Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Justification Through Faith and the Faithfulness of Messiah Jesus : An Exegetical Study of Galatians 2:15 21

Transcription

1 Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary Justification Through Faith and the Faithfulness of Messiah Jesus : An Exegetical Study of Galatians 2:15 21 Submitted to Prof. Mark A. Jennings in Partial Fulfillment of NT 502 By Taylor Scott Brown May 5,

2 1. TRANSLATION: (2:15) We [are] Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; (2:16) [but] 1 we know that man is not declared righteous 2 from works of the [Mosaic] Law 3 but through the faithfulness of Jesus Messiah 4, and we believed in Messiah Jesus 5, that we may be declared righteous by the faithfulness of Messiah and not from works of the Law, because 6 from the works of the Law no humans 7 will be declared righteous. (2:17) But if while seeking to be declared righteous in 1 The NA28 says that here the txt, [δὲ], is supported by,א B, C, lat, and others. Omission of the [δὲ] is supported by P 46, A, D 2, and others. While the [δὲ] itself it tentatively placed in the main text by the editors, I find that given the external evidence and the internal evidence wherein Paul is contrasting being a Jew by birth while affirming that it is not the Mosaic Law that declares one righteous, but rather one s active, volitional, trusting faith in Messiah Jesus. As such txt is preferred but only with a confidence rating of C. See Appendix A, Chart #1. 2 I have chosen to render this as declared righteous rather than the traditional justified for a few reasons. Firstly, given Paul s first-century Jewish background and mindset, especially given the context of this epistle and its aim of repudiating the notion that a Christian (either Jew or Gentile) can be justified by adhering to the traditional boundary marker works of the Mosaic law, such as circumcision, dietary laws, etc. Rather, justification/being declared in the right by God is achieved by the one faithful and obedient Israelite, Jesus of Nazareth and then only secondarily by those who have put their own faithful trust in Jesus. In this sense, I am adhering to a Jewish law-court usage of δικαιοω, rather than the imputed righteousness model. 3 The word Mosaic has been added in brackets to emphasize that it is the Jewish Law, the Torah, that Paul is referring to. 4 According to the NA28, A, B, 33, and vg mss support a variant transposition of txt (Ἰησοῦ Χριστου). The support for this variant is negligible and the txt (supported by P 46,,א C, and many others) is preferred with a confidence rating of A. See Appendix A, Chart #2. Also, I have translated πιστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστου as faithfulness of Jesus Messiah instead of faith in Jesus Messiah because there are no other evident grammatical indicators (ἐν, εἰς, etc.) that Paul means in Jesus as he does in the following clause (εἰς Χριστον Ἰησοῦν). I will argue further and in more detail for this subjective genitive rendering below. 5 NA28 contains a text variant that transposes the txt (Χριστον Ἰησοῦν). This variant is supported P 46, B, H, 33 and others. Txt is supported by,א A, C, D, and others. Given the external evidence (internal evidence offers little help here) txt is preferred with a confidence rating of B. See Appendix A, Chart #3. 6 According to the NA28, C, D 2, H, and others read διοτι, instead of ὃτι (txt, supported by P 46,,א A, B, and others). This variant lacks enough support to place it in the text instead of the ὃτι. Txt is preferred with a confidence rating of A. See Appendix A, Chart #4. 7 Paul uses the phrase, πᾶσα σαρξ here. Translated literally it would say every/all flesh or every/all humans, neither of which make for a functional English sentence when combined with οὐ δικαιωθησεται. Since Paul s point in the context of the passage and epistle is to emphasize that neither Jews nor Gentiles can be declared righteous/ in the right by the works of the Torah, but only by the faithfulness of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth (πιστεως Χριστου), and subsequently by putting their own trust and faith in this faithful Messiah, I have simply chosen to translate the phrase as no humans to keep Paul s emphasis. 2

3 Messiah and we ourselves have been found to be sinners then 8 is Messiah a servant of sin? Absolutely not! 9 (2:18) For if I build up again these things that I destroyed, I demonstrate myself a transgressor. (2:19) For through the Law I died to the Law, that I may live to God. I have been crucified with Messiah; (2:20) and I no longer live, but Messiah is living in me; and that [life] which I now am living in [the] flesh, in faith I am living in the Son of God 10 who loved me and gave himself in behalf of me. (2:21) I am not setting aside the grace of God; for if righteousness [is] through the Law then Messiah died for nothing. 2. INTRODUCTION: After Romans, Galatians stands as one of the key texts in interpreting not only Paul s understanding of justification, but also the overall Christian canonical and dogmatic understanding of justification. The doctrine of justification cuts across the whole of Christian tradition. 11 Given the importance of the doctrine of justification in all of Christian theology, it is important to critically and exegetically examine a key New Testament document such as Galatians. Galatians 2:15 21 is one of key texts, both in epistle itself and the whole NT canon, in regards to understanding justification. Here we have some of Paul s starkest words indicating 8 NA28 lists a variant, ἂρα, as well as one without any accent marks, as opposed to the txt, ἆρα. While the change from the circumflex (txt) and the acute accent (variant) can change the clause from the a question to a statement, respectively, the quick emphatic negation following the question does not really allow for any other reading accept the rhetorical interrogative form as evident in the translation. Given that, I found it unnecessary to conduct a text criticism evaluation. 9 Since µη γενοιτο is in the optative mood here I have chosen to follow the lead many modern translations in translating it as Absolutely not! to emphasize Paul s desire to refute any such notion of comporting Jesus with sin. 10 NA28 lists θεου και Χριστου as a variant, supported by P 46, B, D*, and others. Txt (υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ) is supported by,א A, C, 33, and others. Despite the support from P 46 for the variant reading, overall there is more and stronger support for txt, which is given a confidence rating of A. See Appendix A, Chart #. 11 For a thorough and learned historical study of the debates surrounding justification since the time of the Protestant Reformation see Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification from 1500 to the Present Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). 3

4 the nature of justification and how exactly one comes to be declared righteous. Of course, the overarching theme of the letter is Paul s response to the false and inflammatory teachings of the Judaizers who had been claiming that (1) they had a truer gospel than what Paul had been preaching, and (2) that in order for Gentile Christians to truly be declared righteous by YHWH, they had to be circumcised and adhere to the various works of the Mosaic Law which had been the ethnic boundary markers markers of the Jewish people; this was in direct opposition to the First Council of Jerusalem in 50 C.E. 12 Paul s burden in the epistle is to respond to, and refute, these false assertions. While the whole letter is an exposition of this task, Paul states most firmly the Christocentric basis of justification in these six verses. The objective basis of justification comes not through strict adherence to the Jewish Law, but rather through the faithfulness of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. This is then subjectively appropriated through placing faith/trust in Jesus. 13 The question of objective genitive vs. subjective genitive interpretations of this passage is an ongoing debate amongst critical exegetes. 14 For the past several decades many (if not most) Protestant exegetes have simply translated the genitive phrase πιστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστου in 2:16 as faith in Jesus Christ, typically regarding it as a two-fold repetition along with εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεὐσαµεν, which is used by Paul to drive home the importance of trusting in Jesus I. Howard Marshall, A Concise New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008), This can be slightly confusing given the fact that grammatically-speaking for πιστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστου in 2:16, the subjective genitive is the objective basis ( faithfulness of Jesus ) and the objective genitive is the subjective basis ( faith in Jesus ). For the sake of clarity in this essay, I will argue for and in my translation assume the subjective genitive and its objective basis of justification. 14 For an informative overview of the debate, and a well-constructed argument for the subjective genitive/objective basis rendering of the text (faithfulness of Christ) see Ben Witherington III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1998),

5 Christ. 15 Indeed, there are strong arguments on both sides of the debate. However, I tend to side with the interpretive school that translates the phrase as relating to the faith/faithfulness of the Messiah (e.g. the subjective genitive/objective basis view). That being said, even with the debates surrounding πιστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστου in 2:16, the overall thrust of the entire passage remains the same: believers (both Gentile and Jew) are not declared righteous by adhering to works of the Law, but rather are declared righteous by placing their faith in the crucified and resurrected Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, who himself objectively achieved justification for all who believe by his perfect faithfulness and obedience to God. Excursus: δικαιόω and its Law-Court Connotations: Before going further it will be helpful to fully define what is entailed in the verb δικαιόω. Ever since the Protestant Reformation, exegetes have had a bit of trouble in conveying what exactly Paul meant by the word. Luther and his theological heirs tended to look at the verb and the whole process of justification as a form of imputation. Unfortunately, this notion of imputation tended not only to ignore the Jewish law-court setting and language Paul operated with, but also tended to ignore the larger point of being declared righteous (court verdict) and justification by faith. As Wright correctly notes, the purpose of this law-court declaration of being in right standing with God served to bring both Jews and Gentiles into the newly expanded covenant people of God, which was constituted as part of God s greater plan to bless and rescue the whole world through the family of Abraham Scot McKnight, Galatians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 122. See also, Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC 41; Dallas: 1990), N.T. Wright, Justification: God s Plan and Paul s Vision (London: SPCK, 2009), It is helpful to quote Wright here from p. 50: When the judge in the lawcourt justifies someone, he does not give that person his own particular righteousness. He creates the status the vindicated defendant now possesses, by an act of declaration, a speech-act in our contemporary jargon. 5

6 This law-court understanding of legal verdict as opposed to imputation comports well with much of the scholarly data pertaining to the verb δικαιόω and the act of being justified. Danker lists two primary definitions of δικαιόω: 1. verify to be in the right, and 2. put into a condition or state of uprightness. Going further, Danker s primary definition for the noun form, δικαιοσύνη, is, a state that is in accord with the standards for acceptable or anticipated behavior, a. from a judicial perspective. 17 In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Quell and Schrenk list nearly all the different theological uses of δικαιόω in the NT corpus as well as in Jewish Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Hellenistic writings. In these non-nt writings, δικαιόω is almost entirely used to denote a verdict/declaration by a judge. When it comes specifically to Paul s usage of the word, the legal usage is plain and indisputable. They go on to say that for Paul, the word, does not suggest the infusion of moral qualities, a justum efficere in the sense of the creation of right conduct. It implies the justification of the ungodly who believe, on the basis of the justifying action of God in the death and resurrection of Christ COMMENTARY: As briefly mentioned above, the purpose for Paul s writing the epistle had to do with a sect of Judaizing Jesus-followers who had become active among the various Christian communities in Galatia. They were seeking to enforce Jewish purity and dietary laws on the recent Gentile converts to Christianity. 19 Indeed, many of these Judaizers had brought an 17 Frederick W. Danker, The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2009), G. Quell, G. Schrenk, δικαιόω, TDNT 2: Direct quotations are from p

7 altogether different gospel; a false gospel. So appalling did Paul find this diminution of the true apostolic good news that he declared anyone who preached something different than the apostolic gospel to be under a curse (Gal 1:8)! 20 In order to properly repudiate these false teachers Paul does three things in the epistle. First, in Gal 1:10 2:21, Paul recounts his past, conversion, and confirmation as an apostle of Jesus Christ, as well as lays out his initial claim for the justification of believers as achieved objectively by Messiah Jesus (Gal 2:15 21). Second, working off of his assertion of justification through faith vs. works of the Jewish law, Paul seeks to show the Galatian Christians how they have, in fact, become part of the newly expanded family of Abraham by means of their faith and baptism into Christ. Paul also shows how the Law s role as custodian has been fulfilled in the faithfulness of Jesus of Nazareth, and thus, as Gentiles, they do not need to be circumcised to be part of Abraham s family (Gal 3:1 5:12). Finally, Paul seeks to show the Galatian Christians that even though they are no longer subject to the Law, they fulfill the law of Jesus Christ by loving one another and bearing each other s burdens (Gal 5:13-6:10). 21 We will now examine Gal 2:15 21 on a verse-by-verse basis. 2:15: Here, Paul is transitioning from recounting his confrontation with Peter in Antioch for ceasing to eat with the Gentile Christians (Gal 2:11-14). Paul then transitions into a rhetorical restatement of the argument he used to confront Peter in Antioch. This is why Paul, even though 19 I realize that designations such as Christianity, orthodoxy, and orthodox are, strictly speaking, slightly anachronistic given the date of events, but I will utilize them in this paper for the sake of clarity and fluidity of reading. 20 For further insight on this part of Galatians see, Richard B. Hays, The Letter to the Galatians in The New Interpreter s Bible: Volume XI (ed. Leander E. Keck and David L. Petersen; vol. 11 of The New Interpreter s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck and David L. Petersen; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000), Frank J. Matera, Galatians in The CEB Study Bible (eds. Joel B. Green et al.; Nashville: Common English Bible, 2013), NT. Both Matera and the CEB helpfully divide up the key parts of the epistle, making them easier to frame and see Paul s overall socio-rhetorical argument against the Judaizers and for the original, apostolic gospel. 7

8 addressing an audience of mostly Gentile Christians, can say we are Jews by birth, and not Gentile sinners. Paul rhetorically uses this historical recounting in 2:11 14 to transition into his full exposition to follow in chapter three and beyond. This clause also sets the stage for what Paul is about to do in the following verses. By distinguishing between those Christians who are Jews by birth and those Christians who are Gentile sinners Paul is reminding his listeners of the ethnic boundaries that have historically divided Jews and Gentiles, and why now, through the faithfulness of Messiah Jesus and by justification through faith, these ethnic barriers have been broken down. 22 This section in 2:15 21 is Paul s propositio 23 which acts to both sum up his previous points made in chapters one and two, and to transition into the main stage of his argument, his probatio. 24 2:16: After having transitioned into his propositio in v.15 Paul lays out what is effectively the hinge clause on which vv are built and which becomes the foundation for the entire probatio to follow. 25 Having reaffirmed his Jewish birth and standing, Paul reminds his listeners that even as faithful, Law-abiding Jews they cannot declared righteous by the Jewish works of the Law. Here we see Paul s first usage of the verb δικαιόω, here in the present passive indicative, 3 rd person singular, δικαιοῦται. It is important here that Paul uses this verbal form for a few reasons. First, being in the present passive indicative, it denotes that humans cannot justify 22 Wright, Justification, See Ben Witherington III, New Testament Rhetoric: An Introductory Guide to the Art of Persuasion in and of the New Testament (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2009), for an excellent introduction and basic breakdown of the key parts of ancient rhetorical discourse. 24 James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC 9; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993), 132. See also, Witherington III, New Testament Rhetoric, 126 for an excellent and detailed outline of Paul s whole argument in his letter to the Galatians. 25 Martinus C. de Boer, Galatians: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011),

9 themselves by means of their own efforts, be they clinging to the ethnic identifications of the Torah or trying to appease pagan deities through cultic rituals and sacrifices. It is YHWH, the God of Israel, the Creator and Judge alone who can declare humans righteous. The second reason for the importance of Paul s using δικαιοῦται in the 3 rd person singular is its correspondence to the subject ἄνθρωπος in masculine, singular, nominative. By using this singular man Paul is showing that no humans, neither Jew nor Gentile, can be declared righteous by the ethnic identifying works of the Torah. After affirming the fact that justification does not come through one s observance of the Jewish Law, thereby repudiating the Judaizer s false teaching that one s justification come through one s ethnic identity, Paul proceeds to explain how, in fact, people come to be declared righteous. Rather than being declared righteous through keeping the Jewish Law, people are declared righteous on both an objective and subjective basis. The objective basis is through the faithfulness of Jesus Messiah or πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. As mentioned above, many commentators have seen fit to render this as the objective genitive, faith in Jesus Christ, as opposed to the subjective genitive, faithfulness of Jesus Christ, rendering. 26 While their arguments for that rendering are cogent, I find them to be unconvincing. Rather, I find the rendering, faithfulness of Jesus Christ more compelling for a number of reasons. First, when rendered with the subjective genitive, the basis of justification by faith is objectively grounded in the unshakeable reality of the Messiah s utter faithfulness and obedience to God s salvific plan and will. This objective basis of justification can be seen in several of Paul s other writings, most notably Philippians 2:7 8. Without this objective basis of 26 See, G. Walter Hansen, Galatians (IVPNTC 9; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994) 69f for his reasoning on that objective genitive/subjective basis rendering (faith in Jesus Christ) as well as a list of others who take that rendering. See also Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988), for another commentator who works off of the objective genitive/subjective basis rendering. 9

10 justification achieved by the faithfulness and obedience of Jesus, there could be no possibility of the subjective appropriation of justification through faith in Jesus. Second, Paul is contrasting the basis of justification through faith to the basis of justification through works of the Law. It seems strange to think that Paul a trained rhetorician would use an entirely subjective basis of justification by faith to repudiate the Judaizers objective basis of the ethnicity-identifying works of the Law. Rather, I contend that Paul is using the true objective basis of the faithfulness of Jesus to repudiate the false objective basis of the Judaizers. This renders both the context and Paul s argument more cogent, as well as more powerful. I agree with Wright, who believes that the faithfulness of Jesus here, and in other key Pauline texts such as Romans 3:22, refers to Jesus own faithfulness unto death. Wright notes that as the one faithful Israelite, Jesus voluntary faithfulness unto death was the supreme act of covenant faithfulness. This faithfulness of Jesus then lines up with the salvific and justifying significance of Jesus death, as we will see below in vv. 2: Third and finally, on a grammatical level it seems odd that Paul would use an objective genitive to render the first faith in Jesus Christ followed immediately by a prepositional phrase for having faith/believing in Jesus Christ (εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαµεν). If Paul was really trying to use a repetition of the subjective basis rendering, one thinks he would have used a case other than the objective genitive for the first prepositional phrase (διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) or would have used a less ambiguous prepositional phrase such as ἐν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν. It seems that the last thing Paul would desire was confusion on the part of his listeners in understanding such a key contrast to the Judaizers objective (but false) basis for justification in the Jewish 27 N.T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013),

11 Law. For these three reasons I find the subjective genitive rendering of faithfulness of Jesus Messiah to be better than faith in Jesus Messiah. With the subjective genitive rendering of through the faithfulness of Jesus Messiah, we can then see why Paul immediately follows it with and we believed in Messiah Jesus to show the subjective basis/appropriation of justification through the believer s putting their faith in Messiah Jesus and the justification achieved through his own faithfulness to YHWH. 28 I would submit that this is what Paul has in mind when he is referring to the objectivesubjective basis of justification in these two prepositional phrases layered right on top of each other. God has graciously and unconditionally acted first. In and through Jesus the Messiah, God has acted to objectively bring about justification for humanity; that is the unbreakable, rocksolid foundation upon which Paul is building his argument against the Judaizers. No principalities or powers can overturn the objective basis of justification that the YHWH has achieved through the faithfulness of His Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. 29 Paul then reinforces his point by finishing out this long, key sentence in vv by saying: that we may be declared righteous by the faithfulness of Messiah and not from works of the Law, because from the works of the Law no humans will be declared righteous. Paul s use of ἵνα to begin this final dependent clause (dependent on the preceding clause concerning the objective basis of 28 A real world analogy is helpful here. In 1977 President Jimmy Carter pardoned all those American citizens who dodged the Vietnam War draft by fleeing to Canada and other nearby countries. Carter (himself acting quite Christ-like) officially and unconditionally pardoned all those young men who had dodged the draft years earlier. Carter s declaration was the objective basis for the justification of the draft dodgers; without it they would never have been able to subjectively appropriate this legal status of righteousness/being declared righteous. Were it not for Carter s acting first with his official and unconditional pardon, the draft dodgers would have had no opportunity to say, yes to the offer. And yet it still had to be subjectively appropriated. There still had to be that response on the part of the draft dodgers where they believed/trusted in President Carter and his objective achievement of legal justification. 29 Charles B. Cousar, Galatians (Int; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 53. It is helpful to quote Cousar here: If faith of Christ is the translation, the effect is to highlight the Christological focus of justification, yet without eliminating the need for a human response of faith (since the verbal form, we have believed, is unambiguous). 11

12 justification) is used to definitively demonstrate to his audience the purpose for their putting their faith in Messiah Jesus over and against the works of the Jewish Law. The purpose of placing one s faith in Jesus of Nazareth is so that one may be justified by the objective reality of the faithfulness of Messiah (ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ) through one s free and faithful response to this reality and not from works of the Law. 30 2:17: Compared with the amount of space and importance Paul devotes to vv , v. 17 has comparatively little to be said about it. Make no mistake, this does not lessen the importance of the verse as part of Paul s discourse; indeed it is incredibly important! It is just quite straightforward, and needs less commentary. The verse (along with v. 18) seems to be functioning as a sort of parenthesis to Paul s main argument in vv , which is then summed up in vv Again, having just recounted the confrontation with Peter in Antioch in Gal 2:11 14, Paul is likely referring to an objection raised by the Antiochene Judaizers 30 Cousar, Galatians, 54 makes a key theological distinction here between justification through faith (the true Pauline meaning) and the misconstrued justification on account of faith: The line is thin but terribly important which separates faith as a necessary response to God s grace from faith as a precondition to grace. Paul regularly uses the Greek preposition dia with the genitive case to mean through faith; he never uses dia with the accusative case which would mean on account of faith. Faith is not the ultimate form of self-justification which finally succeeds. Thomas F. Torrance, Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009), 189, while discussing the nature of the atonement rather than justification, explains well the objective reality of Christ s work for all humanity in conjunction with the faithful/trusting response on the part of the individual: "That then is the first thing we have to say, that Christ died for all humanity, and no human being can undo or escape the fact that every one has been died for, and no one can evade, elude of avoid the fact that they are loved by God. Therefore when they do the inconceivable thing in the face of that divine love, namely, refuse it, defy it, turn away from it, that unavoidable self-giving of God is their very judgment Objectively, then, we must think of atonement as sufficient and efficacious reality for every human being it is such sufficient and efficacious reality that it is the rock of offense, the rock of judgment upon which the sinner who refuses the divine love shatters himself or herself and is damned eternally." I would contend that Torrance s model effectively takes into account the biblical portrayals of God s unconditional love, justifying action, and efficacious grace for every single human being, as well as the fact that some people sadly resist this grace and are destroyed (ἀπολλυµι) because they, in effect, go against the objective grain of the reality of the triune God of Israel. Speaking as a classical Arminian (in the sense of Arminius and Wesley themselves, both of whom believed that the very ability to respond freely to God s gracious justifying act was itself a gift of God s prevenient grace to all people) I believe Torrance s perspective (and similar biblically-rooted ones) can provide a middle way to Calvinist-Arminian debate that divides both theologians and exegetes, while staying rooted in the biblical text and Paul s own views on justification, salvation, etc. 12

13 which he anticipates the Galatian Judaizers to use as well. Indeed, Paul, having likely answered a similar objection before, is launching a preemptive strike against the Galatian Judaizers. 31 Part of what Paul is trying to refute here is the accusation by the Judaizers that since the apostolic Christians are no longer seeking to be justified through the works of the Jewish Law, and are rather seeking to be declared righteous in Messiah they are therefore sinners (ἁµαρτωλοί) just as Gentiles outside of the Mosaic Law are! For the sake of argument, Paul concedes that they could be called sinners. 32 However, this concession is only so that Paul might refute the claim that the Messiah then becomes a servant of sin. To this accusation, Paul responds with the emphatic and forceful negation: µὴ γένοιτο. Translated literally it reads, May it never be! but I would submit that the more definite Absolutely not! conveys Paul s refutation more accurately. 33 2:18: Verse 18 concludes the parenthesis-refutation begun in v. 17. Paul moves into what several commentators refer to here as the supra-individual first person here. 34 This was a rhetorical technique, wherein Paul is referring to himself and his own hypothetical actions, but the content of what he is saying about himself applies to all Christians. In short, the things (ταῦτα) which Paul is referring to building up again, are those ethnic barriers of circumcision, dietary laws, etc. that divided Jews and Gentiles prior to the justifying work of Christ s faithfulness. If Paul were to build these things back up, then he himself would be a transgressor (παραβάτην) against the Law by going against the very thing it was designed by 31 de Boer, Galatians, This is resonant with Paul s anthropology as seen in Rom 3:23, in which all humans, both Jew and Gentile, are sinners. 33 de Boer, Galatians, Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians,

14 God to lead to: the εὐαγγέλιον of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah and Savior! 35 But Paul s point here is precisely that he is not building up the ethnic barriers of the Law again, and so therefore is not a lawbreaker. 36 2:19: Verse 19 begins Paul s defense of and positive argument for justification through faith. Here we begin to see Paul describe how he, an observant Jew, a Hebrew of Hebrews 37 did in fact die to the Law which is to say works of the Law and the ethnic barriers that they erected. Of course, the most difficult section of this verse is Paul s description of his dying to the Law through the Law itself (ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόµου νόµῳ ἀπέθανον). While commentators very on Paul s exact meaning here, one can at least be reasonably certain that Paul is referring to the fact that his own steadfast adherence to the Law was what ultimately brought about his conversion to Christ. In my opinion, the most probable meaning is that Paul s persecution of the Christians on the basis of his Pharisaic interpretation of the Law ultimately led him down the road to Damascus and into his encounter with the risen Christ. 38 This dying to the Law was and is ultimately good for Paul (and by extension all Christians, Jew and Gentile) because it broke down the barriers that prevented him from living to God by his [Paul] being crucified with Messiah; whose crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is the hinge-point not only of cosmic history but also for the history of each person who places their faith in Jesus the Messiah Sam K. Williams, Galatians (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997), 74. See also Fung, Galatians, 36 de Boer, Galatians, Phil 3:5 38 de Boer, Galatians, 160 advocates this interpretation. Williams, Galatians, 74 has a similar, if more loosely held, interpretation, albeit more rooted in Paul s deep study of the Hebrew Scriptures after encountering the risen Christ on the Damascus road. See Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, 123 for an interpretation that rests more heavily on the Law and the Jewish leaders using it to bring about Jesus murder. 14

15 2:20: The versification here puts a slight break in Paul s train of thought pertaining to his being crucified with Messiah; because he immediately follow it up in v. 20 by saying how it is not he who lives anymore but rather the Messiah (e.g. the Spirit of the Messiah/Holy Spirit) is living in him. (ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐµοὶ Χριστός). Obviously Paul is not speaking literally in this case he himself is writing the epistle! but rather using hyperbolic and metaphorical speech to communicate a very true reality. The I/ἐγώ that has died here is the nomistically-determined I 39 that maintained the ethnic barriers and Pharisaic understanding of the Law. This I is what has been crucified and no longer lives. Paul himself has not been destroyed or assimilated in some sort of quasi-pantheistic notion (µη γενοιτο!), but again is using hyperbolic language to express a real truth that is not entirely expressible in literal terms with human language: Messiah that Spirit of Messiah/Holy Spirit is living in Paul and animating the life he is living in [the] flesh (ἐν σαρκί), which conversely he is living in faith in the Son of God, 40 Who loved Paul and the whole world so much that He gave himself in behalf of me [Paul]. Again, Paul comes back to the objective basis of the Christian believer s justification through faith: the faithfulness and obedience of Jesus the Messiah even unto death on a cross. Paul has died to the Law so that he might live fully to and for the God who is seen in and through Jesus of Nazareth, the faithful Israelite who has fulfilled the Law so that its purpose and time have been served I borrow this term from de Boer, Galatians, While Paul could possibly just be using σαρξ here to denote a physical human body (which it is) it is more probable that he is also using it contrast with his statement of living in faith to show the now-and-not yet reality of the Christian believer. We are still subject to the fallen, physical human condition (aches, pains, decay, etc.) yet by the power of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit we are gradually being restored from the inside out by the work of the Spirit and the objective basis of salvation and justification in he faithfulness of Jesus Christ. 41 Gal 3: See also Wright, Justification, for an excellent discussion on the Law as temporary guardian for the people of God and which has been fulfilled and its purpose achieved in the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah. 15

16 2:21: Paul concludes this propositio by summing up the first two chapters of Galatians. In contrast to the Judaizers, Paul does not nullify the grace of God. He explains this by saying that, if in fact justification came through continued observance of Jewish dietary and cleanliness laws (and the ethnic barriers that they erect) then Messiah Jesus died for nothing. What Paul has done here (in true rhetorical fashion) is turned the Judaizers own assertions against them. If they indeed profess to be followers of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, yet they continue to assert the necessity of circumcision and other such laws, then the Law really did not find its fulfillment in the faithfulness and obedience of Jesus, and so they destroy importance of the very Messiah they claim to follow! 42 One can see Paul s logical and rhetorical skills on full display here; and this is only the propositio. Paul has effectively established his thesis statement in Gal 2: Paul s main argument, his probatio, follows in 3:1 6: Summary: Galatians 2:15 21 may me the most important structural passage in the whole of Paul s epistle. It is his propositio, his guiding thesis statement for the rest of the Galatians discourse. Here we see Paul lay out his main position against the Judaizers false gospel of justification through circumcision and the various other works of the Jewish Law. Indeed, the objective basis for one s justification is not the works of the Law and the ethnic barriers that separated Jews and Gentiles. Rather, the objective basis of justification is found in the faithfulness and obedience of the one faithful Israelite, Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified and risen Messiah and Son of God. It is only because of Jesus own faithfulness even unto death, that Christians can be justified through their own response of placing their faith in Jesus of Nazareth and what he has already done. Indeed, not only does Paul say that he (and by extension 42 de Boer, Galatians, Witherington, New Testament Rhetoric,

17 all orthodox Christians) has died to the ethnic and dividing barriers of the Law, but that the message of the Judaizers actually subverts the grace of the very God of Israel whom they claim to worship. In this propositio Paul has not only stated the true, apostolic doctrine of justification, but has also stated the denigration of grace which the Judaizers misguided message brings to both Jewish and Gentile Christians. 5. THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION: Galatians has always been a source of great insight over the course of the Church s history. When the Church becomes mired in error and temporarily misguided in certain regards, Galatians has been one of the constant reminders of the Christian understandings of grace and justification. Galatians 2:15 21 has often proven to be the key text within the text regarding justification by and through faith. While Paul was addressing the issue of justification through one s ethnic identity by means of circumcision (e.g. the works of the Law), rather than the more modern notion of working one s way to heaven, Galatians equally serves as a reminder to the modern Church of the necessity of grace, just as it did to the original Galatian audience. While Paul sought to show them the necessity of placing one s faith in the faithfulness and justifying action of Jesus Christ over and against the ethnic divisions of the Jewish Law and the (falselysupposed) justification that came with them, the epistle also reminds modern Christians that they cannot place their faith in their own strivings and struggles to be declared righteous by the Creator and Judge. Rather, Galatians serves as a humbling reminder. We cannot make ourselves righteous. We cannot be justified by our modern works of the Law, be they increased piety, ecclesial affluence, number of good deeds done, and so on. It is God alone who justifies and He has done so in the faithfulness of Jesus of Nazareth. God has acted first. And thank God, He has 17

18 set the parameters by which we can be declared righteous: by responding and placing our own faithfulness and trust in the Crucified Messiah who was faithful even unto death. 18

19 CHART #1 APPENDIX A: Textual Criticism Charts for 2:16, 20 Biblical Reference: Gal. 2:16 Variance in Question: δὲ (NA27 or NA28 or UBS4) Key and Other Notes: omit txt ( [δὲ] ) Antiquity and Quality of the Witnesses: Aland Category Text-Type Century I Alexandrian II Mixed III (Fathers & Versions) IV Western V Byzantine Unknown II III P 46 IV א B lat V A C D* M VI H VII-VIII Ψ sy h IX-XVI D F P 0278* G 0278 c K L Unknown 19

20 CHART #2 Biblical Reference: Gal. 2:16 Variance in Question: Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ/Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (NA27 or NA28 or UBS4) Key and Other Notes: Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ txt (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) Antiquity and Quality of the Witnesses: Aland Category Text-Type Century I Alexandrian II Mixed III (Fathers & Versions) IV Western V Byzantine Unknow II III P 46 sy IV Β א lat vg mss V Α C M VI D H VII-VIII Ψ IX-XVI F G P K L Unknown 20

21 CHART #3 Biblical Reference: Gal. 2:16 Χριστὸν Variance in Question: Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν/Ἰησοῦν (NA27 or NA28 or UBS4) Key and Other Notes: Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν txt (Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν) Antiquity and Quality of the Witnesses: Aland Category Text-Type Century I Alexandrian II Mixed III (Fathers & Versions) IV Western V Byzantine Unknow II III P 46 sy IV B א lat V A C I vid d M VI D H VII-VIII Ψ IX-XVI Unknown F ar G P K L 21

22 CHART #4 Biblical Reference: Gal. 2:16 Variance in Question: διοτι (NA27 or NA28 or UBS4) Key and Other Notes: διοτι txt: (ὅτι) Antiquity and Quality of the Witnesses: Aland Category Text-Type Century I Alexandrian II Mixed III (Fathers & Versions) IV Western V Byzantine Unknow II III P 46 IV א B vg V A C I M VI D* H VII-VIII Ψ IX-XVI D 2 F P f G K L Unknown 22

23 APPENDIX B: Semantic Structure Analysis for Gal. 2:

24 APPENDIX C: Sentence Diagram for Gal. 2:

25 25

26 WORD COUNT: 3,958 26

27 BIBLIOGRAPHY Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds. Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Cousar, Charles B. Galatians. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox, Danker, Frederick W. The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, De Boer, Martinus C. Galatians: A Commentary. New Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, Dunn, James D. G. The Epistle to the Galatians. Vol. IX. Black's New Testament Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson, Fung, Ronald Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, Hansen, G. Walter. Galatians. IVP New Testament Commentary. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, Hays, Richard B. "Galatians." Pages in The New Interpreter's Bible Volume XI: 2 Corinthians-Philemon. Edited by Leander E. Keck and David L. Petersen. Vol. 11 of The New Interpreter s Bible. Edited by Leander E. Keck and David L. Petersen. Nashville: Abingdon,

28 Kittel, Gerhard, ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 Vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 41. Dallas, TX: Word, Marshall, I. Howard. A Concise New Testament Theology. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, Matera, Frank J. "Galatians." Pages NT in The CEB Study Bible. Edited by Joel B. Green et al. Nashville: Common English Bible, McGrath, Alister E. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, McKnight, Scot. Galatians. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Torrance, Thomas F. Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ. Edited by Robert T. Walker. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, Williams, Sam K. Galatians. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, Witherington, Ben, III. Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, Witherington, Ben, III. New Testament Rhetoric: An Introductory Guide to the Art of Persuasion in and of the New Testament. Eugene: Cascade, Wright, N. T. Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision. London: SPCK, Wright, N. T. Paul and The Faithfulness of God. Minneapolis: Fortress,