Galatians

*I’ve inserted Romans 7:4 here to highlight its similarity to Galatians 2:19 which I will discuss below.

I want to draw attention to two aspects of the chart.  Note first the descriptions in the “CONDITION” column.  I argue that all of them are more-or-less synonyms in Paul’s thought: justification = righteousness = life = blessedness = inheritance = redemption.  The second aspect concerns the “POSITIVE ROUTE” column.  These too, I claim, are more-or-less synonymous.  It is precisely this synonymy which argues for interpreting pistewV Cristou as the “faithfulness of Christ.”  If we bracket those verses where pistiV Cristou or just pistiV occurs, we find references to Jesus’ death (2:19, 21), a reference to Jesus living (2:20), a reference to Jesus becoming a curse (3:13).  Note that in these instances, reference is made to activities of Jesus.  This would include 3:12 if, as I will argue, Paul interprets Leviticus 18:5 messianically.  This would be strong evidence that the other references, those containing pistiV, also have reference to activities of Jesus.  This would be solid evidence that these references have to do with Jesus’ faithfulness and not our belief in Jesus.  The reference to Jesus’ death is really another way to refer to Jesus’ obedience (see Phil. 2:8).  The basis of salvation is something Jesus did and not something we believe.

 GREETING 1:1-5

1:1 Paul an apostle—sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Jesus the Messiah and God the Father, who raised him from the dead,

The use of the Greek name “Paul” as opposed to the Hebrew “Saul” may already alert us to Paul’s status as missionary to the Gentiles.  An apostle is someone sent as an envoy of a commissioner.  In the New Testament, an apostle refers to someone from a distinct group; according to Acts 1:22, an apostle must be an eyewitness to the resurrection.  This criterion is evidence of the importance of the resurrection.  Paul seems to defend his apostleship on the same grounds (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8).   What is beyond dispute is that Paul considers himself an apostle to the Gentiles (Gal. 1:16; 2:2, 8-9; Rom. 1:5; 11:13; 15:16, 18), which is important to keep in mind in interpreting the letter as a whole.

Paul seems to be defending his apostleship against those who claimed that he only received his authority from other Christians.  If this phrase is chiastic (“not from humans, nor through humans, but through Jesus the Messiah and [from] God the Father”), then Paul is saying that his Gospel comes from the Father mediated through Jesus, since it was Jesus who appeared to him on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:5; 22:8; 26:15).  I prefer “Messiah” to “Christ” because I think to modern readers “Jesus Christ” is more of a title and the meaning of “Messiah” (‘anointed one’) and all that entails drops out.

God the Father—note that this is how Jesus referred to God—is identified by his role in raising Jesus from the dead.  In this brief description we get a glimpse as to what for Paul is of crucial importance and that is Jesus’ resurrection.  Paul does not say “…the one having sent Jesus to die” (so Rom. 4:25; 8:32).  The importance of the resurrection should be kept in mind, for there are times when Paul assumes it and its assumption is crucial in understanding his line of thought, or so I will argue.

1:2-3 and all the brothers and sisters with me, to the churches in Galatia:  grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus the Messiah,

It could be that grace (Greek) and peace (Hebrew) are merely forms of address; however, Paul uses both words to describe salvation.  We have peace with God because of the grace of Jesus’ faithfulness, which is itself, a grace of God (see comment on Rom. 5:1).  The above construal helps answer—as it would in Philippians 1:2—what the word “and” coordinates (‘us’ or ‘God the Father of us’).  Both God and Jesus are at work to effect grace (of God 2:21, of Jesus 1:6) and peace (of God Phil. 4:7, through Jesus Rom. 5:1).  In calling Jesus “Lord,” Paul probably has in mind Jesus’ dominion as the master over his slaves (see 1:10).

1:4-5 the one having given himself on behalf of our sins, that  he may rescue us out of this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forever and ever, amen.

That Jesus gives himself on behalf of our sins does not necessarily mean that he did so as an animal-like sacrifice.  This language may come from Mark 10:45/Isaiah 53:5-6, 12, and I have already discussed some of the important issues.  If Jesus is to rescue us out of this evil age, this must assume for Paul resurrection into the age-to-come.  It is the resurrection of Jesus that rescues us and it is needed to overcome death which was brought about because of sins.  So, when Paul says Jesus gave himself for our sins, it makes most sense to speak in terms of Jesus’ resurrection—which includes his death of course (see 1 Cor. 15:3, where the death is explicitly mentioned)--and not his crucifixion-as-animal-like sacrifice.  Comparison with 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10 is instructive:  “Because God did not appoint us to wrath [I take this to be eschatological = “hell”], but to the attainment of salvation through our Lord Jesus the Messiah, the one having died on our behalf, that whether we are awake or sleeping we may live together with him.”  Jesus died to resurrect so that we too could resurrect and live with him.  Noteworthy, is that it is Jesus who gives himself (see also 2:20); this is important because it highlights Jesus’ agency which is of a piece with his obedience.

Both Jesus’ self-giving and his rescuing us are said to be according to God’s will.  Crucial for my case is that the very existence to God’s will implies that there was something to which Jesus could be faithful (see Mt. 26:42).  A similar point can be made about 1 Corinthians 15:3 where Christ died for our sins “in accordance with scripture,” which records God’s will (see also 4:4-5, where God sends Jesus with a mission to which Jesus could be faithful). 

PAUL’S APOLOGIA 1:6-4:31

THE CASE (EXORDIUM) 1:6-10

1:6 I marvel that you are so quickly turning from the one having called you in the grace of Jesus the Messiah to a different gospel,

I would argue that what Paul means by the grace of Jesus the Messiah is the analogue to the major theme in the letter that justification is by the faithfulness of Jesus.  If this is so, then we would have another argument for interpreting pistiV Cristou as the “faithfulness of Jesus,” because both refer to something Jesus offers (see Rom. 5:15 and it parallel in Gal. 2:20).  On this scheme, the analogue to the “different gospel” would be that justification is by “works of law” (see 2:16), the position that Paul is arguing against throughout the letter.

1:7-9 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are troubling you and desiring to pervert the gospel of the Messiah.  But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed.

Paul is claiming there is only one gospel and that his opponents are offering a pseudo-gospel.

1:10 Am I now seeking human approval, or God’s approval?  Or am I trying to please people?  If I were still pleasing people, I would be not be a slave of the Messiah.

The opponents seemed to have accused Paul of altering his message in order to win converts.  The reference to being a slave of the Messiah is meant to highlight that Paul’s message is from Jesus (1:1) and that to alter that message would have been to go against Christ.

The description of Paul as a slave is highly significant.  He opens both Romans (1:1) and Philippians (1:1) with the same description (“slave of Jesus the Messiah”).  It is highly probable that Paul has in mind Isaiah 49 in these passages.

1.       In Romans, Paul is called with a mission to the Gentiles (1:5), a theme prominent in Isaiah 49.

2.       In Philippians, Paul seems to allude to Isaiah 49:4 in 2:16 and probably to the slave passage of Isaiah 53:12 in 2:7.

3.       In Galatians, Paul probably alludes to Isaiah 49 in 1:15 (but see Jer. 1:5).

FACTS PERTAINING TO APOLOGIA (NARRATIO) 1:11-2:14

THESIS 1:11-12

1:11-12 For I make known to you brothers and sisters, that the gospel proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus the Messiah.

Paul introduces his thesis with a common formula ‘for I make known to you’ to highlight the importance of the following statement.  The gospel that Paul preached is not of human origin, but received via revelation.  Paul’s reference is no doubt to his road to Damascus experience at which time he claims to have received his commission to go to the Gentiles (1:16).  His opponents were probably claiming that Paul received his gospel from humans—the Jerusalem leadership—and so any difference from their preaching must be Paul’s innovation.

EVENTS BEFORE VISITING JERUSALEM 1:13-17

PRE-DAMASCUS EVENTS 1:13-14

1:13-14 You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism.  I was violently persecuting the church of God and trying to destroy it.  I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors.

The defense begins with a reminder of Paul of his life in Judaism and that this life shows that Paul was not likely to advocate a law-free gospel for Gentiles.  His persecution of the church, which he uses to prove his zeal (see Phil. 3:6), very well may have been related to issues concerning the Christians’ lax attitude toward the law (see Acts 6:11-14).  These verses, as well as Philippians 3:5-6, seem to show that Paul did not lament his inability to keep the law.  I will return to the importance of this.

DAMASCUS EVENTS 1:15-17

1:15 But when God was pleased, the one having separated me from my mother’s womb and having called me through his grace,

The wording here of being called from the womb echoes the call of Old Testament prophets.  For example, Isaiah says “the Lord called me before I was born, while I was in my mother’s womb he named me” (Isa. 49:1, interestingly, in Isa. 49:6 we read “I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth”).   The Lord says to Jeremiah: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations” (Jer. 1:5).  No doubt these echoes highlight Paul’s divine commissioning.

1:16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being,

Paul’s commissioning from the beginning involved his mission to the Gentiles.  But Paul’s main point is that he did not go to any other Christian to get an official interpretation of his experience, thereby distancing himself from the accusation that he received his information entirely from other Christians.

Pause probably should be taken at the term ‘the Son’ for a title of Jesus.  Paul is no doubt aware of those passages in the Old Testament that refer to God’s Son (2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7; 89:26-27).  No doubt, Paul is aware that a son is obedient (faithful) to the wishes of his father (see Mal. 1:6, where a son’s honor of a father is on par with a slave’s honor of master).

1:17 Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.

Paul distances himself even from the Jerusalem leadership in order to prove his independence from them.  No doubt, his accusers knew of Paul’s visit to Jerusalem and used it to his disadvantage.  This probably explains why he then recounts his trip to Jerusalem.

FIRST JERUSALEM VISIT AND AFTERMATH 1:18-24

1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and I stayed with him fifteen days;

Paul admits he did go to Jerusalem but only after three years (probably from his Damascus experience), a long time.  Contrast this with his relatively short stay with Peter.  Paul’s accusers may have claimed Paul got his information from Pater and this would explain why Paul distances himself from Peter in Antioch (2:11-14).

1:19 but I did not see any other apostle except James the brother of our Lord.

Again, Paul is minimizing his contact with the Jerusalem leadership by mentioning only James. 

1:20-22 In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!  Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in the Messiah.

Paul vows that he tells the truth and then he says that he literally distances himself from Jerusalem.  He does not loiter in Jerusalem which one might expect if he was so beholden to the Jerusalem leadership (see 2:4, 17; 3:14, 26, 28; 5:6, 10).  Of some importance is the phrase “in the Messiah.”  This suggests the incorporative nature of the relationship of Jesus with his church.  I will return to this theme later.

1:23-24 They only heard it said, “The one formerly persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God because of me.

One gets the feeling that Paul is keenly aware of his previous actions against the church (see also 1 Cor. 15:9).  Instructive too is the comparison of the use of ‘the faith’ to describe Paul’s preaching with 1:16 (I might proclaim him):

                1:23: euaggelizetai thn pistin

        1:16: euaggelizwmai auton

The ‘faith’ is equated with Jesus (‘him’) and this adds to the likelihood that ‘faith’ (pistin) concerns Jesus’ faithfulness and not our belief (see 3:23-26 for additional support of this line of argument).  Paul preached Jesus’ faithfulness, his obedient death on the cross, and his resurrection and everything that flows from that.

THE SECOND JERUSALEM VISIT 2:1-10

2:1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.

Again, Paul is noting that a long time—fourteen years from his Damascus experience (?)—passed before he visited Jerusalem, again proving that he was not beholden to those in Jerusalem.

2:2 I went up in responds to a revelation.  Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain.

Paul did not go to Jerusalem at the leaders bidding but in response to God’s bidding.  The purpose was probably to get the Jerusalem leaders’ blessing on his message to Gentiles so as to make Paul’s message more effective.  Is Paul being dismissive in calling the leaders “acknowledged?”

2:3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.

Verses 2:3-5 probably form a parenthesis; the point is that not even Titus, though a Gentile, was circumcised.  Here we have an indication what the issue is between Paul and his opponents.  Paul thinks Gentiles need not be circumcised (a work of law) while his opponents did.  Notice what Paul does not say, he does not say that Titus was not compelled to do good deeds.

2:4 But because of false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in the Messiah Jesus, so that they might enslave us—

The flow of this verse probably is meant to convey that not even Titus was compelled to get circumcised except by some opponents not necessarily associated with the Jerusalem leaders.  These opponents are the analogue to his opponents in Galatia.  Freedom is a major theme in Galatians.  Suffice it now to say that freedom is related to “in the Messiah Jesus.”     Jesus brought about freedom—primarily freedom from death which is the law’s curse for sin or disobedience—and those incorporated with him enjoy that freedom.

2:5 we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

For Paul, the Gospel itself implies that the Gentiles need not be circumcised.

2:6 And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me.

This verse continues from 2:2 and Paul’s claim is that the Jerusalem leaders did not require anything more than what Paul required from the Gentiles as will be explicated below.

2:7-8 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles),

The implication is not that there are two gospels but that with regard to the law; there is a difference between what is required for Gentiles and what is required for Jews.  Paul is beginning to refute what was a probable argument of his opponents that Paul’s message was counter to that of the Jerusalem leadership.  Note also the terms Paul uses.  Instead of Gentiles/Jews he uses uncircumcised/circumcised.  This is crucial because what Paul is really concerned about is the Gentile’s relationship to the law, that is, do they have to be circumcised—a work of the law.  The contrast is not between those who need not do good deeds to get saved and those require good deeds to get saved.

2:9-10 and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.  They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do.

The Jerusalem leadership agrees with Paul and this refutes Paul’s opponents’ probable argument that he differed from them.  In fact, Paul has a positive relationship with the leadership which is proved by his willingness to do what they wish.

EVENTS IN ANTIOCH 2:11-14

2:11-12 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was self-condemned; for until certain people came from James, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction.

However, Paul had to overcome what he believed to be Peter’s error.  Peter is blamed for ceasing to eat with Gentiles because of peer pressure and because the Gentiles did not have the required works of law (circumcision).  Note again the term Paul uses for Jews (see 2:7-9).  Though the issue in Antioch is table-fellowship, the fact that Paul refers to Jews as “ones of the circumcision” indicates the importance of that rite and its role in the overall debate.

2:13 And the other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.

One can understand Paul’s disappointment that even Barnabas was led astray.

2:14 But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Again, Paul infers that the gospel itself does not compel Gentiles to get circumcised (Judaize); the roadblock preventing Peter and company from continuing their table-fellowship was the ritual purity of Gentiles.  When Peter was eating with Gentiles, he was ignoring the requisite ritual purity and therefore living as a Gentile.  Implicit in this was the demand that the Gentiles Judaize in order for them to have table-fellowship with Jewish Christians.  Paul objected to this demand.

THE PROPOSITION TO BE PROVED (PROPOSITIO) 2:15-21

The remarks in this section probably spring out of the incident in Antioch and is meant as an overall statement of what Paul is to prove in the central section of the argument (3:1-4:31).  Therefore, this section is of a piece with that section.  I refer the reader to my Chart on Galatians 2-3 as an aid to interpretation.

2:15 We by nature Jews and not Gentile sinners,

Most likely, Paul is being ironic in referring to Gentiles as sinners.  He is using a term his opponents (but others too—see Mt. 26:45; Lk. 6:32-33) would have used to refer to Gentiles.  By “we Jews,” he probably means Jewish Christians (perhaps with Peter in mind from the Antioch incident), which would make better sense of what follows.  This verse is very revealing as to what the main issues are in the letter.  Paul’s opponents are wanting the Gentiles to Judaize, that is, become “Jews by nature,” whereas Paul says that the badges of salvation need not be worn by only Jews (= circumcised), which is something Jewish Christians ought to know, since they ought to know that not all Jews are in the saved camp.

2:16 yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of law but through the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah.  And we have come to believe in the Messiah Jesus, so that we might be justified by the faithfulness of the Messiah, and not by works of law, because no one will be justified by works of law.

The first task I will undertake to interpret this important verse is to give an account of what Paul means by “justification.”  I contend that justification is the verdict of God whether a person (or a people—note Paul’s use of person [anqrwpoV] to include both Jews and Gentiles) is a member of his covenant community.  Justification is not just about being initiated into God’s people.  According to the standard evangelical story a person is justified solely at the moment when a person believes in Jesus.  But for Paul, justification pertains to the whole of one’s life.  This explains why the second use of ‘justification’ in this verse has future implications (we might be justified) and the third is in the future tense (no one will be justified). 

Justification is also about God’s final verdict and therefore has to do with (eternal) life (see 5:5).  This fits nicely with the chart.  Justification and life both are applicable to the people of God, because they are more-or-less synonymous.  This is because Jesus died and rose from the dead.  (Note how God is described in 1:1 and see Romans 7:4 which I offer as a parallel with 2:19, see chart.)

The second task involves getting clear about what Paul means by ‘works of law.’  However, the standard evangelical story takes ‘works of law’ to be either good deeds or ritual acts which are akin to good deeds as something done to win God’s favorable verdict.  As with my explication of ‘justification’ I take ‘works of law’ as having to do with who is God’s people.  This verse follows controversies in Jerusalem where Titus was pressured to become circumcised, that is, become Jewish, and in Antioch, where Peter’s actions implied that Gentiles must become Jewish in order to enjoy table-fellowship with Jewish Christians.  Both controversies were about whether Gentiles had to become Jews.  Circumcision (see Gen. 17) and Jewish food laws (see Dan. 1) are precisely those observances that define Jews vis-à-vis Gentiles, that is, they are identity markers.  We could add Sabbath observance and Paul may have something to say about this too (see 4:10).

Therefore, when Paul says that one is not justified by ‘works of law,’ he means that one does not need to become Jewish to be to be a member of God’s covenantal people.  It also follows that ‘works of law’ are not equivalent to obeying the law in general or to doing good deeds to win God’s favor.  I will return to this time and again.

One of the arguments usually given for taking pistiV Cristou to be a subjective genitive (faithfulness of Jesus) is that in places where Paul uses this phrase he also makes reference to human faith (one could add Rom. 1:17 and I will (!), from [Jesus’] faith(fulness) to [our] faith(fulness)):

1.       Galatians 2:16…we in (eiV = into) Messiah Jesus believed, that we might be justified by the faithfulness of the Messiah.  Note should be taken of the prepositional phrase ‘into (eiV) Messiah Jesus believed’ and its analogue in 3:27 ‘into (eiV) the Messiah were baptized.’  The idea in both verses has to do with incorporation with Jesus, and since Jesus offers the obedience God requires, those who are incorporated into him will reap the rewards he won (see Rom. 6:3-4).

2.       Romans 3:22 …a righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah to all the ones believing.

3.       Galatians 3:22 …that the promise by the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah might be given to the ones believing.

4.       Philippians 3:9 …the righteousness through the faithfulness of the Messiah, the righteousness of God based upon faith.

If pistiV Cristou were to mean ‘belief in the Messiah,’ then Paul would be overly redundant in his formulations.  On the other hand, if it means ‘Jesus’ faithfulness,’ then we would be given the objective basis of salvation (Jesus’ faithfulness) and our subjective response.

Finally, Paul gives a reason why justification is not by works of law by citing Psalm 143:2 (see also Rom. 3:20, where the same verse is quoted),

Do not enter into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you [NSRV]

But instead of ‘no one living’ Paul substitutes ‘all flesh’ and he adds ‘from works of law.’  Paul’s use of ‘flesh’ here probably has to do with circumcision and physical descent (again, see Gen. 17 and also Gal. 4:29; 6:12-13) and his point is that circumcision and physical descent are not sufficient conditions for justification (see last verse).  Paul cites scripture to prove that not all Jews are justified.  This is his strategy in Romans 3:9-20—see there.  Of course, Paul will say that circumcision is not a necessary condition either.

2:17 But if, in our effort to be justified in the Messiah, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is the Messiah then a servant of sin?  Certainly not!

The structure of this verse is a conditional, the antecedent of which is a compound of two propositions.  All hands agree that the first proposition, that Paul is seeking to be justified in the Messiah, is true.  ‘In the Messiah,’ again refers to the importance of Jesus as the crucial factor in justification and suggests the idea of incorporation (see 3:14, 26, 28; 5:6).

Not all agree about the truth of the second proposition, namely, ‘we ourselves have been found to be sinners.’  However, I take Paul to be giving premises and then showing that a false conclusion is drawn from the true premises.  It would muddy the logical waters to assume one of the premises is false for then a false conclusion would not be surprising.  To be called a ‘sinner’ presupposes a Jewish context and refers to those who do not uphold the law in an appropriate manner (see 2:15).  Therefore, Peter in Antioch was initially a ‘sinner’ for his table-fellowship with Gentiles. 

The conclusion is false as Paul states.  If those incorporated with Jesus are ‘sinners,’ that does not make Jesus a minister of sin (here understood in an absolute sense and this fact is the key to the argument).  Paul will defend his denial in the following verses.

2:18 But if I build up again the very things that I once destroyed, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor.

The ‘but’ signals a defense of Paul’s denial that Jesus is a minister of sin.  The ‘I’ is probably a reference to those Jewish Christians, such as Peter in Antioch, who by reverting back to non-table-fellowship with Gentiles are trying to build again what they destroyed [aorist—implies once-for-all action] when they sought to be justified in the Messiah.  What is the transgression?  Most likely it is of the law itself.  My conjecture is that the law itself says that death releases oneself from the law and so to claim it is still binding is a transgression (see Rom. 7 and the next verse). How did the destruction of ‘these things’ take place?  That is the question, I believe, he answers in the next verse.

2:19 For I through the law to the law died, that to God I may live.  I have been crucified with the Messiah;

This cryptic verse will need some unpacking.  As I mentioned above, this verse gives a reason why the “I” would be a transgressor, hence the connective “for.”  Again, the “I” is best viewed as Jewish-Christians-as-incorporated-in-the-Messiah.  Paul says that “he” died to the law through the law.  A strong case can be made that it was sin working through the law that brought death.  The main evidence for this is in Romans 7, a chapter I will argue that Paul’s “I”-statements are not primarily autobiographical:

Rom. 7:5-6 The passions of sins through the law were working in our members, so as to bear fruit to death.  But now we were released from the law having died to that in which we were being held.

Rom. 7:7 Sin I did not know except through law.

Rom. 7:8 But sin having taken opportunity through the commandment produced in me every kind of lust.

Rom. 7:11 …for sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.

Rom. 7:13 …sin, that it may be shown as sin, through the good working death to me, sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful…

How it is that sin uses the law is most likely by taking advantage of the law’s/commandment’s death sentence:

…but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die (Gen. 2:17, Paul uses in Rom. 5).  Cursed be anyone who does not uphold the words of this law by observing them (Deut. 27:26, Paul quotes in Gal. 3:10).  See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity.  If you obey the commandments…you shall live…But if your heart turns away…you shall perish… (Deut. 30:15-18, Paul quotes Deut. 30:11-14 in Rom. 10).

It is also this aspect of the law that killed Jesus.  Jesus became on our behalf a curse of the law (Gal. 3:13), just as on our behalf he was made sin (2 Cor. 5:21).  The law condemns to death disobedience and Jesus paid that penalty, he died to sin (Rom. 6:10).  Therefore, it is through the law’s death sentence that “I” died to the law.

The verse ends with a clear statement of incorporation: with the Messiah I have been crucified.  Two aspects of this phrase stand out: (1) Paul does not say that only Jesus died, but also those incorporated with him, and (2) the resurrection is at the fore because Jesus died that “to God I may live.”

As an aside, that Paul views Jesus’ death primarily as a martyrs death may find support in 4 Maccabees, which Paul may have read, in which the martyrs do not die to God but live to God (see 4 Macc. 7:19; 16:25; see also Rom. 6:10; 14:8-9).  So, the passage could be summarized by saying that Jesus “died for our sins,” that is, he died to absorb the curse of death so that we might die with him and live with him via resurrection.

We can now also make sense of the parallel in Romans 7:4: “you were put to death to the law through the body of the Messiah.”  How can the body of Jesus be the analogue to the law?  Because, the law curses sin with death, and Jesus, in the body, died that death.

2:20 and it is no longer I who live, but the Messiah who lives in me.  And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faithfulness, that of the Son of God, the one having loved me and having given himself over on my behalf.

The concept of incorporation exemplified here ties in with being crucified with the Messiah and living to God in the previous verse.  The phrase en pistei I have translated as “by [Jesus’] faithfulness.”   Parallel with Romans 5:15 is instructive:  h dwrea en cariti th enoV anqrwpou Ihsou Cristou (the gift in grace of the one man Jesus the Messiah).  The gift that Jesus offered was his obedient death on the cross, that is, his faithfulness.  Clearly, the analogue in Galatians 2:20 to the gift in grace is Jesus’ lovingly giving himself over on our behalf.  Since the gist of the verse concerns what Jesus is doing in Paul it would make sense that Paul’s current life finds its basis in what Jesus did, that is, his faithfulness, not Paul’s faith.

On a technical note, both Galatians 2:20 and Romans 5:15 are subjective genitive constructions with an article (th).  Another example is from Romans 4:16, where the genitive phrase ek pistewV Abraam is subjective without an article.  These examples show that the presence or lack of an article is not decisive in determining whether pistiV Cristou ought to be subjective or objective genitive.

2:21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness is through the law, then the Messiah died for nothing.

The statement that Paul does not set aside the grace of God was probably in answer to an objection that Paul was setting aside the law.  Interestingly, this would mean that the law was given by grace (see Rom. 3:2).  In Romans, Paul answers the objection that he was setting aside the law (3:31).  The law was not able to give life/justification (3:21), something the Jesus’ death and resurrection did give.

CONCERNING JUDAIZING 3:1-4:31

EXPERIENCE 3:1-5

3:1 O senseless Galatians, who bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus the Messiah was openly portrayed as having been crucified?

Paul opens his first argument with a reminder that Jesus was crucified.  I take this to be Paul’s shorthand way of referring to Jesus’ faithful act of dying followed by a vindicating resurrection.  The word for ‘openly portrayed’ probably refers to Paul’s past preaching.  In other words, Paul preached a message of Jesus’ faithfulness (his obedient death) and that fact will help us interpret 3:2 and 3:5.

3:2 This only I want to learn from you; by works of law did you receive the Spirit or by the message of faithfulness?

Paul’s logic here is to argue that the Gentiles received the Spirit, which was an indication of their justification, before they were circumcised (= works of law).  The importance of this fact is highlighted by “this only I want to learn,” as if his entire case could rest on this one point.

The crux of the verse (and verse 5) revolves around the meaning of akohV pistewV.  Based on evidence of Romans 10:16 in which Paul quotes Isaiah 53:1 (who believed our report [akoh]) and I Thessalonians 2:12 (having received the word of the report (akohV) from f God), it seems the word in question should be translated as report or message or proclamation.  Likewise, it seems based on the evidence of Romans 10:17 that pistiV ought to mean our believing.  However, I would argue that pistiV again refers to Jesus’ faithfulness.  Recall that the content of Paul’s preaching involves Jesus and his death; both have to do with Jesus and his faithfulness and not our belief.  I refer to my comment on 1:23 and its relation to 1:16.  This interpretation would tie-in with the reference to Jesus’ obedient death in 3:1, and to the contrasts involving works of law in 2:16.  Finally, there is even a link between the words akohV and pistiV --translated as faithfulness.  In Romans 1:5, the word for obedience (upakohn) is related to akoh.  Therefore, both akoh and pistiV have to do with obedience.

As I will argue later, Jesus redeemed us so that the Spirit might be received (see 3:14; 4:6).

3:3 So senseless you are, having begun in the Spirit you are now ending in the flesh?

Mention of the fleas here no doubt has circumcision in view, and Paul’s point is that the reception of the Spirit occurred before any works of law (= circumcision).  I will have more to say on the Spirit/flesh dichotomy in my comments on chapter 5.

3:4 Did you experience so much for nothing?—if it really was for nothing.

The experience in question is the reception of the Spirit, which in 3:14 is related to Jesus’ faithfulness.

3:5 The one, therefore, supplying to you the Spirit and producing works of power among you, is it by works of law or by the message of faithfulness?

Paul repeats for emphasis that the Galatians received to Spirit before circumcision or any other works of law that would make the Jews.  In 1 Thessalonians 1:5, he says “the good news of us did not come to you in word only but also in power and in the Holy Spirit,” where the good news is Jesus’ faithful death (see 1 Thess. 1:10).  In Romans 1:16 he says “I am not ashamed of the good news, for the power of God it is unto salvation,” where the good news concerns Jesus (see Rom. 1:3—note also that he is not ashamed, a probable reference to Jesus’ crucifixion (obedient death).

THE CASE OF ABRAHAM 3:6-29

The standard evangelical story has Paul invoking Abraham to show that Christians are justified by belief just as Abraham.  The Gospel Beyond Belief has Paul invoking Abraham because of his obedience/faithfulness.  Recall from my introduction that Abraham was to be the obedient new Adam.  Paul invokes Abraham for just this reason.  It is Abraham’s faithful obedience that is the key and not his faith/belief.  Paul’s main concern here is to argue that Gentiles are a member of Abraham’s family and therefore heir to the promises God made to Abraham.  However, they do not need to be circumcised because Abraham was not circumcised when he first was faithful and was promised to by God.

ABRAHAM’S FAITHFULNESS 3:6-9

3:6 As Abraham was faithful to God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.  

  The opening word kaqwV (“as”) seems to set up some sort of comparison with the preceding thought (3:1-5).  The thought there was that the Galatians did not receive the Spirit (= justification) by works of the law (that is, by getting circumcised and becoming Jews), but by Jesus’ faithfulness.  Abraham was justified by his faithfulness and not by works of law, since the circumcision and law came after (3:15-18).

I have translated episteusen as “faithfulness” and not “belief” because that is how Paul understands the term.  Paul quotes the only two verses in the Septuagint (LXX) where a dik-root (righteousness) is coupled with pistiV (faith):  Genesis 15:6 and Habakkuk 2:4.  Therefore, I claim, Paul’s choice of Genesis 15:6 is dictated by the root dik- and not by the meaning of the root here as “belief.”  It is very interesting to point out that in 1 Maccabees 2:52 we read, “was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (compare Jas. 2:21-23!).  This is pertinent because the Maccabees passage involves martyrdom, which is a death that is not an animal-like sacrifice.  I will further substantiate my interpretation of episteusen as faithfulness when I comment on 3:8.

Abraham is important for Paul because of his covenant with God and the by his faithfulness benefits accrue to others.  Note the importance of Abraham in Isaiah 41:8, where the “seed of the God-loving Abraham” is described as God’s slave.  The slave in Isaiah is representative and accrues benefits to others.

3:7 Know then that the ones of faithfulness, these ones are sons of Abraham.

The “then” indicates that this verse is a consequence of the previous verse.  This signals that what Paul says here is related to Abraham’s covenantal importance and that his faithfulness accrues benefits for others.  In 4 Maccabees, Abraham is called “our father” and is lauded for his faithfulness in offering Isaac (see Jas. 2:21). 

The crux of the verse involves the meaning of oi ekpistewV.  I contend that this phrase does not mean “believers” but rather “those of faithfulness,” which is another way of saying “those of the faithfulness of Jesus.”  Evidence for this comes from 2:16 and 3:2, 5, where I argued that Jesus’ faithfulness is in view in the phrase ek pistiV/ex akohV pistewV.  Of course, it is important to point out that Paul expects Christians to mirror Jesus’ faithfulness and to incorporate into him so Paul can afford to be somewhat ambiguous whether Paul means Jesus’ faithfulness or ours or Abraham’s.  And since Jesus is Abraham’s seed, there is a connection between Jesus’ faithfulness and Abraham’s—Abraham’s faithfulness is really a pre-figuration or metaphor for Jesus’ faithfulness. 

Paul links the ones who are justified by Jesus’ faithfulness with Abraham because of their common trait of faithfulness.  A son of Abraham is another way to refer to those who are justified because they are a part of God’s covenant with Abraham.

3:8 And the scriptures having foreseen that by faithfulness God would justify the nations, prepreached the good news to Abraham, will be blessed in you all the nations;

Paul is stating that by Jesus’ faithfulness God will justify the nations.  Again, evidence for this is found in 2:16 and 3:2, 5.  This ties the verse with the previous (where “of faithfulness” refers to Jesus’ faithfulness), which would make sense since Paul links the verses with “and.”  Also, Paul says the good news was foreseen by scripture and prepreached to Abraham.  This indicates that the good news is for a later time than Abraham.  This would seem to rule out Abraham’s faith/faithfulness as the primary referent of ek pistewV; Paul equates the good news with Jesus’ faithful death and resurrection.  Of course, the reason Abraham is the one in whom the nations are blessed is because of his faithfulness and that his seed is the faithful Jesus.

The scripture to which Paul alludes (eneuloghqhsontai en soi panta ta eqnh) are probably the following from Genesis:

12:3 eneuloghqhontai en soi pasai ai fulai thV ghV

18:18 eneuloghqhsontai en autw panta ta eqnh thV ghV

22:18 eneuloghqhsontai en tw sperma sou panta ta eqnh

It is interesting that Paul quotation is an amalgam of Genesis 12:3 (in you) and with Genesis 18:18 and 22:18 (the the nations).  That Genesis 22:18, is probably in play is Paul’s use of the word “seed” in 3:16, 19, 29.  But in 22:18 the nations are blessed because Abraham obeyed God and did not withhold Isaac, that is, the nations are blessed on account of Abraham’s faithfulness.  Recall in my introduction I mentioned the promises to the patriarchs and how they were tied to obedience (besides 22:18, we have 12:1, 9; 18:18; 26:5, 24). 

For Paul, the phrase “in you” has to do with being related to Abraham.  Paul’s opponents may have argued that one has to be related to Abraham via circumcision, whereas Paul will take a different avenue to relate Gentiles to Abraham.  So, Paul is not just arguing that by Abraham the nations are blessed but that in him the nations are blessed (see Romans 4:18 where Gen. 17:5 and 15:5 are quoted in tandem).

3:9 So the ones of faithfulness are blessed with the faithful Abraham.

The identity of the ‘ones of faithfulness’ are clearly the nations as this verse indicates.  Again, the word ‘blessed’ refers to  one who is a member of God’s covenantal people and is the same as ‘justification.’  The ones who are justified by Jesus’ faithfulness are related to Abraham via Jesus, which will become explicit later. So, the preposition ‘with’ in this verse has the same basic meaning as ‘in’ in verse 3:8.

THE BENEFITS ARE NOT FROM THE LAW 3:10-14

3:10 For as many are of works of law are under a curse; for it has been written, cursed is everyone who does not abide by all the things written in the book of the law—to do them.

The “for” links this section with the previous one.  I think the connection has to do with the blessing/curse dichotomy.  The law not only does not make one a member of Abraham’s family, but it holds out a curse instead.  In Deuteronomy, blessings (the chief being life) follow obedience and curses (the chief being death) follow disobedience.

Paul quotes Deuteronomy 27:26 which is the last curse in a string of curses for unfaithfulness.  This means that Paul’s emphasis is on the word ‘curse’ and not on the word ‘all,’ which appears in the LXX but not in the MT.  This consideration speaks against how the standard evangelical story interprets this verse.  It is commonly assumed that Paul is making an argument of this form:

Premise 1:  Everyone who does not abide by all the law is cursed (3:10b)

Premise 2 (assumed):  No one can abide by all the law

Conclusion: Therefore, all who are of works of law are under a curse (3:10a)

The reason this argument loses it force is that Paul would disagree with premise 2, which is why it has to be assumed!  In Romans 2, Paul says that it is the doers of the law who will be justified and the Gentiles can do the things of law (Rom. 2:13-14).  There is absolutely no hint here that Paul is using a hypothetical person.  His chastisements of the Jew who does not obey the law (Rom. 2:17-24) would not make sense if the law was impossible to fulfill.  Also, Paul at least alludes to, if not quotes from, Deuteronomy 30 in Romans 10 and there it is said that the commandment is not too hard to obey.

Paul’s point is not that it is impossible to keep the law but that Israel as a whole has failed to keep the law as a whole (see Jn. 7:19 for the same idea).  That there are faithful, law abiding Jews, what Paul calls the remnant in Romans 11, does not subvert the rule.  Israel as a whole failed to keep the law and therefore incurred the law’s curse.  Therefore, when a Gentile wants to Judaize (to be ‘of works of law’ which includes circumcision) they come under that curse.

The importance of the word “all” in this verse derives from the meaning of ‘works of law’ as described in my comment on 2:16.  Works of law, such as circumcision, are not to be equated with the law as a whole.  Paul’s point is that works of law are often accompanied by disobedience to other matters of the law (compare Jesus’ remark about straining gnats but letting in camels).  This is precisely Paul’s point in 6:13 (for neither the ones being circumcised keep the law themselves) and in Romans 2:25 (for indeed circumcision profits if you practice the law, but if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision).

3:11 Now that by law no one is being justified before God is clear because the righteous by faithfulness will live.

The phrase “by law” corresponds to “works of law” from the previous verse, therefore it does not mean the law as a whole.  This verse corresponds to 2:16 and there it is said that a person is not justified by ‘works of law.’  No one is justified by ‘works of law’ because having them is often followed by disobedience to the law as a whole.  Paul is setting up an equation in which works of law = disobedience.

The next question concerns Paul’s quotation of Habakkuk 2:4, “the just by faithfulness will live,” which is supposed to show that no one is justified by works of law.  As I pointed out earlier Habakkuk 2:4 is one of the two verses in the LXX which brings together a righteous-word and a faith-word.  I want to give three versions of Habakkuk 2:4 and compare them with Paul’s quotation.

MT  hyhy wtnwmab qydxw  the righteous by his faithfulness shall live

LXXB o de dikaioV ek pistewV mou zhsetai  the righteous out of my [God’s] faithfulness shall

LXXA and Hebrews 10:38  o (de so Hebrews) dikaioV mou ek pistewV zhsetai  my righteous one out of faithfulness shall live.

There is a question whether faithfulness modifies righteous or life.  I take it that it modifies life, but life seen as on par with eternal life or justification or salvation.  The righteous will find life on the basis of faithfulness.  Leviticus 18:5 also says that life will follow from faithfulness—doing these things.

Also, my proposal lines up with the next verse as the chart again shows, and also links “by faithfulness” with the other occurrences on the chart where it means Jesus’ faithfulness.  Again, the context contrasts with works of law as do the other occurrences of ek pistiV.

Paul’s quotation avoids the LXXB’s declaration that the righteous out of God’s faithfulness shall live.  I am in the camp who believe that Paul interprets Habakkuk 2:4 messianically and that he is saying that ‘the righteous’ refers to Jesus-plus-incorporated disciples and that the ‘by faithfulness’ refers to Jesus’ salvific faithful obedience unto death.  The ‘will live’ refers to the resurrection which Jesus enjoyed and his followers will enjoy on account of faithfulness.  The ambiguity as to whose faithfulness is meant may be deliberate in order to show that disciples are to mimic Jesus’ faithfulness.

That the ‘the righteous one’ primarily refers to Jesus has confirmation in other New Testament passages:

Acts 3:14 the holy and righteous one [dikaion]

Acts 7:52 the coming of the righteous one [dikaion]

Acts 22:14 to see the righteous one [dikaion]

1 Peter 3:18 a righteous person [dikaioV]

1 John 2:1 Jesus the Messiah, the righteous [dikaion] 

The overall sense of the verse is then:  No one is justified by works of law because it holds out curses for disobedience which Israel as a whole now faces.  However, the righteous (Jesus-plus-incorporated disciples) will live on account of obedience.

3:12 But the law is not of faithfulness, but the one having done these things will live in them.

Those of works of law are not of faithfulness because of disobedience, which has characterized Israel as a whole.  The next phrase, a quotation from Leviticus 18:5, is introduced by the adversative alla which means ‘but’ or ‘on the contrary.’  This seems to rule out the sense that the standard evangelical story would give this verse, namely, that the law is not of faith because it involves doing.  This is the exact opposite of what Paul is trying to state.  His point is that works of the law (just being circumcised) is associated with disobedience to the law, but that it is the doers of the law who will live (Rom. 2:13). 

Paul is not saying that in principle Leviticus 18:5 holds but not in practice.  There is no indication that Paul disagrees with the assumption that obedience to the law (“these things”) will lead to life.  As with Habakkuk 2:4, Paul interprets Leviticus 18:5 messianically.  Jesus did ‘these things’ and he lives because of that.  Habakkuk 2:4 and Leviticus 18:5 say the same things and this is indicated in that they both share the theme of life.  See also Romans 10:5, where the messianic interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 is also present.

3:13 The Messiah redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse on behalf of us, because it is written, cursed is everyone having hung on a tree.

The problem with works of law is that they bring a person under the law which ties them to Israel-as-a-whole, who is under a curse for its overall disobedience.  Therefore, the curse Jesus redeems us from is not the law itself viewed as a curse, but the curse that the law promises will follow disobedience.  Therefore, the “us” are Jewish Christians since they need to be redeemed from the law.  This verse brings out Jesus’ representative quality.  He takes on the curse Israel-as-a-whole deserves because of disobedience.

Of course, the curse that Jesus took was death.  This is evidenced by the aorist tense of “redeemed” which points to a historical event and by the quotation from Deuteronomy 21:23 which involves the execution of convicted criminals.

Therefore, on my chart I listed redemption as the end and Jesus’ faithful death as the means.  This is totally in line with the rest of the chart where justification occurs and not redemption per se coupled with the obedient death of Jesus.

3:14 That to the nations the blessing of Abraham might come in the Messiah Jesus, that the promise of the Spirit we might receive through faithfulness.

Two states follow from Jesus’ salvific action: (1) the nations are blessed and (2) the reception of the Spirit.  The implication is that Israel’s overall disobedience was somehow preventing the blessing from coming to the Gentiles.

I think the logic works as follows.  The Genesis promotes to Abraham stated that the nations would be blessed “in Abraham” or in his seed.  However, this blessing was dependent upon obedience (See Gen. 18:18).  However, Israel’s disobedience was the problem and Jesus (as Israel’s representative) was the solution.  The promise of the Spirit is related to the overall story we find in the Old Testament prophets.  Israel was suffering under exile still suffering under Roman rule because of her disobedience and her restoration would occur after the curse of exile had run its course.  Following the curse, Israel would receive a new heart, a new covenant, and the Spirit of God.  It should not be forgotten that the Spirit of God is associated with life (see Gen. 6:3, where the spirit=life is taken away because man is flesh and disobedient).

Since Jesus is now the vehicle of the promise, the blessings are “in” him.  Paul will nail down this point in the next section when he says that Jesus is the seed of Abraham.  Also, if my line of reasoning is correct, then we have another reason why Paul says that we receive the Spirit by pistiV, it is because of Jesus’ faithfulness (compare 3:2, 5 where I argued that the Spirit is associated with the message of Jesus’ faithfulness).  This of course does not rule out that our faithfulness is in mind too because Paul expects us to mimic Jesus’ obedience.

PROMISE BEFORE LAW AND PERTAINS TO JESUS 3:15-18

3:15 Brothers and sister, I give an example from daily life: once a person’s will has been ratified, no one adds to it or annuls it.

The covenant with Abraham cannot be set aside or supplanted by the covenant with Moses, which involves the law.  That these two covenants are in mind here is evidenced by what is said in 4:21-31. 

3:16 Furthermore, now to Abraham were spoken the promises and to his seed.  He does not say, and to the seeds, in the plural, but singular—to your seed, who is the Messiah.

The strategy here is to assert that the Gentiles are the seed of Abraham via their relationship of incorporation with the true seed of Abraham, the Messiah Jesus.  One need not Judaize and become circumcised (perform works of law) to be related to Abraham.

3:17 My point is this, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

Since the promise involves both Jesus and Gentiles, the law which creates a division between Jew and Gentile does not abolish those promises.

3:18 For if by law is the inheritance, it is no longer by promise; but to Abraham God has generously given it by promise.

The “for” indicates that Paul is going to offer a reason why the law does not abolish the promise.  The answer is that inheritance through the law is incompatible with it being by promise.  Compare this verse with a counterpart in Romans:

Galatians 3:18a for if by law is the inheritance

Romans 4:14a for if the heirs are of the law

The context of Romans 4:14a dictates that those ‘of the law’ are Jews (see Rom. 4:12), therefore, in Galatians 3:18a ‘by law’ refers to Jews and not those trying to be members of the inheritance by good deeds.

Galatians 3:18b it is no longer by promise

Romans 4:14b faithfulness has been made void and the promise has been nullified

The Romans verse introduces faithfulness and this makes sense because even in Galatians the dichotomy has always been whether  justification of which inheritance is synonymous is by works of law or by faithfulness.

Galatians 3:18c but God has graciously given it by promise

Romans 4:16b that it might be in accordance with grace

Romans 4:16a states the promise is of faithfulness in order that it might be in terms of grace.  This links faithfulness with grace.  Paul’s thought runs along the following line: it is an act of grace for God to benefit others on account of the faithfulness of certain individuals such as Abraham and Jesus.  The law, because of unfaithfulness brings wrath; the promise, because of faithfulness, brings blessing.

WHY THEN THE LAW? 3:19-25

3:19 Why then the law?  For the sake of transgressions it was added, until should come the seed to whom it has been promised, having been ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator.

Since the inheritance or justification is not based on works of law, that is, in being Jewish, then why was the law given in the first place?  The answer is that it was added for the sake of transgressions.  The passive verb “in was added” assumes (1) that the law was added by God and (2) that it was added to something already existing, that is, the promise.  It will prove helpful to line up all of Paul’s comments about the law in this section: