Galatians 2:11-21_Landscape.pdf

Table of Contents: I always regard the attached outline (above) as the main feature to all my posts. The comments are secondary since they are personal notes pertaining to that subject. However, since the lengthiness of this post will be challenging, I have added the following outline as section headers within the post (to break it up and thus help make the comments more palatable or allow them to be skimmed/sampled). 

1. Introduction and Literary Context

2. Narrative Section: Peter and Paul at Antioch (2:11–14)

3. Theological Section: Paul’s Rebuke and Rationale (2:15–21)

      A. Interpreting “We are Jews by Nature” (2:15)

      B. Paul’s Theology of Justification (2:16)

      C. Righteousness and the “Faithfulness of Christ” 

      D. Life in the Spirit and our New Identity in Christ (2:17–20)

      E. Grace Nullified? Paul's Final Rebuke (2:21)

4. Conclusion: Life in Christ as Covenant Faithfulness

Excursus: Grace and Communion in Genesis 18 

1. Introduction and Literary Context

The Apolytikion of 2nd Thurs. after Pascha

“Christ our God, you are the Life that dawned from the grave, though the tomb was sealed. Through closed doors you came to the Apostles. You are the Resurrection of all.

And you renewed us through them with an upright Spirit, according to your great mercy.”

This pericope should be understood within the context of the letter to the Galatians.

Below is an outline focusing on the first half of the letter. However, an outline of the entire letter may be found in this Sept 2017 post.

1:1-5 A. Introduction - The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ

1:6-5:10 B. Matters of Faith in Relation to the Galatian Issue

A. 1:6-9 Opening: Problematic Occasion (ends in repetition)

B. 1:10-2:10 Gospel in Agreement with (New) Jerusalem

C. 2:11-2:21 Preface to Argument: The Truth w/ Bio A

D. 3:1-14 Scriptural Argument Pt. 1 Abraham B

D’ 3:15-4:11 Scriptural Argument Pt. 2 Abraham B’

C’ 4:12-20 Postscript to Argument: The Truth w/ Bio A’

B’ 4:21-31 Gospel in Opposition to (Old) Jerusalem

A’ 5:1-10 Closing: Problematic Occasion (begins with repetition)

5:11–6:17 B’ Matters of Conduct in Relation to the Galatian Issue

6:18 A’ Conclusion - The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ

The structure of the pericope itself displays synonymous parallelism:

A. Peter’s Gospel Inconsistency Expressed 2:11

B. Peter’s Gospel Inconsistency Explained 2:12-13

A’ Paul’s Defense of the Gospel as Expressed to Peter 2:14-15

B’ Paul’s Defense of the Gospel as Explained to the Galatians 2:16-21

2. Narrative Section: Peter and Paul at Antioch (2:11–14)

Galatians 2:11-13

In the first half of the synonymous parallelism (Galatians 2:11-13), we read the back-story narrative regarding the Antioch incident. This portion, which is explicitly related to Peter’s hypocrisy in vs 13, will also be identified in vs 14, as Peter’s inconsistency regarding the truth of the gospel.

Galatians 2:14-15

At this point, beginning in Gal. 2:14 (specifically 2:14b), we observe Paul’s defense of the Gospel as expressed to Peter. Yet, the question arises: if this where the quotation begins, where does this Pauline rebuke of Peter end? All the commentaries take the view that the rebuke of Peter ends with 2:14 (such that Gal. 2:15 is the beginning of a new subsection). This is largely because of the switch to 1st person plural which usage continues in Gal. 2:16-17. Another reason to take 2:15 as a beginning rather than an ending, is the reference to “sinners” (which is repeated in Gal 2:17).

However, based on the terseness of the language and especially the parallels in this passage, I propose that Gal. 2:15 is the summary and conclusion of Paul’s rebuke to Peter.

In Gal 2:15, Paul is confirming both the correct/consistent viewpoint and also the Judaizer’s incorrect/inconsistent viewpoint. The latter (Judaizer’s) viewpoint, is especially exemplified by Peter’s behavior when he separated himself after previously eating with Gentiles. Peter’s former behavior was actually what was consistent with the truth of the gospel.

Note also that Paul’s statement in Gal. 2:15a is specifically associated only with Peter’s former behavior in Gal. 2:14a. That is, Paul doesn’t again bring up the mandate Peter gave to Gentile converts in Gal. 2:14b (to deal with that issue). This is likely because Paul understood that he only needed to persuade Peter regarding the primary theological issue. Resolving the theological issue would then result in the resolution of the erroneous praxis that stemmed from it.

We can further observe that Paul not only does not feel the need to address the Peter’s erroneous mandate that Gentiles should live like Jews, but rather, he instead goes in the opposite direction in Gal. 2:15b. For lack of a more succinct term, forgive my use the phrase, “Jewish Christian.” Yet, at least this helps us to see Paul’s point, since he reverses the mandate (from basically “Gentiles should live like Jews,”) to basically, “Jewish Christians do not live like Gentiles.”

By this reversal, another chiastic parallelism becomes evident.

Thus, Galatians 2:14-15 exhibits both synonymous and chiastic parallelism:

2:14 a. Consistent

1. Class:                        a. Jew

2. Living like class:        b. Gentile (assumed Sinners)

Not living like class: Jew

b. Inconsistent (re: Gentiles)

1’ Class:                        b’ Gentiles (assumed Sinners)

2’ Living like class:        a’ Jews

2:15 a’ Consistent Affirmed

Class:                            a” Jews by nature

“We are Jews by nature (inwardly - not by works of the Law). Purity laws don’t make or break Jewishness. 

Our (covenant associated) Jewishness is now confirmed by the grace of the indwelling Holy Spirit”

b’ Inconsistent (re: Jews) Denied

Not Class:                     b” Gentile sinners

(Jews in Christ are not rightly from the class of sinners)

Additional Comments:

In Gal. 2:14, πῶς is an interrogative reference meaning, ‘how? by what means? Liddell & Scott is helpful in this instance by explaining that, to ask “How” in dialogue (with a repetition of word/concept used by the previous speaker), means, “to ask for explanation” (which I have expressed in the translation). Of course, Peter had no good explanation.

3. Theological Section: Paul’s Rebuke and Rationale (2:15–21)

    A. Interpreting “We are Jews by Nature” (2:15)

Gal. 2:15

Although καί is most commonly translated as “and / also / even,” there are also other options. In certain contexts, such as logical sequences (like this one, where there is an implied logical outcome), καί can introduce a result based on what precedes. Thus, I have translated it, “and so.”

The 1st person plural, is Paul’s way, as one fellow Jew in Christ to another (Peter), that he can identify with Peter to lead the way in order to persuade him. His use of the 1st person plural is his way of identifying with Jewish Christians (in this case, Peter) who, although Jews from birth, have believed into Christ and received the Holy Spirit. The “we” is important because, in Pauls’ mind, they are the specific Jews who, at first, were living/eating like Gentile converts (according to the truth of the gospel). Jews from birth, like Peter & Paul, who had been baptized into Christ, had rightly now set aside purity laws. This was consistent with the gospel because they had been put into covenantal right standing just as Gentile converts. By covenantal “right standing” I understand the word usually translated as “Justification” within a broader covenantal narrative. Right standing/justification is God’s act of setting or putting believers (whether Jew or Gentile) right within his new covenant family. Christians are initiated into the new covenant and thus marked off through faith/baptism (and not by ethnic markers). Once this truth was made plain via Paul’s confrontation, it would have been readily apparent to Peter that right standing could therefore never be based on the works of the Law. The “works of the Law” were ethnic boundary markers (e.g., circumcision, Sabbath, dietary laws) that excluded Gentiles from the covenant community.

Denial of Judaizer Logic

In the second half of Gal. 2:15, Paul picks up the unstated premise underlying the Gentile mandate mentioned in Gal. 2:14b. Paul is denying the supposed accusation of the Judaizers (who influenced Peter). They reasoned that any status of uprightness/right-standing apart from the Law (as Paul taught) would be turning Jewish Christians into “Gentile sinners.” This designation as “sinners” is how outsiders, such as the uncircumcised (Gentile) nations were regarded (cf. 1Sam 15:18). This same Judaizer distortion is also at the root of the accusation in Gal 2:17 (i.e., that Pauline teaching made Christ a minister of sin). Yet, such a categorization was completely inappropriate to anyone (Jew or Gentile) who had been baptized into Christ and thus, per Romans 15:16, had been “sanctified by the Holy Spirit.”

The following interpretive translation of 2:15b attempts to expand on the admittedly few literal words of the text (typed in bold font below, including ellipsis).

“and so, we (Jews, whose covenant status is confirmed by the grace of the indwelling Holy Spirit) are not (rightly/appropriately) from (the category/classification) ‘Gentile sinners’ (since we have been sanctified by the Holy Spirit and live accordingly).”

The Overt Meaning of φύσις

This word φύσις is normally translated “nature.” However, James 3:7 demonstrates there is an extended range of meaning: “For every kind (=species) of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by human kind.”

James uses the same word twice, referring to both animal species and to humans (mankind).

So, the root meaning is associated with the concept of “nature” (which we can describe variously as the “native condition” or “the natural and intrinsic state of being or capacity”).

Yet, by extension, there is also a derivative meaning of “kind.” In this taxonomic sense, “kind” is defined as “a group with a set of characteristics.” So, we can summarize that the characteristics of the “kind” would arise, by extension, from the “nature” (intrinsic state of being or capacity) with which they are associated.

The Covert Meaning of φύσις

The subtitle above is not intended to imply that St. Paul is hiding anything – or that he has some hidden agenda. I only use the term “covert” to indicate that, regardless of St. Paul’s intentions, perhaps his intended meaning has been overlooked and remains hidden to readers possibly impatient to move on to the meat in Gal. 2:16 ff.

In any case, regarding the meaning of this word, we should consider if is Paul asserting that “we” (Peter and Paul) are Jews by nature, thus referring to an intrinsic state of being or capacity that makes them Jews? Or is he perhaps thinking of the slightly more derivative meaning that “we” are Jews by kind, thus referring to Jewish identity or the set of characteristics that identify them as Jews?

If we posit the second option (“kind”), and take the word in its normal sense, we should realize this choice would run exactly counter to what St. Paul is trying to argue in the overall context. That is, in Galatians, Paul is teaching that, for Jewish Christians, Jewish identity markers (such as circumcision, Sabbath, food and purity aspects of the law) are not what makes or breaks Jewishness. Paul acknowledges that Jewish identity markers were historically legitimate within Israel’s covenant. However, they were only the outward part of the picture. The crux of the matter was always the inward part, as Paul states in Romans 2:28-29, “For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly… but a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter.” So, while these “works of the law” were valid under the Torah, Paul argues that they are not truly the basis for covenant membership in the new, messianic era. Jews are not Jews in the fullest, covenantal sense because of “works of the law,” but rather, Jewish identity (the meaning of being a true Israelite) has been refined in the light of Christ. We should consider that being members of Christ, which is his body and his new covenant community is defined by participation in its associated rituals. As the ritual entrance to the covenant community, Baptism is at the forefront. Baptism is, in a sense, the new identity marker (especially since, in baptism, we are identified with Christ in his death and resurrection). Thus, it is not surprising that Paul makes reference to baptism in Gal 2:16 (ἡμεῖς εἰς χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν). As an aside, we might then think of the Eucharist as the maintenance ritual of our communion in Christ.

To come back to the meaning of φύσις, once we eliminate “kind” (at least as Jewish identity marker in the sense of “works of the law”), we can then focus on at least two other options: 1) another sense for “kind” (perhaps, e.g., baptism, as just mentioned or 2) the root meaning of “nature.”

At this point, we should observe that Galatians 2:15 exhibits the following parallelism:

ἡμεῖς           we (are)

a. φύσει            by nature

b. Ἰουδαῖοι       Jews

καὶ οὐκ        and not

b’ ἐξ ἐθνῶν       from Gentile

a’ ἁμαρτωλοί    sinners

Whatever φύσει is, it is intrinsic to being a Jew. Note that, just as the inner terms (Jews and Gentiles) are parallels in contrast, so also are the outer terms. In the outer terms, we at least observe the “inward” (nature) being contrasted with the “outward” (sinners). Yet, I propose there is more to this contrast in that there is likely an additional sense. That is, the inner (“nature”) aspect should be regarded as “positive” in contrast with the more obvious “negative” outer aspect, which, most will agree, is expressed by “sinners.”

Regarding this (less obvious at first glance) positive aspect, St. Paul’s usage of the word φύσις in Rom. 2:14-15 may be instructive. “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.”

While I wish to utilize the Romans reference to help with the Galatians usage, note that, even in this Romans passage, Paul’s meaning is contested. Right up front, I should disclose that I differ with, perhaps, a majority of interpreters, who view Rom. 2:14-15 as a reference to “natural law.” Natural law refers to inherent moral values or principles that are universal within all humanity. These moral values/principles are independent of social order or societal laws since they are innate (being created by God as part of the very nature of mankind). The church fathers espoused this interpretation of Romans 2:14-15, beginning with Origen. I do not disagree lightly with the church fathers. However, I suspect Origen was a big influence on those who later held to that same interpretation. While I do not deny that there is such a thing as natural law, I would not go to Romans 2 to prove it. In my personal opinion, the “natural law” interpretation seems foreign to that context.

Rather than referring to a natural law within all humanity, I propose that Paul is referring specifically to a law intrinsic to the Gentiles within the scope of his appointed ministry, i.e., those Gentiles who have obeyed the gospel message, who are in Christ. These are the ones who, though lacking the Torah, fulfill the law’s righteous requirement (just as Rom. 8:4 says, “so that the Law’s righteous requirement might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit”). We all agree, the fulfillment of the Law’s righteous requirement in Romans 8 is assuredly not the product of the flesh. Therefore, in that context, it cannot be the result of natural law - and no one would advocate that view for Romans 8. Rather, in Romans 8 it is clear that Christians (including Gentile Christians) fulfill the righteous requirement of the Law because they are empowered by the indwelling Holy Spirit. This is really amazing since these Gentile Christians were now doing what even well-meaning Pharisaic Jews under the Torah failed to do (e.g., as contrasted with Romans 7). This is because, although in Deut. 30:11, Moses said the commandment itself was neither excessive nor distant, per Romans 8:3, it was “weak through the flesh.” (That is, apart from the indwelling Holy Spirit, the flesh of the Law’s recipients was weak.)

In Roman’s 3:27, Paul characterizes the new way of grace in Christ as “the law of faith/faithfulness.” It is difficult to use one English noun or verb to convey the contextual nuance of the Greek word group for the noun πίστις/εως or verb πιστεύω. As I say in my post on Romans 3:21-31, English translations need to convey the appropriate sense for the crucial nuances of meaning within this word group - several of which seem to run in logical sequence:

Belief is an intellectual acceptance or assent that something is true (which is basic to faith).

Faith is a “relational trust” in something or someone (which leads to commitment in the form of Loyalty/Allegiance).

Loyalty/Allegiance is a commitment and support for something or someone. It is often associated with a pledge or sense of attachment to something or someone.

Fidelity/Faithfulness is the quality of being trustworthy & reliable, which implies a sense of duty to something or someone.

Romans 3:27 supports this last idea of “faithfulness” as different kind of law at work (other than Torah). We can also observe from Romans 5:17, 21 how this new reign of grace functions as an inner form of governance. That is, the “free gift” in that pericope (Romans 5:11-21) is not simply static, but rather it is a dynamic (reigning) power. This because the free gift is the Spirit of the risen glorified Christ. Thus, IMHO, the basis of Gentile Christians “doing the things of the Law” in Romans 2 is the power of the Holy Spirit (just as in Romans 8). It is the same as “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” in Romans 8:2.

If someone may protest this is only an argument from Romans (rather than Galatians), then we need look no further than our own current context in Galatians 2. Here Paul basically says the same thing in Galatians 2:20. Paul testifies regarding the internal governance of Christ (“the Anointed One”) who “lives in” Paul such that his present manner of life, which he characterizes as “faithfulness,” is the very definition of Jesus’ own faithfulness (which is that of the Son of God, “who loved me and gave himself for my sake”).

So, Paul’s usage of φύσις in Galatians 2 may very well be regarded as within the same conceptual sphere as Romans 2. If this interpretation is accepted, we might then opt for what we could call a “Christian” version of the word φύσις. This could be the case whether translated as “nature” or “kind.” That is, if we translate it as “nature,” then the reference would be to Peter and Paul’s Jewish Christian “nature,” not as Jews from birth, but as it truly is - an intrinsic capacity through second birth (and please forgive the Johannine analogy used to make the point). To illustrate from the world of software, this would be a “version update.” It becomes less likely that Paul may be referring to their Jewish Christian “kind.” This is because, if this new identity was marked by baptism, then this same identity would apply also to Gentiles baptized into Christ. Yet, it is still possible, especially if we may dare to further consider if this “kind” is a new (and true) tribal reference in Paul’s mind. After all, the word “Jew” is derived from its association with the tribe of Judah. If so, then we should also factor this into the interpretation of “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16) and our interpretation of Romans 9-11.

If we are to learn anything from St. Paul’s usage of this word φύσις, it at least betrays a more nuanced understanding of the basic meaning of the word. That is, when St. Paul is speaking of Christians, whether Jew or Gentile (e.g., in Romans 2 and Galatians 2), he thinks in terms of their current/present “nature” (or kind) which is now impacted by the Spirit of Christ indwelling through the Holy Spirit. He no longer views things from a pre-Christian perspective. If this is so, then the nature of a Christian is not merely their nature from birth (i.e., “natural state of being or capacity” / “native condition” as previously defined). St. Paul is only “telling it like it is” regarding Christians (whether Jews or Gentiles in Christ). He thinks of the nature of Christians as now impacted by the grace that has come to them based on their new covenant status of right-standing. There is now a new and renewed way of life based on the indwelling Holy Spirit. This notion can be supported by the many occasions Paul speaks explicitly in terms of “new” and “renewal,” especially when contrasted with what is old and/or passé:

Romans 7:6 – we serve “in the newness of the Spirit”

Romans 12:2 & Eph 4:23 - of a renewed mind (nous).

2Cor 4:16 – In contrast with the decay of the “outer (physical) man,” the inner (psycho/spiritual being) is being renewed/restored.

2Cor 5:17 & Gal. 6:15 – of a new creature/creation

Col 3:10 & Ephesians 4:20-24 “putting on” the new man, which is a practice based on our position (or covenantal status) in Christ.

Translation: Why stick with “nature”?

The question might arise: “Should some neutral modification of the word “nature” or “kind,” be provided in the English translation, such that St. Paul’s understanding is clear to the reader?

While I propose that Paul’s usage betrays a modified understanding of word nature as it relates to Christians, I think we should stick with the unmodified word “nature” in our translation. This is because, first, it recognizes he using the word in its most basic sense as an “intrinsic capacity.” We just need to understand that, for Paul, this intrinsic capacity is now “new and improved” (using a figure from commercial advertisement). This is due to the renewal by the Holy Spirit, which Paul locates “in the spirit of your (plural) mind (singular).” This is a reminder that we have the mind of Christ (1Cor 2:16) and that we should be transformed by the renewal of our mind (Rom. 12:1-2) as we cooperate with the grace of God.

Second, Paul could have used a modifier to make his meaning clear – but did not. So, he is overtly using the word generally taken as a reference to human nature (from birth), while (in my opinion) thinking in terms of the remarkable capacity which is now ours through cooperation with God’s grace in Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Thirdly, I would say that any clarification of St. Paul’s meaning should properly be the role of teaching, and not translation. Although someone might opt for a more interpretive translation, this would transfer any interpretation (including error) into the very translation itself, which is a risk of worsening the translation rather than improving it. For example, the NIV has been rightly criticized for consistently translating “sarx” (flesh) as “sinful nature.” Even if Paul was thinking in modified terms about the Christian nature, we would be in error by translating φύσις as, e.g., “new nature” or “renewed nature,” since that is not what Paul is saying. A new capacity via the Spirit in Christ, is not the same as an (ontological) new nature. Even a more neutral choice of wording, such as “true nature,” although intended to help readers avoid a (mis)understanding, would be doing a dis-service to readers since that also introduces its own (forgive the pun) probably less-than-true interpretive bias.

Final Reflections on Gal 2:15

While I have probably spent too much time discussing “nature,” it is also important not to lose sight of the greater context of salvation, which is best understood within a Trinitarian framework.

In Christian Orthodoxy, the grace of salvation is not about the creation of a new nature in place of an old nature within the individual Christian. Rather, it about the creation of a new man (Eph 2:15), the new Adam (Christ) - and our synergistic cooperation with grace within our new covenant status in Christ. This goes by another name in Orthodoxy, which is our participation in the divine life (= theosis).

Our covenantal status “in Christ” has redefined our “inner man” in relation to God (since Christ lives in us). Rather than the flesh (which was corrupted by sin) being completely irradicated and replaced, Christians are summoned to live out our lives joined together in communion with Christ, such that, though synergistic grace, we are transformed by the Holy Spirit into his image.

    B. Paul’s Theology of Justification (2:16)

2:16

St. Paul customarily uses particles and conjunctions to indicate shifts in the discourse.

In this case, after not using δὲ (“but” or “now”) since 2:11-12, he again uses this conjunction to indicate the shift between his discourse regarding Peter and his theological explanation of that discourse to the Galatians. If we draw the line between Pauls’s rebuke to Peter and his elucidation of that even to the Galatians beginning with Gal:2:16, then he picks up with the 1st person plural again because he also has a relationship with the Galatians and also wishes to persuade them regarding the premises of the argument he is in the process of making.

In this case, Paul’s premise is specifically about knowing two aspects regarding right standing:

• that right standing comes not from the works of the law and
• that right standing comes only through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.

These two premises are juxtaposed with one another – and the relation of with right standing is repeated within the literary structure of this verse. It is interesting that Paul is not arguing these points. Peter knew (or should have known) that Jews needed to be baptized into Christ for right standing just as Gentile converts. Therefore, it also follows that right standing cannot be based on the works of the Law. Otherwise, as Paul will later conclude in Gal. 2:21, if right standing was possible based on the works of the law, then Christ wouldn’t be needed at all. (He would have died for no purpose or reason.)

When St. Peter spoke in 2Peter 3:15-16 about the letters of Paul, he said, “there are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” Paul’s understanding, as expressed in Galatians, is probably a good illustration in this regard. Although (Jewish Christian) Peter had been illumined by the Lord Jesus in John 20:22 and Holy Spirit in Acts 2, he still needed this reminder from his brother in Christ, Paul. However, the Judaizers, who were still enslaved to elementary principles of the world (Gal. 4:3,9), were not illumined with the Spirit – and so they continued to pervert the truth of the gospel. St. Peter, who generally carried out his ministry within the Jewish environs of Jerusalem, had likely never previously considered this theological matter. Yet, from the first day of his apostolic commission by the Lord, St. Paul had been forced to consider the theological repercussions of his Gentile ministry. This same situation should also have applied to Barnabas, who, like Paul, had plenty of opportunity to consider the Gentile issue. However, as related in Gal. 2:12-13, even Barnabas seems to have been swayed by the power and prestige of those who came from James. Therefore, it seems that (if we were assigning guilt, which we are not) Barnabas would be the more culpable for this theological disconnection than Peter. On the other hand, Peter, like James and John, was one of the pillars (Gal. 2:9). Thus, as chief apostle, his hypocrisy was potentially of far greater impact.

I have already mentioned that, in saying, “we believed into Christ” (“ἡμεῖς εἰς χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν) in Gal 2:16, Paul is making reference to baptism. Space does not permit me to elaborate on this assertion. Paul often marks this specific reference by use of the preposition εἰς (“into”) in relation to both being baptized into Christ and believing into Christ. Probably the best illustration of this is Gal. 3:26-27.

for in Christ Jesus, you are all sons of God,

through faith (= “believing allegiance”).

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ

have put on Christ.

    C. Righteousness and the “Faithfulness of Christ”

In Gal. 2:16 we begin to encounter words and phrases that are debated in scholarly circles, such as “righteousness/right standing,” “works of the Law,” and “the faith of Christ.” The translation reflected in this article is intended to be more literal, which is entirely appropriate for the purposes of Bible study. At times, these words and phrases may come across as awkward and even strange to even long-time Bible readers. Yet, apart from my own actual shortcomings, I don’t think it is necessary to apologize for what may only seem odd. In my opinion, some improvement in translation is long overdue. After all, while NT Wright has published “The Kingdom New Testament” and Fr. Stephen De Young includes an interpretive translation of St. Paul’s epistles in his book, “Saint Paul the Pharisee,” these works are not widely read by the masses. While the various perspectives within the so-called New Perspective on Paul (NPP) have been debated for over forty years, as of this writing, the major English Bible translations (including The Orthodox Study Bible, within my own Orthodox tradition), still don’t reflect any influence or impact whatsoever from advances in our knowledge about first century Judaism.

This blog post is not intended to be a place for that debate about the NPP. My comments will simply reflect my own (current) opinions on these matters.

I have already defined “right standing” (while discussing Gal. 2:15 above). Suffice it to say that I side with proponents of the NPP (and my own Eastern Orthodox tradition) in espousing a relational rather than forensic view of the various forms of δικαιόω/δικαιοσύνη. Per Louw & Nida, the word conveys the idea of causing someone to be in a proper or right relation with someone else — ‘to put right with, to cause to be in a right relationship with.’

I generally understand the genitive phrase, “πίστεως χριστοῦ” as “the faithfulness of Christ” (or “Jesus Christ’s faithfulness”) rather than “faith in Christ.” The genitive case is often regarded as a case signifying possession. Yet, there are multiple usages of the genitive case.

Whatever the English word we pick to best capture the meaning of πίστεως in relation to Christ, I understand the phrase as either a subjective genitive construction, where the genitive noun (i.e., Christ) is the subject (or doer) of the implied action, or it could be the possessive use, indicating a relationship where one noun belongs to the other. The other main alternative (that I do not think is correct), is the objective genitive, where the genitive noun is the object (or receiver) of the implied action. This latter usage is why the phrase has traditionally been translated “faith in Christ.” When utilizing this phrase, I think St. Paul is speaking formulaically. That is, he is referring to an established concept. Paul seems to be hinting at such formulaic usage in Romans 3:27, where, after using the phrase “πίστεως χριστοῦ” in Romans 3:26, he refers back to this as the “law of faithfulness” and then contrasts it with the “law of works.” Later, in Romans 8, he speaks about “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus.” In this saying, he is not referring to the law of the Torah, but rather, to another concept, a “statutory system” of sorts, that might otherwise be likened to a “governing power.” I propose that, when Paul uses this phrase “faithfulness of Jesus Christ,” he is encapsulating the gospel of God’s grace, which is the central content of the Pauline kerygma.

Christ's (covenant) faithfulness was his incarnate mission to die on the cross such that, being raised from the dead, he would be exalted as Lord. His gracious work for our sake is summed up in this phrase according to its primarily characteristic ("the faithfulness of Jesus, the Anointed One"). Christ’s death on the cross and his resurrection are foundational to Pauline theology. This is because Christ's death and resurrection are both “for us” and “us in him.” That is why the "faithfulness of Jesus Christ" is the metaphorical engine of God's dynamic gift of grace. A proposed full definition for the meaning of the phrase “the faithfulness of Christ,” might be:

“The faithfulness of Christ,” is a formulaic summary of the gospel referring to the dynamic gift of God’s grace in Christ, focused on his death and resurrection (which is both “for us” and “us in him”). 

St. Paul goes to both the law and to the prophets to support this notion that righteousness (covenantal right standing) is “from faithfulness.” From the Law, he points to Abraham as a model and pattern of this paradigm associated with both obtaining and maintaining covenantal right standing apart from the works of the Law. In both Romans 4:3 and Galatians 3:6, he quotes from Genesis 15:6. This verse states, “Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.” In both contexts he then supports his proposal using the “from faithfulness” phrase. In Romans 4:16 we observe, “[it is] from faithfulness, that it may be according to grace, for the promise to be guaranteed to all the offspring, not only to those who are from the Law, but also to those who are from the faithfulness of Abraham.”

From the prophets (in addition to Isaiah 8:14) Paul quotes from Habakkuk 2:3-4 several times to support his thesis. Paul quotes Habakkuk in both Rom 1:17 and Gal. 3:11. In Romans 1:16-17, “faithfulness” ultimately supports Paul’s overall assertion that the gospel is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who is believing.” (I take this latter “believing” as another veiled reference to “believing allegiance” and thus a reference to baptism.) Paul explains that the righteousness (covenant faithfulness) of God is being revealed “from faith into faith.” These concepts are reflected in succession in the letter to the Romans: from entrance into new covenant right standing (Rom. 3:21-5:11) through maintenance of our new covenant status (Rom. 5:12-8:39). In Gal 3:11, Paul cites Habakkuk as evidence that no one is put right before God by the law. He then contrasts internal (Spirit-led) faithfulness with external nomistic non-compliance (i.e., apart from the Spirit) in Gal. 3:12 (which is similar to what he does in Romans, in opposite order, when Romans 7 is contrasted with Romans 8).

If we follow the traditional attribution of the church that Paul is the author of Hebrews, then he is especially clear on his interpretation of Habakkuk in Hebrews 10:37-39,

“For, ‘Yet a little while, and the coming one will come and will not delay;

but my righteous one will live from faithfulness, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.’ But we are not those who shrink back into destruction but those who are faithful unto preservation of soul.”

Based on Hab. 2:5 (not included in the Hebrews quotation), those who are upright based on faithfulness will live. Those who are not upright (who are unfaithful) “will achieve nothing” (i.e., they will lose their soul/life and thus perish). It is interesting that, likely because the author views the Hebrews as “in Christ,” he is able to apply the Habakkuk passage (which refers to the coming of the Christ), directly to those whom he views as in Christ.

Regarding the phrase, “works of the Law,” I understand this phrase as referring specifically to Jewish boundary markers, such as circumcision, food & purity laws, and Sabbath observance (rather than meritorious “good works”). Aside from the occurrence of this phrase twice in Gal 2:16, the reader can review Paul’s other uses of this phrase in Rom. 3:20, 28 and Gal. 3:2, 5, 10. Paul always uses this phrase without any definite article modifying either of its noun components. Translating the genitive case into English can be tricky, especially when the definite article is absent. The genitive case can express various relationships between nouns, such as possession, origin, description, or subjectivity, etc. Without the article, discerning the intended meaning requires attention to context, word order, and the specific type of genitive construction. Yet, Greek language still often uses anarthrous genitives in definite constructions. The absence of the definite article does not automatically imply indefiniteness or ambiguity. In fact, Greek frequently omits the article even when a definite sense is intended. It is ultimately usage in context that clarifies whether the noun is meant to be definite or indefinite. Some anarthrous genitive phrases are idiomatic or formulaic in usage (as in this is the case). For that reason, they are appropriately translated with definite articles. As a general illustration, take, for example, the anarthrous phrase “δόξα Θεοῦ” in the LXX text of Ezekiel 9:3, 10:19, and 43:2. The context of these OT passages supports use of the definite article (“the glory of God”). In some instances of indefinite usage, translators supply an “a” before an anarthrous singular noun (e.g., “a transgressor” in Gal 2:18). However, this option isn’t feasible before plural nouns (as in “works” of the Law).

All of that to say that, since I think the Pauline usage in this context (as well as Romans 3) supports a definite usage, I have supplied the definite article (using italics) to both nouns in both phrases, “the works of the Law” and “the faithfulness of the Anointed One.”

I should also comment on the somewhat awkward English translation of the preposition “ἐκ” when it introduces the two latter phrases. This preposition is usually translated simply “from” or “from out of.” The sense behind it might be either “based from (= “based on” or “on the basis of”) or source (“comes from” or “derived from”). Yet, Paul’s usage in Gal 2:15 is illustrative. This because Paul denies that Jewish Christians (who rightly disregard the works of the Law) should ever be regarded as “from” (= members of a class or category) known as “Gentile Sinners.”

At this point we might also consider if this “group/categorical” usage may also be instructive in relation to the two uses of the phrase “the faithfulness of the Anointed One” in Gal. 2:16. In the first of these two occurrences, St. Paul uses the preposition “διὰ” (meaning “through” with the genitive case) to introduce the phrase. The second parallel use of the phrase uses “ἐκ.”

Paul uses the preposition “διὰ” three times in this pericope (2:16, 19, 21). At least two (and maybe all three) of these uses are likely complementary to his usage of “ἐκ” in relation to the phrases we are considering. Louw & Nida list two senses of “διὰ” that are possibly appropriate in our context: as a marker of intermediate agent, with implicit or explicit causative agent — ‘through, by.’ Or, as a marker of the means by which one event makes another event possible — ‘by means of, through, by.’ This latter sense seems most probable in Gal. 2:16 since “right standing” only comes “through / by means of” ... “the faithfulness of Jesus the Anointed One.”

Regarding “ἐὰν μὴ,” although it literally means, “if not,” and is usually translated, “unless,” I have translated “ἐὰν μὴ” as “but only” in this pericope. This is because the usual sense (“unless”) definitely does not work in this context assuming we agree there is no condition where the “works of the Law” might lead to right standing. Per Louw & Nida, “ἐὰν μὴ” can be a marker of contrast by designating an exception — ‘except, but only.’ Thus, I have utilized “but only” in the translation.

I wavered about abandoning the familiar Greek transliteration ‘Christ.’ My translation of the phrase Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ (usually “Jesus Christ”) is rendered as “Jesus the Anointed One.” Yet, the Greek word does mean ‘anointed (one)’ and that word is a translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic word מָשִׁיחַ māšiyaḥ (‘Messiah’) which means - you guessed it, ‘anointed (one).’

The anointing is a reference to the ancient ritual pouring of sacred oil on someone chosen for a certain task or office. It is a ceremonial act of dedication and divine empowerment (by the Holy Spirit) for service. I appreciate that the NETS English translation of the LXX also utilizes this translation. (So, at least this translation is not unreasonable.) The best illustration of this concept of the ancient practice of anointing can be found beginning in 1Samuel 10:1 with the anointing of Saul to be king, which is also duplicated in 1Samuel 16:1ff with David. There are also approximately thirteen instances in the books of Samuel where the divinely appointed aspect of the kingly office is recognized in a hallowed sense and characterized as “the Lord’s anointed (one)” or “the anointed of the Lord.” From my college days, I have never forgotten Prof. Doug Bookman, who helpfully referred to this empowering act for service by utilizing the term, “theocratic anointing.” Despite the fact that “Christ” has become a proper name in pop culture, in my opinion, we can do no better than break with familiarity and utilize the translation “Anointed One” since that is the root meaning, while ‘Messiah’ and ‘Christ’ are transliterations.

    D. Life in the Spirit and our New Identity in Christ (2:17–20)

2:17

The Judiazers distorted Paul’s teaching based on false premises, as if Jewish Christians, who were living according to Pauline teaching, were living like “Gentile sinners” (completely opposite Jews, who observe the Law). If that were true, then by extension, it would make Christ a servant of sin.

2:18

As one of the “we” Jewish Christians, Paul reverts to the 1st person singular and makes an example of himself to make his point. If he (or any Jewish Christian) would tear down the works of the Law (by living according to Pauline teaching) but then build that wall back up again (by going back to observing the works of the law), then this would be an actual and grievous transgression - because it amounts to rejecting the grace of God in Christ’s death (v 21). Such a person is not simply a sinner, but ironically, he is a transgressor - someone who has deliberately violated God’s Law. According to Paul in Romans 3:21-22, the Law, as witness to the truth of the gospel, is an ally of the gospel.

“But now, independent from the law, God’s uprightness has been manifested

while the Law and the Prophets are bearing witness.”

In Paul’s perspective, rejecting the grace of God in Christ is tantamount to rejecting the witness of the Law and the prophets (thus becoming a transgressor).

2:19

The outline summarizes the overall idea in Gal. 2:19-20 by using the phrase, “saved by Christ’s life.” This phrase should sound familiar – since it has been borrowed from Paul, who utilized the exact phrase in Romans 5:10.

“For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son,

much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.”

In Romans 5, the argument is that dying for someone is a harder, such that living for someone is easier. Therefore, we will be saved from future wrath. In Galatians, St. Paul has the “now” of our life in Christ in mind (rather than future salvation). In either case, Jesus the Anointed One is risen. That his life of faithfulness continues for us even now is not a strange concept, especially if we accept that the letter to the Hebrews was written by Paul. There we see this same idea in Hebrews 7:25,

“Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.”

Although Paul’s main point is his death to the Law, he says this “death to the Law” relationship came about “through the Law.” Some have erroneously advanced the notion that St. Paul is referring here to his death at the hands of the Law as illustrated in Romans 7:7-13.

However, the context leads us to expect this death through the Law to be associated with Christ’s death. Romans 7:4 provides confirmation of this line of thinking since there Paul is explicit in saying we have died to the Law, “through the body of Christ.” Thus, Paul is thinking in terms of Christ’s death under the Law (and so his dying to the Law in Christ). Even though Jesus perfectly kept the Law (and came to fulfill it), the Law ultimately provided the framework for Jesus’ crucifixion and death. It was under the Law, that Jesus was accused and condemned by the religious leaders of blasphemy and false prophecy. Although the Lord was not guilty of these accusations, these transgressions were punishable by death (Leviticus 24:16; Deuteronomy 18:20).

2:20

Although this post has become quite lengthy, these notes are not intended to be a full-fledged commentary. Regarding our crucifixion/death and the new life in Christ, I assume the reader is familiar with these subjects as Paul explained in Romans (e.g., Rom. 6:11 “dead to sin/alive to God,” Rom. 7:4 “died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another”).

Note how the “outward” terms in 2:20b are alternating synthetic parallelism based on the “inward” terms of 2:20a.

a. Inwardly - I no longer Live

b. Inwardly - Christ Lives in me

a’ Outwardly - Living in the body

b’ Outwardly - Living in (covenant) faithfulness

    E. Grace Nullified? Paul's Final Rebuke (2:21)

2:21

The verb ἀθετέω (atheteō) means: to reject (because of no regard for the validity of something as suitable or fit), to set aside, render ineffectual, to abrogate, annul, nullify, swerve from; to reject, annul, to regard as invalid.’ Pauline teaching did not nullify or annul the grace of God since it was consistent with the truth of the gospel. On the contrary, it was the Judaizers and their teaching, which required the works of the Law (such that Gentiles needed to be marked off and effectively converted to Judaism) that instigated this transgression.

4. Conclusion: Life in Christ as Covenant Faithfulness

The points made by Paul in Gal. 2:20 correspond (in reverse order) to the pattern laid down in 2Cor. 13:14, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. Amen.”

While I will only highlight two of the three aspects in 2:20a and 2:20b, St. Paul does not neglect the third, “love of God” aspect. We should observe this aspect in 2:20c that I have outlined as: “The Objective Basis of God’s Grace.” The love of Christ in his death on the cross is the same “love of God” that John 3:16 speaks of, “for God loved the world in this way, so that he gave the only begotten Son.”

The life of covenant faithfulness St. Paul is presently living is based on:

• The communion of the Holy Spirit. Our “communion” (κοινωνία) is a reference to our sharing in the Holy Spirit, in Christ. While the Holy Spirit is not explicitly mentioned, we should understand the theology of St. Paul that the indwelling Holy Spirit is part & parcel of our union with Christ (occasioned when we were put into right standing at baptism per Rom 5:1-5 & Rom 6:1-4, Rom 8:1-4). St. Paul’s life of covenant faithfulness is characterized as, “that which” (is) “of” “the Son of God.” Accordingly, Paul is crediting his outward covenant faithfulness to the subjective presence (recalling the parallel in Gal. 2:20) of the Messiah living in him. St. Paul is “living out” the same faithfulness of Jesus Christ as the objective faithfulness of Christ (when he gave himself for us). It is one and the same Christ. Thus, Paul’s covenant faithfulness is “of” the Son of God via synergistic grace. Paul’s life of uprightness in right standing within the community is such that the faithfulness of Jesus Christ is “lived out” through the leading of the indwelling Spirit. Similar to the concepts depicted in Galatians 2:20, in Romans 1:16-17, Paul asserts that “the gospel is the power of God” for our salvation. This power of God within us results in faithfulness (righteousness in life) because we have died and been raised to new life in Christ. As St. Paul announced in the beginning and end of his first “righteousness” section, uprightness/right-standing is what leads to eternal life (Rom. 5:17-18, 21) and the Spirit is life because of uprightness (Rom. 8:10). as it is written, “The upright shall live from faithfulness.” Hab. 2:4, quoted in the Romans 1:17 (near the end of his chiastic thesis statement), supports Paul’s entire thesis regarding obtaining and maintaining the covenant status of uprightness/right standing. God’s covenant uprightness is shown and revealed (per Rom. 3:22-25, thru the faithfulness of Jesus) from beginning (“from faithfulness”) to end “into/resulting in faithfulness.” As Paul interprets “shall live” in Hebrews 10:39, it is the faithful (Spirit-led) Christians who will preserve their soul. This concept is also paralleled by the entire sequence of topics beginning in Rom. 3:21 and ending in Rom. 8:39.
• The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e., synergistic grace). New covenant “Faithfulness” is St. Paul’s stated manner of life. This is an abbreviated summation of living in manner pleasing to God and to man. Per Rom. 5:17-18, 21 (as mentioned above), it is a life of “righteousness” leading to eternal life (i.e., uprightness, in right-standing with the New Covenant community, which is the church of God in Christ). Some may protest that God’s grace comes to us through the sacraments, most especially Holy Communion. That is true and a good point to bring up. It is true because, in the partaking of the body and the blood of Christ, we are sharing in the one-time sacrifice of Christ. We are partaking of the sacrifice in the New Covenant sacrificial meal. In the sacramental communion of the mysterious supper, God communicates his grace to us. The meal has within it, both Christ for us and us in him (just as baptism). And, even as baptism is the sacrament of our entrance into the New Covenant, so also, we ritually maintain our covenantal status of right standing in the church, just as Jesus said in John 6:56, “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides/remains in me, and I in him.” Thus, as we participate, “communion” really is communion. Yet, those who are in Christ are never apart from Christ. Communion doesn’t wear off after church. Communion is the epitome of what we enjoy in Christ within the New Covenant. As St. Paul says in Phil. 2:12-13, we “work out” our own salvation with fear and trembling, prayerfully living in faithfulness, because it is God who is working in us, “both to will and to work” - literally, “for the sake of what is pleasing to him.”

Excursus: Grace and Communion in Genesis 18

A Lesson in Grace and Holy Communion from Genesis 18:16-21 (LXX)

16 Then the men rose from there and looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and Abraham went along and escorted them on their journey.

17 Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham, my servant, what I am about to do?

18 But Abraham shall surely become a great and populous nation, and in him all the nations of the earth shall be blessed.

19 For I know he will order his sons and his house after him. They will keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and judgment, that the Lord may   bring upon Abraham what he has spoken to him.”

20 Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah has been completed, and their sins are exceedingly great.

21 Therefore, I will go down now and see whether or not they are carrying out the outcry coming to me concerning them.”

On one hand, from the perspective of the human receiver of God’s grace:

Just as the Lord, when he came to judge Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18, involved Abraham in a two-fold manner:

• So that the judgment would be understood by Abraham, and all his descendants after him, as a (negative) lesson in righteousness;
• and so that Abraham might intercede for the righteous and thus participate in their salvation;

So also, we like Abraham:

• In Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, have a (positive) lesson in righteousness, which is clearly depicted in the Lord’s Supper,
• And just as Abraham was granted the privilege of participation in salvation (even within the context of judgment), so also, we who are in Christ participate in his redemptive act of salvation in the supper.

On the other hand, from the perspective of our Lord, the giver of grace:

The prayers (outcry) of the righteous were sufficient to fill the cup of God’s wrath (apart from God coming down to see).

Yet, even though God, being all-knowing, already knew what the situation was, he also came down, making himself present. Thus, as it says in Gen 18:21 LXX, God did so (using the middle voice) “to see for myself” and “so that I may know.”

This tells us that, just as God is all-knowing, so also his energies (in synergistic grace) are given apart from the sacrament, even as we live to God daily in faithfulness.

Yet, just as God also came down to make himself present, so also, he does the same with his grace. As host, he receives our gifts and makes them his body and blood in the mysterious supper. Thus, as Gal 4:19 implies, although we have come to know God, there is also a greater sense that we are also “known by God.” (Although I can’t prove it, I think this intimate knowing is especially the case in holy communion).