WIXLIB

INTRODUCTION6Much has been written on the identity of the opponents and their theology. But after all issaid and done, Paul’s antagonists in Galatia conceived of themselves as Jewish Christianmissionaries, whose goal was to bring the nations into captive obedience to Israel’s king, in7fulfillment of such OT passages as Ps 2:8 and Gen 49:10. In their view, they were onlyattempting to promote the promise to Abraham of a multitude of descendants by bringingGentiles under the dominion of the law, as supported prima facie by such prophetic texts as Isa82:2-4; Mic 4:1-3; Zech 14:16-19. Galatians, therefore, is Paul’s response to the efforts of theother missionaries to bring Gentiles who have turned to Christ under the dominion of the law, inorder to “complete” their conversion to the God of Israel. Referring to Gal 2:11-21, Garland putsit this way:The incident in Antioch bears witness to the fact that many Jewish Christians sawthemselves as simply a renewal movement within Judaism and regarded newly convertedGentiles as proselytes who needed to be circumcised and to adhere to Jewish mores ifthey were to become fully certified as members of the covenant community (“Defense,”167).As far as these preachers were concerned, faith in Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah is well andgood—this much is fundamental to everything else, because every Jew of the Second Templeperiod knew that the religious life was first and foremost a matter of reliance on God. This axiomof faith in Judaism is amply confirmed by the literature of the predestruction period, which is9replete with references to faith in Yahweh. However, it is equally clear from these sources thatfaith always assumed a nationalistic bias. That is to say, belief in the God of Israel was always tobe accompanied by a steadfast commitment to the Torah, which gave concrete expression to the6For example, Martyn, Galatians, 117-26; Schütz, Anatomy; Howard, Crisis, 1-19; Dunn, Theology ofGalatians, 8-12; Brinsmead, Galatians; Ellis, Prophecy, 80-115, 116-28; Georgi, Opponents; Sumney,Opponents; Gunther, Opponents; Nanos, Irony, 110-92; Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, 86-93; Rapa, Meaning, 8194. Nanos exposes some of the weaknesses of the traditional designations of the group in question.Nevertheless, terms such as “Judaizers,” “circumcision party,” “Jewish Christian missionaries, “othermissionaries,” “opponents,” “rivals,” “antagonists,” “the men from James,” and “Teachers” (Martyn) areretained and used interchangeably. Hays’ objections to “Judaizers” have some basis (Galatians, 185). Yeteven with his qualification of the participants in the Galatians controversy, Paul’s opponents wereendeavoring to compel Gentiles to “live as Jews,” as Peter inadvertently was doing (2:14).7De Boer (“Quotation,” 383, n. 53) prefers to speak of this company as “Christian-Jewish” evangelistsrather than “Jewish-Christian,” because they took their theological point of departure from the Mosaic lawrather than from Christ. Whatever we call them, De Boer is certainly correct in this regard.8The commentary proceeds along the traditional line that Paul’s antagonists were in fact “Jewish Christianmissionaries,” whose conception of the place of the law in the messianic age differed from that of Paul (onthe designation “Jewish Christian,” see Cummins, Paul, 94, n. 1). The thesis of Nanos (Irony) that the“influencers,” as he calls them, were representatives of local synagogues attempting to win the GentileGalatians to non-Christian Judaism is intriguing but hardly convincing. While respecting Nanos’ position,Das rightly concludes that the “they group” in the letter is comprised of Jewish Christians in the Galatians’midst, not non-Christian Jews (Paul and Jews, 17-29). See the further critique of Carson/Moo,Introduction, 465, n. 25.9Garlington, Obedience. Similarly, Schnelle correctly maintains that there existed in ancient Judaism thefundamental conviction that God is merciful, good and loving to his creatures (Paul, 283). Commenting onthe Qumran Hymn Scroll, Schnell writes that the confession of guilt points to dependence on God’srighteousness and mercy, which he will reveal in the judgment. “God’s righteousness leads to obedience tothe law, but without thereby making it a matter of earning merit before God. Rather, God alone grants thedevout assurance of salvation that comes from their belonging to the chosen people” (ibid., 459). Cf. myObedience, 266-67.3

EXPOSITION OF GALATIANSwill of the Lord of the covenant. In brief, the law was given to regulate the life of the believingcommunity, and genuine faith was always sensitive to the “household rules” put in place to guidethe faithful in their walk in the ways of the Lord.Given such a set of assumptions, Paul’s opponents in Galatia were more than glad to have“outsiders” join the ranks of God’s people—but under the proper conditions. Those conditions arewell illustrated by the book of Judith. According to Jdt 14:10, the Gentile Achior believed in theGod of Israel, was circumcised, joined the house of Israel and remained steadfast all his days. Forthese “Judaizers,” it was self-evident that God was ready and willing to receive believers in God’sMessiah; but such faith could never remain alone—it had to be attended by “the works of thelaw” (see on 2:16) in order to be valid. But Paul disagreed, and disagreed vociferously. In light ofwhat God has done in Christ in the fullness of the time (Gal 4:4), the law has served its purpose insalvation history, the dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile has come down (Eph2:14), and God has now received all who place their trust in Christ irrespective of ethnicdistinctives and devotion to the law of Moses. In a nutshell, the only distinction that postdates theresurrection of Christ is faith versus unbelief.By way of an important qualification, however, it should not be supposed that Paul was aMarcionite before Marcion, even though he has some very radical things indeed to say about thelaw in this letter. It is not that he conceives of Israel’s Torah as an evil of some sort. Rather, heseeks to address an attitude that would keep the law around after its goal has been realized—Christ (Gal 3:23-25; Rom 10:4).Paul’s most basic problem with the Law is that it is obsolete and therefore following it isno longer appropriate. It is not the rule of the eschatological age and it is not to beimposed in the new creation which is already coming to be. If Christ came even toredeem Jews out from under the yoke of the Law, if the Law was a pedagogue meant tofunction only until Christ came, if the Law was “set aside” as 2 Cor. 3.11 says, then it is amistake, indeed a serious mistake to go back to keeping it, or in the case of Gentiles tobegin to submit to it in any form or fashion. The Law had an important function and roleto play in the divine economy, but the rule of the Mosaic Law has had its day and ceasedto be. But it is not just the anachronism that bothers Paul about insisting that Christians,whether Jews or Gentiles, must keep the Mosaic Law. What bothers him most is thatkeeping the Law implies in Paul’s mind that Christ’s death did not accomplish what infact he believes it did accomplish. To submit to the Mosaic Law is to nullify the grace ofGod (Gal. 2.21) and to deny that justification or righteousness, whether initial or final,10comes through the death of Christ.deSilva writes to similar effect:Paul’s polemic against “works of the law” is not a polemic against “good works,” asthis is commonly but erroneously understood. Rather, Paul opposes the continuedobservance of a boundary-maintaining code, not only in the observance of the moreobvious differentiators like circumcision, kosher laws and sabbath, but also as an entire10Witherington, Grace, 354. Witherington adds: “We may sum up by saying that for the Christian Paul, theMosaic Law was a good thing, something that came from God, but that it was limited—limited in what itwas intended to and could accomplish, limited in the time-span for which it was meant to be applicable,and limited in the group to which it was meant to be applied (namely Jews and converts or adherents toJudaism). It was but one form of the stoichea [“elements”], and it was something Christ’s coming hadrendered no longer in effect. The people of God were no longer to be under the Guardian now that theeschatological age had broken in and those in Christ could be new creatures and walk in the Spirit” (ibid.,355-56). Such a consideration should temper Schnelle’s assessment that in Galatians the law has norevelatory function and is portrayed in an entirely negative light (Paul, 288-89). For its day, the law didindeed have revelatory value, but that day is past.4

INTRODUCTIONbody of laws given to Israel as a mark of her distinctiveness and separation from theGentiles . It is not in maintaining the ethnic identity of Israel (through such “works ofTorah”) that we are conformed to God’s character or brought in line with God’spurpose, but only through faith in Jesus, which results in the life of the Spirit beingborn in us so that we are born to life before God. Paul certainly expects the Spirit toproduce all manner of “good works” in the life of the disciple (Rom 2:6-11; 6:12-13,Gal 5:13-25, Eph 2:10) (Introduction, 505, n. 9, italics mine).Carrying on from these observations, it follows that the law cannot justify because it wasnever intended to justify. In other words, the inability of the law to justify is rooted ineschatology. There is, one might say, a teleology of the law; that is, its sole reason for being wasto point Israel and all humanity to Christ, in whom God had always purposed to vindicate his11people. In his study of the weakness of the law, Bayes takes issue with the traditional view thatthe law’s inadequacy to justify resides in anthropological failure (the famous suppressedpremise). He rightly maintains that this explanation of the law in Galatians misses the point.For Paul, the law can be described as weak in respect of justification simply because itwas not given by God for the purpose of justification, but rather as an interim provisionpointing forward to the Christ, in whom justification would become a reality. To seekjustification by the law, therefore, as the Galatians were mistakenly trying to do, is toattempt to direct the law towards an end for which it is essentially unsuited by thepurpose of God . Moreover, the power which the law did possess according toGalatians is not its ability to convict of sin, but its epochal purpose as a pointer to12Christ designed to keep God’s people hoping for His coming.The core issue of Galatians thus boils down to a simple but profound choice—Christ or the13Torah. From Romans 14, it is clear enough that Paul was willing to allow Jewish Christians(and others) to practice the law as a matter of personal lifestyle, if they chose. But he drew theline when Torah observance was made the indispensable condition for entering and remainingwithin the people of God. In short, he repudiated the law as the “Jewish gateway to salvation”(Räisänen, Paul, 177-201). At one time, the community of the saved was in fact constituted ofcircumcised and law-observant people. But with the coming of Jesus the Messiah, who himselfbegan to relax the Mosaic strictures (e.g., Matt 8:3; Mark 7:18-19; Luke 7:14; 13:10-17; John5:9b-18), the demand of the Jewish Christian missionaries for circumcision and law-obedience isnot only obsolete, it actually impedes access to God and is tantamount, no less, to idolatry andapostasy (see on 3:10-13; 4:8-10). As Witherington again so aptly puts it:The Gospel of grace proclaims the acceptance and acceptability of both Gentiles andJews on the basis of trust in the faithful work of Jesus Christ which justifies (or sets right)sinners, and not on the basis of works of the Mosaic Law. Therefore works of the MosaicLaw are not merely unnecessary or redundant. If they are pursued by those who areChristians as the proper manner of Christian living, as if Christians were obliged to obeythe Mosaic covenant’s requirements, they amount to a fall from grace, a devaluation ofwhat Christ accomplished on the cross. The origin, character and content of the Gospeldetermines the origin, character and behavior of the people of God, who are Jew andGentile united in Christ and his finished work on the cross (Grace, 90).11Cf. Rappa, Meaning, 167. This is where the term coined by Peter Enns is so helpful. According to Enns,the whole of the OT is “Christotelic” (Inspiration, 154). As regards righteousness, and everything else,Christ is the goal (telos) of the law (Rom 10:4).12Bayes, Weakness, 138. The entire discussion of pp. 125-74 is stimulating and useful.13Gordon, “Problem;” Hubbard, Creation, 199-200.5

EXPOSITION OF GALATIANSAt this juncture, it is important to underscore that the bottom line issue in Galatians issoteriology. Sanders is doubtlessly correct to maintain that “Paul’s argument is not in favor offaith per se, nor is it against works per se. It is much more particular: it is against requiring theGentiles to keep the law of Moses in order to be ‘sons of Abraham’” (Paul, the Law, 19). He addsfurther that “we have become so sensitive to the theological issue of grace and merit that we oftenlose sight of the actual subject of the dispute” (ibid.). Thus, the subject of Galatians is “thecondition on which Gentiles enter the people of God” (ibid., 18). Nevertheless, much more is atstake than a sociology or group identity, one enclave distinguishing itself from another. If thetopic under discussion is “how to enter the body of those who would be saved,” then “the topic is,in effect, soteriology” (ibid., 45, 46). Cousar speaks to the same effect: “The issue under debate,raised by the agitators’ demand for circumcision, was basically soteriological, how God saves14people” (Galatians, 61). See Acts 15:1.This affirmation of soteriology as lying at the root of Galatians is a necessary corrective to N.T. Wright’s otherwise excellent treatment of justification and righteousness language in the Paul.Wright maintains that justification and, consequently, the subject matter of Galatians, does nottell one how to be saved; it is, rather, a way of saying how one can tell that one belongs to the15covenant community, or, in other words, How does one define the people of God? To be sure,such issues are to be judged in light of the covenant context of “the righteousness of God” andsimilar ideas. On this, Wright is undoubtedly correct, and in this regard the ensuing exposition ismuch in his debt. Indeed, Galatians does address the question, “Who is a member of the people ofGod” (Paul, 121). Likewise, it is true that “justification, in Galatians, is the doctrine which insiststhat all who share faith in Christ belong at the same table, no matter what their racial differences,as together they wait for the final new creation” (ibid., 122).This much said, it must be countered that Wright has constructed a seemingly falsedichotomy between the identity of the people of God and salvation. It is closer to the mark to saythat Galatians does have to do with entrance into the body of the saved, meaning that to belong to16the new covenant is to belong to the community the of saved. Therefore, justification doesindeed tell us how to be saved, in that it depicts God’s method of saving sinners—by faith in17Christ, not from works of the law—and placing them in covenant standing with himself. Ifjustification is by faith, then in point of fact a method of salvation is prescribed: one enters into18the realm of salvation by faith.It is just because the bedrock of Galatians is soteriology, and it is just because Paul seesdefection from Christ to the law as taking place “so quickly” in the Galatian congregations that hewrites with an intense awareness of the plight of his “children” in the gospel who are in danger offorsaking their Lord for what effectively is no better than their former bondage to pagan deities14All this is seconded by Hubbard (Creation, 200). However, Hubbard mistakenly relegates the unity of thepeople of God in Galatians to a topic of secondary status.15Wright, Paul, 119, 120-22, 131; id., Perspective, 122.16In this regard, Hafemann is correct in insisting that the context of Paul’s usage of “works of the law” isthe contrast between the two covenant eras within the history of redemption, not (merely, I would say) amaterial or socio-ethnic contrast. “Hence, to continue to maintain allegiance to the old covenant once thenew has arrived not only denies the saving efficacy of Christ’s work, but also leads at times to a falseboasting and ethnically based ‘legalism’ [I prefer “nomism”] as a by-product” (“Spirit,” 178, n. 24).17I am setting aside the traditional rendering of “by works of the law” in favor of “from works of the law,”for reasons to be clarified in the commentary on 2:16 and subsequent passages.18A very telling consideration is that “righteousness” and “salvation” are placed in synonymous parallel inpassages in the Prophets and the Psalms. See on 2:16.6

INTRODUCTION(4:8-10). In plain terms, the letter is written to avert the apostasy in Galatia. No wonder, Paul’spassions are white hot in this letter.Todd Wilson’s study of the apostasy motif in Galatians is brilliant and significant in manyregards. Wilson begins with the question of J. L. Martyn, What time is it (see below)? Instead ofpursuing this issue as such, he poses a related question, Where are the Galatians? That is to say,what is their current position vis-à-vis the beginning and end of their pilgrimage of faith. Hisanswer is that they are in the wilderness, somewhere between Egypt and the promised land. Butthe problem is that they, like the Israel of old, are in danger of forsaking the Lord and returningtheir old master. In particular, Wilson develops the apostasy/idolatry theme in relation to theissues of freedom and bondage. His conclusion is:After having been miraculously delivered from servitude through an Exodus-likeexperience in Christ (1.4; 3.13; 4.4-5; 5.1), the Galatians are now contemplating areturn to Egyptian-like bondage. Paul is at pains, therefore, to exercise whatevermoral leverage he can over the situation, thus colouring his rebukes and warningswith language that evokes the Israelites’ own tragic wilderness defection and19disinheritance.The Message of the Opponents and Paul’s ReplyApart from what can be reconstructed respecting the presuppositions of the other teachers fromhistorical sources, we are dependent on Paul himself for information about his opponents’positions. Although there are limitations to the method, any interpretation of Galatians inevitably20resorts to a certain amount of “mirror reading” of the text. That is to say, judging from whatPaul actually writes about his antagonists, certain factors can be deduced, running the wholegamut from the certain to the incredible (Barclay, “Mirror Reading,” 265-66). Whilecommentators will continue to debate the precise demands made on the Galatians by the JewishChristian missionaries, in the main these are not so difficult to discern. Nor is Paul’s replydifficult to determine. As Gorman writes, Pau

Witherington, Paul Quest , 99-115; cf. Stowers, Letter Writing . Methodological questions pertaining to the letter are addressed by Silva, Explorations , and Wright, "Exegesis and Theology." Galatians ha s been subjected to various structural studies, such as Boers, Justification . The broader missionary context of