Exegesis of Galatians 3.18-25… Gentiles and Jews Co-Inheritors With Abraham of the Spirit of Promise through Jesus Christ « Leshem Shamayim: “For the sake of heaven.”

The Apostle Paul caused quite a controversy in his day by maintaining a theology inclusive of Gentile peoples without requiring them to first convert to Judaism. In the epistle to the Galatians, one finds the tenuous agreement between Paul and orthopraxic Jewish Christians to a “two gospel”[1] version of the Gospel of Christ ruptured by certain parties whom commentators commonly term as “Judiazers,” trying to convince the Galatians that circumcision is necessary to enter into the covenant of Christ. Recounting his own conversion story in the first chapter of the epistle to add certainty to any speculation about his call to preach Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, Paul recounts his own perspective of the events which were addressed at the Jerusalem Council in the second chapter. In his passionate style, recounts his interaction with the Apostles, particularly Peter, in strong language when Peter relapsed from an ecumenical practice on circumcision to segregating the Gentile Christians. Paul’s tone is authoritarian and defensive, suggesting that the conflict between the apostle and infant church, that the Galatians are tempted to depart from the gospel Paul has preached to them. What is this gospel and what distinctions between it and the message of his opponents does Paul resurrect? Both of these questions can be answered from a careful exegetical study of Galatians 3.18-25, revealing Paul’s own exegesis of Hebrew scriptures: while his opponents exegete a harmony between the Abrahamic covenant of Genesis and the Mosaic covenant in Exodus, they perpetrate that one must follow the law (receive the sign of circumcision) in order to enter into the promises of Abraham, while Paul reverses the preferencing, inclusively uniting both Jew and Gentile on the basis of faith to be rendered righteous in Christianity.

While some commentators, such as Walter Hansen, suggest that the conflict of Galatians was a return to paganism because of Paul’s words about “exchanging their experience of the Spirit for dependency on the flesh,”[2] Udo Schnelle and the majority of commentators I read believe that Paul’s references to being perfected by the flesh in Galatians 3.3 are linked to Jewish Christians, commonly referred to as Mosaic, who believed that all Gentile Christian converts must conform to the rites of the Mosaic covenant mediated through Moses. Beginning our exegesis with Galatians 3.18, Paul states a radical position in opposition to the “evangelization” of his orthopraxic Jewish-Christian opponents: that the inheritance of salvific relationship with God does not come from the law. Rather, here Paul introduces a new exegetical movement in his reading of the Torah: a preferencing of the Abrahamic covenant, blessings by faith, over the necessity follow Mosaic law. From this position, Paul supports his argument that the Gentile converts do not need to receive circumcision to enter into the covenant that God made with Abraham.

Paul’s argument regarding Mosaic Law in Galatians 3.18-25 finds itself embedded in the larger context of a polemical epistle most likely written to the Gauls in Northern Galatia. Paul is arguing against doubts the Galatian church is harboring about their part in the salvific covenant God made with Abraham because they have not received the external sign of circumcision with which God sealed this covenant to the Jewish people. Recounting the results of the Antioch conflict over Gentile circumcision debated at the Jerusalem Council, Paul asserts that since the council, Peter and others have gone against the agreed position that Jewish converts would maintain their religious distinctive as Christians, but Gentiles were not bound to take on these distinctions.[3] Paul seems greatly distressed over a conflict in which some Judaizers[4] have raised doubts in the minds of the Galatians both to the truth of Paul’s preaching and validity of his apostleship, as well as the validity of their own faith without circumcision. Paul maintains his argument that circumcision is not necessary to be included in the inheritance of the Abrahamic covenant. This being said, Paul insists that the Mosaic Law was still divinely inspired; simply that it did not instill in human nature the ability to follow in its righteous directing to right relationship with God.

Ultimately, Paul faults the fallen condition of man to find complementarity between the Mosaic Law and the Abrahamic covenant, though he does make the controversial distinction that the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises in Christ make Law observance extraneous and even detrimental to the faith of those who were not first under the Law. Asserting the oneness of God and Christ as the Promised Seed of the Abrahamic covenant, Paul opposes his fellow Jewish Christians in regards to the necessity of entering into faith in Christ through the Law of Moses. Recognizing that Moses’ Law was inspired by God for His Chosen People the Jews, Paul equalizes the places of Jew and Gentile before God as sinners. Though the Jews had the path of Righteousness in the Law, they lacked the ability to walk in that path, and therefore were worse off in sin than the Gentiles because they had knowledge of it. Paul frames his argument regarding the Galatian’s assurance of co-inheritance with Christ by addressing the doubts Judaizers have instilled in their minds regarding Law observance and Gentile faith conditions.

Verse 18 of the selected passage addresses Paul’s overall conclusion regarding the Law: If one must pass through the requirements of Mosaic Law to embrace the faith of the Abrahamic covenant, negates the Abrahamic promises. Paul contrasts the term “ἐκ νόμος” (through the Law) with “ἐκ ἐπαγγελία” (through the promise)to point out that if the inheritance of righteousness comes through the Law, God has nullified His previous covenant to Abraham.[5] Madera indicates that this verse contains the only undisputed reference to “κληρονομία”[6] in all of Paul’s epistles, referring to an inheritance of “the promised Spirit” mentioned in Galatians 3.14.[7] Given the overall context of the passage, it indicates that the blessing of Abraham through its fulfillment in a person of promise, Jesus Christ, allowed both Jew and Gentile to “receive the promised Spirit through the faith.”[8] Recognizing the Spirit of Jesus as the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise, Paul affirms that God gave Abraham this inheritance through promise. “χαρίζομαι”[9]translated as “has given” or “granted” is set in the present tense, though God obviously made His covenant with Abraham ages ago. Madera notes that this ”points to the gracious and enduring aspect of God’s promise to Abraham.”[10]

Verse 19 ponders why Mosaic Law observance for the Galatians would negate faith in the Abrahamic promises, and why was the Law given at all. The Law, as an impossible standard of righteous living to all sinful men, brought Jewish awareness to the fact that their condition was as sinful as the next Gentile. Inability to fulfill the Law spurned Jewish expectancy of the Promised Seed of Abraham; Paul plays on the singularity of the term “σπέρμα”[11] to introduce Christ as the seed promised to Abraham.[12] Not only did the Law bring about realization of sin amongst God’s chosen people, but Paul also points out its lesser status to the Abrahamic promises because it was given through mediation rather than direct communication. In verse 19, Paul rhetorically questions the purpose of the law, considering that he has asserted that Jewish and Gentile salvation come through the covenant of promise God made with Abraham. This verse is packed with Paul’s exalted Christology, pointing to Christ as the promised offspring of Abraham, who fulfilled the promise made. Paul makes note of two pieces of information with regard to the giving of the law in this verse: first, that “it was added because of transgressions” and that “it was put into place through angels by an intermediary.”[13] These are two negative purposes, the first regarding transgressions more controversial than the law’s subservient status to the Abrahamic promises because of mediation. What does Paul mean that the Law was given “because of transgressions?” Paul uses the Greek work “παράβασις,”[14] which is translated “transgressions,” which has two different meanings in Greek: to go over or to disregard or violate.[15] The second meaning seems to indicate a relation to law, and a developed state of mind in which sins “take on the character of transgressions, and thereby the consciousness of sin be intensified and the desire for redemption be aroused.”[16] Along with this premise, Paul supplies a second, that of the Law being given through angels and communicated by an intermediary, is lesser than the directly given promise from God to Abraham.

While Paul’s Judaizer opponents “probably appealed to both these traditions (the Abrahamic covenant of promise and the Deuteronomic covenant of blessings/curses under law) to persuade the Galatians that their lack of circumcision was a breach of God’s covenant and Law, and thus, in accordance with the witness of scripture, brought them under the Law’s curse.”[17] It is likely that these Judaizers prefaced entrance into sharing the Abrahamic covenant with the Jewish people, and the chief seed of Abraham (Jesus Christ), with conformity to Mosaic code, a physical affiliation. Paul spiritualizes the idea of being a “progeny of Abraham” by making the requirement faith rather than circumcision (Galatians 3.9). Paul’s purpose in subordinating the Mosaic code to the Abrahamic promise is not to nullify the Mosaic code as a central observance in Jewish faith, serve his polemical agenda. Verse 20 continues Paul’s explanation of the subordinance of the Mosaic law to Abrahamic by further discussion of mediation as a negative factor in the giving of the law. How does “but God is one”[18] affirm “an antithesis to what is said about the mediator” of the Mosaic covenant[19]? It seems that Paul’s point of controversy about the mediation of the Law is that to preference a covenant which was given through angelic parties and indirectly mediated through Moses to the Jews would divide the God of the Jews from the God of the Gentiles, demonstration that “it is fitting that He should provide one way of salvation for both—the way of faith.”[20] Verse 20 supplies an explanation of why mediation makes the Law secondary to faith. While commentators speculate about the mediatorship remark, but seem to indicate that the affirmation “God is one” means that both Jew and Gentile operate on the same playing field when approaching righteous living. Thus faith in Christ as the one means of fulfilling the Abrahamic promises for both: “it is fitting that He should provide one way of salvation for both—the way of faith.”[21]

Affirming that God is the same for Jew and Gentile, Paul’s insistence that righteousness living under the law is no greater than those who follow Christ without the law, but then turns to say that since the Mosaic law and the Abrahamic promises are both of God, they cannot oppose one another. Paul’s “innovation” as it were, is the conclusion that “the law as a means of justification and life, in terms of Lv. 18.5, has been superseded by faith in terms of Hab 2.4.”[22] Paul seems to be reading Habakkuk 2.4 as his own scriptural proof text against a legalistic reading of Leviticus 18.5, saying the just will live by faith, not that life is only found when one keeps the laws and customs of the Mosaic law.[23] Yet he does not separate the Abrahamic promises and Mosaic Law, noting that if one could give life by a law, “righteousness would indeed be by the Law.”[24] Paul insists that it is not possible to find the law to be a source of righteousness, because the nature which the law is to direct is more fundamentally corrupted than the law can compensate for. Thus Paul says, if one could follow the law, it would maintain a righteous course. This argument strikes at Paul’s opponents, who have been trying to persuade the Galatians that to enter into the Abrahamic covenant,

Verse 21 proposes that if there is only one way into the salvific covenant of promise, do the requirements of the Mosaic Law contradict the Abrahamic promises? No, Paul responds, for if one were capable of fulfilling the Law, one would be living righteously. The problem is not the presence of the Law, but rather human nature: reception of Mosaic Law does not perfect fallen human nature; rather, it draws out the inability of man to please God of his own initiative. Thus the Law is unable to “ζῳοποιέω,”[25] impart life, but in more than a physical sense, a righteousness “of the spirit, quickening as respects the spirit, endued with new and greater powers of life;”[26] inferring from context a sense that the Law was incapable of providing the sort of spiritual and physical resurrection required by human nature. Linking the first clause of this verse to the second, Paul says if the Law could give life, righteousness, “the state of him who is as he ought to be…the condition acceptable to God,”[27] would come from the Law. Since it would seem that the Law was not intended to provide righteousness, the Law merely “offers apparent righteousness devoid of life.”[28] Paul’s negative description of the Law as not providing life from which righteousness would spring as a transformative effect of the life points towards the effects of faith after the heritage of Abraham.

Interestingly in verse 22, Paul notes that “Scripture (γραφή)[29] imprisoned everything under sin,”[30]not the Law (νόμος)[31]. Matera describes Paul’s use of Scripture over Law as “a personification of God’s will.”[32] So what is this Scripture Paul is employing to say that man is trapped in a sinful condition? Habakkuk 2.4 is cited as the main proof text his assertion that the only way out of man’s sinful condition is to partake in the “promise by faith of Jesus Christ.” Matera notes that Paul cites other passages from the Hebrew Scriptures regarding the sinful condition of man in Roman 3.9-28: Proverbs 1.16, 20.9; Psalms 5.9, 10.7, 14.1-3, 36.1 53.1-3, 140.3; Jeremiah 5.16; Isaiah 59.7-8.[33] Based on these Scriptural backings, Paul feels confidant to claim that faith in Jesus, then, is a continuation of the Abrahamic covenant of promise. Paul structures his argument employing the term “ἵνα,”[34]which allows the conclusion to be derived “that the promise is given to those who believe.”[35] Referring back to verse 19, the coming of Jesus as “the seed…to whom the promise (of Abraham) was made,” could be seen as the solution to man’s transgressions which were exemplified as unsolvable by the Law because He brought a new nature and adoption as sons for those with faith. Paul here is reinterpreting the faith of Abraham by “the subjunctive genitive, ‘faith in Christ.”[36]

Referring to the time “before faith came,”[37] Paul changes from speaking of the expectant faith of Abraham to the presence of Christ, the fulfillment of the promises in faith. Speaking of the Jewish people’s condition in verse 23, Paul changes his discussion of faith from Abraham to Jesus, saying that since the Law did not provide solutions to transgressions, the Jewish people under the Law were cut off from the realization of faith as a means of renewing their natures, returning to God. In a way, the Law incubated a helpless state of incapacitated obedience amongst the Jewish people since they were unable to maintain salvific promises. Thus to be “’under Law’ is in practice to be ‘under sin’—not because law and sin are identical, but because law, while forbidding sin, stimulates the very thing it forbids.”[38] Painting the weight of the Law as a kind of captivity from which the redemption of Christ is liberating, Paul’s emphasis that all are under sin brings all into the judgment of the Law, in need of liberation. Yet at the same time, the presence of the Law under which both Jews and Gentiles are “captive” draws a separation between Jews and Gentiles by subjecting all to penalization, but keeping: “the Gentiles out of the privilege of God and kept Israel apart from the rest of mankind; this divisive force has been overcome by the unifying effect of Christ’s redemptive act.”[39]

Calling the Law a schoolmaster or guardian in verse 24, Paul credits the presence of the Law with giving the Jewish Christian enough realization of their sins to know Law observance was impossible without faith, and that this faith found its justification in Jesus Christ without necessarily navigating through the Mosaic Law. The supervision of the Law is given in a temporal context, “εἰς Χριστόν” best translated “until Christ.”[40] The temporality of this phrase indicates that a kind of supervision was necessary (or perhaps fortification) until the object of promise, Abraham’s Seed, arrived as the fulfillment of his offspring’s inheritance of faith. F.F. Bruce considers the fulfillment of this promise to be the act of justification that was expected by Abraham[41] when his faith was accredited as righteousness before the coming of the promise. Interpreting “the appearance of Christ gave effect to the purpose of God—‘that we (Jews and Gentiles without distinction) should be justified in faith,’ in accordance with the promise to Abraham.”[42] According to Paul, God’s justification of the Abrahamic covenant through faith in Christ removes the Law as a distinction between Jews and Gentiles, uniting them in a common inheritance with Abraham in Christ.

Paul draws his Law and Promise discourse regarding the legitimacy of Gentile inheritance of the Spirit through Abraham-like faith draws to a conclusion in verse 25, demonstrating to the Galatians that the Mosaic Law brought about the realization that man could do nothing on his own to achieve inheritance-status in the Abrahamic covenant. While the Law would prepare the people for a leap of faith by disclosing their own depravity, Paul exegetes Genesis to claim that the Seed promised to Abraham would complete the righteous justification man needed in order to maintain obedience to God. Thus for the Jews, the coming of Jesus as the Promised Seed of Abraham would bring about a culmination of their entire expectant history, while for the Gentiles, Paul draws opposite conclusions. It is all very well and good for the Jewish converts to observe the Mosaic Law since it is part of their redemptive history with God. For the Galatian Gentiles, however, Paul says that to turn to Mosaic Law in order to partake in the Abrahamic covenant to which they have already been enjoined by faith in Christ would be a denial rather than an acceptance of the promise of Christ. As Schnelle notes, “Paul’s Christ hermeneutic necessarily presupposes that the Law/Torah as a soteriological principle has been annulled, for otherwise Christ would have died for nothing.”[43]

[1] “two-gospel” approach refers to the agreement of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 that Gentiles could be admitted to Christianity without first assuming the Mosaic precepts of the Jewish faith, summed up under the symbols of circumcision, Sabbath, and food regulations. The settling of the Antioch conflict at the council was that Jewish Christians would maintain their Jewish heritage, but would be deemed no better or lesser than the Gentile Christians.

[2]Hansen, G. Walter. Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement, Series 29. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. 97.

[3] These distinctions were symbolized by the ritualistic circumcision.

[4] Most likely “Mosaic” according to most commentaries; orthopraxic Jewish Christians who believed Gentiles should receive circumcision to share in the benefit of the Abrahamic promises.

[5] Madera, Frank. Galatians. Sacra Pagina Series, Vol. 9. Ed. Daniel J. Harrison, S.J.. Collegeville, A Michael Glazier Book from The Liturgical Press. 127.

[6] Blue Letter Bible. “Dictionary and Word Search for klēronomia (Strong’s 2817)“. Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 14 Nov 2009. <http:// www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2817&t=ESV>.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Galatians 3.14, ESV.

[9] Blue Letter Bible. “Dictionary and Word Search for charizomai (Strong’s 5483)“. Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 14 Nov 2009. <http:// www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5483&t=ESV>.

[10] Madera, 127-8.

[11] Blue Letter Bible. “Dictionary and Word Search for sperma (Strong’s 4690)“. Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 14 Nov 2009.<http:// www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4690&t=ESV>.

[12] Matera, 131.

[13] Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible. Galatians 3.19.

[14] Blue Letter Bible. “Dictionary and Word Search for parabasis (Strong’s 3847)“. Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 14 Nov 2009. <http:// www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?
Strongs=G3847&t=ESV>.

[15] Blue Letter Bible. “Dictionary and Word Search for parabasis (Strong’s 3847)“. Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 11 Nov 2009. <http:// www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?
Strongs=G3847&t=ESV>.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Wilson, Todd. The Curse of the Law and the Crisis in Galatia: Reassessing the Purpose of Galatians. Pg. 57

[18] Galatians 3.20

[19] Most commonly held to be Moses.

[20]Bruce, F.F. The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982., pg. 179.

[21]Bruce, F.F., 179.

[22] Ibid., 180.

[23] Leviticus 18.5, ESV.

[24] Galatians 3.21, ESV.

[25] Letter Bible. “Paul’s Epistle – Galatians 3.21 – (ESV – English Standard Version).” Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 12 Nov 2009. <http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&c=3&t=ESV>.

[26] Blue Letter Bible. “Dictionary and Word Search for zōopoieō (Strong’s 2227)“. Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 14 Nov 2009. <http:// www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?
Strongs=G2227&t=ESV>.

[27] Blue Letter Bible. “Dictionary and Word Search for dikaiosynē (Strong’s 1343)“. Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 14 Nov 2009. <http:// www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?
Strongs=G1343&t=ESV>.

[28] Madera, 135.

[29] Blue Letter Bible. “Paul’s Epistle – Galatians 3.22 – (ESV – English Standard Version).” Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 12 Nov 2009. <http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&c=3&t=ESV>.

[30] Galatians 3.22, ESV

[31] Blue Letter Bible. “Paul’s Epistle – Galatians 3.21 – (ESV – English Standard Version).” Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 12 Nov 2009. < http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&c=3&t=ESV>.

[32] Madera, 135.

[33] Romans 3.9-18; The Holy Bible, English Standard Version Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. 10 November 2009. < http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%203.9-18&version=ESV>.

[34] Blue Letter Bible. “Paul’s Epistle – Galatians 3.22 – (ESV – English Standard Version).” Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 12 Nov 2009. < http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&c=3&t=ESV>.

[35] Madera, 135.

[36] Ibid., 135.

[37] This is rendered in the Greek “πρὸ τοῦ δὲ ἐλθεῖν τὴν πίστιν,” translated literally as “Before of-the yet to-be-coming the belief,” [“Galatians 3.23,” Greek Interlinear Bible (NT). Scripture4all Foundation. Interlinear PDF files Copyright © 2009 Scripture4all Foundation. 10 November 2009. <http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/gal3.pdf>.] which Bruce reads as implying a temporal force, suggesting a fulfillment, or a coming after of the thing which was promised to Abraham (183). Thus the coming of “faith” is not the expectant faith of Abraham which expected promises that were yet to be fulfilled, but the fulfillment itself.

[38] F.F. Bruce, 182

[39] Ibid. 182.

[40] Ibid. 183.

[41] Ibid. 183, referring back to Paul’s quotation of Genesis 15.6 earlier in chapter 3, vs. 6 “just as Abraham ‘believed God, it was counted to his as righteousness?”

[42] Ibid. 183.

[43] Schnelle, Udo. Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology. Boring, M. Eugene, translator. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. 285.

The Apostle Paul caused quite a controversy in his day by maintaining a theology inclusive of Gentile peoples without requiring them to first convert to Judaism. In the epistle to the Galatians, one finds the tenuous agreement between Paul and orthopraxic Jewish Christians to a “two gospel”[1] ruptured by certain parties whom commentators commonly term as “Judiazers,” trying to convince the Galatians that circumcision is necessary to enter into the covenant of Christ. Recounting his own conversion story in the first chapter of the epistle to add certainty to any speculation about his call to preach Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, Paul recounts his own perspective of the events which were addressed at the Jerusalem Council in the second chapter. In his passionate style, recounts his interaction with the Apostles, particularly Peter, in strong language when Peter relapsed from an ecumenical practice on circumcision to segregating the Gentile Christians. Paul’s tone is authoritarian and defensive, suggesting that the conflict between the apostle and infant church, that the Galatians are tempted to depart from the gospel Paul has preached to them. What is this gospel and what distinctions between it and the message of his opponents does Paul resurrect? Both of these questions can be answered from a careful exegetical study of Galatians 3.18-25, revealing Paul’s own exegesis of Hebrew scriptures: while his opponents exegete a harmony between the Abrahamic covenant of Genesis and the Mosaic covenant in Exodus, they perpetrate that one must follow the law (receive the sign of circumcision) in order to enter into the promises of Abraham, while Paul reverses the preferencing, inclusively uniting both Jew and Gentile on the basis of faith to be rendered righteous in Christianity.