I’m conficted. Last night I read all of Galatians in one go. I have always had problems with Galatians, and despite having studied it in Bible-Study groups, Paul’s discourse about the law, inheritance and so on never really made sense, at least not in the way people usually interpreted his position. Last night, as I read through Paul’s argument carefully, I came to a horrible realization: this is about covenant membership, or certainly, it’s about who belongs to the people of God, and what/who determines who is “in”.
I had always seen Paul’s rhetoric as an answer to people who wanted to add merit-based works-effort to faith in Christ. While this is certainly implied, it is interesting to note that the whole issue of justification rises in the context of the community meal, where gentiles are being shut off, a sure sign that they do not “belong”. Also polemical phrases like the “Israel of God” (6:16) gives me a hint that this is where the argument lies.
Context
To understand the story, it’s important to understand Abraham’s relevance and “connection” to Christ.
After the Fall, the Flood and finally the tower of Babel, in Genesis 12, God elects a man, Abraham, and gives him a Promise, which consists of Land, Offspring (or Nationhood) and Blessing to all the nations. God promises Abraham that this will occur through (or interestingly, in) his offspring. This is important. Remember that as a result of man’s disobedience in Genesis 3, a CURSE had fallen upon the world. God’s promise to bless the nations though Abraham’s descendants (offspring) consists in God reversing the curse, dealing with the problem of sin and death.
In this sense, it seems to be that Paul isn’t denying the value of the Law itself, but rather trying to point out that ironically, that the judaizers are misunderstanding the LAW itself (4:21). The Law functioned with a purpose within the development of God’s promises in the history of Israel: it pointed forward and “slingshoted” redemptive history forward towards its climax.
The Law created a division between “the Jews” and “the Nations”, it became a nationalistic boundry that created a wall between the two people (Eph. 2:11-15). It is true that Israel was “given certain unique priviledges (the land of Palestine, the institutions of sacrifice, prophet, priest, king, etc.)”, but these where God’s “unique way to bring redemption (Christ) into the world”¹.
_
Into the text
Once Christ fulfilled the LAW, he opened the door for Gentiles to participate in God’s blessings (3:13, 14). This was God’s keeping of the Abrahamic promise: Offspring/Nation (those who like Abraham, put their faith in Jesus – 3:26-29; 4:28-5:1), Land (interesting enough, the whole world, see my earlier post) and blessings for the Nations. Therefore, to create a division (Gentiles-Jews) where there wasn’t any was a denial of the Gospel.
The key to the whole discussion, for me at least, was 3:13, 14, where Christ is the figure who, by being the faithful law keeper, allows the promised blessing to flow to Israel (true Israel) and to the nations. How is this possible? Because Christ is in himself, the promised “offspring” (vs. 16), in other words, He is the true Israel, and true heir of the promise. Those who by faith are united to Christ, “have put on Christ” and are heirs to the promise (in Baptism, vs. 26). Note here, that those who have put on Christ are also therefore called “Abraham’s offspring” (vs. 29) and “heirs according to the promise”.
Therefore, the true Israel are those who are united to Christ by faith, and not those who attempt to uphold and keep the Law. The law had an important role, in serving as custodian until Christ came. However, to return now to the Law, as a means to by “reckoned in the right”, is to negate Christ’s Law keeping, covenant-fulfilling role. In this sense, to insist on circumcision is a direct denial of the cross, as it suggests that the Abrahamic promise has not been fulfilled (and that Gentiles are required to become Israel “according to the flesh”.
One is evidentially part of God’s family (because one is declared “in the right” with God, “at peace” with Him), not by attempting to keep the requirements of the Law, not by ceremonial or moral observance, but rather by faith in the promise. The example of Abraham points to he fact that this was always so, even though Israel had to keep the law until the fulfillment of the promise came (4:4,5). Now that Christ has fully-filled the meaning and purpose of the Law, (and is God’s promise-keeper) Gentiles have access to and are co-heirs of the blessings promised, and are included into God’s household (Gal 3:27-4:7; Eph. 2:19).
Remaining questions:
– What about imputation? Should we follow Michael Bird’s lead, and speak better in terms of “incorporated Righteousness”? If I am on the right track, it’s interesting to note howbeing declared “righteous” and belonging to the people of God, though distinct, are inseparable (reminds me of Mark 9:38-41).
– What is 2:19 on about? Is it explained and expanded in the following verse?
– What is the Law of Christ? Is it the Law as reapplied in the New Covenant (ex. Sermon on the Mount)?
—
¹ Frame, John. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (P&R, 1987). p.13
Samuel,
Good post! I enjoyed it!
“What is 2:19 about?” “What is the Law of Christ?”
It’s interesting that Paul sets law against law. I wonder if here he is setting the Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2) which James also calls, “the law of liberty,” (James 1:25) and could be called the law of grace and mercy (not the “reapplied” law of the New Covenant as some see in the Sermon on the Mount) against the Mosaic Law which condemns sin. This law of Christ accuses the accusing law and condemns the condemning law (c.f. Romans 8:3). Luther says it this way, “So death killed death, but the killing death is life itself. But it is called the death of death,” (Commentary on Galatians, pg 83). In this way the direct connection with Christ is found in that, Christ the righteous became the unrighteous in order to defeat unrighteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21).
I wonder if instead of expanding verse 19 in 20 Paul is actually showing that it is Christ who effectuates the law which brings the law to the end and by membership in Christ (by faith) we too have become heirs of the new law of grace.
If that makes NO sense blame it on fatigue.
Grace.
“I wonder if here he is setting the Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2) which James also calls, “the law of liberty,” (James 1:25) and could be called the law of grace and mercy (not the “reapplied” law of the New Covenant as some see in the Sermon on the Mount) against the Mosaic Law which condemns sin.”
Ok. Interesting. I am confused about 2 things:
1.- How is the Mosaic Law NOT “grace and mercy”. I agree that the Law is unable to deal ultimately with the curse, sin and death. That happens only and finally in Jesus. But as a shadow that points forward to Jesus (and also, that which creates the the context into which Jesus’ mission makes sense), how is the Law an antithesis to Grace?
2.- I agree that the “Law of Christ” is probably equal to James’ “Law of Liberty”, and it seems in both cases to be about keeping Christ’s summary of the Law (Love). But again, how is this “law” contrary to the Mosaic Law?
Congratulations on getting into Seminary, by the way.
“How is the Mosaic Law NOT “grace and mercy”
Good thought, let’s see if I can expound a bit. First, what constitutes the Mosaic Law? We often refer to three-fold division (ceremonial, civil, and moral). The moral law was that same law (different form) which was written on Adam’s original constitution summed up in Genesis 2:16, would you agree (if not I recommend Witsius, Rutherford, and Coxe)? If so, the law, as given to Adam contained no mercy and grace, in the law/gospel distinction of Calvin et al they are always set apart. Adam was not granted grace on the account of the Covenant of Works: this covenant was strictly law. I think a case can be made that the Mosaic Law was part, if not in whole, a reiteration of the Covenant of Works (see Owen). In addition to this the Mosaic Law never saved, it only condemned. This seems to be what Paul is referring to in Romans 7, that though the Law is righteous and good as a result of sin it became death (since it is the righteous requirement of God). The ceremonial and civil law of course granted grace to no one for it was not the offering of burnt sacrifices that the Lord required but a body which was prepared; Jesus Christ (who is the mediator of the Covenant of Grace). The Law could in no way make a man justified (Romans 3:20). So the Law which condemns because of sin is antithetical to grace because grace does not condemn but counts one righteousness on the accord of Christ. I have no idea if that made sense but it was my attempt (it’s 1:30am).
With number two perhaps if we look at it from the fact that the Mosaic Law will never justify a man. In order for it to justify one would have to keep it completely without fault. The Law of Grace (of Christ) will justify a man because Christ has fulfilled “in love” perfectly the Mosaic Law doing what the natural man could not do and thus ratifying a new covenant upon which man’s imperfect obedience is accepted on Christ’s perfect obedience….Hmmmmmmmm….does that work?
Anyway, those are the preliminary thoughts I will be mulling this over.
Grace.
Ok.
I think I would agree with you concerning the Adamic Covenant. However, I have a problem with your description of the Mosaic Law.
Undoubtedly, no one was saved by keeping the Law (here on in, Mosaic Law), but rather by faith (as Paul proves in Galatians and Romans 4). However, I do NOT think that this implies that the Law is in antithesis to Grace.
Within the Mosaic Covenant (or alongside it, I’m not sure how to best describe it) we have the Levitical covenant, the sacrifical system. True, the sacrifices in themselves didn’t magically solved the problem of sin – at some point in history God would have to deal definately with the problem (we know He did this through Jesus). Nevertheless, at least for a time, it did restore the relationship between the penitent (i.e.-faithful) “sacrificer” and God (ex. Lev. 4:35, 5:10).
In other words, the Law itself provided a way to deal with those who broke its commandaments, and to allow them to continue to live in comunion with God! The Law itself provided forgiveness and mercy! Again, it was imperfect, and could never be the final solution, but it cannot be ignored. I (Israelite) could be a horrible sinner, and yet there was the possibilty of forgiveness and restoration!
As far as your last paragraph goes: I agree. I think we are covenant-keepers ultimately because we are united to Christ by faith, and therefore what is true of Him is shared with us.
Good thoughts again!
I’m trying to think of how to word this so bear with me; I’ve an idea and I can’t get it out.
In the Mosaic Covenant, as you said, there are sacrifices, ordinances, rules, regulations, etc. Could it be that this is where the dual nature of this Covenant comes in? What I mean is this; could the Law as it was given to Moses be a summation of the Covenant of Works antithetical to grace and yet at the same time, the imperfect worship and imperfect sacrifices of the Law be accepted before God on account of the Covenant of Grace? In that way, might they be set against one another. The Law in it’s purity and perfection does not offer grace but that grace is offered through the work of Jesus Christ.
Okay, now I really don’t know if that makes sense. If it doesn’t I can try to clarify. But I’m digging your thoughts.
Grace.
Sam, excuse superficial (and mildly grumpy) comment, as I have been feeling sick for 2 days and didn´t read your post fully… but, duh, of course Galatians was written to address the issue of covenant membership. Paul was speaking into a context (i.e. the early church) where that was just about THE big issue (the contender would be why the messiah didn´t beat up the Romans). Why is historic realism seen as SO subversive by some people?
Now if one wanted to use that to say that it THEREFORE has no application to all the stuff of the reformation and we should reject the “artificial and anachronistic” blah blah blah, then we get into more of a fight… mainly because it would mean you (as in general “you”, as I know, Sam, that you are deeply wise) still didn´t understand what theology was and how it related to biblical exegesis.
I suspect, and have done for years, that the more historically rigorous your exegesis is, the more cautious you get about a biblicism that rejects doctrinal development. We don´t live in the same context.
James,
I entirely agree. Let me add hastily, that this stuff is new to me, that’s why I find it exciting, I’m sure that it’s old hat, especially to someone who had Dunn himself as a prof!
I think that the “Lutheran” reading of Galatians (and I think the NPPers, tend to caricature Lutheran exegesis, which isn’t as simplistic as they deem it to be) has many problem areas -as does the NPP!
However, I think Luther (and Calvin, and Bucer, and Cranmer, etc) applied the principle(s) correctly to his situation, that is, he applied the theology that could be drawn from Galatians in a way that was RIGHT ON, in confronting the abuses of Rome, AND in articulating the Protestant empasis of the “Solas”, the Confessions, the Liturgies, and so on.
p.s.- I am waiting for the “5 reasons not to convert to Anglicanism” thing-a-ma-bob.
“In that way, might they be set against one another. The Law in it’s purity and perfection does not offer grace but that grace is offered through the work of Jesus Christ.”
I don’t think I’m getting you, here. The Law in of itself cannot deal with sin, at least not ultimately/finally. In this sense, grace truly is offered in Christ. Nevertheless, the sacrificial system, though a shadow of the reality, is still an expression of grace and its “effective” at that time, that is, it really does restore the relationship between penitent (i.e “beleiving) sinner and Holy God. Your position (but I’m sure I’ve misunderstood it) seems to put the Law in contradiction with itself, which I see no basis for in Scripture.
shhhhh, don´t tell them all I studied with Jimmy Dunn, or I´ll lose all my street cred. Actually, he just made us read his books and then he would get us to “ask questions”. Really awful.
but i read the books, and he gave me good marks (including in one essay when I had a dig at him)
“including in one essay when I had a dig at him”
Hahahaha excelent. In any case, I’m glad he was humble enough to do that. My dad did the same thing in Trinity with Rodney Whitacre (PhD Cambridge, 1981). Basically my dad wrote a paper defending a “memorialist” view of the Supper, over against Whitacre’s view (more of “Augustinian-Reformed”). Whitacre also gave my dad a good mark, because he considered that the paper did a good job of defending its position biblically.
Funny thing is, that my view is PROBABLY closer to Whitacre’s!
don´t start me on memorialism, Samuel Lago. Just don´t. That´s all I´m saying.
Hahaha. Ok, I won’t.