This might not interest many of you, but it's free. I began preaching through Galatians at the beginning of the year and finished yesterday. I generally followed the conventional interpretation of the letter, with a few interesting (to me at least) deviations. Here are some of my interpretations that I did not hold before I began:
1. Galatians 1 is Paul's defense of his unique gospel presentation for the Gentiles. When he says he received it by revelation, not from man, he is not contradicting his words in 1 Corinthians 15:3, when he said he received the gospel as tradition passed down to him. He had certainly heard the facts about Jesus while he was persecuting Christians; that's why he could immediately start preaching that Jesus was the Son of God after he was baptized in Damascus (Acts 9).
2. Galatians 2:1 is not meant to be the continuation of Paul's personal narrative. I think it is Paul's account of the "Jerusalem Council" that Luke described in Acts 15 (scholars debate this point). Paul jumps to that occasion because it was the first major time when Paul's understanding of what the gospel implied for Gentiles (which was his distinct personal calling from Christ, his unique contribution among the apostles) was in jeopardy of being contradicted by Jewish Christians with the support of the other apostles. Paul says, in essence, I made the convincing case that faith in Jesus was the exclusive way to be right with God, and that meant that Gentiles did not need to become like the Jews in order to be God's people. Since the Jerusalem Council affirmed that Paul accurately represented what the gospel implied for Gentiles, he was absolutely right to call Peter out when the leader of the original Twelve was undermining gospel implications by his behavior. Paul didn't write about who won the showdown because Peter obviously had not thought through all the implications of the gospel for the Gentiles.
3. I was surprised how many brilliant scholars hold that believers are justified by "the faith/faithfulness of Christ." (See Gal. 2:16-21) I don't buy it at all, but I'll save you the reasons. The traditional view seems right: we are justified by "faith in Christ."
4. That Gentiles and Jews alike are sons of Abraham and heirs of the promise by faith is what renders circumcision ineffective. Thus, when Paul talks about "the Israel of God" in 6:16, he is talking about the same group of people "who walk according to this rule." It would make no sense to argue for the whole letter that Gentiles and Jews are "one in Christ," only to draw a distinction between "God's Israel" and those others, the Gentile Christians. The Israel of God (in this context) = the Church.
5. Galatians 4:21-31 is tough, but I think it is a vivid illustration of living by the flesh.
6. Paul says walking by the Spirit is the superior replacement to living under the Law; if believers are free from the Law, how are they supposed to live? "Walking by the Spirit" is radically others-focused, developing Christ's character in us and creating a community that fulfills the second Great Commandment. When Paul says "Walk by the Spirit and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh," he's not describing the internal struggle we face to do the right thing. He's saying that the Spirit is the most effective strategy to keep us from everyone doing what is right in his own eyes. Walking by the Spirit is not first about moment-by-moment communication from God (other texts must be used to make that case) - it's first about using your freedom to love and serve our fellow believers and others as opportunity arises.
Too wordy already, so I'll say this: Galatians presents the Christian basics and challenges us deeply to make our boast "in the cross of Christ" and to use our freedom to serve others.
2 comments:
Thoughts about resources on Galatians:
1. I didn't find any commentaries that I really liked. R. Longenecker's in the Word series is well-documented but he imposes an odd structure on the letter (following HD Betz somewhat) and has some unconvincing takes on important issues. J.L. Martyn's Anchor Bible commentary has a weird format and some strange positions. J.D.G. Dunn's Black NT commentary was a bit refreshing at times, winning my respect; but his "New Perspective on Paul" was a recurring concern of mine. I didn't even bother with Timothy George from the NAC series. Martin Luther's old commentary provided colorful application.
2. Moises Silva's Explorations of Exegetical Method: Galatians as a Test Case - this was a gold mine! Though not a commentary, Silva gives persuasive takes on the point of the letter, on major issues in the letter, etc. He mentioned somewhere that a full-length commentary on Galatians was coming from him in the Baker series. I've read also that Douglas Moo is working on the same. And I've heard that Tom Schreiner has a Galatians commentary in the works. I would have appreciated any/all of these.
3. There are plenty of scholarly articles that diverge from the traditional interpretation of Galatians. I read a few and used very little from them. These articles I thought made the best contribution to understanding Galatians:
-G. Fee "Freedom and the Life of Obedience" (Gal. 5-6) Review and Expositor, 91
-S. Eastman "Cast out the Slave Woman and her Son" (Gal. 4.30)JSNT 28.3
-T. Schreiner's several articles on Law and Gospel; also his Pauline Theology
-Basil Davis, “Severianus of Gabala and Galatians 6:6-10,” CBQ 69
-Joseph Tyson "Works of Law in Galatians" JBL 92
-GE Ladd's NT Theology
I talked with Sam Storms briefly at the Southern Baptist Convention about my work through Galatians. He was surprised I did not consult John Stott's work on Galatians or the NIV Application commentary on Galatians (he said both are good).
At the convention, I found M. Silva's excellent book in a paperback, second edition called "Interpreting Galatians," which reflects its content much better than the old title.
Post a Comment