GALATIANS: The Curse

The next section of Galatians seems to undo everything that we’ve been talking about up to this point.

For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”

At first glance, this appears to say that anyone who follows the Law is cursed. (And this has certainly been taught in far too many Christian circles!) But a closer inspection of the Text (especially when translated appropriately) reveals what Paul has just said within a Jewish context. That same phrase which refers to the “works of the Law” (remember the miqsat ma’asay haTorah, or ergu nomu in the Greek) is used here. Paul’s statement in context clearly says that those who rely on the miqsat ma’asay haTorah for their justification are under a curse. He then quotes Deuteronomy to make his case. Whenever a book is quoted like this, it is important to ask ourselves about the context of the quotation in order to understand what the author is driving at.

In the context of this Deuteronomy quote, the people of God are being reminded of their charge to carry the Law as they enter into the land God is giving them to possess. The story has the people of God being split up on two mountains; one party shouts out the commands of the Torah and the other party shouts back their agreement to follow the commands of God (see the story in Deuteronomy 27). The clear implication of Paul’s quotation is that if you are relying on the “works of the Law” for your justification, you have to live under this dark cloud that follows you everywhere you go; such reliance ends up being a curse.

Mt. Gerazim, where the people of God stood to renew their covenant

Paul continues to say (again) that we understand this, in fact, is not where justification comes from:

Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”

This time, when Paul wants to make the case that they are justified by faith, he goes to Habakkuk for his quotation. This is a brilliant move employed by Hillel when making his arguments about justification. Hillel noted that when Habakkuk talked about righteousness, he talked about “living by emunah”; this Hebrew word for “faith” refers more to “faithfulness” and putting your faith into action. By following the Habakkuk passage with another quotation from Leviticus connecting the idea of “living by,” Paul (employing a rabbinical interpretation method called gezerah shavah, something only the most educated could do) ends up making a case that the Law is not there for our justification; it is there to teach us how to live faithfully.

I realize all of that was probably incredibly confusing, so I’ll sum up Paul’s point like this: If you try to find your justification in the “works of the Law” you will find yourself under a curse. But the Law wasn’t given to find your justification; on the contrary, the Law was given to teach you how to live by faith.

Paul continues:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

By employing another gezerah shavah, Paul connects the idea of the curse to Jesus. By referring to Christ’s crucifixion in reference to being “hung on a pole [tree],” Paul says that when Jesus subjected himself to crucifixion, he redeemed us from that faulty way of thinking and showed us what God’s true plan is. When we properly understand where justification comes from and what God desires from that redemptive process, it opens us up to welcome the Gentiles into the family of God — not as theosabes, but as full-fledged children of Abraham.

Paul then uses an example to go back to his larger idea introduced in the last section:

Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

Paul's illustration demonstrates how he views the story of God. Just as you do not undo a covenant (we might think “contract” in our world) by entering into a new one, so this is the case with God’s story. Paul makes the point that God’s story is aboutpromise. The story of Abraham is a story about promise and not a story about Law. Just because God enters into a covenant relationship with his people through the Law over four centuries later, it does not undo the larger story of God as a story of promise. This is a story about believing in God’s promises — it always has been, and it always will be. This story is not about following rules; it’s about living by faith in the promises of God.

This will have extraordinary implications for the Gentiles.

But Paul has to explain why God would give the Law in the first place.

GALATIANS: Children of Abraham

After sharing with the Galatian believers about his confrontation with Peter and the leadership as they struggled to live in accordance to this gospel, he turns his attention to them. The same understanding of this gospel and this justification is what Paul stresses to the Galatians. This interpretation is apparently one they should have and understand.

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?

Paul calls them foolish Galatians, which happens to be a cultural play on the region of Galatia. We mentioned before that the region of Galatia was like the backwoods corner of the Roman empire. The people there were considered barbaric, uneducated, and primitive. This is one of the regions the Shammai Jews had settled to remain unbothered by the culture around them. This play of Paul’s is a direct attack on a very educated group of people who should know better than to believe the lies they are tempted to believe. It’s safe to say that Paul is upset.

Paul asks them to think about their own experience. Was it by faith or by being Jewish (the miqsat ma’asay haTorah) they received the Spirit? They aren’t Jewish; they are theosabes who are being tempted to convert to Judaism. So the answer to all of Paul’s questions is obviously faith. It is by faith they received salvation. It is by faith they experience the Spirit. It is by faith they are justified. Their whole story has been about faith — so why would they want to give that up and make it about the “works of the law”?

And Paul also mentions their suffering being in vain. But what suffering is Paul talking about? How have these Gentile believers suffered? The answer would be at least twofold. First, they have suffered by holding a very unpopular worldview within the Jewish world of Galatia. In a corner of the Diaspora where the Jews follow the teaching of Shammai, to hold to this view — which is even more progressive than Hillel’s — would antagonize the world where you belong and make you the source of intense religious persecution. Second, they would also be the source of serious Roman persecution. Remember, if these Gentiles are not accepted by the larger Jewish community of Galatia, they will not fall under the great “Jewish Exception” and would be required to engage in emperor worship (idolatry). At different times in history, refusal to do this would be punishable by death.

Yes, these early Gentile believers have suffered a great deal, and that is why they want to convert. But Paul’s point is that this is the very story they are trying to tell to the world of Galatia. They have suffered for the sake of the gospel. If they convert now, all of that suffering will have been in vain. But it hasn’t been in vain, because the gospel has been put on display through their refusal to give in to popular opinion.

Paul then uses a typical Hillel argument to say that Abraham is their great example when it comes to being justified by faith.

So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

Hillel used to make the point that in Genesis 15, Abraham was justified by his faith. He was justified before he was circumcised; he was justified before he had one single rule to follow. If this is the case in Genesis 15, then Shammai is wrong; you cannot be justified by your works. Abraham was justified long before there were any works to be done. However, Paul takes this reasoning one step further than Hillel ever did. It will be helpful here to review our conversation about brothers, “children of Abraham,” and theosabes.

Paul makes the case that the gospel was announced to Abraham himself; Paul sees his gospel in the very story where God announces He is going to bless ALL nations through Abraham. Paul says if this is the story of God (the gospel, as he calls it), then what makes a person a covenant member of Abraham’s family is not circumcision. Contrary to all Jewish thought at the time, Paul says faith is the marker of being a child of God in the family of Abraham.

To a Jew, a “child of Abraham” is a proselyte — someone who has taken on circumcision and converted to Judaism. They are actually Jewish and distinct from the theosabes. But Paul’s argument is that a Gentile with faith is adopted into the family of Abraham.

For Paul, the story of God has always been about the promise, not the Law.

For Paul, the story of God has always been about being a person of faith, not about being Jewish.

For Paul, the story of God has always been about believing in the promises of God, not about obeying the rules.

For Paul, this has always been about trusting the story of God.

If a person will trust in the promises of God, then they are of the same stock as Abraham.

But what of being Jewish? Does that mean nothing?! Why did God waste all of his time with the Law?

Well the Law will certainly have its purpose, but before he tells the Galatians about that, he has to make his case about the Law and the Promise.

GALATIANS: Through the Law

Even though Paul has given the community the authority to speak into his life, ministry, and calling, he is far from rolling over and thinking they are anything more than humans themselves. The ability of Paul to be a mature and well-balanced human being is astounding here. He not only submits to the authority of the church leaders and community of the early church, but he is also adamant about standing for truth and confronting inappropriate behavior when he finds it. Apparently Peter, the great leader of the church, is far from perfect and infallible. Paul tells the Galatians about an encounter he had with Peter in Antioch.

And remember Peter is the guy who had the first experience with these “outsiders” being welcomed into the community of faith. He was the one who had to fight for their place within the world of the gospel and help pave the way for their entrance into the family of God.

When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

The leaders in this early Jesus movement remind me a lot myself at times — full of mistakes and a concern for self. These leaders know what the gospel calls them to do; there are times when they don’t have any problem living up to the call of the gospel. When it is these leaders and the Gentiles, they are gracious and hospitable companions. However, when some of the folks from Judea showed up — those from James and the “circumcision group” — Peter and even Barnabas sought to keep the peace by switching to the traditions and practices of the Torah-observant Jews.

What is often missing from the conversation surrounding this passage is a proper treatment of Jewish halachah, or oral tradition. Halachah is the set of oral interpretations that surround the written law; in a more poetic sense, halachah is “how you walk.” After God gave you commandments, you needed to understand how you would walk these commandments out. The oral tradition provided that framework, but in the new way Jesus is inviting us to live (and even during his own ministry, I believe Jesus made this clear), some of these understandings were going to get in the way of the truth of the gospel. One in particular would be the restrictions of eating with Gentiles. While God never commanded this in Torah, the halachah of the Jewish world had deemed it inappropriate to eat with Gentiles as an issue of ‘cleanliness’ and remaining distinct.

The belief of those in the ‘circumcision group’ was that this distinction needed to remain intact. So Peter and Barnabas find it hard to shake the halachah they had lived with for their entire lives (you can see Peter reference this to Cornelius in Acts 10). But Paul sees this as inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus and he calls them on it.

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”

“Jewish customs” is the reference to halachah. While Peter and Barnabas are not asking the Gentiles to be bound by these commandments (or even the miqsat ma’asay haTorah), they are having a hard time not playing the role of Judean when the “good ol’ boys” come to town. Paul confronts Peter publicly and makes it quite clear he no longer lives by this halachah, so why does he hold people (including Gentiles) to it when the folks from Judea are here? Peter is putting on a show for the Judeans; he’s acting like he is somebody else who believes something other than what he believes.

I believe the NIV is correct in keeping the quotations marks through the rest of the chapter, indicating it is part of Paul’s address to Peter:

“We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.”

First, the old NIV (copyright 1984) put “sinful Gentiles” in quotes. I believe this is the correct move, as it helped communicate the nature of the statement. It is not a derogatory dig on Gentiles as being a bunch of sinners. The Jews understood the “nations” of the Old Testament to be the pagan people groups; it was their mission to remain distinct from them and display God to them. The phrase refers to their status as pagans and not their nature (or value) as human beings.

Second, notice Paul’s direct reference to the rabbinic argument surrounding the idea of justification. We have referenced multiple times in this series the debate that existed between the schools of Shammai and Hillel on whether or not a Jew was justified by faith or by the “works of the law.” The “works of the law” are referenced directly in the passage above (ergu nomu in the Greek). We said Shammai believed a person was justified or “declared righteous” (my favorite expression, like Lancaster, is “exonerated”) by following the miqsat ma’asay haTorah (the “works of the law”); Hillel disagreed and said that, just like Abraham, they are justified by faith and simply believing in the promises of God. The New Testament community decided the way of Jesus (almost always) sided with Hillel. Paul reminds Peter of this decision — a decision that those of the “circumcision group” disagreed with.

“But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

Paul mentions that “through the law I died to the law.” What he means by this is NOT that he stopped following the law; this is quite clear by simply examining the other arguments, assumptions, and behaviors of Paul in the New Testament. Paul is still observing Jewish festivals, worshipping at the Temple, and the taking of Nazarite vows. Paul is certainly still living according to kosher law. However, he is also saying it is through Torah itself that he learned he is not justified by following Torah. He agrees with Hillel and states that Torah itself testified to justification by faith. It is through the Law that he died to the need to be justified by the Law. This will be seen when Paul, in the next chapter, uses the books of Genesis and Leviticus to argue for the gospel and justification by faith.

Paul is looking at great leaders like Peter (and Barnabas) and claiming that if they — in these moments, with people who disagree — rebuild what the community of Jesus has worked so hard to tear down, then the gospel would be stripped of its power. If they rebuild what others worked so hard to tear down, then people don’t see the story God has been telling since Genesis. If they rebuild what others worked so hard to tear down, they will actually be lawbreakers — people who are abolishing the teaching of Torah itself!

“For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

GALATIANS: Right Hand of Fellowship

We left off wondering what the result of Paul’s continued ministry would be. After receiving a call from God, a “revelation from Jesus Christ,” and three years of training in Arabia and Damascus, Paul went and spent time with the key leaders of the early church (Peter and James). After receiving their blessing, Paul was sent out by the church with Barnabas to be about the work of spreading this gospel he received from Jesus. So, what could go wrong? It must have been smooth sailing, right?

Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

Apparently, their world has some similarities to ours; not surprisingly, there was still a significant amount of opposition to the work Jesus was asking Paul (along with Barnabas and others) to do. Again, Paul emphasizes that letting their loud voices win the day would be a loss for the gospel; so instead of being defeated or giving in, they persevered in their insistence that the good news of what God is doing in the world through Jesus invites all people to the table.

To be sure this was, in fact, how the apostles felt about the ministry of Jesus, Paul and Barnabas — fourteen years later — brought Titus along with them to Jerusalem as a sort of “test case.” They stood him in front of the church, told his story, and asked if he needed to be circumcised (which, means far more than just circumcision itself; the sign of the covenant means you carry the entirety of the Law). The church said no.

As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

Paul continues to say the leaders of the church didn’t even want to make adjustments to his message. They agreed the gospel he was sharing is in fact the announcement of God’s work and kingdom on earth. They reaffirmed and commissioned Paul to do the work of taking this gospel to the Gentiles in the same way Peter led the charge in taking it to the world of the Jews.

Paul says Peter, James, and John gave him the right hand of fellowship, which is another way of saying they accepted him and his message as a part of their covenantal community; he was one of them. This is important above all else because Peter, James, and John are called “pillars” of the church. This is a clear nod to the Jewish midrash which spoke of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as the pillars of the Jewish people. They were the leaders on which the family of God is built on. Paul indicated in the preceding paragraph that their right hand of fellowship was paramount to him, because if he did not receive it, he would have “run his race in vain.” If Paul did not have the blessing of the “Pillars,” he would have stopped his ministry right there.

This triumvirate was functioning as the head of the early church; these three men were the closest to Jesus in his ministry. They walked closer to Jesus than any others, were invited to places nobody else went (e.g., the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus praying in the garden, etc.), and were privy to rabbinical explanations that they were ultimately responsible to teach to the other disciples. In a Jewish world, they were set to lead the charge. Peter, of course, was head over the entire movement as Jesus’s right-hand man. James, as we know from church history and references in the book of Acts, was the leader of the church in Jerusalem (the Judeans from the south), while John would ultimately become the “Pastor to Asia” and be stationed in Asia to minister to the church there.

I find it fascinating to study how the early church functioned in the midst of disagreement. I believe the New Testament gives us ample evidence to suggest there was even a slight disagreement among the “Pillars.” James, as the leader of the church of Jerusalem, appears to have a belief that all people should be carrying the Law. It was at the Jerusalem Council where James leads the charge in figuring out which laws can be required of the Gentiles. And, of course, we are all familiar with the book of James and his pushback against where this gospel openness could lead. While I see absolutely no contradictions in their teachings, I can certainly feel the presence of James and his desire to make sure the church stays the course throughout the New Testament. It will be “men from James” who are sent to check in on the church. And it will be “false brothers” from Judea (the church in the south) who find it impossible to accept this gospel Paul is preaching.

** NOTE: Some will find it hard to accept that James “the brother of Jesus,” who writes the letter of James, is the same character who is a member of the three disciples who followed Jesus. While many assume the disciples James and John of “the three” are brothers, the sons of Zebedee, this is highly unlikely. It is far more likely that Jesus called Peter, James son of Alphaeus (who would be Jesus’s cousin; his “brother” in the original culture), and John son of Zebedee to be a part of the three. Rabbinically, you would expect nothing else in the leadership of the church other than the three disciples who walked closest to Jesus. The Peter, James, and John who followed Jesus have to be the Peter, James, and John who lead the church. While this is debated rigorously, I believe it is the only position that holds to the inspiration of the Text and an honest rendering of church history.

I find this study fascinating in that it illuminates the very human struggle in the midst of this new movement, the hard process of binding and loosing, and the commitment to value the voice and authority of the community as a voice God uses to guide and direct the steps of the individual. Whether it is James who is having to come to grips with the voice of the Jerusalem Council and trying to lead an entire church of Judeans who disagree with the stance, or Paul who would consider his entire ministry a vain, empty race unless he receives the right hand of fellowship, their commitment to each other should stand as an example to all of us.

GALATIANS: Paul's Gospel

Since we have looked at the context of the situation, which helps us understand the temptation for these Galatians to “turn to a different gospel,” we are now prepared to hear Paul shift his concern to explaining his gospel, where he got his gospel, and whether his gospel has the blessing of the apostles.

I say “his gospel” and not “the gospel,” because that is how Paul will talk about his mission and calling to the world of the Gentiles. In the evangelical world, we have come to know and speak of “the gospel” as a package of theological truths expressed in a particular way that articulates the salvation of mankind. We have previously discussed that the biblical world understood “gospel” to be the announcement of a new kingdom on the scene. While the abstract truth of the gospel might be something to articulate comprehensively, there would also be a lot of expressions of this abstract truth. “Gospel” would refer to any announcement of that kingdom and all of its implications. Paul’s case is that God has given him a unique announcement for a unique part of the world — a unique gospel. This gospel is going to need to be accepted by the apostles and the church at large in order for it to have any authority.

So Paul is going to build a case for the source, founding, and authority of his gospel. He is going to tell the story of how he received it, how he checked it, and how the leadership of the early church agreed that Paul’s gospel is in complete agreement with their understanding of what God is doing in His Kingdom through Jesus.

The first thing Paul wants to do is make clear that the gospel he preaches is not a gospel from a human source.

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

And this is very important and somewhat surprising, because as a Jew, Paul has one of the most impressive pedigrees around. As a student of Gamaliel, one of the most heralded sages of the first century, Paul has the most significant source of authority by who his rabbi was. Paul’s very presence in a room makes him one of the most sought out voices. However, this new gospel was not Gamaliel’s; no, Paul has left his former rabbi and has begun following a new one. This means he will need to undergo some serious training in order to be a teacher under a new yoke. Hear how he explains it:

For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

Paul’s point is this: When I had my life-changing experience with God, I did NOT meet with anybody; I went off and was “trained” by Jesus himself in Arabia and Damascus. And not only does Paul have to learn a new yoke from a new rabbi, but it will be three years before he consults any follower of Jesus.

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they praised God because of me.

After three years, Paul finally meets Peter (known as “Cephas” in the Greek) and James, who is the leader of the church in Jerusalem. You may remember the book of Acts and how the church, centered in Jerusalem, is having to wrestle with this new understanding of Peter’s experience and the acceptance of the Gentiles. It is Peter and James who are the leaders of this early church movement (and John, but more on this later). After three years of training, Paul goes to meet with the leadership of this church led by guys who followed Jesus around in the flesh — actual talmidim of Jesus himself. During this time, Paul is relatively unknown by the church, with the exception of a few rumors of his changed life.

The implication (especially when you see this in conjunction with the record of Acts) is that Paul takes his gospel and checks it with the church leadership. When they “praised God because of me [Paul],” the assumption is they heard his gospel and his story and were fine with his ministry.

But what will be the result of Paul’s continued ministry? Does this testimony and the Jerusalem council make everything smooth over that easily?