Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Galatians 4:21-31: An Allegory?

by

How should the Bible be interpreted? To read some dispensational interpreters the answer is found in Milton Terry. Too many dispensational books begin laying out a priori principles for interpretation apart from any biblical demonstration of these principles’ validity. Indeed sometimes the principles don’t cohere with the way the NT utilizes the Old, and ad hoc solutions are developed, such as Inspired Sensus Plenoir. In other words, NT writers can interpret the OT in ways that we cannot.

This seems to undermine the sufficiency of Scripture with regard to hermeneutics. How do we interpret Scripture? Scripture itself repeatedly demonstrates how by showing us examples in which one passage interprets another.

Does this approach justify allegorical approaches, such as those found in the church fathers—hermeneutical approaches that seem divorced from authorial intent and any hermeneutical control other than the analogy of faith?

Galatians 4:21-31 serves as a good test case. Paul clearly states, “Which things are an allegory” (4:24, KJV). Or is this clearly an allegory? A comparison of other translations shows that things may not be so straightforward. The ESV clarifies that Paul is not claiming Genesis was written as an allegory; it is his interpretation that is “allegorical”: “Now this may be interpreted allegorically.” Other translations remove the word allegory altogether: “which things are symbolic” (NKJV); “These things are illustrations” (HCSB); “These things are being taken figuratively” (NIV 2011; CSB). The best way forward is to see what Paul is doing in this passage.

Opening Question

Verse 21 sets the stage. Paul concludes his argument against those Galatians who wished to submit themselves to the Law by asking whether they have considered what the Law actually says about being under the Law. Verses 22-23 direct the readers back to the Abraham narrative. In its original setting in Genesis, this narrative is about the promises of God and the response of Abraham to these promises with growing faith.

Interpretation of Genesis 16, 21

In Galatians 4 Paul specifically highlights Abraham’s two sons to exemplify two ways in which Abraham sought to receive the promises. Genesis 16 records the birth of Abraham’s first son. In the previous chapter, when Abram reminded the Lord of both the seed promise and his lack of children (15:2-3), God re-affirmed the seed promise and further specified that Abram himself would have a son (15:4-5), and Abram believed God (15:6). But chapter 16 opens: “Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children.” If Abram is to have children, it is his wife who would bear them. And yet Yahweh, the giver of the promise, had “prevented” Sarai from having children.

Genesis 16:1 shows a possible way out of this dilemma: “[Sarai] had a female Egyptian servant whose name was Hagar.” The passage is clear that this is not God’s way of fulfilling the promise. When Abraham had previously consulted with God about a servant being the key to fulfilling the promise, God had rejected that solution (15:4). Ominously, in Genesis 16 God was not consulted. Moses also uses language that draws the reader’s mind back to Genesis 3: “And Abraham listened to the voice of Sarai” (16:2) just as Adam “listened to the voice of [his] wife” (3:17). Like Eve, who “took” and “gave also to her husband” (3:6, NASB), Sarah “took” and “gave to her husband” (16:3, NASB).

Wenham observes:

The fact that the phrase ‘obey,’ lit. ‘listen to the voice’ (שׁמע לקול), occurs only here and in Gen 3:17 would be suggestive enough. But more than that, in both instances, it is a question of obeying one’s wife, an action automatically suspect in the patriarchal society of ancient Israel [or should this be, in the ethical norms of Scripture?]. That this is more than a chance allusion to the fall seems to be confirmed by v 3, where further echoes of that narrative are found. [Wenham, WBC, 7; cf. Waltke, Genesis, 252]

Thus, as in the Garden of Eden, God’s word was not believed and humans took matters into their own hands. Because they sought the promise through their own efforts, Paul says, “The son of the slave was born according to the flesh” (Gal. 4:23), that is Ishmael was born of human contriving.

Note, however, that Abram and Sarai did not entirely disbelieve God. They were trying to fulfill God’s promise through their own efforts. Calvin comments:

The faith of both of them was defective; not indeed with regard to the substance of the promise, but with regard to the method in which they proceeded; since they hastened to acquire the offspring which was to be expected from God, without observing the legitimate ordinance of God. [Calvin, Genesis, 1:424]

Genesis 21 records the birth of Abraham’s second son. In this passage Moses specifically says that Isaac was born “as He had promised” (21:1, NASB). He reinforces the fulfillment of the promise by noting that the birth took place “as He had said” (21:1, NASB) and “at the time of which God had spoken to him” (21:2). Moses also emphasizes the Lord’s involvement in the birth of Isaac by specifying that the Lord “visited” Sarah, a term that indicates God’s special involvement. Abraham’s personal righteousness had nothing to do with the fulfillment of the promise, for he had failed once again in the previous chapter. His old age (noted in 21:1, 5, 7) also indicates that God fulfilled his promise. It is on the basis of this passage that Paul says, “The son of the free woman was born through the promise” (Gal. 4:23).

Application of Genesis 16, 21 to the Galatians

The circumstances of the birth of Abraham’s two sons parallel the two options that lie before the Galatians. They can seek to achieve the promises of God through human effort, or they can trust God to bring about what he has promised. Paul exploits this parallel by a figurative interpretation that draws further parallels between the mothers of those sons and the two covenants that the Galatians may live under: the Mosaic covenant or the new covenant.

The association of Hagar with Mount Sinai makes a clear connection to the Mosaic Covenant. The present Jerusalem probably refers to “the whole legal system of Judaism, which had its world-centre in Jerusalem” (Bruce, NIGTC, 220). And what of Arabia. Calvin and Schreiner suggest that the mention of Arabia signifies that those under the Mosaic Covenant have not entered the promises of God. Ridderbos, however, prefers to understand the verse as saying: Although Sinai is in Arabia, Hagar is nonetheless to be identified with the present Jerusalem.

The covenant symbolized by Sarah is not clearly identified, so interpreters divide over whether it is the Abrahamic covenant or the new covenant. In favor of the new covenant, the Galatian churches are Gentile churches, and they become the seed of Abraham and beneficiaries of aspects of his covenant because of their union to the Seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:27-29). This union happens only through the new covenant sacrifice of Christ. The heavenly Jerusalem is neither the church triumphant (Aquinas) nor the church militant (Calvin). It is instead future Jerusalem, from which Christ establishes his righteous reign over all the earth. Some aspects of this righteous reign have begun with the inauguration of the new covenant, but its consummation awaits the future.

Interpretation of Isaiah 54

The connection between the Judaizers and the Mosaic Law is self-evident. But Paul must demonstrate the connection between the Galatian Christians and Sarah / the free woman / the new covenant / the Jerusalem above (note the γάρ, which indicates that Paul is grounding his claim of 4:26). He does this by quoting Isaiah 54:1.

Isaiah 54-55 links the Abrahamic covenant, the new covenant, and Gentile salvation while also having a nice verbal connection to Paul’s illustration through the word “barren.” Isaiah alludes to the Abrahamic (54:1-3), Mosaic (54:4-8), Noahic (54:9-17), and Davidic (55:3b-5) covenants, and he does so in terms of their fulfillment in the new covenant (compare Isa. 54:10 with Eze. 34:5; 37:26 and Isa. 55:3 with Isa. 61:8; Eze. 37:26).

Isaiah 54:1 connects to the Abrahamic covenant by speaking of Zion in terms of a barren woman having offspring (Isaiah 54:1 and Genesis 11:30 are parallel in Hebrew and especially in the LXX). The connection continues with the reference to “spread[ing] abroad to the right and to the left” (54:3), which calls to mind Genesis 28:14. Genesis 28:14 not only promises numerous offspring to Abraham but also says the blessing of Abraham’s seed would be to “all the families of the earth.” Isaiah brings those two ideas together in his exhortation for Zion to enlarge her tent because her seed will possess the nations (54:2-3).

What does it mean for Israel to possess the nations? The closest parallel to גּוֹיִ֣ם יִירָ֔שׁin Isaiah 54:3 is Amos 9:11-12: “‘In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old, that they may possess [יִֽירְשׁ֜וּ] the remnant of Edom and all the nations [הַגּוֹיִ֔ם] who are called by my name,’ declares the LORD who does this.” The emphasis in Amos is on Israel possessing all the nations. Edom is given as a concrete example, and perhaps also “as a synecdoche for the phrase ‘all the nations’ (כל־הגוים) which parallels it” (Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, WBC, 398). The Lord identifies these nations as “called by my name.” This indicates “that the nations will not simply come under Israelite hegemony (as before), but that they will actually become one with God’s people” (Niehaus, “Amos,” Minor Prophets, ed. McComiskey, 1:492; also Finley, WEC, 325). James appealed to Amos 9:11-12 to make the same point that Paul is making in Galatians: circumcision and obedience to the Law of Moses are not necessary for salvation (Acts 15:1-21).

Notably, this will happen not by natural means (as when a married woman has children), but it will be a supernatural work (like a deserted, barren woman who has never been in labor having more children than the married woman) (Isa. 54:1).

Application of Isaiah 54 to the Galatians

Thus Paul can conclude that the Galatians, “like Isaac, are children of promise” (4:28). These Gentiles have become part of the people of God not through their own efforts but through the supernatural working of God and in accordance with his promise to Abraham (Gen. 28:14).

Application of Genesis 21 to the Judaizers

After having established the identity of the Galatian Christians, Paul establishes the identity of the Judaizers: they are like Ishmael, for they persecute those “born according to the Spirit” (4:29). This connection is made on the basis of Ishmael’s treatment of Isaac in Genesis 21:9 (cf. Matt. 5:11; 1 Pet. 4:4). Calvin rightly understands the seriousness of Ishmael’s mocking:

“And there is no doubt that his manifest impiety against God, betrayed itself under this ridicule. He had reached an age at which he could not, by any means, be ignorant of the promised favour, on account of which his father Abraham was transported with so great joy: and yet—profoundly confident in himself—he insults, in the person of his brother, both God and his word, as well as the faith of Abraham. [Calvin, Genesis, 543]

Paul then applies the judgment that falls on those aligned with Ishmael (that is those under the Mosaic code): they will not receive the promised inheritance. Paul gives this warning based on the words of Sarah: “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman” (Gal. 4:30). In the flow of Paul’s argument, this quotation seems to be a warning that fits with Paul’s opening admonition: “Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?” Submission to the Law results in being cast out from the family of promise.

In verse 31 Paul reiterates the conclusion that he reached in 4:28 about the identity of Christians. In 5:1 he concludes his exhortation and prepares the way for the following section by exhorting the Galatians to stand firm in their freedom and not to submit to the slavery of the Mosaic code.

Contrast Between Paul’s Method and Augustine’s

Throughout this passage Paul exploits surface similarities (Hagar’s bondage with the bondage of the Law; Sarah’s freedom with the freedom of the new covenant; Sarah’s barrenness and later fecundity with Zion’s barrenness and later fecundity) to illustrate aspects of his present situation, but when probed these surface similarities have deeply rooted, substantive connections. It is these roots that set Paul’s practice in this passage apart from the allegories of the patristic and medieval eras. For instance, Augustine extended Paul’s allegory to apply also to Abraham’s children by Keturah.

Now if someone has gained confidence from the Apostle’s very clear demonstra¬tion that these two sons are to be understood allegorically and also wishes to see in Keturah’s sons some figure of things to come—for these events involving such persons were not recorded of the Holy Spirit for nothing—he will perhaps find that they signify heresies and schisms. They are indeed sons of a free woman, as are the sons of the Church, yet they were born according to the flesh, not spiritually through the promise. But if so, they are also found not to belong to the inheritance, that is the heavenly Jerusalem, which Scripture calls barren because for a long time she did not bear sons on earth. [Eric Plummer, Augustine’s Commentary on Galatians: Introduction, Text, Translation, Notes, Oxford Early Christian Studies, ed. Gillian Clark and Andrew Louth (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 195]

Augustine’s allegory does make superficial connections, but an examination of Genesis 25 reveals that it lacks any substantial connection to the teaching of Genesis 25.

Conclusion

Galatians 4 shows that Paul is willing to use Old Testament narratives illustratively, and he is willing to apply those narratives to the present situation of Christians. But Galatians 4 also shows that when Paul does this, his interpretation of the Old Testament remains rooted in the original meaning of the Old Testament texts.

Spirit Baptism in Galatians 3:26-27

by

Several years ago I posted a brief study about whether the baptism in Galatians 3:26-27 was Spirit baptism or water baptism. I concluded in favor of the former.

The key paragraph in that post is as follows:

Spirit baptism makes good sense in [Galatians 3:26]. In this context baptism is the proof that “Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female” are one in Christ through faith. Water baptism cannot serve as such a proof because, as Hunn notes, “it proves only that the baptizer found [these distinctions] irrelevant.” It does not provide a window into the mind of God. Spirit baptism, on the other hand, does provide such a proof. Indeed, this is Peter’s argument for accepting the Gentiles into the church. The Spirit baptized them just as he had baptized the Jews (Acts 11:15-17). Hunn also observes that Galatians 3:23-29 and 4:3-7 follow parallel lines of argumentation. In 3:27-28 the proof of sonship is baptism into Christ. In 4:6 the proof of sonship is the reception of the Spirit. This parallel indicates that Spirit baptism is in view in 3:27. Finally, 1 Corinthians 12:13 forms a close parallel to Galatians 3:27. In both passages there is baptism into Christ. In both there is the indication that this the case whether the person is Jew or Gentile, slave or free. In 1 Corinthians 12:13 the baptism is clearly Spirit baptism: “For [in] one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” This confirms that the baptism in view in Galatians 3:27 is Spirit baptism.

See the full post here.

Moo on Justification in Galatians

by

Moo Douglas J. “Justification in Galatians.” In Understanding the Times: Essays in Honor of D. A. Carson. Edited by Andreas J. Köstenberger and Robert W. Yarbrough. Crossway, 2011.

In this essay Moo examines the δικ– language of Galatians, concluding that all but one instance refers to forensic justification. Moo recognizes as he undertakes this study that the theological concept of justification is larger than the δικ– word-group and that the δικ– word-group contains senses other than the theological concept of justification. This linguistic and theological awareness helps Moo avoid missteps. For instance, Moo pushes back against those, like Michael Gorman, who wish to move the doctrine of justification away from a purely forensic concept to one that focuses on participation in Christ. Moo does not downplay union with Christ; indeed, he indicates that that concept is more central to Paul’s theology than justification (though Moo also rejects Schweitzer’s claim that justification is merely a subsidiary crater in Paul’s thought). In his interaction with the New Perspective, Moo also handles well the reality that Paul sets justification by faith alone in distinction with the works of the law while also recognizing that the justified Christian must produce good works. One area in which Moo has adjusted his view of justification in light of his work in Galatians is an acceptance now of an already-not yet structure so that there is both a past and a future justification. There are orthodox and unorthodox ways to think of future justification, and Moo’s approach (like that of Richard Gaffin) harmonizes with Reformation orthodoxy. But I’m still not convinced. For instance, I think that the subjective genitive makes sense in Galatians 5:5, removing the need for seeing a future justification in that passage. The theological reasons that Moo notes in favor of the subjective genitive seem more weighty to me than the linguistic reasons that he gives in favor of the objective genitive. Moo’s other argument is that the timing of justification seems undetermined in much of the rest of the letter. But I wonder if that is because Paul is dealing with people who are trying to be justified rather than due to the fact that Paul is viewing justification as something future.

S. M. Baugh on Galatians 3:20 and the Covenant of Redemption

by

S. M. Baugh, “Galatians 3:20 and the Covenant of Redemption,” Westminster Theological Journal 66, no. 1 (2004): 49-70.

Baugh’s own summary:

The interpretation of Gal 3:20 offered here flows particularly out of an analysis of v. 15 running through v. 22. I view v. 15 as Paul invoking an analogy from testamentary practices of the day, which prohibited any party who was not the testator from emending or annulling a last will and testament. This would have been understood across the broad spectrum of ancient legal situations in antiquity—as indeed it is so understood today—without any special legal training or involving a legal practice restricted to some particular region.

What makes understanding v. 15 correctly so important is that it clarifies the purpose of Paul’s analogy. It shows us that the law, represented by Moses its mediator, is incompatible with the promissory Abrahamic covenant when put to the wrong use. In v. 17, Paul applies this analogy to this effect by saying the law could not annul the inheritance by changing the principial basis of inheritance from a gracious grant “from faith” to a basis of personal law-keeping. The new covenant represents direct continuity with the Abrahamic covenant on this score, and Paul emphasizes this point by declaring us heirs alongside Abraham repeatedly in this chapter (vv. 6–9, 14, and 29). In covenant theology, this continuity and development is expressed when we confess that Christ represents the substance of the one covenant of grace inaugurated immediately after the fall and yet administered in different ways in the course of redemptive history.

However, Paul moves briefly but most profoundly behind the historical development of the covenant of grace into the eternal realm in vv. 19–20. What started him in this direction was when he mentioned that the terminus ad quem of the Mosaic administration of law—which served in part as a “ministry of condemnation” for transgressions (v. 19; 2 Cor 3:9)—was the arrival of the Seed to whom the promises given to Abraham were ultimately oriented. The clear assumption here is that the Seed existed before he came, for the promises were spoken to him when Abraham heard them. This, incidentally, is why Paul has to comment that the Son of God was “born of a woman” when he did finally come in the fullness of time (Gal 4:4), for the Son did not come in his divine glory, but in servile guise as a true man (Phil 2:6–8). This was not a “hyiophany” but a genuine incarnation.

So then, once Paul has reflected on the Son’s pre-incarnate existence in Gal 3:19, it was quite natural for him to clinch his argument about the impossibility of changing the basis of inheritance from grace, faith, and promise to that of personal obligation and law-keeping by invoking the intratrinitarian life of God as the foundation of the covenant with Abraham. He was already dwelling on the eternal existence of the Son as Seed-to-come.

When Paul does clinch his argument, he does so in the most profound way, a way which has puzzled interpreters who were unable or unwilling to follow Paul into the heavens. The mediation of the law through angels by the hand of Moses was not an “eternal ordinance ordained and written in the heavenly tablets” and thereby representing an intractable principle of inheritance of God’s promises overthrowing faith in Christ. Rather, the promises of God to a fallen world are rooted in his sovereign, intratrinitarian counsel, traditionally called the pactum salutis, which Moses did not and could not mediate, for God is one (69-70).

My evaluation:

There is much I learned from this article, and much I agree with. I’m tempted to agree with Baugh’s interpretation of vv. 19-20, as it would be an elegant interpretation of those difficult verses to say that the point is that no mediator is necessary for the promise because the promise is made within the one Godhead. What prevents me from embracing Baugh’s position on those verses, however, is that Paul in this passage is clearly connecting the promises with the Abrahamic covenant rather than to the covenant of redemption. Though I think the covenant of redemption is a legitimate theological category, I have difficulty seeing a clear indication that Paul is making use of it here.

Galatians 2:11-14: The Identity of the Men from James

by

Proposed solutions

1.They were unconverted Jews from the Jerusalem area. Ambrosiaster identifies them as men who “were zealous for the law and venerated both Christ and the law on equal footing, which,” Ambrosiaster observes, “goes against the teaching of the faith” (12). Augustine accepts this view, but he distances them from James by interpreting “from James” as “from Judea, since James presided over the church of Jerusalem” (145; cf. 144, n. 48). Aquinas also takes these men to be unconverted Jews (47).

2. They were men who wrongly presented themselves as being from James. Alford notes this as the position of Winer and Ellicot (Alford, 3:18). Olshausen takes the position that the men were “from James’s church in Jerusalem” but that their claim to his authority was false, noting that if they were truly from James ὑπό or παρά would have been used rather than ἀπό (4:532). Also in support of this position, he notes that in Acts 15:1, “where the kindred words ‘certain—from us’ (τινὲς ἐξ ἡμῶν, xv. 24), are compared with this phrase, and it is shown that the apostles in their epistle yet disavow those very τινές” (Olshausen, 4:532; also George, NAC, 175-76; noted as a possibility in Moo, BECNT, 142, 147).

3. They were men associated with James in the Jerusalem church; their purpose in coming is unknown. “Perhaps all that we can surmise is that these men had stood in some way closer to James than did the generality of the Jerusalem Church. But what their connection with him was, and whether they had any kind of commission from him at all when they went to Antioch—these questions can probably never be answered” (Machen, 134-35). Ridderbos also takes this position, noting, “Presumably the ἀπό Ἰακώβου goes with the τινες and not with the ἐλθεῖν” (96, n. 7).

4. They were members of circumcision party the Jerusalem church sent by James. Calvin equates the men from James with the circumcision party, and he indicates that they were actually sent by James, noting that Peter had a “dread of offending James, or those sent by him” (61).To allow for this view, Calvin holds that this event happened prior to the decision made in Acts 15. Lightfoot also holds to this view, but he holds that the visit occurred after Acts 15. He equates the sentiments of James and the men he sent with those stated in Acts 21:20ff. He also specifies that the circumcision party are “not ‘Jews’ but ‘converts from Judaism,’ for this seems to be the force of the preposition [ἐκ]L Acts x. 45, xi. 2, Col. Iv. 11, Tit. i. 10: (Lightfoot, 112).

5. They were men sent by James to enforce the decision made in Acts 15. “And this mission may have been for the very of admonishing the Jewish converts of their obligations, from which the Gentiles were free…. And my view seems to me to be confirmed by his [that is James’s] own words, Acts xv. 19, where the emphatic τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐπιστρέφουσιν tacitly implies, that the Jews would be bound as before” (Alford, 3:18). Eadie notes similarly that Acts 15:19 refers to the fact that Jews were to observe “the customs,” which he understands to entail that they not “mix freely with the Gentiles.” What Peter was doing was “relaxing” the decree beyond that which was thought permissible (Eadie, 151). Burton: “eating with the Gentiles was not only not required by the Jerusalem agreement, but was in fact contrary to it, since it involved disregard for the law by Jewish Christians (ICC, 101, 104-7). Bruce notes that D. W. B. Robertson actually holds that τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου should be understood as “certain things from James,” and refers to the decision of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 (NIGTC, 129).

6. The men sent from James asked Peter, in harmony with the Acts 15 decision regarding circumcision, to observe the food laws in the interest of advancing the gospel among the Jews. Martyn’s view is similar at points to view 5. Though he does not reference the decision made in Acts 15, he does indicate that what had been settled in Acts 15 related to circumcision and not to food laws; he sends a message regarding Jews and Gentiles eating together (however, in Martyn’s reading, Paul links the “the food-laws party” with “the circumcision party,” though the “food-laws party” saw themselves as distinct from the circumcision party) (AB, 233-34, 239). Martyn also hypothesizes that unrest in Jerusalem caused by zealots led the church in Jerusalem (see also Bruce, NIGTC, 130), led by James, to be more zealous in its observance of the Law. James’s message to Peter may have been that Peter’s table fellowship with Gentiles was hindering evangelistic work among the Jews in Jerusalem (AB, 241-42).

7. The men sent from James asked Peter to observe the food laws in the interest of advancing the gospel among the Jews. Bruce similarly thinks that knowledge of what Peter is doing is troubling conservative Jewish believers and is hindering evangelism among the Jews, though, unlike Martyn, he places these events before Acts 15 (NIGTC, 130; cf. Fung, NICNT, 108; Longenecker, WBC, 73, 78-79; Schreiner, ZECNT, 140; Moo, BECNT, 148-49). In further support of this position, Longenecker argues, based on usage earlier in the chapter, that τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς in v. 12 refers, not to Judaizing Christians or to “Jewish Christians in a nonpartisan sense” but to “non-Christian Jews” (WBC, 75-76; cf. Moo, BECNT, 148; Schreiner, ZECNT, 143-44, who surveys several possible options without firmly attaching to one). Schreiner notes that James may not have told Peter to stop eating with the Gentiles; he may have simply had then men relay the effects of his eating on the church in Jerusalem (ZECNT, 140).

Rejected Solutions

1. They were unconverted Jews from the Jerusalem area. James need not be named if the location is what is being referred to (Eadie, 150). It seems unlikely to say that the men came from James if what is really meant is that they came from Jerusalem. As unconverted Jews, they would have had no real connection with James.

4. They were members of the circumcision party in the Jerusalem church sent by James. “It would be unwise to identify the ‘certain people’ who came down from James with the ‘certain people’ (τινες) of Acts 15:1 who came down to Antioch from Judaea and insisted that circumcision was necessary for salvation. These men are disowned by the authors of the apostolic letter (Acts 15:24)” (Bruce, NIGTC, 130). In other words, the circumcision party was unorthodox, and it is wise not to infer that James was of that party, even prior to Acts 15.

5. They were men sent by James to enforce the decision made in Acts 15. Against this, Bruce notes that Peter helped formulate that decision and that the decision “appears to have been promulgated in order to facilitate social fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians” (NIGTC, 129). Further, I hold Galatians to have been written prior to Acts 15.

6. The men sent from James asked Peter, in harmony with the Acts 15 decision regarding circumcision, to observe the food laws in the interest of advancing the gospel among the Jews. This view is similar to view 7, except it ties the view to the Acts 15 decision. Since I think that Acts 15 happened subsequent to the writing of Galatians, I don’t think view 6 is feasible.

2. They were men who wrongly presented themselves as being from James. This is an intriguing possibility, given the correspondence between “certain men from James” and the statement of the apostles and elders in Acts 15:24 that “certain persons have gone out from us and troubled you”—even though they had received no instructions from the apostles or elders. Against this view, however, there is no indication in Galatians that then men wrongly presented themselves as being from James. Further, how likely is it that Peter himself would have been deceived by such imposters?

Possible Solutions

3. They were men associated with James in the Jerusalem church; their purpose in coming is unknown. This position has the virtue of being true and modest. But it also doesn’t say much.

7. The men sent from James asked Peter to observe the food laws in the interest of advancing the gospel among the Jews. This view has the disadvantage of being speculative. However, it accounts for the following. (1) The men were indeed from James. (2) Peter did not change his belief that it was permissible for him to eat with Gentiles and to not conform to the food laws (Paul indicates that Peter’s actions differed from his actual beliefs). (3) It provides a plausible reason for why Peter would act contrary to the liberty that he believed he and the other Jews had.

Bibliography: Alford, The Greek Testament, (Lee and Shepard, 1877); Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on Galatians-Philemon, ACT; Aquinas, Commentary on Galatians, trans. Larcher (Magi, 1966); Bruce, Commentary on Galatians, NIGTC (Eerdmans, 1982); Burton, Epistle to the Galatians, ICC (T.&T. Clark, 1921); Calvin, Commentaries on Galatians and Ephesians, trans. Pringle (Calvin Translation Society, 1854); Eadie, Galatians (1869; repr., Baker, 1979); Fung, Epistle to the Galatians, NICNT (Eerdmans, 1988); George, Galatians, NAC (B&H, 1994); Longenecker, Galatians, WBC (Nelson, 1990); Machen, Notes on Galatians (1972; repr., Solid Ground, 2006); Martyn, AYB (Yale, 1974); McWilliams, Galatians (Mentor, 2009), Moo, Galatians, BECNT (Baker, 2013); Olshausen, Biblical Commentary on the New Testament (Sheldon, 1861); Plumer, Augustine’s Commentary on Galatians (OUP, 2003); Ridderbos, Epistle to the Galatians, NLC/NICNT (Marshall, Morgan, Scott/Eerdmans, 1961); Schreiner, Galatians, ZECNT (Zondervan, 2010).

Silva: “Faith Versus Works of the Law in Galatians”

by

Silva, Moisés. “Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians.” In Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume 2—The Paradoxes of Paul. Edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004.

Silva summarizes his own article:

In this essay I have sought to demonstrate the following points: (1) Because of the inherent ambiguity of genitival constructions, the phrase πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ must be understood in the light of unambiguous constructions appearing in the context. (2) Neither Paul nor other NT authors ever use unambiguous constructions where the name Jesus Christ is the subject of faith (e.g., Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ πστεύει or πιστός ἐστιν), but Paul does use the name as the object of the verb, especialy in the immediate context of the genitival construction (Gal 2:16), and both Paul and the other NT authors routinely and explicitly speak of faith in God or in Christ as the human response of Christian believers. (3) There are thus no linguistic-contextual indications that the genitival construction should be understood as a reference to the faith or faithfulness of Christ. (4) Even if such an understanding were possible, the believer’s response of faith over against law-works indisputably plays a fundamental role in the argument of Galatians 2-3 from beginning to end. (5) The concept of law-works includes but cannot be restricted to national customs that function as ‘identity badges.’ (6) The expression ‘as many as are of works of law,’ being explicitly contrasted with ‘the ones of faith,’ functions negatively, thus indicates the absence of (true) faith and refers primarily to Paul’s Judaizing opponents who seek to live, that is, be justified, buy works. (7) Paul’s arguments in Galatians 3 is essentially eschatological in character, flowing from the concept that the Spirit-promise has been fulfilled. (8) The Sinaitic law preceded the time of fulfillment, and so its role in soteriology was preparatory and temporary. (9) The Judaizing claim that the law could give life confuses these eschatological epochs, introduces an improper opposition between law and inheritance/promise, sets aside the grace of God, and makes Christ’s death of no account. (10) If these assertions are defensible, it follows that the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone—and not by works of obedience to the law—reflects a fundamentally important and exegetically valid understanding of Paul’s teaching in Galatians. [247-48]

The only thing I would add is that in the course of making his argument Silva also instructs readers on a linguistically sound approach to exegesis, especially with reference to the genitive.

Wiarda, “Plot and Character in Galatians 1-2”

by

Wiarda, Timothy. “Plot and Character in Galatians 1-2.” Tyndale Bulletin 55, no. 2 (January 1, 2004): 231-52.

“The preceding analysis of plot and characterisation leads to these principal results. (1) It supports the traditional view that the Galatians 1-2 narrative serves primarily to establish the credentials of Paul and his gospel. (2) It shows that these chapters also serve a strong paradigmatic purpose, however, thus lending partial support to the proposals of those recent scholars who argue that Paul’s autobiography functions as an example. The paradigmatic function nevertheless appears to be secondary. (3) Analysis of plot and characterisation helps to refine both the traditional view (by clarifying each episode’s distinct contribution to the defence of Paul’s gospel and authority) and the example view (by identifying the precise aspects of Paul’s life that are presented for imitation). (4) Analysis of plot structure and character portrayal offers little support to the view that Paul wishes to illustrate the gospel’s tradition-transcending or life-transforming nature.”

Galatians 3:26-27: Water Baptism or Spirit Baptism

by

The majority of commentators throughout history understand 3:27 to refer to water baptism. But this results in some serious difficulties. Calvin states the difficulty well: “”But the argument, that, because they have been baptized, they have put on Christ, appears weak; for how far is baptism from being efficacious in all? Is it reasonable that the grace of the Holy Spirit should be so closely linked to an external symbol? Does not the uniform doctrine of Scripture, as well as experience, appear to confute this statement?”[1] In other words, it is obvious under anyone’s theology, that not all who are water baptized are united to Christ. But this verse says, ”For as many of you as were,” or “All who were . . . .”

There are a number of ways of handling this difficulty. Peter Lombard notes a view ascribed to Augustine indicated that those who were baptized under a false confession had their sins forgiven “at the very moment of baptism.” But those sins “return immediately after baptism.” Lombard rejects this view, and he says that Augustine only reported the view. He did not hold it.[2] Lombard himself suggested two resolutions. First, it may be that only “those who are baptized in Christ” have their sins forgiven. Or, Lombard suggested, it may be that the passage refers not to those who receive the sacrament alone but also the thing which it symbolizes.[3]

This latter explanation has remained popular. It was the explanation Calvin offered: “It is customary with Paul to treat of the sacrament in two points of view. When he is dealing with hypocrites . . . he then proclaims loudly the emptiness and worthlessness of the outward symbol. . . . When, on the other hand, he addresses beleviers, who make a proper use of the symbols, he then views them in connexion with the truth—which they represent.”[4]

Another approach is to argue that baptism is one part of “the complex of initiation events describing conversion.”[5] Some make baptism an essential part of receiving the benefit. Beasley-Murray claims, “If Paul were pressed to define the relationship of the two statements in v. 26-27, I cannot see how he could preserve the force of both sentences apart from affirming that baptism is the moment of faith in which the adoption is realized . . . which is the same as saying that in baptism faith receives Christ in whom the adoption is effected.”[6] Everett Ferguson similarly states, “If a distinction is to be made between the relation of faith and baptism to the blessings described, one might say that baptism is the time at which and faith is the reason why.”[7] F. F. Bruce notes the problem with this approach: “The question arises here: if Paul makes baptism the gateway to ‘being-in-Christ’, is he not attaching soteriological efficacy to a rite which in itself is as external or ‘material’ as circumcision?”[8] For this reason commentators often make qualifying comments such as these by Moo:

It was not, in and of itself, a means of salvation or incorporation into Christ (contra, e.g., Schlier 1989: 172; cf. Betz 1979: 187-88). Faith, which Paul repeatedly highlights in this passage and in his other letters, is the only means of coming into relationship with Jesus Christ. However, baptism is more than simply a symbol of that new relationship; it is the capstone of the process by which one is converted and initiated into the church. As such, Paul can appeal to baptism as ‘shorthand’ for the entire conversion experience.[9]

The difficulty with all of these qualifications is that they seem to evade what the words of the verse actually say. The verse says, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Moo says, “[Baptism] was not, in and of itself, a means of . . . incorporation into Christ (contra, e.g., Schlier . . .).” The verse says “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” But Lombard and Calvin say that is only true for those who receive the sacrament and the thing and not the sacrament alone. The qualifications are seeking to guard orthodox doctrine, but they seem to do so at the text’s expense.

But what if Paul is not referring to water baptism here? Bruce says, “It is difficult to suppose that readers would not have understood it as a statement about their initiatory baptism in water.” But is it so difficult? Both the Gospels and Acts anticipate and describe Spirit baptism.[10] The distinction between these two kinds of baptism is present in apostolic teaching. Distinction between the sacrament and the thing or the symbol and the reality, however, are later theological developments. It seems more likely for Paul’s original readers to have distinguished between water baptism and Spirit baptism than between the sacrament and the thing.

What is more, Spirit baptism makes good sense in this context. In this context baptism is the proof that “Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female” are one in Christ through faith. Water baptism cannot serve as such a proof because, as Hunn notes, “it proves only that the baptizer found [these distinctions] irrelevant.”[11] It does not provide a window into the mind of God. Spirit baptism, on the other hand, does provide such a proof. Indeed, this is Peter’s argument for accepting the Gentiles into the church. The Spirit baptized them just as he had baptized the Jews (Acts 11:15-17). Hunn also observes that Galatians 3:23-29 and 4:3-7 follow parallel lines of argumentation. In 3:27-28 the proof of sonship is baptism into Christ. In 4:6 the proof of sonship is the reception of the Spirit. This parallel indicates that Spirit baptism is in view in 3:27.[12] Finally, 1 Corinthians 12:13 forms a close parallel to Galatians 3:27. In both passages there is baptism into Christ. In both there is the indication that this the case whether the person is Jew or Gentile, slave or free. In 1 Corinthians 12:13 the baptism is clearly Spirit baptism: “For [in] one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” This confirms that the baptism in view in Galatians 3:27 is Spirit baptism.

To this position Schreiner objects, “Robert H. Stein shows that the attempt to separate water baptism from Spirit baptism fails to understand that water baptism is part of the complex of initiation events describing conversion.”[13] But in taking this view there is no denial that water baptism was part of “the complex of initiation events.” Nor does this view dispute that water baptism is the symbol of Spirit baptism.[14] This view simply recognizes that as many as are baptized in the Spirit are united to Christ but that not all who are baptized in water are so united.

[1] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, trans. Willaim Pringle (1854; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 111.

[2] Peter Lombard, The Sentences, trans. Giulio Silano (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2010), 19-20 (bk. 4, dist. 4, ch. 2, n. 4-5).

[3] Ibid., 21 (bk. 4, dist. 4, ch. 3).

[4] Calvin, 111.

[5] Thomas Schreiner, Galatians, ZECNT, 257, n. 8; cf. Douglas Moo, Galatians, BECNT, 251.

[6] G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 151.

[7] Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 147.

[8] F. F. Bruce, Galatians, NIGTC, 185.

[9] Moo,  251.

[10] Debbie Hunn, “The Baptism of Galatians 3:27: A Contextual Approach,” ExpTim 115 (2005): 373-74.

[11] Ibid, 373.

[12] Ibid., 374-75.

[13] Schreiner, 257, n. 8.

[14] I would dispute, however, that Spirit baptism happens at the time of water baptism. I would argue the reality precedes the symbol.