of this is a reminder, I think, of the difficulties involved in overcoming culturally embedded prejudices toward anything.

            In verse 13, the rest of the Jewish converts are referred to.  Barnabas was “led astray” by emotions. This incident with Barnabas may have prepared the way for the later separation.  Paul expresses sympathy and regret. It probably affected Paul more than anything else mentioned in this passage.

Galatians 2:1-10

I invite you to read the passage first.

We now have a shift from his calling as an apostle toward the content of his gospel. The purpose is an attempt to prove that the authorities in Jerusalem acknowledged both content and the origin of his gospel. Tolmie says that most scholars think Paul is recounting the same incident as recorded in Acts 15, but the rhetorical setting of the letter has shaped his account.  

Paul has referred to his conversion, which likely took place around 33 AD, and to his first visit, around 36 AD, and now, 14 years later, 50 AD. Acts records visits to Jerusalem in 9:26-30 (36 AD get acquainted), 11:27-30 (48 AD to deliver famine relief from Antioch), and 15:1-3 (50 AD Jerusalem Council). In any case, one of the debates among scholars is whether this is the same council to which Luke refers in Acts 15.

In verse 2, Paul honors the Twelve, of course. Yet, one of the tensions in this passage is what appears to be lack of respect toward them. I hope to show, however, that this is not a required reading of this passage. Paul does seem to desire their blessing for what he is preaching.

In verse 3, Paul is being careful.  He wants to maintain his own independence, and yet he must not compromise the Twelve.  Shortly before visiting Galatia the first time, Acts 16:3 says that Timothy had been circumcised. Lightfoot wonders if there was a time when Paul insisted on circumcision.  In any case, Titus is an example of Paul not doing this, although he was a Gentile.

In verse 4, it is possible the Twelve at first desired Titus to be circumcised in deference to Jewish converts.  Nevertheless, convinced by Paul's testimony, they withdrew the request and supported Paul. His opponents are not genuine believers, he says, they are counterfeits. J. D. G. Dunn suggests that it would be hard to distinguish the opponents in Galatians 2, II Corinthians 10-13, and Acts 21 from what would later be Ebionites. Irenaeus has the most concise statement of these people were and what they believed in Against Heresies 1.26.2, stressing that they did not think of Jesus as divine, use only the Gospel of Matthew, repudiate Paul as an apostate from the Law, practice circumcision, and adopt a Jewish way of life. Clearly, the Jewish Law is at the heart of this discussion. Among the struggles with the Law, Martin Luther stresses that Law always focused upon the extent “I” have done the right thing, instead of upon Christ.

In verse 5, “we” includes Barnabas.

In verses 6-9, Paul deals with the esteem with which the Galatian churches held the Twelve. One way to read verse 6 is that Paul deprecates, not the 12, but the extravagant claims of his opponents. A parallel is in II Corinthians 11:5, where Paul stresses that he is not inferior to certain super-apostles. Martin Luther stresses the need to offer respect to those in offices, whether in the church or in the community. In fact, he even says,

“I would honor the Pope, I would love his person, if he would leave my conscience alone, and not compel me to sin against God. But the Pope wants to be adored himself, and that cannot be done without offending God.”

In verses 7-10, the original disciples “knew, recognized, perceived, had insight into” the grace of God working in Paul. They saw it for themselves. Chrysostom thinks this shows that the real problem was not with the original disciples, but with others who claimed to be representing them. In any case, note the concise summary statement. Paul refers to the “grace” working in Paul, which also happens to the content of the Gospel Paul preached. They also extend “the right hand of Christian fellowship” to Paul, recognizing his equality with them. In fact, this recognition may be the most important aspect of this visit. Further, recognizing a mission to Jew and Gentile, at least offers a hint of missionary strategy, recognizing that it will take a different set of strategies for different people groups.

1:11-24 First Defense

I invite you to read 1:11-24. Paul says that his apostleship is from God and independent of Jerusalem. He recounts events of his life to prove the divine source of his message. Note the use of the word "gospel" seven times in verses 6-12. Even  here, the real issue is the gospel. Martin Luther notes that it is easy to depart from the teaching of justification by faith. He says that he knows in what slippery places even those who seem to have a good footing in the matter of faith. In verse 13, Paul stresses that he was zealous. In his time, Martin Hengel says in The Zealots, it referred to religious and ethnic purity. He says the same in Philippians 3:6. We can see this zeal in Numbers 25:6-18, Sirach 45:23-24, I Maccabees 2:54, and 4 Maccabees 18:12. The point, in verse 15, is that God was writing the story of Paul. Like the prophets, such as we find in Jeremiah 1:5 and Isaiah 49:1-6, he was set apart in the womb. Pannenberg, in his Systematic Theology, Vol 2, 354-5, says that this appearance of the risen Lord to Paul receives confirmation by the disciples of Jesus. His experience was similar to their own. Now, far from pleasing people, Paul went to Arabia, in verse 17, quite likely an opportunity to preach to the Gentiles. Or at least, so John Chrysostom and F. F. Bruce think. Now, Paul often shows his fidelity to the church in Jerusalem. His general point, of course, is that his calling as an apostle and his gospel are of divine origin, which is clearly a different account than that of his opponents.

Galatians 1:11-2:21 Narrative

You might want to read this entire passage together first, to get a sense of the flow of the argument. Paul is offering a narrative defense of his gospel and apostleship. It becomes an autobiographical sketch. Aristotle says that sometimes, when persuading people of a future course of action, you have to do some remedial or corrective work in your "introduction." You need to deal with prejudice against yourself, and maybe call into question your opponents. Paul is clearly doing that in this passage. I will, in the next posts, discuss each part of the narrative defense.

Galatians 1:6-10 Warning

I invite you to read these verses. Paul is offering a warning by means of a rebuke and curse. He says there is no other gospel. He expresses his disgust in order to get them to reconsider their position. As Aristotle notes, sometimes the speaker has to change the frame of mind of his listeners in order to persuade them to a course of action. In this case, he wants them angry at his opponents, and even angry at themselves, for having so quickly turned away from what Paul taught them. As Calvin notes on verse 6, there is no "right time" to revolt from Christ. His surprise is that they have left their freedom so quickly. In verse 7, Paul claims to represent Christian orthodoxy. I am not sure what to make of the suggestion by Betz that "anathema" is an example of excommunication. This was the word used in later Christian tradition to "excommunicate" someone. The Roman Catholic Church placed an "anathema" upon Luther, and recently removed it. Yet, it may simply mean, as Calvin suggests, that it should never have gotten a hearing. It is a "curse" upon the people to whom Paul refers. In verse 10, the accusation is that Paul is doing nothing more than pleasing people, that is, Gentiles, by making it easier for them to be Christians.

Galatians 1:1-5 Address

I invite you to get our your New Testament and read this passage. The address, which is usually little more than our "Greetings," becomes an extended greeting that emphasizes the divine commission of Paul, and therefore the divine source of his apostleship. In addition, Paul stresses that Christ is the source of their liberation, he set them free. This emphasis proves to be an outline of the letter, as 1-2 defend his apsotleship, 3-4 defend the gospel of Christian liberty, and Chapters 5-6 show the benefits of these people accepting the correction Paul is bring to them. Note that his appeal is to Christian tradition, and therefore to shared knowledge that Paul hopes will bind his readers to him. John Calvin points out that a false prophet could make the claims Paul makes here. In fact, both Luther and Calvin stress that all ministers of the gospel need to witness to the divine authorization of their ministry. In verse 4, we need to note that when Paul says that Christ "has set us free," there is a dimension of personal liberation upon which Paul is asking us to reflect.

Introducing Galatians

I will keep this blog relatively simple. I will post a summary of what I intend to cover in the Bible Study at Triple S (Salad, Soup, Scripture), a wonderful class full of learners. This group wanted to study some of the shorter letters of Paul. Our first such letter is Galatians.

I have found these resources helpful for commentaries. Hans-Dieter Betz, Francois Tolmie, James Dunn, Richard Longenecker, Frank J. Matera, J. Louis Martyn, Richard B. Hayes, and F. F. Bruce. For contact with the Christian tradition, I have also read John Chrysostom (349-407), Martin Luther (1535), and John Calvin (1509-1564). I read John Wesley's notes as well. One of the uniquenesses I often bring to my biblical studies is that I also include some systematic theologians, especially as they may comment upon the text. In this case, I have found most helpful Karl Barth and Wolfhart Pannenberg.

Of course, Paul wrote this letter, sometime between around 49-58 AD. From the above resources, I would say that weight of scholarly opinion is on the side of the "south Galatian theory," meaning that Paul wrote to the churches to whom Acts refers. However, most also think that the reference to a meeting in Jerusalem with the leaders of the church there is the same as the meeting to which Luke refers in Acts 15. That meeting would occur around 49-51 AD. The letter would be written soon after this. If so, the letter is among the first of the letters of Paul.

It seems clear that Paul is writing to people with whom he has a relationship. He is agitated that they have so soon allowed another group of missionaries enter their community and lead them away from what he taught. His opponents think that while one begins with faith in Jesus as the Christ or Messiah, Christians need to complete their walk with the Jewish Law, including circumcision of males.

This conflict stimulates Paul to reflect upon salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, apart from the Law. He reflects upon the biblical basis for this Christian teaching, showing that faith is prior to the presence of the Law. He reflects upon the significance of baptism, an act that unites all Christians, rather than separates them into separate camps, as have his opponents. He reflects upon the significance of their experience of the Holy Spirit, especially in terms of making Christians children of God who empowers them to bear the fruit of the Spirit, creating a community of liberation or freedom.

Paul is clearly agitated. Maybe angry is a better word. Many modern authors explore the connections between ancient rhetoric to the way Paul develops his argument. In this connection, Gorgias, a dialog of Plato, is an interesting read, for Socrates argues that rhetoric is quite useless. Yet, Aristotle, in his little book, Rhetoric, lays out some of the principles of rhetoric that students of rhetoric still find helpful. For him, rhetoric is the art of using language to communicate effectively and persuasively. Betz thought that the form of rhetoric Paul used was that of a court of law, or forensic rhetoric. For him, his readers are the jury, Paul is the defendant, and his opponents are the accusers. My own judgment is that I cannot imagine Paul viewing anyone, other than God, as his judge. I cannot image Paul looking at his spiritual children as his "jury." However, they are a population group that he hopes to persuade. This would make to a form of deliberative rhetoric. He wants to persuade them of a future course of action, involving their return to the gospel he preached, and the benefits of life in Christian liberty, faith, and life in the Spirit, all apart from the Law.

The church today can be grateful that Paul has laid out his vision of salvation by faith in Christ, apart from the Law. Here is how one is made right with God, or justified, in the sight of God. He also maintains a strong ethical connection, for this faith always works through love and bears the fruit of the Spirit. The God of Abraham and Israel,  is also the Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and thus, Paul has his version of salvation history.