Galatians (WK 7, Handout 2) PDF

GALATIANS (WK 7, HANDOUT 2) In Galatians Paul sternly argues why the Galatian church should stop being persuaded by Judaizers to accept an altered version of the gospel. Paul needs to defend his apostleship; to reiterate that believers are righteousiz...

GALATIANS (WK 7, HANDOUT 2) In Galatians Paul sternly argues why the Galatian church should stop being persuaded by Judaizers to accept an altered version of the gospel. Paul needs to defend his apostleship; to reiterate that believers are righteousized by faith (as proven by the church’s empowerment by the Spirit); and to warn that reintroducing Torah observance actually destroys the gospel. The Galatians are to respond by both correcting their understanding, and by living accordingly. Contents: Critical Issues (the “Galatian debate”) Structure and Rhetoric Theology and Themes For Discussion: Pauline Theological Concepts in Galatians Reference: The New Perspective on Paul I. Critical Issues A. destination and date (sometimes a.k.a. the “Galatians debate”) ! how does Gal 2 relate to Acts 15? 1. destination options: north territory or south province? a. North Galatia (traditional hypothesis)—Galatian territory (=Gaul): visited by Paul during SECOND missionary journey (cf. Acts 16:6, after the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council) b. South Galatia (modern hypothesis)—Roman province of Galatia: visited by Paul during FIRST missionary journey (cf. Acts 13–14) 2. date: before or after Acts 15 Jerusalem council? b. if North Galatia, then has to be c. AD 53-55 c. if South Galatia, then could be either c. AD 48–49 or 53–55; typically South Galatia and earlier dating to together as a pair for scholars 3. effectively irrelevant, but traditional model of northern destination + later dating is most likely a. as far as scholars can tell so far, dating does not crucially impact interpretation – all evidence indicates that Paul’s ‘theology’ remains unchanged from AD 48-ish to 59 (Romans), even on topics like righteousization by faith and grace – the profile/nature of the Galatian Judaizers is clear either way [NB: Judaizers also crop up in e.g. Phil, but we should not presume that all Judaizers impose the same claims, let alone belong to a single group] b. it seems unlikely that Paul would mention righteousization by faith in AD 48, and then not again until 58 in Romans (or that the issue would die out and reignite) Page 1  c. Paul’s diplomatic language in Gal 2 makes sense: i. acts 15 is not mentioned because Paul argues that his theology stands on merit (not church leaders’ authority) ii. and Luke’s report of an even does not mean that it was universally known among Christians across the empire (Acts 15 determines how Peter, Paul et al. will proceed; it does not describe doctrine that is supposed to self-generate in planted churches like the Galatian community) ! thus: very probably a dating of ±AD 54 B. occasion: agitators are challenging Paul’s gospel as insufficient, telling the saints of Galatia to accept a revised version that includes a prerequisite of partial Torah observance—and the Galatians are being swayed to their revised gospel " A crucial battle—if Jesus’ followers have to become Jewish first, in order to be saved by faith second, then Christianity might have ceased spreading and died out in AD 55!!! 1. Paul’s gospel a. a gospel that is ‘Torah-free’ (a scholarship term)—what Paul means: the good news of salvation in Christ does not require Torah observance in the distinctly ethno-religious aspect of Jewish circumcision (and others) b. and the gospel that the Galatians had (Paul also says; cf. Gal 3) is proven true by the spirit’s ratification 2. the agitators (see language of Gal 5:12; cf. 1:7; 5:10); also called by scholars the Judaizers or opponents a. how they see themselves (we only have Paul’s characterization/half of the debate) i. mainly in agreement with Paul (not intending to create a confrontation?) ii. are earnest—not intentionally distorting the gospel to hamper the spread of Christianity: see themselves as offering a clarifying elaboration on his gospel [! not entirely clear; are they also vying for power and/or trying to preserve preeminence of Jerusalem church within early Christianity?] b. how Paul’s characterizes the agitators: i. anathema/may God curse them and frustrate their plans (1:8) ii. by their theological error, they unwittingly obligate themselves to keep the whole of Torah in order to be saved (5:2–3; cf. 3:10)—Christ is of no use to them(!) iii. Paul wishes opponents would “mutilate” themselves (5:12)—that their knife hand would slip when they were circumcising themselves (oops—and ouch!) Page 2  c. how the agitators view Paul: – inconsistent (5:11) – seeking to tell people a shortcut that they want to hear, lacking credentials (chaps. 1–2) – making Christ a minister of sin(!) by Christ-condoned Torah violation (2:17) II. Literary (and Rhetorical) Structure of Galatians—Cunning, Subtle, and Forceful chaps. 1–2: Paul’s defense of his apostleship – 1:1–9: Greetings without a Prayer and Thanksgiving: unique in the Pauline documents—a hostile/frustrated situation A. Paul presents himself an apostle from Jesus and God (and not from Jerusalem; v. 1) B. Paul directly addresses occasion (“amazed,” v. 6), starting with an immediate statement of accursedness (vv. 6–9) – 1:10–6:10: Body A. 1:10–2:14: biography of God’s formation of Paul’s apostleship as Christ’s slave (1:10) 1. apostleship that is directly from Christ (he barely even met with any other apostles…) 2. Antiochine confrontation of Peter’s hypocrisy (2:11–14; likely post-Acts 15, ca. Acts 16) a. Peter’s hypocrisy of fearing the circumcision faction (a critique that makes sense even on the earlier dating of Gal, since ‘gospel + X’ is inconsistent with “the truth of the gospel”) (NOTE: the Gal 2:12 circumcision faction is not necessarily the same group as the Galatian agitators) b. Paul’s rehetoric in vv. 14b–15ff.: reported past dialogue with Peter merges/segues into Paul’s address of the Galatian audience (! the conclusion to the Antioch episode is not terribly important; Paul is not in story telling mode for the sake of the story) B. THUS, 2:15–21: transition— – into Paul’s defense of the gospel that the Galatians originally heard/accepted – & transitions Peter’s guilt (hypocrisy) to the Galatian audience, for their willingness to allow theology to be corrupted: " they accede to a separation of Christ-following from the indwelling of Christ’s Spirit " implies that Christ-following is unclean = sinful (v. 17) chaps. 3–4: two arguments from Scripture that righteousization only depends upon pistis, and therefore not Torah observance C. 3:1–4:7: the first argument 1. reception of the Spirit (proof of righteousization) has happened to the audience through faith (3:1–5) – Paul’s angry tone: “You foolish Galatians!” (3:1)—much is as stake! – Paul does not argue theory (that his theology is superior to the agitators’); he appeals to historical fact Page 3  2. …“just as” was the case with even Abraham who lived pre-Torah: continuity in God’s manner of relating to his people (3:6–4:7) ! trust was always the basis of Torah observance; and now the theology of the gospel is genuinely biblical a. Gen 15:6(||Gal 3:6): trust/faith has always been what led to transformation and right standing b. Gen 12:3(||Gal 3:8): extending Abraham’s relationship with God to humanity has always been the goal c. Abraham’s true heirs are those who relate to God on the basis of faith (3:7–4:7) i. aiming for righteousness by means of Torah observance makes one beholden to perfect Torah observance, or else to suffer in one’s own place the curse that Jesus suffered (Deut 27:26||Gal 3:10; Deut 21:22–23||Gal 3:12) ii. but fundamental even to Torah observance is trust in God, which can now happen in an unmediated way by faith in Jesus (Hab 2:4||Gal 3:11) iii. the corollary (stated twice): Abrahamic blessing came through promise, not Torah (Gal 3:15–18); and again, Torah mediates the need for the fulfillment of promise (vv. 19–22) iv. since Abraham (and Israel) was taken by God as his son, Abraham’s heirs are God’s “sons” (3:22–4:7) – namely, those who trust in God’s Son Christ – believers are a new community who is “one” in Christ: the social unity (not ethnic, economic, or gender unity) of the community of faith—not uniformity – heirs who have come of age by their reception of the Spirt: “‘Abba!’” D. 4:8–20: transition and appeal as a father repeating charge of 3:1ff.: there is now no life in the former “elements” and apart from Paul’s gospel of Christ [NB: for Paul, the Jewish religious institution (including the Temple) is now nothing but a monument; there is no life there; to go back is to abandon life, which is now found in the gospel—going back is a death sentence of lying down in a mausoleum] E. 4:21–31: second argument (much shorter): the analogy (allegoria) of Sarah and Hagar 1. do not go back to observing all of Torah’s regulations 2. two options: X enslavement to sin, which hypothetically (but not in practice) can be overcome by Torah-observance √ the freedom of the promise that came through Isaac, and was realized by Jesus Page 4 5:1–6:10: obeying the Spirit—and heeding the warning of being alienated from Christ F. 5:1–12: freed from Torah for freedom from sin (! i.e., freed from sin, enabled to be enslaved to righteousness) 1. pistis-ing Torah appeals to entire Torah, leaving Christ out of the equation 2. persecution of Paul the Jesus-person points to the exclusivity of the cross and Torah 3. priority: faith working through love G. 5:13–15: transition: love manifests true fulfillment/completion of Torah 1. Spirit-freedom is not antinomian or libertarianism 2. instead: replaces slavery to Torah-observance and to sin (i.e., failure of Torah-observance) with slavery to Christ = servanthood H. 5:16–6:10: righteousness completed by the Spirit 1. circumstantial Christian ethics: the fundamental imperative to live by the Spirit (5:16–26; esp. vv. 16, 18, 22, 25) 2. Spirit vs. “flesh”: two coincident realities occupied by a being-sanctified Jesus follower in the already-but-not-yet of the Kingdom (vv. 19–23) 3. crucified with Christ: sharing Jesus’ death and now living with Christ who was raised (vv. 24ff.) " the Spirit does not cover over sin, but pushes out sin and indwells believers 4. a non-exhaustive sampler of doing the good things of the Spirit (6:1–10): not moral perfection, but growth and striving/being oriented toward Christ – 6:11–18: Final Greetings and the Culmination of the Letter 1. contrast between Paul and the agitators (4x) 2. Paul’s identity as the model of following Christ: a. died to the old cosmos = alive with the genuinely living Jesus, and the old cosmos has dies and dropped away b. the old cosmos restored into the new creation (kaine ktisis) c. the non-Jewish Galatian believers are the “Israel of God” (blessings of hesed and shalom) " those whose identity continues to be rooted in Christ are God’s people Israel, the eschatologically restored new humanity, reconstituted around Jesus Page 5 III. Theology and Themes of Galatians A. the gospel 1. Torah-free—does not require Torah observance (to be saved or to live as a Christian) 2. relational and dynamic 3. not theoretical, but predicated upon the historical reality of the Spirit—unique to Christianity among all world religions: Christianity does not claim to be a superior belief system; Christianity is based in history (the earliest practitioners hurried to articulate theory that caught up with history and their concrete experience!!) " righteous-ization = being God’s “sons” (surrogate siblings of God’s Israel-son of Jesus) = re-humanized B. gospel ethics: not a definitive list of command(/principles), but a lifestyle 1. neither based on Torah observance, nor antinomian (! not free to do what you will) 2. re-humanization means reverencing fellow-images of God 3. Jesus’ Spirit within a believer reproduces Jesus’ life in a believer, which reproduces Jesus’ lifestyle in a believer (cf. the singular fruit of the Spirit in 5:22f.) C. the value of Torah: the gift of a genuine offer of salvation, of a litmus test, and of a safeguard – that was insufficient for empowering humans to complete the transformational process of righteouszation Page 6  Pauline Theological Concepts in Galatians: Some Crucial Terminology for Galatians and Pauline(/NT/Christian) Theology I. justification/justify in the phrases traditionally translated (Eng.) into “justified by faith” or “justified by grace” A. up front summary: in esp. Gal and Rom, Paul’s language refers to being righteous-ified— being transformed to share God-like righteousness at the core of one’s character ! care needs to me taken with the Eng. (and derivative theological proposals!) B. vb. ‘to justify’ = δικαιόω/dikaioō " best captured by a (slightly invented) term like ‘to righteousize’ 1. corresponding n.: δικαιοσυνη/dikaiosunē = righteousness (or ‘justification’?) 2. dikaioō traditionally (since Luther and./or Augustine): to save by metaphorically clearing one of charges in a (metaphorical) forensic/court of law scenario ! God is offended, but forgives the offense(s) with an automatic byproduct of salvation C. instead, righteousness in biblical authors’ thinking (including Paul): 1. the fundamental character trait of Yhwh, Israel’s God = Hebr. ‫צדקה‬/ṣĕdāqâh 2. for Paul and the Galatians’ (prior to the agitators’ influence), the gospel is not primarily(/merely) about being forgiven sins [! and then, on top of that, forgiveness is conflated with salvation] THUS: 3. the gospel [in the view of the Galatians—and Paul, too] is about being righteous-ified— – being transformed to share God-like righteousness at the core of one’s character – includes (of course) salvation and reconciliation with God right standing before God; also right standing with God—with corresponding ethical implications: someone who is transformed lives the life of the new person who they are – not merely having guilt removed and/or having unobstructed status (whether internally, or merely imputed) " how to best translate dikaioō in Galatians (and Paul) — for lack of a better option, a silly Eng. term: righteousized " second best: ‘made righteous’; however, caution advised (lost in translation): – make righteous (or declare righteous) erases the verb by substituting in the different verb of make, and turns the ‘righteous’ part from a verb into an adjective – justify too quickly activates a forensic metaphor that is rarely present; and can import a lot of Lutheran/Protestant debate about grace vs. legalism Page 7 II. faith or belief (or vb. to believe) A. up front summary, in esp. Gal and Rom: Paul’s language refers to a personal relationship of trusting God in Jesus (acquaintance knowledge); and not primarily to a set of beliefs/belief system (propositional knowledge) B. n. πίστις/pistis = trust/faith/belief; vb. (esp. in John’s Gospel) πιστεύω/pisteuō " not just belief or “faith,” but really also [interpersonal] trust – not merely intellectual ascent, even if correct (cf. Jas 2:19) [! philosophy speak: doxastic attitude] – more about belief that is results from/corresponds to a personal familiarity with the other person’s reliable character C. in Paul and Galatians: pistis = believing true things that come from God and Jesus, because of a personal trust in God and Jesus e.g. Gen 15:6||Gal 3:6: trust/faith has always been what defines God’s people, starting even with pre-Torah Abraham: – in Gen 15:6, God was not beholden to a cosmic equation, in which trust automatically converts to righteousization and rightouesness – rather, God accommodated his Abraham, by accepting what he had to offer (trust, not righteousnesss) and transmuting it into something of a different kind altogether (righteousness) – in the intervening era of the Israel experiment, God gave the gift of Torah (below) as the means by which God people could express their relational trust in him – and now in the Galatians’ post-Jesus context, God is consistent when he still fundamentally relates to his now chrisocentric people in terms of their trust in him—albeit that they trust God directly in Jesus and he accommodates that by transmuting their trust to righteousness (as with Abraham) III. Law in phrases like “works of the Law” A. up front summary, in esp. Gal and Rom: Paul’s language refers to Torah observance as the expression of a relationship with God; and not primarily to moral regulations—such as morality that earns salvation, as per Luther’s outline of legalism B. terms: – Eng. Law is used for Grk. νόµος/nomos ! which, for Jews (and thos chatechized in Israel’s Scriptures), refers not to a moral law (as in moral legalism), but to Torah – “works of” phrases are really lit. “doing Torah” or “deeds of Torah” Page 8  C. Paul’s concepts: – Paul is not: opposing faith (or gift/grace) vs. legalism promoting being a libertine (moral lawlessness/ antinomianism) vs. legalism – recall: in Judaism, the possession of Torah (God’s wise instruction) was a gift(/grace) for God’s people Israel – Paul is instead opposing the two options of either: a) expressing a relationship with God through practiced Torah observance, or b) expressing a relationship with God through direct, interpersonal trust toward God in Jesus ! Paul’s theological stance: post-Jesus, trusting in a version of God who relates to people in their Torah observance is mutually exclusive with trusting in a version of God who relates to his people directly in Jesus IV. extra/bonus: grace (more in Romans) A. the scriptural(/OT) background: grace (‫חנן‬/hnn) in the ANE and Israel referred to the royal favor of a king, or (metaphorically) to the divine (& royal) favor of a deity B. terminology in the NT: – Grk. χάρις/charis: lit. gift – not self-explanatory: a gift/“grace” of what? ! depends on context (not automatically a grace of salvation, or of forgiveness of sins—as if salvation and forgiveness should be conflated) C. in Paul: – grace is unmeritable and unmerited: sinful humans enslaved by sine cannot earn God’s grace(/obligate God to give grace) – grace is unconditioned by anything about the recipient: God’s gift of Jesus is given freely, because of God’s love for human creatures ! huge contrast with the Hellenistic norm of charis: where a patron only gives charis to worthy recipients, and both patron and client gain honor if a well given gift, or lose honor if given unworthily – grace is not unconditional: it does not come without any strings attached; recipients have not genuinely received God’s grace if they (and/or their behavior) are unchanged acceptance of God’s grace obligates are recipient to respond with Jesus-imitation Page 9  For Reference: A Primer on the New Perspective on Paul (or “NP”) I. The Issue: The Relationship Between “Law” and Grace in Paul A. the “New Perspective” is distinguished from the “traditional perspective” " so what is the traditional perspective? 1. label: ‘New Perspective’ is short for: the New Perspective on the relationship between “Law” and grace in Paul 2. the traditional perspective is mostly a Protestant phenomenon, mostly originating with Luther (and echoes of Augustine) a. historical setting: Luther was protesting against his own Church " his reform movement (following excommunication) became the Protestant church; and the Church against which Luther protested became labeled the Roman Catholic Church b. the traditional Protestant(/Lutheran) perspective (with Paul being on Luther’s side): Luther was promoting salvation by faith alone, over against the protested [‘Catholic’] position(s) of legalism and/or of salvation by moral works Paul was dealing with the analogous issue, of promoting Christian salvation by faith (and grace), over against the Jewish position of Law [= moral legalism + salvation by legalistic works] " the traditional perspective = [Protestant] Christianity is a religion of grace vs. Judaism and Catholicism, both, which are religions of Law and works 3. NOTE: by contrast, the Roman Catholic position (all along, even prior to the Reformation? or only re-articulated since the Reformation?) on the relationship between grace and Law [! largely stands apart from the NP in scholarship] = " “grace” is the gift specifically of God’s freely given, transformative power to be more godly than you could be on your own, which is compatible with the requirement that a [transformed] Christian perform moral works that have a salvific function B. advent of the New Perspective 1. E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1970); followed by other notable Pauline scholars like James D.G. Dunn and N.T. Wright 2. Sanders’ analysis/argument: a. some new terminology for Sanders: “covenantal nomism” — for Judaism(s): the Mosaic covenant was what made Israel God’s people ! ‘covenantal’ + the covenant was adhered to by Israel living according to Torah = nomos ! ‘nomism’ = covenantal nomism b. Judaism was not a legalistic religion, but rather a religion of grace nomos in Pauline literature is not “Law” (as in moral Law or Catholic canon law, with which Luther had a problem 1500 years later) Page 10  nomos in Pauline literature is instead Torah, spoken of in the context of an intra- religious debate within Judaism (Jesus-following Judaism vs. regular not-Jesus- following Judaism) in all forms of Second Temple Judaism (during and prior to the first century), Torah was considered a gift from God to Israel " first-century Judaism and Christianity (so called) were both religions of grace c. Judaism used covenantal nomism “boundary markers” to determine who were God’s people among Judaisms was an ongoing question who could claim to be God’s people ! it is crucial to determine who is inside or outside the covenant, for such a covenantal nomism religion [Note: Sanders’ entire theory works on a spatial/geographical metaphor] the place where inside switches to outside is the ‘boundary,’ which is determined by boundary markers (in Sanders’ estimation: circumcision, food laws/kashrut, and Sabbath) more new terminology for Sanders: “boundary marker” — a person’s location inside or outside the covenant is determined by whether she keeps the correct boundary markers, in the correct way (according to e.g. Pharisees, Qumran, etc.) d. the debate that Christianity brought to Judaism: Paul moved from the covenantal nomism boundary markers of Judaism, to the boundary maker of faith in Christ " the New Perspective = both Christianity and Judaism were religions of grace; both were religions of covenantal nomism, in the sense that they relied upon boundary markers; & Christianity did not reject the legalism of Torah, so much as replace the boundary markers for who are God’s people of circumcision, food laws and Sabbath with the boundary marker of faith in Christ III. Pros and Cons of the New Perspective A. pros: a necessary corrective about first-century Judaisms 1. Judaism was not another anachronistic version of Luther’s view of Catholicism 2. nomos in Paul is about Torah, not religious or moral ‘Law’ 3. Torah was a grace in early Judaisms; and early Judaisms were (on paper) a religion of grace 4. Torah is not in opposition with faith and grace within biblical theology 5. debatable pro: deemphasizes justification by faith as the central, defining doctrine in all Pauline theology, relative to which all other theology must be interpreted/oriented Page 11  B. cons: 1. for Paul (and the NT), the difference between Jesus-following Judaism and non-Jesus following Judaism(s) is theological, not sociological or socio-religious – the NP reduces the theological/ideological differences between Judaism and Christianity to differences about who (in society) belongs to the correct religion, as measured by socio-religious practice and grouping – for the NP, the concern is not about “getting in” to God’s people, but about “staying in” (= maintaining the covenant for Judaism; = maintaining faith in Christ for Christianity) ! i.e., the NP minimizes conversion and salvation (out of reaction against traditional Evangelicalism?) – the new emphasis of socio-religious identity(/boundary keeping) is akin to the dubious new center of Pauline theology that the NP replaces for the fixation of traditional perspective on justification by faith – INSTEAD, unlike in the NP: for Paul (and the NT), transformative salvation and the theological spread of God’s Kingdom within history are central, and socio-religious organization and labels come after incidentally 2. related: the NP too heavily configures Pauline Christianity in spatial terms (inside/outside) that emphasizes religious affiliation ! i.e., the NP displaces the theological focus in Paul of how a believer’s identity is defined by her relationship with God in Jesus 3. especially for (neo-)Reformed scholars & theologians: – justification by faith should remain the center of Pauline theology (even if now nuanced, to incorporate Sanders’ corrections about grace in Second Temple Judaism) " in that quarter, there has been substantial pushback on the NP – many times, pushback come because the conclusion is distasteful—rather than on the basis of merit by pointing out flaws in NP methods (see the massive two volume Justification and Variegated Nomism, ed. D.A. Carson, et al.) Page 12