Galatians 2:15-3:22 Review and Expositor, 91 (1994)

Paul's Defense of the Truth of the Gospel Regarding Gentiles (Galatians 2:15-3:22)
David Garland
In Galatians 2:15-3:22, Paul continues his appeal to personal history and then argues from the spiritual experiences of the Galatians, from complex interpretations of Scripture passages, from testamentary devices from everyday life, and an explanation of the function of the law in salvation history to make his point about the truth of the gospel concerning Gentiles. Just as slaves are not required to become free and females are not required to become males to be fully accepted in Christ as heirs of salvation, so Gentiles do not need to become Jews to 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, which catalogs Paul's contacts with Jerusalem and the so-called "pillar apostles" and validates the independence of his gospel. In 2:11-14, Paul describes a theological showdown in Antioch between himself and just about everybody else, including his mission partner, Barnabas. Paul does not give the Galatians a blow by blow account but does furnish enough details to provide a context for his ringing words in 2:15-21. Paul has no intention of calling Cephas' reputation into question or tarring all the Jewish Christians who broke fellowship with Gentiles when the men from James dropped in with the charge of being spineless hypocrites. What happened in Antioch is relevant because the truth of the gospel 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) but later withdrew, presumably at the urging of the menfromJames. Gentile and Jewish 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 lines into two churches. Paul alone recognized the theological ramifications of what Cephas may have regarded as simply pastoral discretion, and he wants the Galatians to be aware of his heroic intervention on the side of the truth of the gospel. He has steadfastly resisted all encroachments on that truth so that it might prevail for the Gentiles (2:5).

165

Jewish Food Laws and the Exclusion of Gentiles The unpleasant incident at Antioch was rooted in the Jewish restrictions regarding food that epitomized God's intention to mark off the people of Israel from 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 this separation a reality. The Bible's dietary prohibitions made any associations with Gentiles 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 might have been prepared improperly (Exod. 23:19). Direct connections were made between the Gentiles' impurity and their immorality. In Jubilees 22:16, Isaac admonishes Jacob: And you also, my son, Jacob, remember my words, and keep the commandments of Abraham, your father. Separate yourself from the Gentiles, and do not eat with them, and do not perform deeds like theirs. And do not become associates of theirs. Because their deeds are defiled, and all their ways are contaminated, and despicable, and abominable. Daniel was judged a hero precisely because he would not defile himself with the pagan king'srichfood and wine and was delivered by God as a result of his devotion 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 as Daniel's were particularly significant during therigorousantiJudaism campaign waged by Antiochus Epiphanes. One of the motivations for the Maccabean revolt was to make it possible for Jews to maintain their heritage of circumcision, Sabbath observance, andritualpurity commanded by God. Refusing to eat swine's flesh under threat of death became a courageous demonstration of a Jew's wholehearted fidelity to God (see 1 Mace. 1:41-50, 6264; 2 Mace. 6:18-31; 7:1-39). Gentiles could only be completely accepted if they completely accepted Jewish manners and customs. Josephus explains the Jewish point of view toward the admission of Gentiles: The consideration given by our legislator to the equitable treatment of aliens also merits attention. It will be seen that he took the best of all possible measures at once to secure our own customs from corruption, and to throw them open ungrudgingly to any who elect to share them. To all who desire to 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 agreement in 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

166

Galatians 2:15-3:22 Review and Expositor, 91 (1994)

practices. In Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 10, Rabbi Trypho is amazed at the Christian'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 particular separated 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 of circumcision. The church did not evolve naturally to this position. The incident in Antioch bears witness to the fact that many Jewish Christians saw themselves as simply a renewal movement within Judaism and regarded newly converted Gentiles as proselytes who needed to be circumcised and to adhere to Jewish mores if they were 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 reveal startling changes in the relationship. Paul is first Cephas' guest (1:18-20), then acknowledged as his fellow apostle (2:8-9), and then his vehement critic who publicly rebukes him. At Antioch, Paul stood alone against one reputed to be a pillar (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 brothers who exerted pressure on him (2:1-5), Paul insinuates that Cephas should have resisted the pressure from the men from James in Antioch. Instead, he caved in and, as a result, "stood condemned" (2:11), the opposite of justified, because he did not "walk straight toward" (oiihopodeuein) the gospel (2:14). He was not zigzagging; he was headed off in exactly the opposite direction. In 2:15-21, Paul lays out the basis for this shocking conclusion. This passage is best understood as a summary of Paul's response to Cephas at Antioch, and Paul records it because it is applicable to the situation at Galatia.1 It reviews in theological shorthand the gospel which he preaches. Markus Barth claims 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 the Gentiles to live like Jews (to judaize)?" Three questions emerge from this challenge 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" since Cephas had already broken off fellowship with the Gentiles and was now supposedly back in the fold living like a good Jew who kept himself from being defiled? What does it mean to "compel Gentiles to live like Jews"? From Cephas' point of view, he had only withdrawn from eating with Gentiles out of expedience. As the "apostle to the circumcision" (2:7-8), he probably was convinced that he should behave accordingly in matters of food and fellowship with Gentiles. There is no indication whatsoever that he applied any pressure on

167

them to become Jewish in living. He was not dictating to the Gentiles what they should 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 theological presuppositions shared with the other Jewish Christians. He could be making a distinction between the natural advantage that Jews have over Gentile sinners or saying 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 for righteousness (2:16). The reason we Jews are only saved by faith in Christ and not by works of law is because no fleshincluding Israel!can be justified on the basis of works of law. The point that he is trying to score is that Jews and Gentiles are justified in exactly the same waythrough the faith of Christ and faith in Christand consequently works of law have given the Jew no special edge when it comes to justification. How are Gentiles saved? Only through Christ. 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) and twice in Romans (3:20,28; see "works" in 4:2,6; 9:12,32; 11:6). It may refer to the fulfillment of certain commandments to achieve acceptance with God but more likely refers to specific ordinances of the law, namely, circumcision, the observance of dietary laws, and Jewish feast days. These are the "identity markers" that separate JewsfromGentiles as the sole people of the covenant. The phrase "faith of Christ" 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 scholars argue that it is a subjective genitive, "the faithfulness exhibited by Christ," rather than an objective genitive, "faith in Christ," which is how it is rendered in English translations. The arguments for interpreting it as a subjective genitive are weighty. First, translating it as an objective genitive creates a curious redundancy, repeating faith in Christ and believing in Christ (particularly in 3:22 and Rom. 3:22). Second, idiomatic Greek expresses the object of faith with the dative 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 "Christ lives in me" (2:20a), and that he lives "in the faith of the son of God who loved me and gave himself for me" (2:20b). The contrast is between an individual's or a group's "works of law" and the work of Christ, his faithfulness in handing himself over for our sins (1:4; 2:20; 3:13; 4:4-5). The work of Christ in the cross is central. This interpretation is confirmed by what Paul says in Romans 5:19 where 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 have boldness and access through his faith" Galatians 3:22 should be translated "in order 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 as referring to Christ's faithfulness to God in his death on the cross negate the

168

Galatians 2:15-3:22 Review and Expositor, 91 (1994)

necessity for us to respond in faith. It recognizes that receiving by faith the promise from God is made possible only through what Christ has already accomplished by his faithfulness. Paul next addresses in 2:17 an objection to this gospel: "And if seeking to be justified in Christ we find ourselves to be sinners, is Christ then an abettor of sin?" He responds vigorously, "By no means!" The logic of the dissenter might be that if one need not be obedient to the law to be justified, then, because of Christ, it does not make any difference whether one is a common sinner or a righteous Jew, whether one is pious or impious, or whether one is obedient or disobedient. The upshot of this theology would seem to be that Christ is indifferent to the sinfulness of the one justified in him, and this slackness serves only 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 to disregard the dietary laws and restrictions commanded by God in Scripture. His gospel maintains that the age old Jewish criteria for distinguishing sinners from the righteous are no longer valid. According to Romans 3:9, both Jews and Greeks are under the power of sin (see Rom. 5:6) whether they are circumcised or not. That gospel, carried to an extreme as Paul is wont to do, uses Christ as an excuse to ignore and break the law (see comparable charges in Rom. 3:8; 6:1,15 that Paul regards as slanderous). Paul gives three counter arguments in 2:18-21 to this absurd conclusion. Each is 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 torn down and built up again is salvation on the basis of works of law. The Jewish Christians considered themselves justified before God on the basis of faith in Christ, not on the basis of their Jewishness. When it comes to the Gentile question, however, they reinstate works of law as a litmus test to determine whether or not Gentiles are sinners or are acceptable table guests. This stance is a rejection of Christ and his work. (2) In 2:19-21, Paul argues that he is dead to the law. This statement assumes what is developed in 3:10-14, that the law hopelessly condemns all who fail to fulfill every last one of its requirements. Justification does not mean that God says, "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 law exacts. 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 it would be a case of double jeopardy (see also Rom. 6:7; 7:1-4). Only in Christ am I dead to the law and not a transgressor having been crucified with him, but I am also made alive through Christ that I might live to God. (3) Paul's third argument implies that the troublers in Galatia set aside the grace of God with their theology as Cephas and the others unintentionally did by their pullback from the Gentiles in Antioch (2:21). The behavior of Cephas and Barnabas and other Jewish Christians is tantamount to a rejection of justification by faith. To join the Jews at the Lord's table the Gentiles would have to

169

"judaize," live Jewishly. The commandments of the Mosaic law about how one is to relate properly to God through circumcision, dietary laws, and observances of days and seasons would then regain their validity. If the law remains valid in this regard, then Christ died for no purpose. Paul understands Christ's death to entail that salvation is free; but the misguided troublers claim that there still is an entrance fee. Paul maintains that Christ's death means that God chose to treat all persons, including Gentiles, impartially; the troublers avow that they will only be treated impartially when they become Jews like us. Paul perceived what apparently no one else did. By imposing the same old distinctions contained in the law they have nullified the salvific significance of Christ's death. Before Christ's death if one wanted to become a part of God's covenant people, one need 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 the case, 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 does not nullify grace that scandalously receives with open arms even the undesirable and unwelcome. We can now resolve the questions of what Paul meant in 2:14. "Living like a Gentile" does not mean living a lawless, sinful life. Paul's statement in 2:20 spells out what it means: "The life I now live I live by faith." Paul is a Jew and a successful one at that (Gal. 1:13-14; Phil. 3:3-11), but he lives under God as if being 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 absolutely nothingin other words, as if he were a Gentile (see 4:12). His status before God is the same as any Gentile sinner who believes in Christ. His righteousness does not 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 and to Gentiles. "Living like a Gentile" therefore means living not under God's law for salvation but under God's grace. This explains Paul's use of the present tense, "you are living like a Gentile." He is not referring to any particular behavior in the past but to Cephas' present life under God. It also explains why Paul 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 second class citizens. If there had been a church bus at Antioch, the Gentiles would always have had to move to the back. In the church building, one might find a Gentile water fountain and a Jewish water fountain; and the Gentiles would have had to sit in a special 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 were considered to be unfit for full equality. The compulsion was subtle but real. If Gentiles wanted to eat the Lord's Supper with Cephas and the other Jewish Christians, they would have to do something to make themselves fit. They would have to become Jews, submit to circumcision and abide by Jewish dietary

170

Galatians 2:15-3:22 Review and Expositor, 91 (1994)

regulations. The truth of the gospel, as far as Paul was concerned, does not mix with this kind of compulsion. Paul says that God had separated him for the service of the gospel (1:15), but God did not separate him from other humans. Justification by grace is not just something that happens to an individual; it "is a joining together of this and that person, 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 Christ except together with a neighbor."3 Every attempt at any kind of segregation is branded by Paul as a denial of justification through faith in Christ. The gospel is inclusive and is not the gospel when it is used to exclude others on the basis of external, human distinctions that do not matter to God. No religious group can legitimately claim to be of Christ if it excludes others on the basis of human criteria and in effect says: We are God's chosen few All others will be damned There is no place in heaven for you We 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 of the truth of the gospel. He has them recall their personal experiences as those who have already received the Holy Spirit by raising five pointed questions. Who bewitched you (3:1)? Did you receive the Spiritfromworks of law or from hearing of faith (3:2)? Beginning in the Spirit will you be perfected now in the flesh (3:3)? Did you experience such things in vain (3:4)? The one who supplied the Spirit worked miracles among you; was it on the basis of works of law or hearing of faith (3:5)? Paul begins this next line of argument in an uncomplimentary fashion by addressing them as "gullible Galatians" and suggesting that the only explanation for their behavior is that they are under the spell of sorcerers. Jesus' crucifixion has been placarded before them which nullifies the curse of the law and puts an end to all forms of Jewish legalism. The Galatians believed the gospel about Jesus Christ crucified and received the Spirit, a token of their being counted righteous and heirs. Are they so gullible as to believe that they can now add the finishing touches to salvation and become the "total Christian" through circumcision? Do they become more acceptable to God because they have taken on the additional requirement of circumcision, a flesh category? To Paul, this would be an incredible reversal of the sequence. He began with the flesh but rejected it (see Phil. 3:1-11) and began anew with the Spirit. Throughout Galatians Paul defends the basic truth that the Christian life begins and comes to maturity through the Spirit; nothing more is needed. The manifestations of the Spirit which they experienced long before the Judaizers arrived on the scene

171

should have taught them that their acceptability to God was based on their faith response alone. Works of Law versus Hearing of Faith (3:6-14) In 3:6, the situation of Abraham is introduced as somehow corresponding to the situation of the Galatians. It marks another shift in argument from one based on the experience of the Galatians to one based on a complex interpretation of the Scripture. In thefirststage of his argument, 3:1-5, Paul presents the Galatians' reception of the Spirit as a past fact; in the second stage, 3:6-13, he discloses that the bestowal of the Spirit on the Gentiles was God's purpose all along. 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 faith share Abraham's blessing. In 3:10-13, he argues that the people of the works of law are under the law's curse. He then concludes that the blessing of Abraham is bequeathed to Gentiles only in Christ and is received only through faith (3:14). Each statement in this section, except the quotations from Scripture regarding the regime 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 Spirit emphasized in 3:1-5: "in order that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith" (3:14). Wlty Bring Up Abialwm? Many interpreters are mystified by the sudden appearance of Abraham in the argument. It may not be that this is thefirsttime that the Galatians had been told about Abraham. Paul's opponents may have appealed to the patriarch to persuade the Galatians of the truth of their case. Any view of who these opponents were must account for the fact that they were well received by the Galatians who responded readily to their argumentsso readily that Paul attributes it to witchcraft. It is likely that they were able to win such quick support in Galatia because they had a convincing theological position buttressed by substantial prooftexts from Scripture. If that view is correct, then Paul did not construct his counter arguments in a vacuum; and it may be fruitful to look at what follows as Paul's refutation of his opponents' propaganda that derives from Scripture.4 One 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 the model of trusting faith in God. This image comes almost entirely from Paul and was not the perception of the average Jew in the street in thefirstcentury. In Stephen'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 (7:3,56), 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

172

Galatians 2:15-3:22 Review and Expositor, 91 (1994)

as thefirstproselyte, thefirstto convert from heathen ways (Mekilta Nezikin to Exod 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). The literature of Judaism consistently underscores Abraham's faithfulness, not his faith; and this prevailing view of Abraham is epitomized in Sirach: (19) Abraham was the great father of a multitude of nations, and no one has been found like him in glory; (20) He kept the law of the Most High, and was taken into covenant with him; he established his covenant with him in his flesh, and when he was tested he was found faithful. (21) Therefore the Lord assured him by an oath that the nations would be blessed through his posterity; 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 from the River to the ends of the earth (Sirach 44:19-21). Abraham was considered righteous because he was a pious man who obeyed God's commands. The Epistle of James is well known for highlighting that obedience: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?" (2:21, see also Heb. 11:17). To cap his argument that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone (2:24), James cites the very same passage from Genesis 15:6 (2:23; see also Jubilees 18:16; 23:10) that is quoted by Paul in 3:6 to quite a different effect. It is therefore quite plausible that the case of Abraham was brought upfirstby the Judaizers as an illustration of the requirement of circumcision in order to be included in God's covenant promises (see Gen. 17). Abraham could also serve as an example to pagan converts. He left idolatry and became a proselyte, circumcised at the ripe old age of 99. If a Gentile wished to be included in God's covenant with Abraham and his posterity, then he must be circumcised as well. This appeal may have hit a responsive chord among some Gentiles who were familiar withritualtattoos in pagan religions. They may also have responded to the symbolic interpretation of circumcision, found, for example, in Philo and later Gnostic writings. Philo, a representative of Hellenistic Judaism, understood Abraham as taking a journey toward perfection (Tiie Migrations of Abraham). Circumcision symbolizes the subjection of the passions and lusts and expresses thefreedomfrombondage to the flesh. In submitting to theritual,one takes the first step toward perfection. It is also possible that the troublers appealed to other passages of Scripture such as Deuteronomy 27:26, noted by Paul in 3:10: "Cursed be he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them." They may have said, "O foolish Galatians, 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 gospel has brought you under a curse, and you cannot possibly share in the promises made to Abraham." They may have cited Leviticus 18:1-5 as well:

173

(1) And the Lord said to Moses, (2) Say to the people of Israel, I am the Lord your God. (3) You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. (4) You shall do my ordinances 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 which a 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 one of God's commandments. "How can Paul say it is nothing?" If one wants to live, then one needs to obey the commands of God, 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 the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael, the father of the Gentiles (Gen. 21:9-14), could very well have crowned their argument. Believing Like Abiaham Even if Paul were not responding specifically to prooftexts used by the opponents to promote their position, he must have wrestled with these texts that seemed 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 of Christ, and he would say to any who might disagree with his interpretation that they have a veil over their minds (2 Cor. 3:14-15). Paul would agree that Christians are to repeat Abraham's experience with God, but he qualifies what really was important in that experience. What was important happened first in Genesis 12 and 15 long before the circumcision recorded in Genesis 17. The term "faith" sets off 3:6-9 as an inclusion; "Abraham believed," "believing Abraham." God promised, Abraham trusted, and it was entered into the heavenly ledger books as righteousness. Rather than being the model proselyte who accepts circumcision, Abraham is the model of the sinner who receives justification by faith without having done anything whatsoever to earn it. He was in essence a pagan, without law or circumcision, but his faith is credited by God as if it were righteousness long before he was circumcised or prepared to offer up Isaac. Paul concludes from this fact that one becomes a son of Abraham on the basis of faith. "Son of Abraham" is essentially redefined by Paul. To most Jews, one qualified as a son of Abraham if one was born a Jew, was circumcised, and lived under 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 expression which 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 of God" 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

174

Galatians 2:15-3:22 Review and Expositor, 91 (1994)

sons of those who murdered the prophets" because their hypocrisy cloaks the same 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 as Abraham did (Rom. 4:12). This notion opens up the possibility for Gentiles to become sons of Abraham without being circumcised. The phrase, "those from faith" in 3:7,9, may have been chosen by Paul because it subtly implies a sense of lineage or descent, "out of." One comes out of Abraham out of faith. This reinterpretation of what it means to be a son of Abraham also opens up the possibility 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 physical relationship to Abraham, or by 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 faith in Christ, not circumcision, are the keys. This very truth, according to Paul, was revealed to Abraham by God at the time he believed. God gave Abraham a preview of the gospel that Gentiles would be saved, justified by faith (see John 8:56). 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 all part of God's planfromthe beginning that Gentiles would be justified according to the same pattern as Abraham. Genesis 12:3 and 18:18 are fused together by Paul to insist that the nations shall be blessed because they will be reckoned righteous on the basis of faith just as Abraham was, independent of the law or circumcision. For Paul, Abraham is not the man to whom the land was promised, or the circumcised man, or the archetype of the man faithful to God and obedient to the law. Paul turns the traditional Jewish view of Abraham upside down. He also interprets 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 be the gift of life (3:11,21) and the gift of the Spirit (3:14). Because Abraham believed and was pronounced righteous (Gen. 15:6), the promise of Genesis 12:3 was 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 obey it: prooftext, Deuteronomy 27:26 (Gal. 3:10). (2) The law does not justify a person before God: prooftext, Habakkuk 2:4 (Gal. 3:11). (3) The law is not based on faith: prooftext, Leviticus 18:5 (Gal. 3:12). In 3:10, Paul interprets Deuteronomy 27:26 to mean that those whose status before God depends on the obedience to the law are not justified by the law but are under a curse (see 4:21). The unexpressed premise is that reliance on works of law leads to universal condemnation because no one is able to do the whole law (see 5:3; 6:12). It is the labor of Sisyphus.5 Paul 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 his encounter with Christ (Phil. 3:9).

175

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 be righteous (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 cites Habakkuk 2:4 as proof and links the phrase "from faith" to the noun, "the righteous": "the righteous through faith shall live," that is, the person justified by faith 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 do with 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 into the 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 one an 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 begins without a connecting particle (asyndeton) and has a theological effect; it suggests "Christ alone!" The law promises only condemnation for failing to obey all its commands (see Rom. 3:9-20). Christ "born under the law" (Gal. 4:4) also submitted 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. Weber writes: "It is not merely an exchange, but a mutual partaking in the fate of the other. Christ not only became accursed for us (and in our place), but shared human fate, so that we might share his fate."6 We die with him just as he died for and with us (Gal. 2:20). Jesus' death and resurrection has defused the curse of the law and brought its threatening reign to an end. The crucifixion of Jesus was a major stumbling block to faith for Jews (1 Cor. 1:23; Gal. 5:11). Deuteronomy 27:25 was probably used by Paul before his Damascus 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 is great and glorious, and takes over the everlasting kingdom from the Ancient of Days as Son of man. But this your so called Christ is without honor and glory so that he has even fallen into the uttermost curse that is in the Law of God, for he was crucified." (Dialogue with Trypho 31-32). Paul made a theological about-face and now saw that curse in an utterly new light. It was a sign of God's love and of Jesus giving himself for him (2:20), and not 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 is reaffirmed. The blessing of Abraham, his justification on the basis of faith alone.

176

Galatians 2:15-3:22 Review and Expositor, 91 (1994)

is shared by all, both Jews and Gentiles, in Christ alone. Gentiles do not need to become Jews to partake of this blessing. In 3:14b, Paul restates the conclusion to 3:1-5. The promise, which is the Spirit, is also received by faith because of Christ's death. We can now see the connection between 3:1-5 and 3:6-13. The Gentiles in Galatia did not do anything related to the law to receive the Spirit except respond to the message with faith, just as Abraham did not do anything to be reckonedrighteousexcept 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 blessing if one is related to or belongs to Christ, not Abraham, by contending that the seed of 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 of Scripture 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 of a man's last will and testament. Human law forbids anyone to add, subtract, or set aside the conditions of a man's testament once it has been validated (perfect tense).7 The Greek word diatheke could have the meaning "will" and "covenant," and Paul plays on both meanings. By using an interpretive principle, called qal wahomer ("the light and the heavy") in Rabbinic exegesis, that which applies in a lesser case will certainly apply in a more important case, he argues that if a human's will is unalterable, how much more so is the covenant made by God. Who would dare to add fresh conditions to the covenant God has made? The covenant that Paul has in mind is the promise made by God to Abraham in Genesis 12:3,15. The promise of the blessing was valid the moment that God pledged it to Abraham. It was, as far as Paul is concerned, unconditional, with no strings attached. It cannot be recalled nor can conditions be tacked on to it later. 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 prescriptions found in the law, then it rules out the promise which was freely bestowed on Abraham on the basis of faith. The issue as Paul frames it is promise or law, one or the other but not both. If it is law, then the promise made to Abraham long before 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

177

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 on Abraham by means of a promise. Again, Paul redefines the terms. The inheritance is the same thing as the blessing (3:8-9). It is not the land, but justification by faith. He also maintains that Abraham's seed does not refer to his posterity but to Christ. Paul bases his argument on the fact that the word "seed" is singular, ignoring the fact that it is a collective noun. He argues that the texts where "seed" occurs do not refer to all the descendants of Abraham in the flesh but to only one descendant, the Messiah. This argument may seem to us to be highly arbitrary and grasping at straws, but if one takes into account that Paul is employing accepted rules of interpretation used by his Jewish contemporaries and the fact that the word "seed" was interpreted messianically by others,8 it is not so uncontrolled. Paul could argue by another accepted principle of Rabbinic exegesis, gezerah shewa, a word or phrase in one verse may be used to interpret another verse where it occurs, that just as the phrase "your seed" in the covenant promise to David (2 Sam. 7:12) refers to the Messiah so the "your seed" in the covenant promise to Abraham refers to the Messiah. Why Did God Bother 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 in God's scheme of things? In a section that continues through 4:7, Paul gives his answer. First, the law was added on account of transgressions (3:19b). This statement could be interpreted to mean that it was added to bring transgressions into check, to keep them from proliferating, to stem the tide of sin and make life a little more tolerable. On the other hand, it is more likely that Paul thought that the law brought about transgression by making it known. In Romans 5:20, Paul boldly 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 transgression requires a recognized standard of what isrightand wrong and the willful violation of that standard. Transgression is therefore more serious than sin. The law consequently clarified the moral and religious situation of the world by revealing what sin is and giving notice that continuing to sin constitutes a conscious and deliberate transgression. One is not only violating God's will but what one now knows to be a violation of God's will. The law therefore had a negative 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 an advantage 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). When the 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 by nearly all Jews. Philo claimed that the law is "immortal as long as the sun and

178

Galatians 2:15-3:22 Review and Expositor, 91 (1994)

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 "the imperishable light of the Law." Other pious Jews proclaimed the permanent glory of the law: it does not perish but remains in its glory (4 Ezra 9:37); even when humankind disappears, the law will abide (2 [Syriac] Apocalypse Baruch 77:15). Later Rabbis have God pronounce that Solomon and a thousand like him shall be obliterated before one word of the Torah will be (Jerusalem Talmud Sanhdrin 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 thinking about the law? He is not talking about the Pentateuch per se, but about covenants. He contends that the Abrahamic covenant of promise, not the Mosaic covenant 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 popular view in Judaism that the law was delivered by angels (see Deut. 33:2 LXX, "the Lord 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 to tout the law, but Paul uses it to point out that mediators were used in giving of the 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 of interpretations of this passage is said to be 250 or 300. Paul, however, seems to be saying quite simply that in the delivery of the law, God used middlemen, gobetweensangels and Moses. The idea of a mediator conveys a couple of images. A mediator is called in to settle a dispute and functions as an umpire or referee. The result is usually a compromise. That would suggest that the law is a compromise situation (see Jesus' statement about divorce in Matt. 19:8). More importantly, the fact that God used angels as lobbyists with Moses indicates that God was not directly or immediately involved. God does not confront Moses personally but sends representatives. By contrast, God spoke directly to Abraham without any gobetweens when God made the promise. When God works the great works, God does not use brokers or middlemen. Therefore, the covenant of the promise is more significant than the covenant of the law. Once again, Paul's radical conclusions prompt another question, "Is the law in opposition to the promises [of God]?" The answer would seem to be, "Yes, the law and the promise are irreconcilable." But the question, in effect, asks, "Is there a contradiction in Scripture?" The answer must be no, since Paul assumes that there are no contradictions in Scripture. He explains the apparent disagreement 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 if a law were given which was able to give life [which is not the case, no such law was given] then righteousness would be based upon the law."

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 nor can 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 can save; 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 shalt nots" into action. It is like telling a poor person, "Be warmed and filled" without giving them anything to warm or fill them (Jas. 2:16).9 Even when the law is obeyed, the motives behind one's obedience might be suspect. But the law was never 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 in God's scheme of things was to make humanity aware that we are transgressors and 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 of this confinement is explained more fully in Romans 11:32: "God confined all things 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 Jesus Christ came to lead the great escape. As a result of Christ's work, things have changed. Paul uses intricate arguments to persuade the Galatians that they have made a serious error in submitting to the influence of the troublers who promote the status quo with their emphasis on works of law and ultimately nullify the grace of God. From a Jewish perspective, they are the radical arguments of an extremist who has lost his senses. Is it any wonder that the one who wrote these words had the synagogue'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 that wholly new possibilities await those of faith. Why return to the old order and its regimen that leads only to curse and death? Freedom, justification, and life are promises now fulfilled in Christ which extend to all humankind.
Many words that occur in this passage reappear prominently in the argument of the letter. "Righteousness" {dikaiosyne, 2:21) and to "justify" (dikaioun, 2:16,17) will be taken up again in 3:6, 21; 5:5; 3:8,11,24; 5:4. The question of the law (2:16,19,21) will reappear in 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 of law" (2:16) will resurface in 3:2, 5,10; 5:19; 6:4. "Faith" (2:16, 20) will be mentioned 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. 2 M. Barth, "Jews and Gentiles: The Social Character of Justification in Paul," Journal of Ecumenical Studies 5 (1968), 241-267. 3 M. Barth, "Jews and Gentiles: The Social Character of Justification in Paul," 259.
]

180

*See C. . Barrett, "The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians," Rechtfertigung: Festschrift fr Ernst Ksemann, ed. by J. Friedrich, W. Poehlmann, and P. Stuhlmacher (Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1976), 1-16. 5 G. Ebeling, The Truth of the Gospel: An Exposition of Galatians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 178. 6 H.-R. Weber, The Cross: Tradition and Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1975), 92. 7 Many 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. H For example, the reference to the seed of David in 2 Samuel 7:12 is understood as a designation of the Messiah in 4Q Florilegium 1:10-11. In Biblical Antiquities (Ps.- Philo) 8:3, "the seed" is interpreted to be "an everlasting seed." 9 C. K. Barrett, Freedom and Obligation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1989), 34.

181

^ 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 permission from 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 specific work 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 American Theological Library Association.