FREEDOM AND LAW IN GALATIANS

CHARLES H. TALBERT
Galatians is a Pauline letter written by an unnamed amanuensis (cf. 6:11) to a group of churches in a specific region (1:2), either ethnic (Acts 16:6; 18:23) or provincia Galatia (Acts 13-14;16:l-5). The letter has been dated as early as the late 40* s and as late as the end of the 50's. The letter is written in a deliberative rhetorical style In other words, it is exhortation aimed at getting the auditors to choose the good and eschew the harmful.1 Galatians deals with a standard topic of deliberative rhetoric, namely, whether or not rites of religion should be changed.2 Its arrangement is very much like that of Demosthenes, Epistle 1, a letter written in deliberative rhetoric.3 Note the following correspondences:
Demosthenes, Epistle 1 Invocation of the gods A to B, greeting Demosthenes's personal circumstances and why he should have a hearing A series of arguments for his position A series of exhortations to the Athenians Paul, To the Galatians A to B, greeting (1:1-5) Invocation of God (1:8-9) Autobiographical section (1:10-2:14) Summary of issues (2:15-21) and a soies of arguments for his position (3:1-4:31) A soies of exhortations to the Galatians (5:1-6:10) Postscript written in Paul's own hand (6:11-18)

The contents of Galatians focus on two issues: (1) the Galatians are turning to a different gospel because someone, in order to escape persecution, advocates that Gentile Christians live like Jews (6:12); and (2) the advocates of the different gospel, in support of their stance, claim Paul seeks to please people (1:10) and still preaches circumcision (5:11). The first of these issues needs further clarification. Answers to three questions will clarify the first issue. First, what had happened to the Galatians? According to 3:1-5, they had heard Paul preach Christ crucified. When they had heard the message of Jesus' faithfulness to God, they had received the Spirit. Second, what was being proposed to the Galatians? According to 5:2-3 and 6:12-13, they were being told by others that in order to be justified (5:4) or perfected (3:3) it was necessary for them to be circumcised4 and to live like Jews, observing the Jewish food laws (2:14) and calendar (4:10). In

18

Ex Audita

other words, Christ's faithfulness is not sufficient for salvation. Three, what was Paul's response to the proposal? Christ, he argued, is sufficient for salvation. This is shown by the gift of the Spirit apart from Law (3:l-5),5 by a correct reading of the Law (3:6-18), and by a correct understanding of the temporary role of the Law (3:19-4:7). Christians live by faith in the indwelling Christ (3:22; 2:19-20) or, expressed differently, through the Spirit by faith (5:5). In the context of such an argument, the apostle uses the language of slavery and freedom to speak about the Christian life. (Note the following: "slave" in 1:10; 4:1 and 7; "slavery" in 4:24 and 5:1; "to be enslaved by" in 4:3, 8, 9, 25; and 5:13; "freedom" in 2:4; 5:1,13; "free" in 4:22,23,26, and 31; "to set free" in 5:1.) The purpose of this essay is to delineate Paul's understanding of Christian freedom in Galatians and to relate it to his view of the Jewish Law.6 We will begin with what freedom does not mean and then proceed to what freedom does mean in Galatians. WHAT FREEDOM DOES NOT MEAN IN GALATIANS In Galatians the apostle makes it clear that Christian freedom does not mean either of two things: (1) it does not mean slavery to the Law, and (2) it does not mean living according to the flesh. Not Law Galatians 4:21-31 uses an allegory of Abraham's two sons to speak about two covenants or types of relations to God. One covenant, that linked to the slave woman Hagar, is identified with Mount Sinai (i.e., the Law) and with the Jews of Paul's time. This is the covenant of slavery (w. 24-25). Paul's conclusion is: "Brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman" (v. 31). The allegory expresses Paul's conviction that Christians are free from die Law. Galatians 5:1 sums it up: "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." When Paul speaks of Law or "works of the Law," what does he mean? The expression "works of Law" has traditionally been taken to mean ethical prescriptions of the Mosaic Law. In this generation, the claim has been made that the expression refers instead to Jewish identity markers like circumcision (1 Mace 1:48; 2 Mace 6:10), dietary rules (1 Mace 1:48; 2 Mace 6:18-7:41), and observance of sabbath and Jewish festivals (1 Mace 1:45; 2 Mace 6:6, ll). 7 In Galatians "works of Law" certainly refers to the Jewish identity markers mentioned above (circumcision2:3; 5:2-4; 6:12-13; dietary rules2:12; observance of sabbath and festivals4:10), but it cannot be reduced to them. (See 3:10 and compare Romans 2:17-24; 3:20; 4:6-8). In. Paul, "works of Law" includes all the demands of the Mosaic covenant, including moral demands alongside identity markers, as at Qumran (4QFlorl:7; 1QS 5:8,21; 6:18).* When Paul speaks of freedom from the Law, with "Law" does he mean legalism or nomism or both? On the one hand, legalism is the name used for a structure that sees (1) God giving the Law, (2) humans obeying the Law (3) as a means of gaining a relationship with God. In this structure, the relationship with God is due to God's response to prior acceptable human performance. On the other hand,

Freedom and Law in Galatians

19

nomism is the label normally used for a structure that has (1) God entering into a relationship with humans by grace, (2) then within the context of a relationship already established, God gives the Law as a means of indicating what pleases and displeases Him,9 (3) so that humans obey the Law out of gratitude for the relationship already given and currently existing. In this structure, the relationship with God is a result of God's gracious initiative, and acceptable human performance is a response to God's prior activity. Recent Pauline scholarship has challenged the reading of "works of Law" as legalism because ancient Judaism is allegedly characterized only by covenantal nomism.10 If so, there would then have been no such legalistic position for Paul to combat. Any response to this stance must reckon with two questions. Was ancient Judaism ever legalistic, either for those bom Jews or for proselytes? Was there a law-observant mission to the Gentiles among Christian Jews and was it legalistic? Ancient Judaism encompassed both covenantal nomism and legalism. On the one hand, we have been told that covenantal nomism held that "getting in" God's people was a matter of grace; "staying in" was by works of Law. Appeal is made to texts like m. Sanhdrin 10:1:
All Israelites have a share in the world to come... And these are they that have no share in the world to come: he that says that there is no resurrection of the dead prescribed in the Law, and [he that says] that the Law is not from Heaven, and an Epicurean. R. Akiba says: Also he that reads the heretical books, or utters charms over a wound... Abba Saul says: Also he that pronounces the Name with its proper letters.11

Other Jewish sources offered different grounds for non-inclusion in God's people. For example, Jubilees makes circumcision (15:26,34), sabbath observance (2:27; 50:8,13), and following purity rules (6:12;7:28) necessary for inclusion in the people of God. Violation of diese rules was tantamount to apostasy. The categories "getting in" and "staying in" are misleading because "staying in" in Paul's time was for the purpose of "getting in," that is, getting into the New Age beyond the resurrection. The text appealed to above, m. Sanhdrin 10: 1, shows this to be the case. This "staying in" as a means of "getting in" the New Age was by works of Law and would have been regarded by Paul as a structure akin to legalism. This was his personal position before he became a Christian, so he should know (Phil 3:1-11). So, even if ancient Judaism should be characterized only by nomism, as understood here, it would have been regarded by Paul as a legalistic structure. On the other hand, however, there were strains of ancient Judaism that believed birth as a Jew did not make one a part of God's people and that only strict observance of the Law would do so. Three examples come to mind. First, the Manual of Discipline 5:1-3 indicates that at Qumran some believed that a person bom a Jew must make a conscious choice to align with the true people of God. This status was not conveyed by birth. Second, the double tradition (Matt 3:7-10// Luke 3:7-9) claims John the Baptist held physical descent from Abraham to be soteriologically insufficient. Only those manifesting fruits of repentance could survive the Last Judgment. Third, Fourth Ezra maintains that because of Adam's sin, only individuals who are sufficiently righteous can be saved (7:11-16). Only a few who manifest strict obedience will be saved (8:51-62). Transgressors, not just

20

Ex Audita

opponents and deniers of the covenant, will be destroyed. In all three of these Jewish sources, a conscious decision for rigorous obedience to God's demands, even for those bom Jews, is necessary in order to "get in" the true people of God. Ancient Judaism, therefore, was not monolithic. There were some Jews who were legalistic, probably the minority, and some who stood in the camp of covenantal nomism, perhaps the majority. The latter was itself not so different from what we call legalism because in this structure one looked to "get in" (the Age to Come) by means of works of the Law. There were also some Jews who regarded circumcision as optional and some who regarded it as necessary for proselytes (i.e., to "get in" God's people). Josephus (Antiquities, 20.2.1-3 17-41) tells of the conversion to Judaism of Izates of Adiabene through the witness of a Jewish merchant named Ananias. This Ananias told Izates that circumcision was unnecessary to be a Jewish convert. Later (Antiquities 20.2.4 42-48) another Jew named Eleazar came from Galilee and told Izates that, according to the Law, circumcision was necessary. Izates thereupon complied and was circumcised. In the case of Eleazar, in order for a proselyte to "get in" God's people, he must be circumcised. This is what is normally called legalism. Even more to the point is the question whether or not there was a lawobservant mission to the Gentiles carried out by Christian Jews. Early Christianity, like ancient Judaism, was not monolithic. Paul's Gentile mission was law-free. Others, however, conducted a law-observant mission to the Gentiles. The later law-observant mission that we hear about in the Ascents of James (PseudoClementine, Recognitions 1.42) and the Preachings of Peter (Pseudo-Clementine, Homilies, Epistle of Peter to James, 2 p apparently had its counterpart in Paul's time. Philippians 3:2-11 implies such and Galatians confirms it. Galatians depicts the preachers of another gospel as Christian (1:6-9), as Jewish (6:12; 5:3,12), and as outsiders who have only recently come into the Galatian churches (1:6). Their position is that the Galatians can only be justified by the Law/legalism (5:4) or can only be perfected by works of Law/nomism (3:3). Given what has been said about both Judaism and early Christianity, Paul could have been responding to either legalism or nomism or both in Galatians because both positions existed in his setting. Paul's position in Galatians is that one is neither justified (3:2; 5:4) nor perfected (3:3-5) through works of the Law. The argument in Galatians deals sometimes with the one (contra legalism1:13-16; 2:16; 3:1-2, 3a; 3:6-9,11,1518), sometimes with the other (contra nomism2:1-10, especially v. 3; 2:11-15; 2:19-20; 3:3-5; 3:19-4:11). in light of the answers he offered, it is possible to say that in Galatians Paul was responding to a real situation which he understood well. His position was that neither entry into the people of God within history nor entry into the Age to Come after a life within the people of God was facilitated by the Law. To attempt either entry on the basis of the Law is slavery. This is the antithesis of Christian freedom. Not Flesh If Christian freedom does not mean slavery to the Law, neither does it

Freedom and Law in Galatians

21

mean living according to the flesh. The parenetic section of Galatians comes in 5:1-6:10. The section falls into two thought units, both organized in the same way. Exhortation to stand fast in freedom (5:1-12) 1. The indicative: "ForfreedomChrist has set usfree"(v. la) 2. The imperative: (a) positive"Stand fast, therefore" (v. lb) (b) negative"Do not submit again to a yoke of slavery" (v. lc) 3. The apostolic exposition: "Now I, Paul, say to you" (v. 2); "I testify again" (v. 3) Exhortation to serve one another in love (5:13-6:10) 1. The indicative: "You were called to freedom, brethren" (v. 13a) 2. The imperative: (a) negative"Do not use yourfreedomas an opportunity for the flesh" (v.l3b) (b) positive"Through love be servants of one another" (v. 13c) 3. The apostolic expositions: (a) Walk by the SpiritThe two ways (5:16-24) (b) Walk by the SpiritThe sentences (5:25-6:10) 5:25-26Introduction14 6:1acorporate responsibility 6: lbindividual responsibility 6:2corporate responsibility 6:3-5individual responsibility 6:6corporate responsibility 6:7-8individual responsibility 6:9-10corporate responsibility The first exhortation deals with maintaining Christian freedom over against the Law. The second exhortation deals with avoiding slavery to the flesh. Christian freedom does not mean living according to the flesh any more than it means slavery to the Law. Paul uses "flesh" in two very different ways, both of which are reflected in Galatians. Sometimes he uses "flesh" to refer to humans as physical and finite. When Paul uses "flesh" in this way, it has no ethically bad connotations. For example, in Galatians 2:20 he says: "the life I now live in the flesh [i.e., as a physical, finite human being] I live by faith...." At other times, he uses "flesh" with an ethically negative connotation. For example, "Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh"(5:13b); "Walk by the Spirit and do not gratify the desires of the flesh" (5:16); "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (5:24). Living according to the flesh (cf. Rom 8:5, 12) is an orientation to life in which creatures turn back to the created order (which is equivalent to the flesh in its ethically neutral sense) and absolutize some part of it instead of the Creator. This orientation to life produces certain works of the flesh: "fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfish-

22

Ex Audita

ness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like" (Gal 5:19-21a). How do these works arise from the orientation described as living according to the flesh? If one absolutizes some physical appetite, the result is sensuality, the excessive or illegitimate satisfaction of a normal physical appetite: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, drunkenness, carousing. If one absolutizes oneself and one's power drives, the result is antisocial attitudes and behavior: enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy. If one absolutizes one's own moral resources or spiritual power, the result is false religion: idolatry, sorcery, or works of the Law (3:2). That Paul regards such works of the flesh as a negative is made clear by his comment in 5:21b: "I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Hence the apostle's admonition: "If we live (i.e., are related to God) by the Spirit, let us also walk (i.e., let our habitual way of life be) by the Spirit" (5:25). Freedom from the Law, for Paul, does not mean license or libertine behavior.15 WHAT FREEDOM DOES MEAN IN GALATIANS In Galatians, freedom is the result of Christ's saving work (5:1). In order to understand its meaning for the apostle, one needs to examine the language he uses before turning to an examination of the background of his thought Sample Language About the Christian Life There are several expressions used in Galatians for the Christian life that merit attention. Thefirstis found in 5:1: "ForfreedomChrist has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." The language here echoes that of the sacral manumission of slaves in antiquity.16 Manumission was often described under the fiction of a slave's purchase by some deity. The slave saved his or her money from outside work and deposited it in the divinity's temple. When there was enough, the owner came with the slave to the temple, sold him or her there to the god, and received the purchase money from the temple treasury. The slave was now the property of the god; against all the rest of the world, however, he or she was free. Records were made of such transactions, some of which we possess. The records followed certain set formulae: e.g., " sold to the Pythian Apollo a male slave named at a price of_minae, for freedom...."; or "Apollo the Pythian bought from for freedom a female slave, , with a price of minae." Paul appropriates this language in 1 Corinthians 6:19b-20a ("You are not your own; you were bought with a price"), 7:23 ("You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men"), Romans 6:20, 22 ("When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness;... now you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God"), and Galatians 5:1 ("For freedom Christ has set us free...do not submit again to a yoke of slavery"). The very formulaic language Paul uses to speak aboutfreedomcarries certain connotations about Christian freedom. It is freedom from Law (4:7) and sin/ flesh. This freedom, however, involves belonging to Christ/God (cf. 1:10). Whatever else Christian freedom means in Galatians, at its core is the belief that the

Freedom and Law in Galatians

23

former slaves of sin and Law now belong to Christ. What does it mean to belong to Christ? Three further expressions, taken together, provide clarity. The first is found in Galatians 2:20: "I have been crucifia with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by the faithfulness of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. "Here entrance into the Christian community is described as a death with Christ. As Christ died to sin (Rom 6:10"the death he died, he died to sin"), so do Christians ("I have been crucified with Christ"i.e., to sin; cf. Rom 6:6, 11). The Christian life that follows is described in terms of two complementary pictures. First, Christ lives "in" the believer (cf. Gal 4:19; 2 Cor 13:5; Rom 8:10; Col 1:27; Eph 3:17), and second, Christ lives "through" the believer. That the last part of the verse was translated "the faithfulness of the Son of God" instead of "faith in the Son of God" requires comment. The expression in Greek is a genitive (literally "faith o f ) like that found elsewhere in Paul's letters: e.g., Gal 2:16, 3:22, 3:26 (in F*9; Rom 3:22, 26; and Phil 3:9. Grammatically, the genitive construction could be translated either "faith of which Christ is the object" (meaning "faith in Christ'O, or "faith of which Christ is the subject" (meaning "Christ's faith/faithfulness"). In the LXX, Paul's Bible, where faith is followed by a genitive of person, it is subjective. In Paul's letters generally, where faith is followed by a genitive of person, it is subjective (e.g., "faith of Abraham," not "faith in Abraham"). Indeed the expression ekpsteos Christou (Gal 2:16) has an exact parallel in Romans 4:16 with ek psteos Abraam. The early versions, Syriac, Latin, Coptic, translated pistis Christou as a subjective genitive, as did the Vulgate. Only with Luther did translations shift to an objective genitive. To translate the phrase in 2:20 as "the faithfulness of the Son of God" makes good theological sense in Paul's thought. Christ's faithfulness is his obedience unto death (Rom 5:18; Phil 2:8). This faithfulness of Christ is the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gal 3:16). Christ's faithfulness is the basis for our justification (Rom 3:22; 5:19; Gal 2:16; Phil 3:9). The probability that the expression "faith of Christ" should be translated "faithfulness of Christ" is very high.17 It certainly makes sense of Galatians 2:20. The one who lives "in" believers also lives "through" them with the same faithfulness to God that he manifested in the days of his flesh. That is why Paul can speak elsewhere of righteousness (human faithfulness to the relation with God) as God's gift (Phil 3:9-10). Ernst Ksemann is attempting to get at this point when he says:
God's power becomes God's gift when it takes possession of us and, so to speak, enters into us, so that it can be said in Galatians 2:20, "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." ...the gift which is being bestowed here is never at any time separable from its Giver. It partakes of the character of power, in so far as God himself enters the arena and remains in the arena with it 18

The second expression that characterizes belonging to God/Christ in Galatians is "walking by the Spirit" (5:25) "of God's Son" (4:6) who dwells in the hearts of Christians (4:7). To walk by the Spirit of God's Son who dwells in our hearts means to live according to the Spirit. This is an orientation to life that is the antithesis of living according to the flesh (Rom 8:4). It means that creatures live

24

Ex Audita

with God as their ultimate concern; it means being led by the Spirit (Rom 8: 14). Those who live/walk according to the Spirit produce the fruit of the Spirit. "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control..." (Gal 5:22-23a). Such finit is not produced by human striving, but by a natural process as the life of the indwelling God manifests itself in the human personality. Against such, there is no Law (5:23b); indeed, love fulfills the Law (5:14). It should be noted that for Paul "Christ living in me" and the "Spirit indwelling the believer" are two ways of talking about the same experiential reality. Romans 8:9-10 makes this clear.
But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you...your spirits are alive....

This identification is possible because from the apostle's perspective the Spirit is "the Spirit of his Son"(Gal 4:6). Both modes of expression refer to the indwelling presence of Christ/the Spirit of Christ, a presence out of which believers live, a presence which enables human faithfulness to God and the fruit of the Spirit in human personality. The third expression which explains belonging to Christ is "fulfilling the law of Christ" (6:2). The expression "law of Christ" in Galatians 6:2 has close parallels in 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 ("under the law of Christ") and Romans 8:2 ("the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus"). To what does such an expression refer?19 Options include (I) the ethical teachings of Christ, (2) the love commandment ("love your neighbor"), (3) the sacrificial self-surrender of the Son of God, (4) the Law as redefined and fulfilled by Christ, (5) the power of Christ indwelling Christians and enabling them to fulfill the Law's intent, and (6) some combination of two or more of the first five suggestions. It would seem that some combination of these suggestions is the most probable explanation for Paul's use of "law of Christ" or "law of the Spirit...in Christ Jesus." Consider the fact that elsewhere Paul appeals to (a) what Jesus said (1 Cor 7:10; 9:14), (b) what he did (2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:6-11; 1 Cor 11:1), (c) what he does (Gal 2:20), and what he says (1 Cor 14:24-25; 1 Thess 4:15-17). In such a structure the Law would be "filtered through" what Jesus did and said, what he does and says. When that is done, Paul seems to hold that the sacrificial system is fulfilled once for all in Jesus' death (e.g., Rom 3:25; 2 Cor 5:21); ethnic identity markers (circumcision, purity rules, Jewish calendar) are deemed soteriologically irrelevant (Gal 2:3,11-15,16); and the just requirement of the Law (i.e., for covenant faithfulness) is taken up into the "law of Christ" (Rom 8:4). It is necessary to see that Paul's "law of Christ" combines both external tradition and inner experience.20 If one understands the three expressions just covered ("the life I now live in the flesh I live by the faithfulness of the Son of God"; "walk by the Spirit"; "law of Christ") as part of one experiential reality, the result is neither legalism nor covenantal nomism (understood as a means of getting in the Age to Come). The structure envisioned by Paul has three components. First, God gives a relationship to humans out of sheer grace. Second, within the context of a relationship

Freedom and Law in Galatians

25

already existing, God makes His will (the law of Christ) known as a guide to pleasing the God with whom we have a relationship. Third, we obey out of the faithfulness of Christ who indwells the believer and lives through the Christian with the same faithfulness to God that he manifested during the days of his flesh. This is the same as "led by the Holy Spirit who dwells in believers" and "with a righteousness from God based on the faithfulness of Christ." This structure is as different from covenantal nomism as it is from legalism. It is distinctly Christian.21 It does, however, have roots in Paul's Bible, namely, in the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34.

THE BACKGROUND OF PAUL'S THOUGHT

In Paul's Bible "covenant" refers to a structured relationship that depends upon an oath or promise for its existence. "Covenant" is used in a legal way of relationships between humans. It is used in a theological way of relationships between humans and God. When employed theologically, "covenant" can describe two very different types of relationships.22 On the one hand, there are covenants in which God binds Himself. When talking about such promissory covenants, "covenant" and "oath" are often synonyms (Testament of Moses 1:9; 3:9; 11:17; 12:13), as are "covenant" and "promise" (1 Kings 8:25). Such covenants are not conditional. On the other hand, there are covenants in which Israel is bound. When talking about these obligatory types, "covenant" and "law" are often synonymous (Deut 4:12-13; Lev 26:46; Sir 28:7; 45:5; 1 Mace 2:20-21, 27, 50; 4 Ezra 4:23; 7:24). Such covenants are conditional on the people's obedience. The new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 is like both the promissory and the obligatory types of covenant in the Bible used by Paul. It is like the obligatory covenant of Moses in that it refers to law and to the people's acceptance of God as suzerain and of the stipulations as binding ("They shall all know me""know" being used in ancient suzerainty treaties of recognition of the suzerain and acceptance of the stipulations). It is like the promissory types of covenant in that it depends for its existence and its effectiveness on God's promise or oath. In the new covenant promised through Jeremiah, God will assume responsibility for the people's obedience. It is based on God's oath to enable His people's faithfulness to the covenant. Unlike the rest of Israel's canonical spokesmen, in this passage Jeremiah sees the old Mosaic covenant as a thing of the past. He does not call for a return to iL "My covenant which they broke" (31:32) dismisses the old order with finality. The prophet, in this instance, awaits a new order. If the notion of covenant used theologically points to an understanding of God as personal, the notion of a new covenant signals a God who learns from His mistakes and makes new beginnings.23 A new covenant, God has learned, must be one of divine enablement because of human faithlessness. To which of the covenants mentioned in his Bible do we refer when we ask about Paul's attitude towards the covenant?24 Of some of the covenants Paul makes no mention: Noah (Gen 9:8-17), Phinehas (Num 25:10-13), Joshua (Josh 24), Josiah (2 Kings 23), and Ezra (Ezra 9-10; Neh 9-10). The covenant with David (2 Sam 23:5; 1 Kings 8:23-26) is not central to Paul's thought, although it is apparently echoed in the oral tradition taken up in Romans 1:3-4 ("descended

26

Ex Audita

from David according to the flesh") and in the quotation from Isaiah 11:10 in Romans 15:12 ("The root of Jesse shall come, he who rises to rule the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles hope"). If so, then Paid would see the promise to David fulfilled in the reign of Jesus after the resurrection (1 Cor 15:20-28). However, three of the covenants of Paul's Bible receive significant attention in his letters: (1) the covenant with Abraham (Gen 12; 15; 17), (2) the covenant through Moses (Exod 24), and (3) the new covenant of Jeremiah 31. Of the three covenants that play significant roles in Paul's letters, the first and third are highly valued, but the importance of the second is minimized by the apostle. The construct that seems to make the most sense out of the various things Paul says about the covenants may be summarized as follows. (1) The covenant with Abraham furnishes Paul a scriptural way to argue that justification through faith has been God's plan all along for Jew and Gentile alike. (2) The Law (i.e., Mosaic covenant) was a temporary phase in God's dealings with His people. In spite of its just requirements, it was impotent because of human sin. Hence it only functioned to expose sin. With the coming of Christ, the Law has come to an end as a part of ongoing salvation history. (3) The Mosaic covenant has been replaced by the prophesied new covenant of Jeremiah 31 in which God Himself enables His people's faithfulness to the relationship (i.e., theirrighteousnessis from God). To summarize: When Paul wants to make the point that Christian soteriological reality has been a part of God's plan from the very beginning and includes the nations, he works with the Abrahamic covenant and its relation to the Mosaic Law. When he. wants to emphasize the soteriological reality that human faithfulness to God in the covenant depends upon God, he works with the new covenant of Jeremiah 31. In Galatians this construct works. Paul has appealed to the covenant (or promise) with Abraham to show the antiquity and the universality of God's dealing with humans (3:6-18). He has assumed the new covenant in his arguments about the indwelling Christ (2:20) and the fruit of the Spirit (5:22-23). Above all, the Mosaic covenant (the Law) is relegated to soteriological irrelevance (3:19-4:7; 4:21-31). Christian liberty is essentially new covenant freedom in which the indwelling God enables the faithfulness of His people to the relationship with Himself (cf. Phil 2:12-13). Within that relationship, parts of the Law (the Mosaic covenant) continue to function as norms, but only those which have been taken up into the law of Christ.25 If one were to attempt to state the thesis of Galatians in contemporary terms, it might run like this. The Christian life is characterized neither by heteronomy (the Law) nor autonomy (the flesh) but by theonomy26 (walking by the indwelling Spirit) or Christonomy (living by the faithfulness of the indwelling Son of God). Where there is theonomy/Christonomy, there is Christian freedom (cf. 2 Cor 3:17). NOTES
1. Robert G. Hall, "The Rhetorical Outline for Galatians: A Reconsideration," JBL, 106 (1987), 277-87. 2. Cf. Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 2. 1423-1423b, and see J. Smit, "The Letter of Paul to the Galatians: A Deliberative Speech," ATS, 35 (1989), 1-26.

Freedom and Law in Galatians

27

3. F. Vonga, "Zur rhetorischen Gattung des Galatierbriefes," ZNW, 79 (1988), 291-92. 4. Perhaps the mindset of Paul's opponents was something like that found in m. Nedarim 3:11:4<Rabbi says, Great is circumcision, for despite all the religious duties which Abraham our father fulfilled, he was not called 'perfect' until he was circumcised, as it is written, Walk before me and be thou perfect' (Gen 17:1). See Herbert Danby, The Mishnah (London: Oxford University Press, 1933), 268. 5. Perhaps Paul is responding to a point of view like that in Mekilta on Exodus 14:3 and 15:1: "Great indeed is faith before Him who spoke and the world came into being. For as a reward for the faith with which Israel believed in God, the Holy Spirit rested upon them.... R. Nehemiah says: Whence can you prove that whosoever accepts even one single commandment with true faith is deserving of having the Holy Spirit rest upon him? We find this to have been the case with our fathers...." Mekilta de Rabbi IshmaeU trans. J. Z. Lauteibach (3 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1933), 1.252. 6. Douglas Moo, "Paul and the Law in the Last Ten Years," SJT, 40 (1987), 287-307, surveys the major figures in the discussion: Sanders, Hbner, Risnen, and Dunn. 7. James D. G. Dunn, "The New Perspective on Paul," BJRL, 65 (1983), 95-122. 8. Thomas R. Schreiner, "Works of Law in Paul," NovT, 33 (1991), 217-44; Frank Thielman, Paul and the Law (Downer's Grove, 111.: InterVarsity, 1994), 78; Klyne Snodgrass, "Spheres of Influence: A Possible Solution to the Problem of Paul and the Law," JSNT, 32 (1988), 102, rightly contends that even if "works of Law" did refer to identity markers, they would still be a subset of "works" in general. 9.1 follow the lead of Marie E. Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), 67, n. 1, who says: 'The capitalization of personal pronouns for God adopted throughout this work is intended to signal that God is above gender not that the deity is male." 10. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) and Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983). 11. Danby, The Mishnah, 397. 12. J. Louis Martyn, "A Law-Observant Mission to the Gentiles: The Background of Galatians," S7T, 38 (1985), 307-24. 13. Richard N. Longenecker, Word Biblical Commentary: Galatians (Dallas: WordBooks, 1990), 219,rightlyrecognizes that Galatians deals with both legalism and nomism. The division of passages listed is that of Longenecker. 14. The structure of the sentences is provided by J. M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul's Ethics in Galatians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), 218. 15. In this Paul stands with the common Christian tradition (e.g., 1 Pet 2:16) over against a major stream in the Greek world: e.g., Aristotle, Politics 5.8.1310a (freedom is doing whatever one wants) and Epictetus, Dissertations 4.1.1 (liberty is to live precisely as one wishes). 16. Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (4th ed.; New York: Harper, 1922), 318-27. 17. George Howard, "The Faith of Christ," ExpTim9 85 (1974), 212-15; Luke T. Johnson, Romans 3:21-26 and the Faith of Jesus," CBQ, 44 (1982), 77-90; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ (Chico: Scholars, 1983). To be saved by the "faithfulness of Jesus" has nothing to do with imitation of Christ. Objectively it refers to Jesus' death on the cross in obedience to God; subjectively it refers to the risen Lord's living through the believer. 18. Ernst Ksemann, "The Righteousness of God in Paul," in New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 173-74. 19. Richard B. Hays, "Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ," CB), 49 (1987), 268-90, offers an overview of most alternatives. 20. Peter Stuhlmacher, Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994), Excursus 11, "The Pauline Doctrine of the Law," 122-28, rightly sees the necessity of a combination of external and internal components. 21. The reading of Paul's view of freedom in this essay is close to that of Luther: Luther's Works 34.111. Cf. Paul Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 3-24. 22. Cf. Dclbert R. Hitlers, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1969), for much of what follows.

28

Ex Auditu

23. W. L. Holladay, "New Covenant," in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume, ed. Keith Crim (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), 624. 24. For what follows, see Charles H. Talbert, "Paul on the Covenant," RevExp, 84 (1987), 299-313. 25. Note that rabbinic Judaism's prioritizing of the covenants was very different. The Mosaic covenant was central while the Abrahamic covenant was understood eschatologically. The different evaluation of the covenants meant that Pharisees and Messianists read their common scriptures very differently. 26. The categories, heteronomy, autonomy, theonomy, are taken from Paul Tillich. (Cf. William Hordern, A Layman's Guide to Protestant Theology [NY: Macmillan, 1955], 168-169, for an overview of Tillich's use of the terms). 'Theonomy" has nothing to do with current right wing goals of a theocratic state.

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.