Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Further Thoughts on Gender Language and Translation Philosophy

by

One of the reasons that I’m skeptical about the use of the indefinite “their” in Bible translation is that translations that have sought to be gender-neutral in other areas have often unwittingly obscured the text and/or significant theological matters.

Adele Berlin on Lamentations 3:1:

The speaker is not Jerusalem, or her people, or a poet observing Jerusalem and her people. Rather, the chapter gives voice to a lone male, speaking in the first person about what he has seen and felt and what sense he can make of it. Because the first-person speaker announces himself so forcefully in his maleness (geber), many interpreters have puzzled over who this geber, this speaking voice in chapter 3, represents.

. . . . . . . . . .

The male voice is a counterpart to the female voice of the city in chapter 1. Zion, personified as a woman, speaks in chapter 1, and here a male voice also speaking in the first person echoes, form a different perspective, the experience of destruction and exile. Just as the imagery in chapter 1 was feminine–the widow, the unfaithful wife, the raped woman–so here the imagery seems more masculine, invoking the physical violence against the male body associated with war and exile.

The poem begins: ‘I am the man.’ The Hebrew geber registers forcefully the maleness of the speaker. Gender-neutral translations, like NRSV, dimninish he impact by translating, ‘I am the one.’

Adele Berlin, Lamentations, Old Testament Library (Louisville: WJK, 2002), 84, 88.

[Note: the TNIV aligned with the NRSV in mistranslating this verse, but the NIV2011 correctly translated “I am the man.”]

Robert Yarbrough on 1 John 3:9:

Edwards 1996: 91-92 questions the wisdom of translating John’s ἀδελφός as ‘brother and sister’ or other generic label (cf. NRSV, NLT; cf. also English translations of Strecker 1996: 47 and Schnackenburg 1992: 82). CEV reads, “If we claim to be in the light and hate someone.” TNIV opts for ‘those who claim to be in the light but hate a fellow believer,’ thus avoiding ‘brother’ but also losing the individual focus of the assertion by changing the particular ‘one who says’ into an unspecified collection of persons. The original spotlight an arrogant individual (ὀ λέγων), not an impersonal group. (Paul’s periphrastic rendering of Ps. 32:1-2 in Rom. 4:7 is reasonable and legitimate, but hardly jutifies a translation philosophy that would render Ps. 32:1-2 plural or Rom. 4:7 singular.) The words of Porter 1989: 33-34 on the CEV and gender language come to mind: ‘At points the biblical text may wel be considered hopelessly insensitive in matters of gender, but I cam convinced that it is in the best interests of making the meaning of the original text clear if the celar meaning that exists is in fact obscured.’

Robert Yarbrough, 1-3 John, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 103, n. 15.

[Note: Yarbrough refers to the translation of the TNIV. The NIV 2011 moved away from “fellow believer” to “brother or sister.”]

Bruce Waltke:

In contemporary English the third person singular pronoun (‘he/she,’ etc.) is a stylistic bramble patch. Although I desired to use inclusive language as much as possible, I opted to continue the third person masculine pronoun as the common pronoun for both genders, hoping that those who choose other options will not take offense. The loss of individualization by shifting from singular constructions to plural constructions is too great a loss in sense, and the loss of agreement between singular subjects and plural qualifiers by grammatical disagreement or by shifting between pronouns or by combining them is too great a stylistic loss.

Bruce Waltke, The Book of Proverbs 1-15, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), xxiv.

Robert Letham on Union with Christ:

The current tendency, influenced by the pressure of gender-inclusive language, to refer to believers as ‘sons and daughters’ of God is misleading, blurs this vital truth, and has the effect of blunting the church’s appreciation of what union with Christ entails. Jesus Christ is the Son of the Father, and is so eternally; that is his name and that is his status. It is not a sexual term, for God is not a sexual being. By referring to Christian believers as ‘sons,’ the NT is not, under the influence of patriarchal culture, bypassing half the human race. Instead, it is pointing to our shared status with the Son of the Father, in and by the Holy Spirit. The introduction of talk of ‘daughters’ obscures this point, placed at the hub of the Christian life.

Robert Letham, Union with Christ (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2011), 54, n. 19.

David Garner makes a similar point in his recent book Sons in the Son. His title refers to all Christians, not only male Christians. We might note that we have something similar with all of the church, men and women, constituting the bride of Christ.

Scott Oliphint on the headship of Adam:

Throughout the book, I refer to this relationship in gender-specific terms—that is, as a relationship between God and “man.” Although such usage has fallen out of favor in much biblical and theological writing, I continue to find it helpful and appropriate, for three reasons: (1) Until forty or so years ago, the word “man,” when used generically, was understood to represent both genders. This usage is rooted in the biblical narrative of God determining to create “man,” male and female (Gen 1: 26; the Hebrew word for “man” is adam). (2) The use of the term “man” in this rich biblical sense tacitly acknowledges that Adam personally represents each and every human being, covenantally speaking. Regardless of gender, all people are children of Adam; there are no “sons of Adam and daughters of Eve.” (3) “Humanity” is an abstraction by definition, referring only to our common nature. In that sense, ironically, “humanity” is not nearly as inclusive as it seems; it does not represent either gender or any particular individual. In my opinion, this abstract language, even if used in the interests of inclusion, serves in its own small way to further enable the deep and distressing gender confusion rampant in so many cultures around the world. God did not create humanity in the abstract; He created Adam as the covenant representative of all men (male and female), and he created Eve from Adam. I am convinced that the church can better serve the cause of the gospel by returning to biblical language (and its underlying rationale) in this matter. The editors of Lexham Press were kind enough to leave this style decision to me.

K. Scott Oliphint, The Majesty of Mystery: Celebrating the Glory of an Incomprehensible God (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016), Kindle Locations 49-62.

George Hammond on the Image of God in Man:

To write about the doctrine of image of God necessarily requires referring to human beings, but in the post-modern world questions of how to do so can be vexing. According to Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition, the primary meaning of the word “man” is “an individual human.” For centuries the English word “man” has been understood to have at least two meanings. While it could be used to refer to the male member of the human species, it has often been used to indicate an individual human being of either gender. In recent years, sensitivity has developed toward language that is suspected of being gender exclusive. The word “man” has thus come to be viewed with misgivings, despite its lexical meaning.

This work endeavors to employ the inclusive nouns “humanity,” “humankind,” and “people” when possible. However, to say “humanity is made in the image of God” may convey that only the human race collectively, and not individuals, is made in the image of God. The inclusivity of nouns such as “humanity” and “humankind” is found in their collective nature, but it is precisely their collective nature which connotes that what is in view are human beings jointly, rather than human beings severally. The word “man” is often employed in this book as being the most accurate expression of the thought being conveyed, or for stylistic reasons. The reader should understand that unless the clause is gender conditioned, “man” as it is used here is employed in its lexical sense of “an individual human” without respect to gender.

George C. Hammond, It Has Not Yet Appeared What We Shall Be: A Reconsideration of the Imago Dei in Light of Those with Severe Cognitive Disabilities (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2017), xvii-xviii.

Correcting Remaining Errors in Authorized

by

I thought the funniest line in Mark Ward’s new book Authorized was his take on a common cliche found in the acknowledgments of many theological books:

All remaining errors—I’ve waited so long to say this—are of course the reviewers’ fault: they either missed the mistakes or failed to persuade me that I was wrong. (142)

Since my name occurs in the preceding list of reviewers, I think it only right to correct one of the errors that slipped through. 🙂

I’m pushing for “their” as a third person indefinite (not specifying singular or plural) pronoun—if that’s what the NOW corpus and other tools prove people are using. (72)

I would argue that since Bible translations are translations of an ancient document, we should preserve as much as possible in the receptor language forms of speech that reflect that of the ancient culture and avoid forms of speech, when possible, that obscure the ancient culture. I’m not arguing that the Bible should be made to sound archaic by using older forms of English. I’m arguing that the Bible should not read like a newspaper article. For instance, I’m reading the Aeneid right now. I’m reading a modern translation because I don’t want the additional barrier of working through older English to understand the text. But even in a modern translation, the Aeneid doesn’t sound like the newspaper. I think Mark agrees with this. See page 70.

I would apply this insight to the use of “their.” The Bible was written in a patriarchal society, and there is some value in recognizing that their use of pronouns reflected this aspect of their culture rather than trying to force our cultural sensibilities onto the text. At some point, the generic “his” may disappear from English usage, but at present, it is still in use. On such matters, I think Bible translations should trail the English vernacular.

Mark might respond by pointing out that this is why we have multiple translations. Mark makes a good case for using multiple Bible translations, and he argues that we should give up the quest to find the best translation. I agree with his point to a great degree. I benefit from using multiple translations, and if I were asked to name the best of those that I currently use I might tell you that I really like the ESV in 1 Peter, but not so much in 1 Corinthians, where I prefer the HCSB. I really enjoy reading the Psalms in the Lexham English Bible because it translates יהוה as Yahweh, but I don’t like its translation of Genesis 1:26-27. So I do get Mark’s point. And yet, there is a benefit to settling on a default translation that you primarily memorize from or for a church to select a translation that it will primarily use in its services. There are some versions that are more suitable for this role and others that should play a niche role. I would argue that versions that tend toward the more formal side of the translation scale are better suited for this role. I think Mark might agree with this since he noted at one point that more formal translations have a kind of logical priority over functional ones.

 

Review for Mark Ward’s Authorized

by

The following is the Amazon review that I wrote for Mark Ward’s new book Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible. I wrote it with a KJVO reader in mind with the hope that such a review might encourage him to pick up the book.

What role should the King James Version play in your life and in your church at present? This the question Mark Ward answers in Authorized. For those who use the King James Version as their primary or even only translation, this book is a must read. Though Mark holds argues against a King James Only position, he does so with respect. He wrote this book while developing personal friendships with leaders of King James Only churches and institutions, seeking their input and coming to understand their viewpoints better. Even if not persuaded to use a vernacular translation, Mark’s discussion of the challenges that readers of the KJV face today will be valuable. Awareness of the kinds of changes in the English language that impede understanding of Elizabethan English is especially important for those who make the KJV their primary or only translation. Three other features of Authorized should be noted. First, Mark avoids debates over textual criticism. Those who adhere to the KJV because they believe the Textus Receptus is the best text type get no argument from Mark (though that is not his position). They do get an exhortation to use or develop a translation from the TR that people today can readily understand. Second, Mark’s motivation for writing this book shines through: he loves the body of Christ, and he wants all Christians to be able to understand God’s Word. Third, this book is enjoyable to read. I had read a pre-publication version of this book, so when I sat down to write this review I didn’t plan to re-read the whole book. I was just going to glance through it to refresh my memory. But it was so engaging that I ended up re-reading the entire book in a single sitting.

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).

Shepherd of Hermas and the Canon

by

Steenberg, M. C. “Irenaeus on Scripture, Graphe, and the Status of Hermas,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 53, no. 1 (2009): 29-66.

In Against Heresies 4.20.2 Irenaeus identifies a quotation from Shepherd of Hermas as γραφη. Scholars have debated whether Irenaeus is referring to the quotation simply as a writing, as he does in some other instances, or as Scripture. Steenberg surveys all of the uses of γραφη in Against Heresies. He observes that Irenaeus does sometimes use γραφη to refer to a particular writing, but in those cases, there is some contextual marker that identifies which particular writing is being referred to. Irenaeus also uses γραφη frequently to refer to the Scriptures or to Scripture texts. Steenberg makes a persuasive case that this is the use of γραφη in AH 4.20.2 since the usage matches the other instances where Irenaeus refers to Scripture and since the quotation from Hermas is grouped with other Scripture quotations. Less convincing was the theory of Irenaeus’s view of the canon that Steenberg also developed in this article.

Hill, C. E. “The Debate Over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon,” Westminster Theological Journal 57, no. 2 (1995): 437-51.

This article reviews a book by Geoffrey Hahnemann which argues that the Muratorian Fragment should be dated in the fourth century rather than the late second/early third century, which is the traditional date. If the Muratorian Fragment is from the late second/early third century, it is the earliest known canon list, and its listing “has the same ‘core’ of writings which were later agreed upon by the whole church,” though there are some missing books and the Wisdom of Solomon is included. Hahnemann holds to a theory that claims the canon was not established until the fourth century. The early dating of the Muratorian Fragment is an obstacle to Hahnemann’s theory and motivates his attempt to re-date it. Hill effectively demonstrates the numerous problems with Hahnemann’s arguments.

I read the article because the Muratorian Fragment speaks to the canonicity of the Shepherd of Hermas:, not that it was “written very recently in our times in the city of Rome by Hermas, while his brother, Bishop Pius, sat in the chair of the Church of Rome [139–154 AD]. And therefore it also ought to be read; but it cannot be made public in the Church to the people, nor placed among the prophets, as their number is complete, nor among the apostles to the end of time.” Hill observes: “Irenaeus’ use of the Shepherd forms an entirely plausible setting for the Fragment’s specification that it should be read but cannot be classed with the Scriptures and read in public worship” (439). Hill also notes, “Tertullian tells us that the Shepherd’s standing had at least by the second decade of the third century been considered by several councils, with unanimously negative results…. That these councils declared Hermas not only to be apocryphal but “false” may indicate an indictment as false prophecy, or the reputation of a claim made for the identity of its author” (439-40). (This is relevant to Hill’s argument because the Muratorian Fragment’s claim that Hermas was written “very recently” at the time of a second-century bishop of Rome is a clear obstacle to Hahnemann’s re-dating.)

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.”