Pauls Defece of the Truth - Gal 2.15 - 3.22

7/31/2019 Pauls Defece of the Truth - Gal 2.15 - 3.22

1/18

Galatians2:15-3:22

Review and Expositor, 91 (1994)

Paul's Defense of the Truth of the Gospel RegardingGentiles (Galatians 2:15-3:22)

David Garland

In Galatians 2:15-3:22, Paul continues his appeal to personal history and thenargues from the spiritual experiences of the Galatians, from complexinterpretations of Scripture passages, from testamentary devices from everydaylife, and an explanation of the function of the law in salvation history to make hispoint about the truth of the gospel concerning Gentiles. Just as slaves are notrequired to become free and females are not required to become males to be fullyaccepted in Christ as heirs of salvation, so Gentiles do not need to become Jewsto become sons of Abraham and heirs of the promises.

The Truth of the Gospel (2:11 -21)

Galatians 2:11-21 is the third andfinalunit in a larger section, 1:13-2:21, whichcatalogs Paul's contacts with Jerusalem and the so-called "pillar apostles" andvalidates the independence of his gospel. In 2:11-14, Paul describes a theologicalshowdown in Antioch between himself and just about everybody else, includinghis mission partner, Barnabas. Paul does not give the Galatiansa blow by blowaccount but does furnish enough details to provide a context for his ringingwords in 2:15-21. Paul has no intention of calling Cephas' reputation intoquestion or tarring all the Jewish Christians who broke fellowship with Gentileswhen the men from James dropped in with the charge of being spinelesshypocrites. What happened in Antioch is relevant because the truth of thegospel was at stake, and it is once again endangered in Galatia. As Paul tells it,Cephas apparently had no compunction against eating with Gentiles (2:12a) butlater withdrew, presumably at the urging of the menfromJames. Gentile andJewish Christians sang, prayed, and preached together but then divided up,going to separate tables when the time came for the meal in which the Lords'Supper was celebrated. In effect, the Antioch church was split along ethnic linesinto two churches. Paul alone recognized the theological ramifications of whatCephas may have regarded as simply pastoral discretion, and he wants theGalatians to be aware of his heroic intervention on the side of the truth of thegospel. He has steadfastly resisted all encroachments on that truth so that itmight prevail for the Gentiles (2:5).


2/18

Jewish FoodLaws and the Exclusion ofGentiles

The unpleasant incident at Antioch was rooted in the Jewish restrictionsregarding food that epitomized God's intention to mark off the people of Israelfrom the unwashed hordes who disobeyed God's commands (see Lev. 20:25-26;Isa. 52:11). From the time of Ezra, pious Jews made serious attempts to make thisseparation a reality. The Bible's dietary prohibitions made any associations withGentiles problematic because their food might have been sacrificed to an idol(Exod. 34:15; 1 Cor. 10:28), might be a forbidden animal (Lev. 11:1-20), or mighthave been prepared improperly (Exod. 23:19). Direct connections were madebetween the Gentiles' impurity and their immorality. In Jubilees 22:16, Isaacadmonishes Jacob:

And you also, my son, Jacob, remember my words, and keep thecommandments of Abraham, your father. Separate yourself from theGentiles, and do not eat with them, and do not perform deeds like theirs.And do not become associates oftheirs. Because their deeds are defiled, andall their ways are contaminated, and despicable, and abominable.

Daniel was judged a hero precisely because he would not defile himself withthe pagan king'srichfood and wine and was delivered by God as a result of hisdevotion pan. 1:8-16; see also Tobit 1:10-12; Judith 12:1-4; 10:5; Joseph andAsenath

7:1, "Joseph never ate with the Egyptians, for this was an abomination to him").Stories such asDaniel's were particularly significant during therigorousanti-Judaism campaign waged by Antiochus Epiphanes. One of the motivations forthe Maccabean revolt was to make it possible for Jews to maintain their heritageof circumcision, Sabbath observance, andritualpurity commanded by God.Refusing to eat swine's flesh under threat of death became a courageousdemonstration ofa Jew's wholehearted fidelity to God (see 1 Mace. 1:41-50, 62-64; 2 Mace. 6:18-31; 7:1-39). Gentiles could only be completely accepted if theycompletely accepted Jewish manners and customs. Josephus explains theJewishpoint of view toward the admission of Gentiles:

The consideration given by our legislator to the equitable treatment of aliensalso merits attention. It will be seen that he took the best of all possiblemeasures at once to secure our own customs from corruption, and to throwthem open ungrudgingly to any who elect to share them. To all who desireto come and live under the same laws with us, he gives a gracious welcome,holding that it is not family ties which constitute relationship, but agreementin the principles of conduct (Against Apion 2:209-210).

If Gentiles balked at submitting to these accepted Jewish principles of conduct,they were not received into the family of Israel.

Later Christians had a dramatically different view regarding such Jewish


3/18

Galatians2:15-3:22


practices. In Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 10, Rabbi Trypho is amazed at theChristian's way of life in the heathen world. He says:

But this is what we are most at a loss about: that you professing to be pious,and supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particularseparated from them, and do not alter your mode of living from the nations,in that you observe no festivals or sabbaths, and do not have the rite ofcircumcision.

The church did not evolve naturally to this position. The incident in Antiochbears witness to the fact that many Jewish Christians saw themselves as simply arenewal movement within Judaism and regarded newly converted Gentiles as

proselytes who needed to be circumcised and to adhere to Jewish mores if theywere to become fully certified as members of the covenant community.

Paul's Response to Cepitas at Antioch

In Galatians, Paul sketches three encounters with Cephas which revealstartling changes in the relationship. Paul is first Cephas' guest (1:18-20), thenacknowledged as his fellow apostle (2:8-9), and then his vehement critic whopublicly rebukes him. At Antioch, Paul stood alone against one reputed to be apillar (2:9), the men who come from the brother of the Lord, his companion in

mission, and the rest of his fellow Jews. Just as he had resisted the false brotherswho exerted pressure on him (2:1-5), Paul insinuates that Cephas should haveresisted the pressure from the men from James in Antioch. Instead, he caved inand, as a result, "stood condemned" (2:11), the opposite of justified, because hedid not "walk straight toward" (oiihopodeuein) the gospel (2:14). He was notzigzagging; he was headed off in exactly the opposite direction. In 2:15-21, Paullays out the basis for this shocking conclusion.

This passage is best understood as a summary of Paul's response to Cephas atAntioch, and Paul records it because it is applicable to the situation at Galatia.1 Itreviews in theological shorthand the gospel which he preaches. Markus Barthclaims that the key to understanding 2:15-21 is Paul's query in 2:14c, "If you

though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how do you compel theGentiles to live like Jews (to judaize)?" Three questions emerge from thischallenge to Cephas that find their answers in 2:15-21.2 What does it mean to"live like a Gentile"? Why does Paul use the present tense of "to live" sinceCephas had already broken off fellowship with the Gentiles and was nowsupposedly back in the fold living like a good Jew who kept himself from beingdefiled? What does it mean to "compel Gentiles to live like Jews"? FromCephas' point of view, he had only withdrawn from eating with Gentiles out ofexpedience. As the "apostle to the circumcision" (2:7-8), he probably wasconvinced that he should behave accordingly in matters of food and fellowship

with Gentiles. There is no indication whatsoever that he applied any pressure on


4/18

them to become Jewish in living. He was not dictating to the Gentiles what theyshould or should not do.

Paul's statement, "we are Jews" in 2:15, indicates that Paul is addressing Peter,not the Galatians; and he begins his response by citing theologicalpresuppositions shared with the other Jewish Christians. He could be making adistinction between the natural advantage that Jews have over Gentile sinners orsaying that we are Jewish sinners and not Gentiles sinners (see Rom 2:17-29).Despite so-called Jewish advantages, we Jews also believe in Christ forrighteousness (2:16). The reason we Jews are only saved by faith in Christ andnot by works of law is because no fleshincluding Israel!can be justified onthe basis of works of law. The point that he is trying to score is that Jews andGentiles are justified in exactly the same waythrough the faith of Christ and

faith in Christand consequently works of law have given the Jew no specialedge when it comes to justification. How are Gentiles saved? Only throughChrist. Jews are also saved only through Christ.

Two expressions used by Paul here deserve further discussion. The phrase"works of law" (eiga nomou) appears six times in Galatians (2:16; 3:2, 5,10) andtwice in Romans (3:20,28; see "works" in 4:2,6; 9:12,32; 11:6). It may refer to thefulfillment of certain commandments to achieve acceptance with God but morelikely refers to specific ordinances of the law, namely, circumcision, theobservance of dietary laws, and Jewish feast days. These are the "identitymarkers" that separate JewsfromGentiles as the sole people of the covenant.

The phrase "faith ofChrist" appears here in 2:16 and again in 3:22 (also Rom.3:22; Phil. 3:9) and is much debated today. An increasing number of scholarsargue that it is a subjective genitive, "the faithfulness exhibited by Christ," ratherthan an objective genitive, "faith in Christ," which is how it is rendered inEnglish translations. The arguments for interpreting it as a subjective genitiveare weighty. First, translating it as an objective genitive creates a curiousredundancy, repeating faith in Christ and believing in Christ (particularly in 3:22and Rom. 3:22). Second, idiomatic Greek expresses the object of faith with thedative case (see 3:6, "Abraham believed God") or with the prepositions epi or eis(Rom. 4:25; Gal. 2:16; Col. 2:5) not with the objective genitive (compare Rom. 4:16,ek psteos Abraam, which does not refer to "faith in Abraham" but "Abraham's

faith"). Third, Paul argues that we are "justified in Christ" (2:17), that "Christlives in me" (2:20a), and that he lives "in the faith of the son of God who lovedme and gave himself for me" (2:20b). The contrast is between an individual's ora group's "works of law" and the work of Christ, his faithfulness in handinghimself over for our sins (1:4; 2:20; 3:13; 4:4-5). The work of Christ in the cross iscentral. This interpretation is confirmed by what Paul says in Romans 5:19where he contrasts the disobedience of one man with the obedience of one man,and in Ephesians 3:2 where he states that in Christ Jesus our Lord that "we haveboldness and access through his faith" Galatians 3:22 should be translated "inorder that what was promised (3:16) might be given through Jesus Christ's

faithfulness to those who believe." In no way does interpreting this phrase asreferring to Christ's faithfulness to God in his death on the cross negate the


5/18

Galatians2:15-3:22


necessity for us to respond in faith. It recognizes that receiving by faith thepromise from God is made possible only through what Christ has alreadyaccomplished by his faithfulness.

Paul next addresses in 2:17 an objection to this gospel: "And if seeking to bejustified in Christ we find ourselves to be sinners, is Christ then an abettor ofsin?" He responds vigorously, "By no means!" The logic of the dissenter mightbe that if one need not be obedient to the law to be justified, then, because ofChrist, it does not make any difference whether one is a common sinner or arighteous Jew, whether one is pious or impious, or whether one is obedient ordisobedient. The upshot of this theology would seem to be that Christ isindifferent to the sinfulness of the one justified in him, and this slackness servesonly to foster sin since it does not appear to matter one way or the other. Paul's

interpretation of faith in Christ encourages ethnic Jews such as Cephas todisregard the dietary laws and restrictions commanded by God in Scripture. Hisgospel maintains that the age old Jewish criteria for distinguishing sinners fromthe righteous are no longer valid. According to Romans 3:9, both Jews andGreeks are under the power of sin (see Rom. 5:6) whether they are circumcised ornot. That gospel, carried to an extreme as Paul is wont to do, uses Christ as anexcuse to ignore and break the law (see comparable charges in Rom. 3:8;6:1,15that Paul regards as slanderous).

Paul gives three counter arguments in 2:18-21 to this absurd conclusion. Eachis introduced by the word "for" (gar). (1) In 2:18, Paul argues that rebuilding

what has been torn down would show one to be a transgressor. What is torndown and built up again is salvation on the basis of works of law. The JewishChristians considered themselves justified before God on the basis of faith inChrist, not on the basis of their Jewishness. When it comes to the Gentilequestion, however, they reinstate works of law as a litmus test to determinewhether or not Gentiles are sinners or are acceptable table guests. This stance isa rejection of Christ and his work.

(2) In 2:19-21, Paul argues that he is dead to the law. This statement assumeswhat is developed in 3:10-14, that the law hopelessly condemns all who fail tofulfill every last one of its requirements. Justification does not mean that Godsays, "Okay, I will simply forget about sin. You are now free from

condemnation." In Paul's view, we are not spared the law's righteous judgment.We are found guilty by it and do not escape the capital punishment that the lawexacts. But we go through its righteous condemnation with Christ(see 3:13).That means, however, that the law can have no further claim upon us or else itwould be a case of double jeopardy (see also Rom. 6:7; 7:1-4). Only in Christ am Idead to the law and not a transgressor having been crucified with him, but I amalso made alive through Christ that I might live to God.

(3) Paul's third argument implies that the troublers in Galatia set aside thegrace of God with their theology as Cephas and the others unintentionally did bytheir pullback from the Gentiles in Antioch (2:21). The behavior of Cephas and

Barnabas and other Jewish Christians is tantamount to a rejection of justificationby faith. To join the Jews at the Lord's table the Gentiles would have to


6/18

"judaize," live Jewishly. The commandments of the Mosaic law about how oneis to relate properly to God through circumcision, dietary laws, and observancesof days and seasons would then regain their validity. If the law remains valid inthis regard, then Christ died for no purpose. Paul understands Christ's death toentail that salvation is free; but the misguided troublers claim that there still is anentrance fee. Paul maintains that Christ's death means that God chose to treat allpersons, including Gentiles, impartially; the troublers avow that they will only betreated impartially when they become Jews like us. Paul perceived whatapparently no one else did. By imposing the same old distinctions contained inthe law they have nullified the salvific significance of Christ's death. BeforeChrist's death if one wanted to become a part of God's covenant people, oneneed to be circumcised. After Christ's death, some are insisting that to become a

part of God's covenant people one still needed to be circumcised. If that is thecase, then Christ's death accomplished nothing because nothing has changed.Paul's gospel throws the doors open to all those who believe in Christ and doesnot nullify grace that scandalously receives with open arms even the undesirableand unwelcome.

We can now resolve the questions of what Paul meant in 2:14. "Living like aGentile" does not mean living a lawless, sinful life. Paul's statement in 2:20spells out what it means: "The life I now live I live by faith." Paul is a Jew and asuccessful one at that (Gal. 1:13-14; Phil. 3:3-11), but he lives under God as ifbeing circumcised on the eighth day, of the race of Israel, tribe of Benjamin, a

Hebrew of the Hebrews, and a zealot for the traditions means absolutelynothingin other words, as if he were a Gentile (see 4:12). His status before Godis the same as any Gentile sinner who believes in Christ. His righteousness doesnot come from his Jewishness or his Jewish accomplishments based on the law("my righteousness," Phil. 3:9). It comes as a free gift through Christ to Jews andto Gentiles. "Living like a Gentile" therefore means living not under God's lawfor salvation but under God's grace. This explains Paul's use of the presenttense, "you are living like a Gentile." He is not referring to any particularbehavior in the past but to Cephas' present life under God. It also explains whyPaul interprets Cephas' behavior as compelling (see 2:3) the Gentiles to judaize.It is not that Cephas was goading the Gentiles with words or compelling them by

force. Instead, he was behaving as if their uncircumcision made them secondclass citizens.

If there had been a church bus at Antioch, the Gentiles would always havehad to move to the back. In the church building, one might find a Gentile waterfountain and a Jewish water fountain; and the Gentiles would have had to sit in aspecial Gentile balcony section. Signs in various areas of the church might warn,"Jews Only, No Gentiles Allowed," and the bulletin logo might announce"Separate but Equal in Christ." In practice, however, the Gentile Christians wereconsidered to be unfit for full equality. The compulsion was subtle but real. IfGentiles wanted to eat the Lord's Supper with Cephas and the other Jewish

Christians, they would have to do something to make themselves fit. Theywould have to become Jews, submit to circumcision and abide by Jewish dietary


7/18

Galatians2:15-3:22


regulations. The truth of the gospel, as far as Paul was concerned, does not mixwith this kind of compulsion.

Paul says that God had separated him for the service of the gospel (1:15), butGod did not separate him from other humans. Justification by grace is not justsomething that happens to an individual; it "is a joining together of this and thatperson, of the near and the far, of the good and the bad, of the high and the low,the radical and the conservative. It is a social event. No one is joined to Christexcept together with a neighbor."

3Every attempt at any kind of segregation is

branded by Paul as a denial of justification through faith in Christ. The gospel isinclusive and is not the gospel when it is used to exclude others on the basis ofexternal, human distinctions that do not matter to God. No religious group canlegitimately claim to be of Christ ifit excludes others on the basis of human

criteria and in effect says:

We are God's chosen fewAll others will be damnedThere is no place in heaven for youWe can't have heaven crammed.

The Galatians' Experience of the Spirit (3:1-5)

Paul now brings in the Galatians themselves as witnesses for the defense ofthe truth of the gospel. He has them recall their personal experiences as thosewho have already received the Holy Spirit by raising five pointed questions.Who bewitched you (3:1)? Did you receive the Spiritfromworks of law or fromhearing of faith (3:2)? Beginning in the Spirit will you be perfected now in theflesh (3:3)? Did you experience such things in vain (3:4)? The one who suppliedthe Spirit worked miracles among you; was it on the basis of works of law orhearing of faith (3:5)?

Paul begins this next line of argument in an uncomplimentary fashion byaddressing them as "gullible Galatians" and suggesting that the only explanationfor their behavior is that they are under the spell of sorcerers. Jesus' crucifixionhas been placarded before them which nullifies the curse of the law and puts anend to all forms of Jewish legalism. The Galatians believed the gospel aboutJesus Christ crucified and received the Spirit, a token of their being countedrighteous and heirs. Are they so gullible as to believe that they can now add thefinishing touches to salvation and become the "total Christian" throughcircumcision? Do they become more acceptable to God because they have takenon the additional requirement of circumcision, a flesh category? To Paul, thiswould be an incredible reversal of the sequence. He began with the flesh butrejected it (see Phil. 3:1-11) and began anew with the Spirit. ThroughoutGalatians Paul defends the basic truth that the Christian life begins and comes to

maturity through the Spirit; nothing more is needed. The manifestations of theSpirit which they experienced long before the Judaizers arrived on the scene


8/18

should have taught them that their acceptability to God was based on their faithresponse alone.

Works of Law versus Hearing of Faith (3:6-14)

In 3:6, the situation of Abraham is introduced as somehow corresponding tothe situation of the Galatians. It marks another shift in argument from one basedon the experience of the Galatians to one based on a complex interpretation ofthe Scripture. In thefirststage of his argument, 3:1-5, Paul presents theGalatians' reception of the Spirit as a past fact; in the second stage, 3:6-13, hediscloses that the bestowal of the Spirit on the Gentiles was God's purpose allalong. The conclusions to both arguments are recapitulated in 3:14. After the

introductory statement in 3:6, Paul asserts in 3:7-9 that only the people of faithshare Abraham's blessing. In 3:10-13, he argues that the people of the works oflaw are under the law's curse. He then concludes that the blessing of Abraham isbequeathed to Gentiles only in Christ and is received only through faith (3:14).Each statement in this section, except the quotations from Scripture regarding theregime of the law in 3:10,13, makes a reference to faith (3:6, 7,8, 9,11,12,14).But the culmination of this argument returns to the matter of receiving the Spiritemphasized in 3:1-5: "in order that we might receive the promise of the Spiritthrough faith" (3:14).

Wlty Bring Up Abialwm?

Many interpreters are mystified by the sudden appearance of Abraham in theargument. It may not be that this is thefirsttime that the Galatians had been toldabout Abraham. Paul's opponents may have appealed to the patriarch topersuade the Galatians of the truth of their case. Any view of who theseopponents were must account for the fact that they were well received by theGalatians who responded readily to their argumentsso readily that Paulattributes it to witchcraft. It is likely that they were able to win such quicksupport in Galatia because they had a convincing theological position buttressedby substantial prooftexts from Scripture. If that view is correct, then Paul did notconstruct his counter arguments in a vacuum; and it may be fruitful to look atwhat follows as Paul's refutation of his opponents' propaganda that derives fromScripture.

4One of the things that Paul must do in his defense of the truth of the

gospel is show that his opponents have failed to read the Scripture correctly.

For most Christians, influenced by the New Testament, Abraham evokes themodel of trusting faith in God. This image comes almost entirely from Paul andwas not the perception of the average Jew in the street in thefirstcentury. InStephen's speech, which is a synopsis of the highlights of Israel's history,Abraham is associated with the promise of an inheritance to his posterity (7:3,5-6), the covenant of circumcision (7:8), and being the father of the Jews (7:8). The

matter of his faith is not mentioned. In Rabbinic Judaism, Abraham is portrayed


9/18

Galatians2:15-3:22


as thefirstproselyte, thefirstto convert from heathen ways (Mekilta Nezikin toExod 22:20), and as the example of perfect obedience to the commands of God.He kept the whole Law even before it was written (Mishna Qiddusin 4:14). Theliterature ofJudaism consistently underscores Abraham's faithfulness, not hisfaith; and this prevailing view of Abraham is epitomized in Sirach:

(19) Abraham was the great father ofa multitude of nations, and no one hasbeen found like him in glory; (20) He kept the law of the Most High, and wastaken into covenant with him; he established his covenant with him in hisflesh, and when he was tested he was found faithful. (21) Therefore the Lordassured him by an oath that the nations would be blessed through hisposterity; that he would multiply him like the dust of the earth, and exalt his

posterity like the stars, and cause them to inherit from sea to sea and fromthe River to the ends of the earth (Sirach 44:19-21).

Abraham was considered righteous because he was a pious man who obeyedGod's commands. The Epistle ofJames is well known for highlighting thatobedience: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered hisson Isaac on the altar?" (2:21, see also Heb. 11:17). To cap his argument that aperson is justified by works and not by faith alone (2:24), James cites the verysame passage from Genesis 15:6(2:23; see also Jubilees 18:16; 23:10) that is quotedby Paul in 3:6 to quite a different effect.

It is therefore quite plausible that the case of Abraham was brought upfirstbythe Judaizers as an illustration of the requirement of circumcision in order to beincluded in God's covenant promises (see Gen. 17). Abraham could also serve asan example to pagan converts. He left idolatry and became a proselyte,circumcised at the ripe old age of99. IfaGentile wished to be included in God'scovenant with Abraham and his posterity, then he must be circumcised as well.This appeal may have hit a responsive chord among some Gentiles who werefamiliar withritualtattoos in pagan religions. They may also have responded tothe symbolic interpretation of circumcision, found, for example, in Philo andlater Gnostic writings. Philo, a representative of Hellenistic Judaism, understoodAbraham as taking a journey toward perfection (Tiie Migrations of Abraham).

Circumcision symbolizes the subjection of the passions and lusts and expressesthefreedomfrombondage to the flesh. In submitting to theritual,one takes thefirst step toward perfection.

It is also possible that the troublers appealed to other passages of Scripturesuch asDeuteronomy 27:26, noted by Paul in 3:10: "Cursed be he who does notconfirm the words of this law by doing them." They may have said, "O foolishGalatians, if you disregard what is written in the law regarding circumcision,you are cursed." "You cannot be saved and ignore God's law." "Paul's gospelhas brought you under a curse, and you cannot possibly share in the promisesmade to Abraham." They may have cited Leviticus 18:1-5 as well:


10/18

(1) And the Lord said to Moses, (2) Say to the people ofIsrael, I am the Lord

your God. (3) You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where youdwelt, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I ambringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. (4) You shall do myordinances and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the Lord your God.(5) You shall therefore keep my statutes and my ordinances, by doing whicha man shall live: I am the Lord.

Paul writes that "neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything" (Gal.6:15; see 1 Cor. 7:19). The opponents might quickly reply that circumcision is oneof God's commandments. "How can Paul say it is nothing?" If one wants tolive, then one needs to obey the commands ofGod, particularly circumcision(Ezek. 18:5-9). They could also argue that the promise is only to Abraham's seed,his posterity, the Jews (Gen. 12:7; 13:15; 17:7; 22:17-18; 24:7); and the story of theexpulsion of Hagar and Ishmael, the father of the Gentiles (Gen. 21:9-14), couldvery well have crowned their argument.

Believing Like Abiaham

Even if Paul were not responding specifically to prooftexts used by theopponents to promote their position, he must have wrestled with these texts thatseemed to contradict the revelation of Christ that one is justified on the basis of

faith alone. He reinterprets them in light of his experience of the resurrection ofChrist, and he would say to any who might disagree with his interpretation thatthey have a veil over their minds (2 Cor. 3:14-15).

Paul would agree that Christians are to repeat Abraham's experience withGod, but he qualifies what really was important in that experience. What wasimportant happened first in Genesis 12 and 15 long before the circumcisionrecorded in Genesis 17. The term "faith" sets off 3:6-9 as an inclusion; "Abrahambelieved," "believing Abraham." God promised, Abraham trusted, and it wasentered into the heavenly ledger books as righteousness. Rather than being themodel proselyte who accepts circumcision, Abraham is the model of the sinner

who receives justification by faith without having done anything whatsoever toearn it. He was in essence a pagan, without law or circumcision, but his faith iscredited by God as if it were righteousness long before he was circumcised orprepared to offer up Isaac.

Paul concludes from this fact that one becomes a son of Abraham on the basisof faith. "Son of Abraham" is essentially redefined by Paul. To most Jews, onequalified as a son of Abraham if one was born a Jew, was circumcised, and livedunder the law (see Matt. 1:1; Luke 3:8,16:24; John 8:33,37, 39-47, 56; 2 Cor. 11:22;Jas. 2:21). But the phrase "son of" may be construed as a Hebraic expressionwhich refers to one who reproduces in his or her own way of life that of another.That person is called a "son of" that one. For example, peacemakers are called"sons ofGod" because, like God, they bring peace in the midst of chaos (Matt.5:9). Those who built and decorated the tombs of the prophets are called "the


11/18

Galatians2:15-3:22


sons of those who murdered the prophets" because their hypocrisy cloaks thesame murderous spirit (Matt. 23:29-31). For Paul, then, to be a true "son of

Abraham" is to do like Abraham (see John 8:39), namely, to have faith asAbraham did (Rom. 4:12). This notion opens up the possibility for Gentiles tobecome sons of Abraham without being circumcised. The phrase, "those fromfaith" in 3:7,9, may have been chosen by Paul because it subtly implies a sense oflineage or descent, "out of." One comes out of Abraham out of faith. Thisreinterpretation of what it means to be a son of Abraham also opens up thepossibility for biological descendants of Abraham not to be "sons of Abraham":not all are children of Abraham simply because they are descendants (Rom. 9:7-8;see Matt. 8:11-12; Luke 13:28). One is a legitimate descendant not by physicalrelationship to Abraham, orby obedience the law (Gen. 22:17-18), nor is one

saved on the basis of the accrued merit of Abraham. The faith of Christ and faithin Christ, not circumcision, are the keys. This very truth, according to Paul, wasrevealed to Abraham by God at the time he believed. God gave Abraham apreview of the gospel that Gentiles would be saved, justified by faith (see John8:56). This statement implies that the gospel is older than the law!

It is therefore nothing new that Gentiles should be saved by faith; it was allpart of God's planfromthe beginning that Gentiles would be justified accordingto the same pattern as Abraham. Genesis 12:3 and 18:18 are fused together byPaul to insist that the nations shall be blessed because they will be reckonedrighteous on the basis of faith just as Abraham was, independent of the law orcircumcision.

For Paul, Abraham is not the man to whom the land was promised, or thecircumcised man, or the archetype of the man faithful to God and obedient to thelaw. Paul turns the traditional Jewish view of Abraham upside down. He alsointerprets the promise in Genesis 12 to be the blessing. It is not the land (Gen.13:15; 17:7-8; 24:7), which Paul spiritualizes (Gal. 5:21, the heavenly Jerusalem),but the declaration of righteousness (3:6, 8,22,24), which is also presumed to bethe gift of life (3:11,21) and the gift of the Spirit (3:14). Because Abrahambelieved and was pronounced righteous (Gen. 15:6), the promise of Genesis 12:3was fulfilled.

Next, in 3:10-13, Paul makes three assertions about the law which are

augmented by a prooftext from Scripture: (1) The law curses all who fail to obeyit: prooftext, Deuteronomy 27:26 (Gal. 3:10). (2) The law does not justify a personbefore God: prooftext, Habakkuk 2:4 (Gal. 3:11). (3) The law is not based onfaith: prooftext, Leviticus 18:5 (Gal. 3:12).

In 3:10, Paul interprets Deuteronomy 27:26 to mean that those whose statusbefore God depends on the obedience to the law are not justified by the law butare under a curse (see 4:21). The unexpressed premise is that reliance on worksof law leads to universal condemnation because no one is able to do the wholelaw (see 5:3; 6:12). It is the labor of Sisyphus.

5Paul did not reach the conclusion

that no one can fulfill all that the law requires from his own personal experience

as a Pharisee (see Phil. 3:6). Rather, he came to this conclusion only after hisencounter with Christ (Phil. 3:9).


12/18

The key phrase in the second assertion that the law does not justify a person is

"before God" (3:11). In the limited perception of humans one might appear to berighteous (see Luke 18:9-14). Before an omniscient God, it is a different matter.The best translation treats thefirstclause as an assertion: "It is clear that no one is

justified before God by law" (see 2:16). The second clause explains why:"because God intended justification to come through faith." Paul citesHabakkuk 2:4 as proof and links the phrase "from faith" to the noun, "therighteous": "the righteous through faith shall live," that is, the person justified byfaith is the one who shall live. Life, likerighteousness,is to be hadfromfaith,notfromobeying the law.

The third assertion cites Leviticus 18:5 to clarify that the law has nothing to dowith faith. The law does not say, "Trust," but "Do!" or "Do not!" To gain life

under the law one must obey all of its statutes. Any one who wants to buy intothe law system, therefore, is doomed to failure. The law, as Paul interprets it,does not grade on a curve. The only passing grade is a 100 %; 99.99% earns onean F. Therefore those "from works of law" are not blessed but cursed.

The regime of the law was not intended by God to be a permanent state,because Christ has redeemed usfromits curse. This statement in 3:13 beginswithout a connecting particle (asyndeton) and has a theological effect; it suggests"Christ alone!" The law promises only condemnation for failing to obey all itscommands (see Rom. 3:9-20). Christ "born under the law" (Gal. 4:4) alsosubmitted to the law's condemnation of sinful humanity, although he was

sinless. As one hanged on a cross, he shares the curse which is upon us. Weberwrites: "It is not merely an exchange, but a mutual partaking in the fate of theother. Christ not only became accursed for us (and in our place), but sharedhuman fate, so that we might share his fate."

6We die with him just as he died

for and with us (Gal. 2:20). Jesus' death and resurrection has defused the curse ofthe law and brought its threatening reign to an end.

The crucifixion ofJesuswas a major stumbling block to faith for Jews (1 Cor.1:23; Gal. 5:11). Deuteronomy 27:25 was probably used by Paul before hisDamascus road experience as proof that Jesus was a charlatan, rejected by God.After Justin quotes Daniel 7 to Trypho, the rabbi responds:

"Sir, these and suchlike passages of Scripture compel us to await One who isgreat and glorious, and takes over the everlasting kingdom from the Ancientof Days as Son ofman. But this your so called Christ is without honor andglory so that he has even fallen into the uttermost curse that is in the Law ofGod, for he was crucified." (Dialogue with Trypho 31-32).

Paul made a theological about-face and now saw that curse in an utterly newlight. It was a sign of God's love and ofJesus giving himself for him (2:20), andnot only for him but for all, Jews and Gentiles alike.

The two "so that" (hina) clauses in 3:14 contain the conclusions to 3:6-13 and

3:1-5 respectively. In 3:14a, the outcome of Paul's reasoning in 3:6-13 isreaffirmed. The blessing of Abraham, his justification on the basis of faith alone.


13/18

Galatians2:15-3:22


is shared by all, both Jews and Gentiles, in Christ alone. Gentiles do not need tobecome Jews to partake of this blessing. In 3:14b, Paul restates the conclusion to3:1-5. The promise, which is the Spirit, is also received by faith because ofChrist's death.

We can now see the connection between 3:1-5 and 3:6-13. The Gentiles inGalatia did not do anything related to the law to receive the Spirit exceptrespond to the message with faith, just as Abraham did not do anything to bereckonedrighteousexcept respond in faith to God's promises.

The Law and the Promise (3:15-22)

The Scripture is clear that the promise of the blessing was made to Abraham

and his seed. Paul continues his argument that one can only receive the blessingif one is related to orbelongs to Christ, not Abraham, by contending that the seedof which the Scripture speaks is Christ.

The Covenant and the Seed

For thefirsttime Paul addresses the Galatians as "brothers" (see 4:12,28, 31;5:11,13; 6:1,18). Up to this point in the letter, he has been less than flattering.This address marks another shift in his argument from the interpretation ofScripture to an analogy from the sphere of human life (see Rom. 3:5; 1 Cor. 3:3;

9:8; Gal. 1:11). He draws on an example from everyday life ofaman's last willand testament. Human law forbids anyone to add, subtract, or set aside theconditions ofaman's testament once it has been validated (perfect tense).

7The

Greek word diatheke could have the meaning "will" and "covenant," and Paulplays on both meanings. By using an interpretive principle, called qal wahomer("the light and the heavy") in Rabbinic exegesis, that which applies in a lessercase will certainly apply in a more important case, he argues that ifa human'swill is unalterable, how much more so is the covenant made by God. Whowould dare to add fresh conditions to the covenant God has made? Thecovenant that Paul has in mind is the promise made by God to Abraham inGenesis 12:3,15. The promise of the blessing was valid the moment that Godpledged it to Abraham. It was, as far as Paul is concerned, unconditional, withno strings attached. It cannot be recalled nor can conditions be tacked on to itlater. The "Johnny come lately" law that arrived on the scene 430 years later(Exod. 12:4-41) therefore could not make void God's covenant promise.Otherwise, God would be a double dealer who reneges on agreements.

If the inheritance comes as a result of obedience to the legal prescriptionsfound in the law, then it rules out the promise which was freely bestowed onAbraham on the basis offaith. The issue as Paul frames it is promise or law, oneor the other but not both. If it is law, then the promise made to Abraham longbefore the coming of the law was a false promise. The covenant that God had

sealed with Abraham has been tampered with and new conditions have been


14/18

added. That is not the case, however. Instead, Paul argues that God bestowed(the verb means "graciously granted," see 1 Cor. 2:12) the inheritance onAbraham by means ofa promise.

Again, Paul redefines the terms. The inheritance is the same thing as theblessing (3:8-9). It is not the land, but justification by faith. He also maintainsthat Abraham's seed does not refer to his posterity but to Christ. Paul bases hisargument on the fact that the word "seed" is singular, ignoring the fact that it is acollective noun. He argues that the texts where "seed" occurs do not refer to allthe descendants of Abraham in the flesh but to only one descendant, theMessiah. This argument may seem to us to be highly arbitrary and grasping atstraws, but if one takes into account that Paul is employing accepted rules ofinterpretation used by his Jewish contemporaries and the fact that the word

"seed" was interpreted messianically by others,8 it is not so uncontrolled. Paulcould argue by another accepted principle of Rabbinic exegesis, gezerah shewa, aword or phrase in one verse may be used to interpret another verse where itoccurs, that just as the phrase "your seed" in the covenant promise to David (2Sam. 7:12) refers to the Messiah so the "your seed" in the covenant promise toAbraham refers to the Messiah.

Why Did GodBother with the Jjaw in the First Place?

Paul's arguments to this point lead to the logical question, If God intended

everything to come by faith, why did God give the law? What was its purpose inGod's scheme of things? In a section that continues through 4:7, Paul gives hisanswer. First, the law was added on account of transgressions (3:19b). Thisstatement could be interpreted to mean that it was added to bring transgressionsinto check, to keep them from proliferating, to stem the tide of sin and make lifea little more tolerable. On the other hand, it is more likely that Paul thought thatthe law brought about transgression by making it known. In Romans 5:20, Paulboldly states that "the law was slipped in so that transgression might increase"(see Rom. 3:20; 4:15; 5:13; 7:7,13). One can sin in ignorance, but transgressionrequires a recognized standard of what isrightand wrong and the willfulviolation of that standard. Transgression is therefore more serious than sin. Thelaw consequently clarified the moral and religious situation of the world byrevealing what sin is and giving notice that continuing to sin constitutes aconscious and deliberate transgression. One is not only violating God's will butwhat one now knows to be a violation of God's will. The law therefore had anegative function to show that sin is a deliberate, active rebellion against God.The Gentiles violated God's law in ignorance. Israel with the law had anadvantage only in the sense that she was fully cognizant of her transgressions.

Second, Paul maintains that the law was provisional in that it had a time limit,"until the seed to whom [the promise] had been promised came" (3:19c). Whenthe seed, identified as Christ, comes, the law is no longer in effect (see 3:23,25).

This view daringly challenges the concept of the eternal nature of the law held bynearly all Jews. Philo claimed that the law is "immortal as long as the sun and


15/18

Galatians2:15-3:22


moon and heaven and the whole heaven and universe exist" (Moses 2.3). Baruch

4:1 refers to "the Law that endures for ever"; and Wisdom 18:4, to "theimperishable light of the Law." Other pious Jews proclaimed the permanentglory ofthe law: it does not perish but remains in its glory (4 Ezra 9:37); evenwhen humankind disappears, the law will abide (2 [Syriac] Apocalypse Baruch77:15). Later Rabbis have God pronounce that Solomon and a thousand like himshall be obliterated before one word of the Torah will be (Jerusalem TalmudSanhdrin 2:6/ 20c). It is asserted in Genesis Rabba 10:1 that everything has an end(a measure) including heaven and earth, but the Law does not have an end.

Paul argues otherwise; but it raises the question, in what way is he thinkingabout the law? He is not talking about the Pentateuch per se, but aboutcovenants. He contends that the Abrahamic covenant of promise, not the Mosaiccovenant of law, defines the essential relationship between God and the Gentiles.Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), that is the covenant of Moses (see 2 Cor.3), and the fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham.

Third, Paul argues the superiority of the promise by drawing upon a popularview in Judaism that the law was delivered by angels (see Deut. 33:2 LXX, "theLord came with angels on hisrighthand"; Jubilees 1:27; 2:1; Acts 7:38,53; Heb.2:2; Josephus Antiquities 15:136). Perhaps the troublers mentioned this idea totout the law, but Paul uses it to point out that mediators were used in giving ofthe law (3:19d). His conclusion, "Now a mediator is not of one, but God is one"(3:20), has provoked aflurryof suggestions. It is often noted that in 1865,

Lightfoot remarked in his commentary on this passage that the number ofinterpretations of this passage is said to be 250 or 300. Paul, however, seems tobe saying quite simply that in the delivery of the law, God used middlemen, go-betweensangels and Moses.

The idea ofamediator conveys a couple ofimages. A mediator is called in tosettle a dispute and functions as an umpire or referee. The result is usually acompromise. That would suggest that the law is a compromise situation (seeJesus' statement about divorce in Matt. 19:8). More importantly, the fact thatGod used angels as lobbyists with Moses indicates that God was not directly orimmediately involved. God does not confront Moses personally but sends

representatives. By contrast, God spoke directly to Abraham without any go-betweens when God made the promise. When God works the great works, Goddoes not use brokers or middlemen. Therefore, the covenant of the promise ismore significant than the covenant of the law.

Once again, Paul's radical conclusions prompt another question, "Is the law inopposition to the promises [ofGod]?" The answer would seem to be, "Yes, thelaw and the promise are irreconcilable." But the question, in effect, asks, "Isthere a contradiction in Scripture?" The answer must be no, since Paul assumesthat there are no contradictions in Scripture. He explains the apparentdisagreement by maintaining that the law was never designed to give life (3:21).This sentence is a second class conditional sentence that assumes the unreality of

the fact: "for ifa law were given which was able to give life [which is not thecase, no such law was given] then righteousness would be based upon the law."


16/18

If the law could give life, we could be justified (given life) by obeying the law.

The basic assumption in Paul's argument is that the law cannot produce life norcan it producerighteousness;it can only tell us what God's commands are,demand obedience, and pronounce judgment upon disobedience.

Paul's view is based on the absolute conviction that only faith in Christ cansave; therefore the law cannot save. It cannot enable a person to obey, because it,unlike the Spirit, has no power to transform the "thou shalts" and "thou shaltnots" into action. It is like telling a poor person, "Be warmed and filled" withoutgiving them anything to warm or fill them (Jas. 2:16).

9Even when the law is

obeyed, the motives behind one's obedience might be suspect. But the law wasnever intended by God to transform our lives or to lead to justification. In fact,the law specifically rules out the justification of the ungodly which is central to

the gospel: "I will not acquit the wicked" (Exod. 23:7). The law's purpose inGod's scheme of things was to make humanity aware that we are transgressorsand to pronounce God's righteous judgment. It was not to be the remedy for sin.The law only consigned everything under sin (3:22; Rom. 3:9). The purpose ofthis confinement is explained more fully in Romans 11:32: "God confined allthings unto disobedience in order that he might have mercy on all things."Under the law we are locked up on death row in this prison of sin until JesusChrist came to lead the great escape.

As a result of Christ's work, things have changed. Paul uses intricatearguments to persuade the Galatians that they have made a serious error in

submitting to the influence of the troublers who promote the status quo withtheir emphasis on works of law and ultimately nullify the grace ofGod. From aJewish perspective, they are the radical arguments ofan extremist who has losthis senses. Is it any wonder that the one who wrote these words had thesynagogue's punishment of thirty-nine lashes inflicted on him at least five times(2 Cor. 11:24) and that he earned Jewish animosity almost everywhere he went?But his arguments stem from the revelation he received about Christ (1:12)whose death and resurrection have transformed this present evil age so thatwholly new possibilities await those of faith. Why return to the old order and itsregimen that leads only to curse and death? Freedom, justification, and life arepromises now fulfilled in Christ which extend to all humankind.

]Many words that occur in this passage reappear prominently in the argument of theletter. "Righteousness" {dikaiosyne, 2:21) and to "justify" (dikaioun, 2:16,17) will be takenup again in 3:6, 21; 5:5; 3:8,11,24; 5:4. The question of the law (2:16,19,21) will reappearin 3:2, 5,10,11,13,17,18,19, 21, 23,24; 4:4, 5, 21; 5:3,4,14,18,23; 6:2,13. The issue of"works oflaw" (2:16) will resurface in 3:2, 5,10; 5:19; 6:4. "Faith" (2:16, 20) will bementioned again in 3:2, 5, 7, 8, 9,11,12,14, 22,23, 24,25, 26; 5:5, 6, 22; 6:10. "To live" (2:14,19,20) will appear again in 3:11,12; 5:25.

2M. Barth, "Jews and Gentiles: The Social Character of Justification in Paul," Journal of

Ecumenical Studies 5 (1968), 241-267.

3M. Barth, "Jews and Gentiles: The Social Character of Justification in Paul," 259.


17/18

*See C. . Barrett, "The Allegory ofAbraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument ofGalatians," Rechtfertigung: Festschriftfr Ernst Ksemann, ed. by J. Friedrich, W.

Poehlmann, and P. Stuhlmacher (Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1976), 1-16.5G. Ebeling, The Truth of the Gospel: An Exposition of Galatians (Philadelphia: Fortress,

1985), 178.6H.-R. Weber, The Cross: Tradition and Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans,

1975), 92.7Many suggestions have been made as to the testamentary device that Paul has in

mind, whether from Jewish or Roman law. What precisely it was is difficult to determine.HFor example, the reference to the seed of David in 2 Samuel 7:12 is understood as a

designation ofthe Messiah in 4Q Florilegium 1:10-11. In Biblical Antiquities (Ps.- Philo) 8:3,"the seed" is interpreted to be "an everlasting seed."

9C. K. Barrett, Freedom and Obligation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1989), 34.


18/18

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	31songofjoy
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

Pauls Defece of the Truth - Gal 2.15 - 3.22

Documents