Lecture 13: Works of the Law Last time we walked through the first couple chapters of Galatians, reaching the point where Paul begins to speak of something he calls the works of the Law. This language brings us to the problem of Paul s thinking about the Law, one of the thorniest questions in the study of Paul s letters and thought. You ll recall that we saw Paul arguing for the legitimacy of his gospel as revealed to him from heaven, rather than as something he learned from others. Even if he had, nearly two decades later, submitted his gospel for review to the apostles in Jerusalem, they put their stamp of approval on it, without altering it. Of even greater significance, they acknowledged that Paul s gospel was not the same as their gospel and that his mission to the Gentiles was distinct from theirs to the circumcised. This was more than just a division of labor, but recognition that Paul s gospel was both legitimate and distinctly his. Then, as we saw, Paul turned to an incident in which he asserted his independence from the Jerusalem leaders by opposing one of its leaders, Peter. And in the end, his opposition was not just of Peter, but also James representatives. It is significant that Paul does not say he won the argument and turned the tide. And it is unlikely that Paul would have omitted reporting such a victory, since it would have given him another instance he could cite of his gospel being vindicated. Paul s argument seems, instead, to have succeeded only in putting him at odds with Peter, the men from James, and other Jews in Antioch. Against the imposition of Jewish dietary standards requiring Jews to separate themselves from Gentiles at meetings a move which had the effect of forcing Gentiles to act like Jews Paul argued that this was, in effect, a negation of the agreement reached in Jerusalem. But while that conference had concluded that gentiles need not be circumcised in order to be included in the faith, it did not address the question of what was incumbent on Jewish believers. The men from James seem to have assumed that adherence to the dietary code was still requisite, and they apparently forced the reluctant agreement of Peter and a good number of Jews in Antioch. It may be that only in this incident did Paul come to realize the full implications of his construal of the gospel; it was certainly not an implication of it the Jerusalem church had foreseen. For Paul, the principle of inclusion in the community of Christ by faith alone meant not simply that gentiles did not have to submit to circumcision, but also that any behavior that distinguished Jews as Jews was no longer relevant. God had made grace accessible to all people, without distinction, such that there is no
Lecture 13 p. 2 longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. Paul summarizes his argument against Peter as an accusation of hypocrisy: If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? I.e., after casting aside Jewish scruples about food, so as to behave like a Gentile, how can you turn around and compel Gentiles to behave like Jews? And he adopts terminology that was no doubt used by the men from James: 1 We our-selves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners. This language describes Jewish-Gentile relations from a typical first century Jewish perspective: a true Jew is so by birth, whereas Gentiles an inferior lot are sinners by definition, since they are not part of the covenant people who have been granted the Torah. Over against such presumption, Paul plays out his argument in a new way: and yet, since we know that a person is justified not by the works of the Law except through faith in Jesus Christ, we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the Law. Here, for the first time, appears the phrase, the works of the Law. And it turns up twice more in Galatians, first in 3.10: 10 For all who rely on the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the Law. The phrase surfaces again two verses later, where Paul cites another verse from Deut 27: But the Law does not rest on faith; on the contrary, Whoever does the works of the Law will live by them. Obviously, the works of the Law have something to do with the Torah, but what? The meaning of this phrase has frequently been understood in the light of the explanation, given in 3.10, of why those relying on the works of the Law are under a curse. This quotation from Deut 27 is typically understood to mean that those who sign on to do any of the Law s demands have bitten off more than they can chew, since they have obligated themselves to do everything it requires. Since no one is that good, they place themselves under the curse that falls on those who fail to do the Law. That interpretation is identified especially with Martin Luther: Painfully aware of his own inability to do everything right, he found a champion in Paul who, to his mind, claimed that to try to do so was to obligate oneself to a standard that could only gain God s curse. I want to isolate three problems with this interpretation. First, Paul seems to have understood the Law s requirement as something humans could
Lecture 13 p. 3 fulfill. Noteworthy is his claim in Philippians to have been blameless with regard to the righteousness demanded by the Law. But notice also his statement later in Galatians that the Law is epitomized in the commandment, You shall love your neighbor as yourself, something Paul demands of his readers. For Paul, obedience to the Torah is not unachievable. A second consideration is that Paul does not view the Law as an oppressive burden. When, for example, he claims to have fulfilled the righteousness demanded by the Law, he does not mean that he never did anything wrong, but that when he did so, he availed himself of the avenues for forgiveness afforded in the Law. While the Torah set the bar high in terms of behavior, it also made provision for sacrifices that would secure forgiveness. And so Paul s expectation that one could fulfill the Law by loving your neighbor as yourself which Paul identifies as the essence of the Torah has to be taken seriously. Paul did not think it impossible for people to do what the Law required, even if he did not expect people always to do the right thing. The Law was not a burden, however, because it taught one the behavior God expected and gave a means to overcome lapses in following it. The final objection to Luther s understanding of Paul s statement about one s obligation to fulfill all the Law, if part of it is shouldered, derives from observing how Paul uses the phrase the works of the Law in chapter 2. This is an extension of Paul s argument against Peter s accession to the demands of James representatives. The issue in Antioch as you ll recall, was Peter reverting to adherence to the dietary standards expected of Jews, and it is such behavior Paul dubs living like a Jew. In vv. 15-16 he reasons against reverting to distinctively Jewish behavior by citing common ground between Peter and himself: what we know. He argues, even though we are Jews the group to whose distinctive behaviors you are forcing Gentiles to conform we have come to recognize that the works of the Law are insufficient to justify one a person is justified not by the works of the Law except through faith in Jesus Christ. Notice that, at this point, he doesn t say that the works of the Law play no role only that they are ineffectual apart from faith in Jesus Christ. In place of the word except, some translations read something like but, expressing a contrast. However, as the Pauline scholar James Dunn points out, the Greek words ean me, that lie behind this, mean if not, and are often used to introduce a phrase that is an exception to the main clause. The ill-advised translation but has prevailed under influence of the belief that Paul would give no place to the idea that the works of the Law understood as good works had any role to play. But if we understand
Lecture 13 p. 4 Paul, in this verse, to repeat a belief common in Jewish Christianity, then the translation except is quite appropriate. This would have been the belief that made early Christianity a sect within first century Judaism: they still upheld Jewish traditions and scruples, but regarded faith in Christ as indispensable for salvation. But Paul doesn t allow that statement to stand by itself. After pointing out their agreement that faith in Christ, and not just the works of the Law, were necessary for salvation, thus leading them to come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, Paul draws out what, for him, is a further appropriate inference: and not by doing the works of the Law. I.e., if the fundamental issue is faith in Christ, then the works of the Law are not simply of secondary importance, but are (in fact) nonessential. That, in turn, leads Paul to conclude that no one will be justified by the works of the Law. Paul has moved from the agreed belief that practice of Jewish distinctives is, by itself, insufficient for salvation to asserting that what is insufficient is non-essential. Accordingly, Paul s use of works of the Law becomes shorthand for those behaviors mandated by the Torah that clarify boundaries between Jews and Gentiles. Contrary to Luther s perception, the issue is not good works one might think earn right standing with God, but the presumption that because one adopts behaviors that show one to be a Jew rather than a Gentile one must have right standing with God. Let s continue with Paul s argument and see how he brings this to bear on the situation in Antioch: But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? I.e., If in numbering ourselves among those seeking to be justified in Christ we are found to be classed with gentiles as sinners (because we have ignored the Law s dietary code), does that mean Christ has become an agent of sin? Paul answers his rhetorical question with an emphatic Greek phrase: Certainly not! or better, unthinkable! In fact, asserts Paul, the problem arises precisely if we backtrack: If I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. If faith in Christ compels me to disregard the dietary codes and eat with Gentiles, and then I withdraw from eating with them in effect, rebuilding what I had torn down I would declare myself a transgressor of the Law; that s when I acknowledge having broken the Torah, not when faith in Christ causes me to view gentiles in a different way. Paul himself isn t about to do this, since he is no longer indebted to the Torah: 19 For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. Obviously death and life are metaphors to contrast severing
Lecture 13 p. 5 ties with the Law and establishing ties with God. And the word order in Greek infuses irony into the severing of ties with the Law: For I through Law, to Law died. I.e. the Law itself was the means of severing his relationship to the Law. But how so? In what sense does this severing of ties occur through the Law? It would be mistaken, I think, to take this as meaning that Paul got so weary of trying to do what the Law required that he simply lost all enthusiasm for it and gave it up. Indeed, by Paul s own account, his zeal for the Law took him into persecution of Christians and came to an end only when he was confronted by the risen Jesus. More importantly, Paul seems to explain what he means by death to the Law in his next words: I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Not only is his death to the Law explicated as being crucified with Christ, but so also his being alive to God is expressed again in his assertion that Christ lives in me and his confession that the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God. For Paul, his existence can be partitioned in two: the period when he lived for the Law, but was dead to God; and the period when he died to the Law with Christ and became alive to God. And to be alive to God, for Paul, means existence in which, rather than zeal for the Law dominating him, it is the presence of Christ that does so. But what connection is there here between saying that he died to the Law through the Law and that he died together with Christ? Paul will answer that question shortly [3.10-14], but for the moment he returns to his reconstructed response to Peter from which he departed in launching into his aside of vv. 19-20. Now he resumes the train of his argument: I do not nullify the grace of God. I.e. I do not invalidate God s grace if I rebuild the edifice of distinctive behaviors that give one a reason to presume they stand closer to God because they are Jewish than does a Gentile. And he closes his recapitulation of the argument by reasserting his point: for if justification comes through the Law, then Christ died for nothing. The word translated justification is, once again, the Greek word for righteousness. And given the context of his discussion, it is clear that his term the Law, in this sentence, denotes the same thing as his prior phrase, the works of the Law. It isn t keeping the Torah, as such, that he opposes; as we ve seen, he will later urge the Galatians to do just that. What he finds of no avail is the mandates of the Torah that could be seen as basing
Lecture 13 p. 6 salvation on Jewish privilege rather than on God s grace. God s grace supersedes such works of the Law, invalidating them. Paul believes so strongly that the Law thus understood has been nullified as a vehicle to salvation that he asserts that Christ s death is emptied of its meaning if righteousness can be obtained through such Torahmandated behaviors. The striking thing about this statement is that Paul explicitly connects Christ s death with the negation of the Law. And given the context, which has focused not on good deeds done to gain God s favor, but on boundary behaviors that demarcate Jews from Gentiles, his thought seems to be that the death of Christ somehow destroyed the link between such boundary behaviors and belonging to God s community. How that comes about he ll unpack in chapter 3. The bottom line for the moment, however, is that Paul s argument is not over the Law as a standard for upright behavior, but as the means for defining who is in the community that enjoys God s favor and who does not. Paul opens chapter 3 with that deriding exclamation, You foolish Galatians! [While this is certainly an insult, it was one commonly used in this sort of discourse in the Greco-Roman world.] Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly exhibited as crucified! He characterizes their acceptance of the other-gospel-thatis-not-gospel as a matter of a spell that has been cast upon them, overriding what, for him, is the heart of the gospel: the crucifixion of Christ. This hearkens back to his assertion at the end of chapter 2 that Christ died for nothing if righteousness comes through the Law. Paul recalls that he publicly exhibited before them Christ as crucified, burning into their minds a vivid image of Christ on the cross. We saw Paul s recollection in 1 Corinthians that his message while in Corinth had been Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And not many lines later he claims that the crucifixion had been a Trojan horse: None of the rulers of this age understood this [viz. God s wisdom]; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. It s not his identity as the Lord of glory that would have given the rulers of this age pause had they perceived it, but the purpose to which the wisdom of God put the crucifixion of Jesus; it had effects unforeseen by them. Paul believes that the crucifixion of Jesus was pivotal; it changed everything. And it is the proclaimed image of Christ crucified that, to his thinking, should have kept the Galatians from falling prey to another gospel. After asking them to think back to their reception of his gospel message by faith, through which they received the Spirit and contrasting that with the works of the Law Paul asks pointedly, Having started with the
Lecture 13 p. 7 Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? Flesh is a term Paul uses in a number of ways some more sinister than others but typically with an accent on merely human existence over against life in association with the divine realm. Note that here flesh stands in contrast to the Spirit. Moreover, it seems to be parallel to the works of the Law. And this usage is consistent with what we find Paul saying about himself in Philippians 3: 2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh! 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh 4 even though I, too, have reason for confidence in the flesh. If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the Law, blameless. Paul labels the features of his past that (as he tells us in the following verse) he has cast aside as matters of confidence in the flesh. And the activities he places under this rubric are those that distinguished him as a Jew: circumcision, Jewish descent, zeal for the Law, etc. Notice that his talk of righteousness under the Law is the same sort of language we found him using at the end of Galatians 2, where he declared, if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died for nothing. But again, in context this is not about doing good works, but about behaviors that define one as Jewish, things that are in the flesh. over against things in the realm of the Spirit, which are not confined to one group. After exhorting the Galatians to rely on faith rather than the works of the Law, Paul points to the example of Abraham, often cited in Jewish tradition as the ideal convert, one who embraced faith through circumcision. Paul, however, points to Abraham s faith as the key feature of his conversion: 6 Just as Abraham believed God [quoting Gen 15.6], and it was reckoned to him as righteousness 7 so, you see, those who believe are the descendants of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying (in Genesis 12:3), All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you. 9 For this reason, those who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed. Paul sets up a new role for Abraham as a convert: no longer is he the example of a man who converted by receiving circumcision, but one who converting by exercising faith. And so he becomes the corporate figure embracing all who exercise faith. Having established this positive argument for belief as the basis of faith, Paul launches into a new exposition of why reliance on the works of the
Lecture 13 p. 8 Law is a defunct path: 10 For all who rely on the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the Law. Taken by itself, this passage seems to be saying precisely what Luther claimed: no one can live up to everything the Law requires. If you try to live up to even just one feature of it, you are committed to keep all of it, and given the impossibility of doing so that means being consigned to a curse. However, let s remember that even though Paul says, in Philippians 3, that he has cast aside his previous Pharisaic devotion the Law, he nevertheless does not paint that as flawed in-and-of-itself, saying (in fact) that when it came to righteousness under the Law he was blameless and there is no reason to read that statement sarcastically. Indeed, in his next statement he appraises all these claims as gains that he has tossed aside as worthless because of Christ. It s not that these things are worthless inand-of-themselves, but that their value has been undercut by Christ, so that they no longer constitute the gains they once seemed. Moreover, he goes on to say, 8 I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the Law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith. As in Galatians, Paul discounts any righteousness attainable through the Law, and (again as in Galatians) that righteousness, given the preceding context, is a matter of behaviors distinguishing Jews from Gentiles. That sort of righteousness has become null and void because of Christ. By itself, there was value in the righteousness derived from the Law; it is Christ who has made it valueless. Returning to Galatians 3, then, what does Paul mean by citing Deut 27.26: Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the Law? For those who, in Paul s words, relied on the works of the Law, his logic that they stood under a curse for not fulfilling all the Law would have been incomprehensible. Like Paul in Philip 3, they could claim to be blameless under the Law because they followed its directives, including its provisions for forgiveness. But Paul implies that there is some way in which such folk are failing to fulfill all the Law. Paul s explanation follows: 11 Now it is evident that no one is righteous before God by the Law; for The one who is righteous will live by faith. Notice that Paul s denial that anyone is righteous before God by the Law echoes his statement in chapter 2 that a person is righteous not by the works of the Law, so that here again he uses the Law synonymously with
Lecture 13 p. 9 the works of the Law. As we ve seen him do before, Paul uses the Law to refer to its prescribed boundary behaviors taken as proof that one is among those who can rightfully claim righteousness before God. Over against such presumption, however, Paul places faith, substantiating it through a quotation from Habakkuk 2, declaring that the righteous live by faith. This immediately excludes those relying on the works of the Law, for, says Paul, the Law does not rest on faith; on the contrary, Whoever does the works of the Law will live by them. Once again Paul adduces a quotation from the Hebrew Bible, this one from Leviticus 18.5. However, this one is not a simple quotation; Paul has altered its words to fit his purposes. The Hebrew of that passage may be translated, the one who does them shall live by them. In fact, in Romans 10.5 Paul cites this passage again, only closer to the Hebrew wording. In Galatians 3, however, Paul has spelt out the pronoun them, which in the Hebrew refers to my statutes and my ordinances, by using the phrase the works of the Law that he has consistently used for boundary behaviors. Paul s logic in vv. 10-12, then, is that devoting oneself to the works of the Law is a path that leads to disaster because it violates the more fundamental demand to exercise faith. And Paul has already elucidated this more fundamental demand by showing that Abraham was declared righteous on the basis of his faith. Any attempt at earning right standing based on the distinctions mandated for Israel by the Torah runs afoul of its more fundamental demand of faith, thus placing one under a curse for failing to keep the whole Law. But this leaves humanity in an untenable condition, since it would seem that Israel stands under a curse for violating the Torah s innermost demand, while the Gentiles lack a path that would lead to right standing with God. At this juncture Paul unpacks his earlier assertion that he, through the Law, died to the Law, crucified with Christ: 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us for it is written, Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Luther and others among the Reformers took this as an interpretation of Christ s death as a substitutionary atonement: viz. humans stand under a curse for not having lived right; but Christ took that curse upon himself so that they might be free of it. In that case, however, one would expect the outcome of this action to be phrased not as the extension of the blessing to the Gentiles, but the alleviation of the curse for those laboring under it.
Lecture 13 p. 10 Notice, in fact, that it is not humanity in general that is confined to the curse in Paul s discourse, but all who rely on the works of the Law, on the grounds that they have given short-shrift to faith. And consistent with this, Paul distinguishes between the us who are redeemed from the curse of the Law and the Gentiles to whom the blessing of Abraham can now flow. The redemption Paul speaks of in v. 13 is not something having to do with all peoples, but with those who rely on the works of the Law, viz. Jews. And the consequent effect on the Gentiles is a byproduct of this redemption. Obviously, Paul is reaching back, once more, to his earlier use of the story about Abraham as the paradigm for converts. It is Abraham s faith that provides the avenue for the extension of the blessing to the Gentiles. But implicit in Paul s statement here is that something has been blocking that blessing. The question, then, is how Christ s death both brings deliverance from the curse that falls on those trying to gain righteousness through the works of the Law and serves as a catalyst freeing the blessing promised through Abraham to flow to the gentiles. To account for this, Paul draws on another verse from Deuteronomy: for it is written, Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree. I.e. by coming under the Law s curse himself, Christ took up the same position held by those who had come to stand under the Law s curse because of their failure in faith. Both they and Christ found themselves outside the Law. And yet, Christ s alienation from the Law was alienation on their behalf. This phrase, however, cannot be easily understood to express substitutionary atonement. In fact, notice the similar language Paul uses in Philippians 1.29: he (God) has graciously granted you the privilege not only of believing in Christ, but of suffering for him as well. The Greek preposition used in these passages is the same: hyper. And yet it is clear that while Phil 1.29 means that believers suffer abuse because of their connection with Christ and thus on his behalf it does not mean that they bear suffering he should have borne. Accordingly, we cannot assume that whenever a text speaks of Christ suffering/dying on behalf of or for others, lying behind that is the idea of substitutionary atonement. Rather, this language says that he has done something as a benefit to others, without specifying what that means. In each case we have to look to the context to see if the benefit is spelled out. In this case, becoming a curse for us has to be seen in light of Paul s confession that he is the Christ, the Messiah. His standing as Christ meant that he was not excluded by God, even though he stood under the Law s curse. And that, for Paul, means it is now possible to access God apart from a Law that distinguished people on divisive grounds. And this proved to be
Lecture 13 p. 11 liberation for not only those under the Law, but also the Gentiles, since now the blessing of Abraham [can] come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Paul is back to the theme with which he began chapter 3: the Spirit is received through faith, not by the works of the Law. But if the Law, as a vehicle for conferring righteousness on those who adhere to certain distinguishing behaviors, is no longer determinative of who is righteous, then of what value is the Law? That is the question Paul must yet address, and he raises it in v. 19: Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made. Paul s assertion that it was added because of transgressions is fairly vague. It could suggest that the Law was introduced as punishment for transgressions, once they began occurring ; or it could mean that it served as a means of limiting transgressions by prohibiting certain behaviors; or it could mean, as Paul says in Romans, that the introduction of the Law caused transgressions to multiply. What is clear is that Paul defines the Law as something of a stop-gap measure; it s role visà-vis transgressions was to serve until the arrival of the offspring who bore the promise. Here Paul looks back to an argument he mounted in v. 16: The promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring; it does not say, And to offsprings, as of many; but it says, And to your offspring, that is, to one person, who is Christ. As Roetzel notes, Paul here makes what we would consider inappropriate use of a linguistic feature, since in Hebrew or Greek (as much as in English), the word seed can have a collective sense, much like our words fish or deer. But Paul presses the use of the singular seed or offspring to assert that the promise had in view only Christ, so that Christ was the offspring bearing the promise made initially to Abraham. It is in this light, then, that Paul can expound the role of the Law: 23 Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the Law until faith would be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. 27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham s offspring, heirs according to the promise.
Lecture 13 p. 12 The Law is, again, an interim measure, put in place until faith would be revealed and until Christ came, even as earlier he had said that the Law was added until the offspring of promise should come. The Greek word translated disciplinarian is paidagogos, from which we get our word pedagogue. It designates someone who serves as a guide for a minor until they come of age. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under subject to a disciplinarian. What shows that Paul is still working very much in the vein of the Law as prescribing distinctions between Jews and Gentiles is his repetition of that phrase no longer in v. 28: There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female. What s remarkable is that Paul applies this liberation from the Law as disciplinarian not just to Jew-Gentile distinctions, but to other social distinctions about which the Torah is quite explicit. And it is the fact that Christ himself, by virtue of crucifixion, now stands outside the pale of the Law that enables this freedom and raises the status of those who believe in him to be full-blown children of God, inheriting what was promised. Paul teases out this theme in the initial verses of chapter 4: 1 My point is this: heirs, as long as they are minors, are no better than slaves, though they are the owners of all the property; 2 but they remain under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father. 3 So with us; while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elemental spirits of the world. 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 in order to redeem those who were under the Law, so that we might receive adoption as children. 6 And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba! Father! 7 So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God. Paul s proclamation is that the date set by the father has come, conferring full status as God s children, so that living as if one were still a minor, under the supervision of the old pedagogue, is foolish. It s on the basis of this proclamation that Paul urges his readers to return to their former path: 8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods. 9 Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits? How can you want to be enslaved to them again? 10 You are observing special days, and months, and seasons, and years. 11 I am afraid that my work for you may have been wasted. As Roetzel points out, Paul s reference to a time when you did not know God befits the fact that the Galatians were dominantly Gentile. And on that
Lecture 13 p. 13 basis, as Roetzel reports, some have seen Paul s dismay at the Galatians having turned back to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits as an indication that some have reverted to their pagan religions, becoming enslaved once again to beings that by nature are not gods. While taken as an isolated paragraph that is a strong possibility, let s notice that Paul uses the same sort of language to describe the regulations of the Torah that distinguish Jews from Gentiles. Before the time appointed by the father, we [Jews] were enslaved to the elemental spirits of the world. Thus, what Paul does is to equate adoption of circumcision and the dietary code with reversion to the equivalent of the elemental spirits to which they had been enslaved in their earlier religions. In a radical turn, Paul categorizes the Law, which is a matter of observing special days, and months, and seasons, and years, as no better than their native religions.