Justification: A Theological or Ethical Issue?
In
recent scholarship, there has been considerable debate over the significance of
Paul’s concept of justification. The
oversimplified vision of the confrontation would draw clear battle lines
between the so-called “New Perspective” on Paul and those who hold to the
theological commitments of the Protestant Reformation (hereafter the ‘Old
Perspective’). On this account, the Old
Perspective is chiefly concerned with the soteriological (i.e. how is one saved
from one’s sins) implications of justification while the New Perspective’s
understanding is chiefly ecclesiological (i.e. whether one is declared to be
part of God’s people). The New
Perspective on Paul brings fresh breath to Pauline theology, but in the
discussion of justification, the desire to distance the ecclesiological
understanding from the soteriological has stunted the potential of the
conversation. That is to say, the New
Perspective need not incorporate the Old soteriology into its concept of
justification, but rather use justification to better understand soteriology.
Furthermore,
the debate over justification does not happen in a vacuum. If justification is simply a soteriological matter (as Luther understood it) then it is
a spiritual issue capable only of assuaging the heavy hearts of
individuals. If justification is
ecclesiological and eschatological, and thus reflects back on soteriology, then
its social, political, and ethical implications are manifold. Afrikaners in South Africa were able to draw
on their Dutch Calvinist theology to maintain that blacks were not
persons. Likewise, many Christians in
the United States fail to see how their faith might speak into an issue like
immigration reform. Most famously, Karl
Barth reeled at the fact that Christians in Germany were impotent to say, “No!”
to the Shoah. There might not necessarily be a casual link between these
examples of injustice and the misunderstood doctrine of justification, but
inasmuch as justification goes misconstrued, Christians have been lacking a
vital tool in the struggle against racism, sexism, nationalism, classism and
many other types of injustice.
This paper will
focus on Galatians 2:15-21 and in doing so, it will become clear that Paul’s
vision of justification is ecclesiological, eschatological, and soteriological
(though, not in the manner as understood by the Old Perspective). Because justification is soteriological, ecclesiological,
and eschatological, it becomes a critical window that reveals how the people of
God are to operate in a world marred by “othering” and violence.
Galatians in its Historical and Literary Contexts
Before turning to
a close reading of the pericope in question, it is critical to understand both
the historical context of Paul’s letter to the Galatians and the literary
context of this passage in the letter as a whole. Paul is writing to churches in Galatia, a
Roman province in central Asia Minor (modern day Turkey), where Paul has
previously preached the gospel (Gal 1:8).[1]
While Pauline authorship of the letter to the Galatians is not in question, the
exact part of the province Paul is addressing is disputed. One theory would maintain that Paul is
addressing cities that he had visited that were Galatian in a political, but
not an ethnic sense (i.e. Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe). Another option is that the letter is addressed
to churches in the northern part of the province that were ethnically Galatian
(the original Galatians were central European Celts that invaded Asia Minor in
the third century BCE).[2] Accepting either option does not significantly
changes the way the argument of the letter is read, but it is important to
consider that there may have been preexisting ethnic tensions in the region.
Brigitte Kahl notes that “the Greek word for ‘Galatians
covers Gauls and Celts in general. These
omnipresent ‘northern barbarians’…had been troubling the Greco-Roman world for
centuries both in the East and West.”[3] The Roman general Manlius Vulso killed or
enslaved around 40,000 Galatians in 189 B.C.E. because they were seen “to be
the notorious enemies of Rome all over the world.”[4] What is important to note from these
observations is the fact that the recipients of the epistle to the Galatians
not only would have been aware of the dichotomy of Jew-Gentile, but also of
Greek/Barbarian. In the first-century
Roman world, the Jews fit into a specifically demarcated zone of permitted by
the emperor wherein they were exempted from the imperial religion. The outward indicator of this exemption was
circumcision.[5]
Therefore
the occasion of the letter (probably in the 50s CE)—the arrival of traveling
missionaries into Galatia, referred to by Paul as “some who are confusing you”
(Gal 1:7, cf. 5:10 NRSV)—must be understood in light of the Jewish exempted
status in the empire.[6] Paul describes the missionaries in question as
“preaching ‘a different gospel’ (1:6) and seeking to persuade the Gentile
Galatians to be circumcised (5:2-4; 6:12-13).”[7] It is a distinct possibility that these
“Judaizing” missionaries were trying to bring the Galatian churches into
compliance with the empire. If they were
simply circumcised Jews (i.e. part of those exempted from the imperial cult),
they would pose no threat to the empire and thus avoid persecution.
The letter should
also be read in the context of the militant nationalism of the Zealots in Judea
after 44 CE. These militants treated
Jews who were found to be fraternizing with Gentiles as traitors. This offers a possible explanation as to both
Peter’s reaction to the arrival of the Jerusalem contingent (Gal 2:12) and to a
possible motivation of the traveling missionaries arriving in Galatia. It is likely the thinking was, “if gentile
converts could be persuaded to accept circumcision and conform to Jewish
customs in other ways, for example, by observing the sacred calendar, the
militants (it was hoped) would be pacified.”[8] Part of Paul’s radical transformation from
zealous Pharisee to “Apostle to the Gentiles” apparently entailed abandoning
this militant nationalistic zeal of his previous life. Both the place of the Jews in the Roman Empire
and the issue of militant nationalistic Judaism will play an integral role in
examining the passage from Galatians.
Paul’s
letter to the Galatians may be broken into five parts. The introduction (1:1-9) contains a brief
salutation (1:1-5), but moves quickly to his denunciation of the Galatian
churches’ act of “deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ” (Gal
1:6). The next section is Paul’s
demonstration of the veracity of his own apostleship through his recounting of
his encounters with the Jerusalem leaders (1:10-2:21). The pericope this paper will discuss falls at
the end of this section. Placed here,
2:15-21 serves as a preview of Paul’s theological argument and as transition from
his discussion of his own credentials to the next section. The third section (3:1-4:31) is Paul’s
theological treatment of the situation in the Galatian churches. In the fourth section (5:1-6:6), Paul offers
practical applications of the theology he has just developed. Finally, the fifth section (6:7-18) is Paul’s
conclusion in which he sends specific instructions regarding certain
individuals in the community and his valediction.
In the context of
the letter as a whole, Galatians 2:15-21 “serves as a précis
of the argument of the entire letter.”[9] That it is so can only be understood within
the context of the event that Paul recounts directly before it. In 2:1-10, Paul discusses his meeting with
the leaders of the church in Jerusalem wherein they recognized the fact that
Paul had been “entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised” (Gal 2:7). However, in 2:11-14 Paul tells of the
confrontation between himself and Cephas (Peter) in which Paul condemns Cephas’
refusal to eat with the Gentile Christians upon the arrival of the Jewish
Christians from Jerusalem (Gal 2:11-12).
2:15-21 follows this episode first as a representation of Paul’s appeal
to Cephas, but it becomes a succinct espousal of the theology of the epistle
aimed at the situation in Galatia.
James Martyn points out that the rhetorical style of the
section is known as a “captatio
benevolentiae, in which the speaker capture his audience by means of a
friendly reference to something he shares with them.”[10] This device transitions the aim of the
discussion from specifically Peter (as in 2:14) to the broader audience of
Jewish Christians as Paul begins by saying, “We ourselves are Jews by birth and
not Gentile sinners” (Gal 2:15). Consequently,
2:15-21 brings together the specific discussion of the episode in Antioch with
the general theological argument about what Paul sees as the crisis in Galatia
in such a way as to show how the same theological dilemma underlies the two
instances.
Analysis of the Text
As mentioned
above, the passage begins with Paul’s laying a common foundation between Paul
and Cephas, and also between Paul and the Jewish Christians in Galatia. This common denominator is the state of
being, “Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners” (Gal 2:15). The “Jews by birth” description is
understandable, but the phrase, “Gentile sinners,” requires further
examination. This description of the
Gentiles is characteristically Jewish language as, “Gentiles are sinners by the
fact that they stand outside of the covenant, deprived of the Law.”[11] Dunn notes that such phrasing seems odd for
Paul until one realizes that Paul is likely “echoing the language used by the
‘individuals from James’ when they spoke against the Jewish Christians’
table-fellowship with the Gentile believers.”[12]
Paul places himself in the proverbial shoes of his opponents in order to show,
using their own reasoning, the irrationality of their case.
Hays
argues that, “The verb ‘know’ in v.16a is actually a participle,” and he
proposes that a more helpful way of reading the text is: “yet, knowing that a
person is justified not by the works of the law but through the faith of Jesus
Christ, even we have trusted in
Christ Jesus.”[13] This helps reveal how dependent v. 16 is upon
the Jew-Gentile dichotomy in v. 15. What
is critical is that Paul is affirming that Jewish Christians have already come
to a new understanding of justification.[14] If this were not the case, it would make
little sense for Paul to appeal to this as a presupposed agreement. To gain a fuller appreciation for the
significance of Paul’s assertion in v. 16, some terminology needs to be
discussed: (A) “the works of the law,” (B) “faith in Jesus Christ,” and (C) the
verb ‘to justify’.
(A)
Martin Luther understood the term “works of the law,” “as a metaphor for all
human striving for God’s approval.”[15] Thus, for Luther, the dichotomy present in
Paul’s thought in Galatians was between what Luther conceived of as Jewish
legalism and grace. However, in Paul’s
context, “the typical and traditional Jewish view of the time was not that anyone could earn God’s
favor. On the contrary, the whole of
Israel’s religion was founded on the axiom that God had chosen Israel as an act
wholly undeserved.”[16] Given this, when Paul refers to “works of the
law,” he is not referring to the earning of one’s salvation, but rather to “a
particular kind of religious existence characteristic of the Jewish people that
includes circumcision and the observance of food laws.”[17] This mode of existence was understood as an
external marker of ethnicity.
(B)
The Greek phrase dia pisteōs Iēsou Christou can
either be translated as an objective genitive (“through faith in Jesus Christ)
or a subjective genitive (through the faith[fulness] of Jesus
Christ). Hays argues that the phrase
should be properly understood as a subjective genitive as it “points not
primarily to our cognitive response to the preached gospel but to Jesus
Christ’s act of fidelity in undergoing death for our sake.”[18] This subjective genitive understanding should
be adopted based on two criteria: (1) It leads to the most lucid reading of
Paul’s claim in Galatians 2:16, and (2) it prevents apparently redundancies in
other instances in Paul’s writings.
(1)
Paul is making the argument that God justifies persons not based upon ethnic
identity (i.e. Jewishness). However, if people
are justified based on the objective genitive rendering of “faith in Jesus
Christ,” then what seems a stark contrast for Paul becomes simply trivial. If “faith in Jesus Christ” is simply doctrinal
acquiescence, it represents merely the replacement of an ethnic Jewish identity
with a theological Jewish identity. The
line of demarcation between Jew and Gentile has not been, so to speak, torn
down (cf. Gal 2:18), but rather only shifted.
On the other hand, if the phrase is understood as, “the faithfulness of
Jesus,” then the burden of proving oneself part of the people of God is put on
Jesus’ act of embodying the true Israel and upholding the covenant between
Israel and God.[19]
(2)
Three other uses of pisteōs Iēsou Christou make clear the necessity for
the adoption of the subjective genitive understanding. Another instance in Galatians reads, “But the
scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, that what was
promised through faith in Jesus
Christ might be given to those who believe”
(Gal 3:22b; emphasis mine). If by “faith
in Jesus Christ” Paul means belief, then the verse could be rendered, “what was
promised through believing in Jesus
Christ might be given to those who believe.” Likewise, in the letter to the Romans, Paul
writes about, “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” (Rom 3:22; emphasis mine).
Lastly, a verse in Philippians says, “not having a righteousness of my
own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith” (Phil 3:9; emphasis mine). What is clear by these evidences is that the
objective genitive reading renders these verses inexplicably redundant.[20]
(C)
Many books have been written in efforts to plumb the depth of Paul’s conception
of justification, but, for the purposes of this paper, the works of N.T. Wright[21]
and Richard Hays[22]
seem ample guides.[23] The verb diakioō, the adjective dikaios, and the noun dikaiosynē are closely related
terms. When they are translated into
English, the adjective and the noun forms are often rendered as “righteous” and
“righteousness,” respectively. The verb
is usually translated as “justify.”[24] This fact is crucial to keep in mind as it
helps the reader to see that Paul is using consistent language (i.e. the same
language) when the English reader sees the terms justification, righteousness,
and justice.
Wright points out that the language
of justification maintains three senses intrinsic to Paul’s use and
understanding of the term. First,
justification is “covenant language,” because it represents a first-century
Jewish sense of God’s covenant promises to his people. Second, justification is “law-court language”
that functions in the setting of the covenant as a metaphor that helps explain
how the covenant was part of God’s plan for restoring the world (i.e.
establishing justice and order in the cosmos).[25] Third, justification is eschatological
language because Paul recognizes it as having to do with the fact that, “the
creator of the world has acted, uniquely, climactically and decisively, in
Jesus Christ, for the rescue of the entire cosmos, and is now by his Spirit,
bringing all things to subjection to this Jesus.”[26]
Contrary to the understanding of
justification that came out of the Protestant Reformation, justification (at
least for Paul) “was not about how someone might establish a relationship with
God. It was about God’s eschatological
definition, both future and present, of who was in fact, a member of his
people.”[27] Therefore, when Paul writes, “a person is
justified not by the works of the law but through the faith[fulness] of Jesus
Christ” (Gal 2:16), he is not claiming that their sins have been forgiven
(though this may also be true). Instead,
he is making a theological claim that negates the Jew-Gentile distinction
implied in v. 15. Because the issue at
hand—stemming from the incident at Antioch—is the eating together of Jewish and
Gentile Christians, when Paul writes that “a person is justified,” what he must
mean is that a Gentile too “is reckoned by God to be a true member of his
family, and hence with the right to share table fellowship.”[28] With these understandings of “works of the
law,” “the faithfulness of Christ,” and justification in mind it is now
appropriate to continue the examination of the rest of the passage.
The latter half of v. 16 is an allusion
to Psalm 143 where “because no one will be justified by the works of the law
(Gal 2:16b),” mirrors, “for no one living is righteous before you” (Ps 143:2b).[29] Hays notes that, “By alluding to this Psalm
Paul underscores his claim that the gospel of justification/rectification
through God’s act in Christ is entirely consistent with what those who are
“Jews by birth” already know—or should know—through the witness of Scripture:
We are set in right relationship to God only through God’s own act of grace.”[30] Matera notes that Paul’s use of the Psalm 143
from the Septuagint substantively alters the meaning of the original psalm, but
that Paul makes this same move in Romans as well (cf. Roman 3:20).[31]
In v. 17, Paul lays
out what he understands as the logic at play in the situation at Antioch. The point is made in a manner of reductio ad absurdum, in order that Paul
can immediately negate it. This is an
imprecatory question aimed toward Cephas, asking, “But if it is discovered that
we ourselves are sinners while we are trying to be made righteous in Christ, then
is Christ a servant of sin” (Gal 2:17a CEB)?
The scenario implied in the question is precisely what occurred in
Antioch. Paul is simply stating that
Peter’s actions are inconsistent. Paul’s
depiction of Christ as potentially a “servant of sin” is also echoing “the
context in Antioch, since the word still retained much of its original sense of
‘table-waiter’.”[32] In other words, Peter’s contradictory actions
reduce Jesus from the host of a kingdom banquet to the bus boy of a sinful meal. Paul declares this to be nonsensical (Gal
2:17b).
In v. 18, Paul demonstrates the futility of centering
justification on the faithfulness of Jesus while at the same time insisting
upon the separation of Jewish and Gentile Christians. Wright humorously paraphrases the imagery
when he writes, “If, having pulled down the wall of partition between myself
and the Gentiles, having discovered that it is abolished through the Messiah, I
then build it up again by separating myself from the Gentiles, all I accomplish
is to erect a sign (the Torah itself!) which says ‘you have transgressed’.”[33] Droll though the image may be, this is a
serious matter for Paul himself and it is made even more so as in v. 18 Paul’s
language moves to the first person. Dunn
notes that to reinstate the separation between Jew and Gentiles “would make
[Paul] not simply an involuntary ‘sinner’ like the Gentiles, but a conscious
lawbreaker.”[34] For Paul this clearly cannot be the case, so
he sets out in vv. 19-21 to show how, in fact, this justification based upon
the faithfulness of Jesus actually works.
The phrase, “For through the law I died to the law” (Gal
2:19a NRSV) seems counterintuitive.
Given that Paul’s vision of justification hitherto discussed depends
upon the “faithfulness of Jesus” (i.e. Jesus’ obedience even to the point of
death), the reader might expect to read, “For through the cross I died to the
law.” The phrase employed by Paul
appears to be an attempt to subvert a common tradition of his day, that of
Maccabean martyrs dying for the Torah: “By these words the mother of the seven
encouraged and persuaded each of her sons to die rather than violate God’s
commandment. They knew also that those
who die for the sake of God live to God, as do Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and
all the patriarchs” (4 Macc 16:24-25).
Stephen Cummins explains that Paul understood this type of zeal for the
law was symptomatic of a “misguided and self-defeating nationalism,” that was,
“one of the ways in which sin’s abuse of Torah in Israel” was manifested.[35] Paul was probably especially sensitive to
this way of thinking as his past life represented a zeal for Torah that—instead
of being ready to die for Torah—was, in reality, more alacritous to kill for
Torah.[36]
That Paul “died to the law” is simply a means to an end,
namely, “so that [he] might live to God,” but Paul demonstrates this in a
peculiar way by saying, “I have been crucified with Christ” (Gal 2:19b). In this verse, Paul sees the Law and Christ
at odds with one another. That is not to
say that Christ breaks the law, so to speak, but rather that, “In the event of
Christ’s crucifixion the Law did not stand idly aside. It pronounced a curse on Christ, effectively
taking up its own existence and carrying out its activity apart from God!”[37] This may seem a mystifying image, but it may
be explained by way of analogy. In the
same way, that the Maccabean desire to be obedient to Torah (even to the point
of martyrdom) was perverted into a readiness to kill for Torah, so the Law had
strayed from its original purpose (i.e. to reveal sin) to a grotesque purpose
(i.e. to condemn sinners).[38] This is how the Law was being used in the
hands of those Jews who sought to kill Jesus, but the resurrection vindicated
Jesus from this misuse of Torah.
Therefore, when Paul writes, “it is no longer I who live,
but it is Christ who lives in me” (Gal 2:20a), he means to say that he “lives
in the mysterious power of the risen
Christ.”[39] Paul explains this mystery by saying, “And
the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who
loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal 2:20b).
Again, “faith in the Son of God,” should be read “the faithfulness of
the Son of God.” That is to say, “it is
now the [faithfulness] of the Son of God, Jesus Christ’s own self-giving
faithfulness, that moves in and through him.”[40] If justification is the recognition that one
is a member of God’s covenant people, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus
are the people’s new center. Michael
Gorman calls this “co-crucifixion” and insists that this “is what Paul means,
in context, by faith over against the works of the Law.”[41]
Paul connects this point back to the episode at Antioch by
saying, “I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes
through the law, then Christ died for nothing” (Gal 2:21). In this instance, the eschatological
understanding of justification is evident.
Paul is explaining that either “God makes things right through the Law,”
or “God makes things right through Christ’s death.”[42] It cannot be both! For this reason to bring back the Jew-Gentile
distinction is to insert another criteria for justification besides the death
and resurrection of Jesus. If Justification
indicates God’s declaration of who is in the covenant people, it cannot be
forgotten what the purpose of the covenant is: setting the world to right. Justification does not come through the law
and hence, Jesus’ death was not “for nothing,” but instead God used the cross
as “the redeeming turning-point in history.
It is the goal of Israel’s strange covenant story. As a result, it is God’s way of healing his
world.”[43]
Paul’s Letter in its Galatian Context
Having given a lengthy explication
of the passage, it is now necessary to turn to the perspective of the Galatians
themselves. If Hays is correct in
describing Galatians 2:15-21 as, “a highly condensed summary of the ‘thesis’
that Paul intends to argue in the subsequent chapters,”[44] then it behooves one to
question why Paul’s next words are, “You foolish Galatians” (Gal 3:1)! How is it that Paul has become so riled up
over what appeared to be a doctrinal issue?
These questions are not only important to answer in order to better
understand the context of the letter’s recipients, but also in order to
understand how Galatians might make contact with contemporary context.
Some light can be shed on this issue when one
considers an additional factor in the Jew-Gentile distinction not yet
discussed. Paula Fredriksen establishes
that Gentile inclusion in the synagogue (the so-called “God-fearing Gentiles”)
had never been predicated upon Gentile males becoming circumcised.[45] The “God-fearing Gentiles” were not converts
to Judaism; they were understood as sympathizers. Even though the Jews abhorred idolatry,
apparently some of the Gentile sympathizers even worshipped the god of the Jews
as simply one god among many.[46] What was so revolutionary about the Jewish
Christian missionaries experience was that Gentiles were abandoning their
idolatry and turning to worship the one God revealed in and through his Messiah
Jesus.[47] This was understood as an eschatological sign
that the Kingdom of God was at imminent in a manner spoken of by Zechariah when
he wrote, “Many nations shall join themselves to the Lord on that day, and
shall be my people; and I will dwell in your midst (Zec 2:11).
This point is vital to understand
because, “interpreters routinely slip from seeing the eschatological inclusion of the Gentiles as meaning
eschatological conversion. This is a category error. Saved Gentiles are not Jews. They are Gentiles;
they just do not worship idols anymore.”[48] For this reason, it is precisely Paul’s
Jewishness that leads him to reject the notion that the Gentiles Christians in
Galatia should be circumcised. The
eschatological inclusion of the Gentiles was never supposed to require their
conversion to Judaism, but rather their abandonment of idols and worship of
Israel’s God.
What has not been made clear is why
these missionaries into Galatia are now trying to compel Gentile Christians to
be circumcised. The answer rests partly
in the above discussion of the Jewish status of exemption from participation in
the imperial cult. These Judaizing
missionaries were probably trying to compel Gentile Christians to be
circumcised because in their uncircumcised status they were not grafted in to
the existing Jewish exemption. That is
to say, there was pressure to be circumcised in order to avoid possible Roman
persecution. Uncircumcised Gentile
Christians could have been seen as flouting the imperial cult in their
abandonment of pagan idols. This still leads one to ask: Why is this pressure
coming at this particular time?
Fredriksen suggests that two
options, “Perhaps, sizing up the movement’s situation mid-century, they adduced
a causal connection between the Kingdom’s delay and the worsening readiness of
Israel.” Or, “Perhaps—not
unreasonably—they saw the increasing prominence of Gentiles in the movement as
a factor contributing to most Jews’ rejecting the gospel.”[49] A third option may be that in light of the
Kingdom’s delay and increases in persecution, circumcision of Gentile
Christians seemed a strategy for protection and survival. Whatever option one embraces, what is clear
is that Paul considers it unthinkable that the Galatian churches would require
circumcision. God’s covenant people are
justified by the faithfulness of Jesus alone.
To set up any other requirements is to go against what Paul understands
to have been God’s intentions from the start.
Justification, “Othering,” and the People of God
As stated at the
beginning of the paper, the goal of this discussion is to show how Paul’s
vision of justification in Galatians 2:15-21 is (1a) ecclesiological, (1b) eschatological,
and (1c) soteriological, and (2) to demonstrate that, because of these three
qualities, this theology of justification has implications for how the people
of God are to operate in a world marred by estrangement and violence. These issues are pivotal and each require
lengthy treatment, so the reflections found here will have to serve as a prolegomena
for future discussions.
(1a) Justification is intrinsically
ecclesiological because it is not, “how
someone enters the community of the true people of God, but…how you can tell who belongs to that community.”[50] Paul’s declaration, “I have been crucified
with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me”
(Gal 2:19b-20a) is the marker of the community.
All those who have been baptized into the death and resurrection of
Jesus are part of God’s people. This and
no other criterion establish one’s membership in the people of God. This obviously has radical implications for
contemporary Christians in the schismatic church. When one considers the numerous divisions
within the body of Christ, it leads one to wonder whether Christians have built
up the things that were once torn down (Gal 2:18). Most Christians do not consider their
specific congregation or denomination to be the only true members of God’s
people (though some do), but inasmuch as division exists it tells the world that
some other criteria for our ecclesiology has superseded the “faithfulness of
Jesus.”
(1b) Justification
is eschatological because it is concerned with God’s plan to restore the world
in and through his covenant people. In
covenanting to make him a great people, God promised Abraham, “in you all the
families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen 12:3). God’s people, then, were meant to be a people
unlike all other peoples. They were to
be nation set apart from all other nations, not in the sense of isolation, but
rather of profound mission. The people
of Israel were called to be a light to the world teaching the peace way of God
(cf. Isaiah 2:2-4). That they were to do
so meant that they were taking part in God’s justification (i.e. setting right)
of the world. This is precisely what
Jesus’ was announcing when he declared, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom
of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news” (Mk 1:15). In Galatians when Paul writes that, “a person
is justified not by the works of the law but through the faithfulness
of Jesus Christ” (Gal 2:16), he is thus declaring that the only criteria for
being a member of God’s covenant people (those who will participate in God’s
work of setting the world to rights) is Jesus’ obedient life, death and
resurrection. One participates in this
through baptism into the death and resurrection of Jesus.
(1c) Justification
needs to be understood as soteriological in effect (i.e., how being a part of
the covenant people is salvific) though not in affect (i.e., justification is
not ‘being saved from one’s sins’). Justification
should not be equated with salvation, but when justification is understood well
it will illuminate how salvation should be understood. Put another way, if justification through
Jesus’ faithfulness serves as an Archimedean point for the covenant community,
necessarily shifting the perspective of all who gather around it, then the
declaration that one is a member of the community will have drastic
implications on that individual’s life.
Salvation is not simply about having a debt paid, but rather about the
restoration of all creation.
Justification, properly understood as being declared in God’s covenant
community, then is the spark that ignites the life of the Christian in
participation in God’s renovation of the world.
(2) The ecclesial,
eschatological, and soteriological aspects of justification make it a critical
window through which to see how the people of God are to operate in a world
marred by estrangement and violence. The
philosophical works of Emmanuel Lévinas, Edward Said, and René Girard have
expounded upon the concepts of the constitutive other, orientalism, and the
scapegoat, respectively.[51] It would be inappropriate to amalgamate these
three concepts, but the similar move in each is to ostracize an other in order
to better define the same. This
dichotomy seems to be precisely what Paul is observing when he writes, “We
ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners” (Gal 2:15). The Jewish Christians at Antioch and the
missionaries teaching the churches in Galatia that they need to become Jews are
operating under the other/same paradigm.
Paul’s examination of the grounds of justification in Galatians 2:15-21 effectively
deconstructs the theoretical underpinnings the paradigm.
He does so by
showing that even though the Jewish Christians understand their justification
to be based upon the faithfulness of Jesus, they are acting as though the Jew-Gentile
(i.e. other/same) paradigm remains operative.
Paul explains that the desire present at Antioch and in Galatia to other Gentile Christians into being
Jewish is the same othering that crucified Jesus (cf. Gal 3:13). Therefore, being “crucified with Christ” (Gal
2:19b) is to identify oneself with the other; it just so happens that the other,
in this case, is the “wholly other” (i.e. God).[52] This manner of life was embodied by Jesus who
radically embraced every manner of other in
his society, from unclean lepers to Roman centurions. Further, Jesus did not
resist becoming the other, even to the point of death, but broke the cycle of othering
in his resurrection.
The church exists
in a world that is fractured by othering that leads to estrangement and
violence. That it is so positioned
should not be seen as a problem, but rather as the divinely appointed
opportunity to embody God’s wholeness in a world of brokenness. It is important though, that the primary call
of the church is to embody such wholeness in the world not to firstly transform
the world. To borrow Hauerwas and
Willimon’s popular phrasing, “the political task of Christians is to be the
church rather than to transform the world.”[53] It is appropriate that this quote comes from
a book title Resident Aliens because
this title expresses what it might mean for the church to embrace the other. The church must not allow herself to base her
justification upon race, ethnicity, nationality, income, or any other arbitrary
demarcation. As Paul has shown, this is
not simply an outworking of the gospel of Jesus, but at the heart of the good
news itself.
Bibliography
Bruce,
F. F.. "Galatia." In The Oxford Guide to People and Places of the
Bible, Oxford
University Press. (, n.d.). Retrieved 12 Nov. 2012, from
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195146417.001.0001/acref-9780195146417-e-117
Cummins,
Stephen Anthony. Paul and the Crucified
Christ in Antioch : Maccabean Martyrdom
and Galatians 1 and 2. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2001.
Dunn,
James D. G. The Epistle to the Galatians.
Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1993.
Fredriksen,
Paula. "Judaism, the circumcision of gentiles, and apocalyptic hope:
another look at
Galatians 1 and 2." Journal Of Theological Studies 42, no. 2 (October 1, 1991):
532-564.
ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost
(accessed December 5, 2012).
Gorman,
Michael J. Inhabiting the Cruciform God:
Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul's
Narrative Soteriology. Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2009.
Hauerwas, Stanley and William H. Willimon. Resident Aliens. Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1989.
Hays,
Richard B. “Galatians.” In The New
Interpreter’s Bible: Vol. 11, edited
by Leander Keck,
181-348. Nashville: Abingdon Pr., 2000.
Hays, Richard B. The
Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians. Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 2002.
Kahl, Brigitte. "Reading Galatians and empire at the
great altar of Pergamon." Union
Seminary
Quarterly
Review 59, no. 3-4 (January 1, 2005): 21-43. ATLA Religion Database with
ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed
December 3, 2012).
Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians:
A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York:
Doubleday, 1997.
Matera,
Frank J. Galatians. Collegeville,
Minn: Liturgical Press, 1992.
Matlock, R.
Barry. "The rhetoric of pistis in Paul: Galatians 2:16, 3:22, Romans 3:22,
and
Philippians 3:9." Journal For The Study Of The New Testament 30, no. 2 (December 1, 2007):
173-203.
Riches, John. "Galatians." In The Oxford
Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible, Oxford
University Press. (, n.d.).
Retrieved 14 Nov. 2012, from http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref:obso/9780195377378.001.0001/acref-9780195377378-e-41
Wright, N. T. Justification:
God's Plan & Paul's Vision. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic,
2009.
Wright, N. T. What
Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of
Christianity?
Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub, 1997.
[1]
F. F. Bruce,
"Galatia," in The Oxford Guide to People and Places of the Bible,
Oxford University Press, (,
n.d.), retrieved 12 Nov. 2012, from http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195146417.001.0001/acref-9780195146417-e-117
[2]
Ibid.
[3]
Brigitte Kahl, "Reading Galatians and empire at the great altar of
Pergamon," Union Seminary Quarterly
Review 59, no. 3-4 (January 1, 2005), 24.
[4]
Ibid., 25.
[5]
Ibid., 38.
[6]
John Riches, "Galatians," in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books
of the Bible, Oxford University Press,
(, n.d.), retrieved 14 Nov. 2012, from http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref:obso/9780195377378.001.0001/acref-9780195377378-e-41
[7] Richard B. Hays, “Galatians,”
in The New Interpreter’s Bible: Vol. 11, ed. Leander Keck (Nashville: Abingdon
Pr., 2000), 184.
[8]
Bruce, “Galatia.”
[9]
Hays, “Galatians,” 236.
[10]
J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New
Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1997),
246.
[11] Frank J. Matera, Galatians
(Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1992), 92.
[12]
James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (Peabody,
Mass: Hendrickson, 1993), 133.
[13]
Hays, “Galatians,” 237 (emphasis mine).
[14]
Matera, Galatians, 92-93.
[15]
Hays, “Galatians,” 238.
[16]
Dunn, Epistle to the Galatians, 134
(emphasis in original).
[17]
Matera, Galatians, 93.
[18]
Hays, “Galatians,” 239.
[19]
The reasons for this will become apparent further on in the discussion of the
meaning of the verb “to justify.”
[20] R. Barry Matlock, "The rhetoric
of pistis in Paul: Galatians 2:16, 3:22, Romans 3:22, and Philippians 3:9,"
Journal For The Study Of The New
Testament 30, no. 2 (December 1, 2007): 175.
[21]
N.T. Wright, Justification: God's Plan & Paul's
Vision (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2009). Also, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of
Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans
Pub, 1997).
[22]
Hays, “Galatians, 237-38.
[23]
There are obviously many others doing work on justification. See e.g., James K. Beilby et al., Justification: Five Views (Downers Grove,
Ill: IVP Academic, 2011). Michael J. Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis,
Justification, and Theosis in Paul's Narrative Soteriology (Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2009). Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). John Piper, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright (Wheaton,
Ill: Crossway Books, 2007).
[24]
Hays, “Galatians,” 238.
[25]
N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really
Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of
Christianity? (Grand
Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub, 1997), 117.
[26]
Ibid., 118.
[27]
Ibid., 119.
[28]
Wright, Justification, 116.
[29]
In LXX, “for in thy sight shall no man living be justified” (LXX Ps 142:2b).
[30]
Hays, “Galatians,” 241.
[31]
Matera, Galatians, 94.
[32]
Dunn, Epistle to the Galatians, 141.
[33]
Wright, Justification, 119.
[34]
Dunn, Epistle to the Galatians, 143.
[35] Stephen Anthony Cummins, Paul and the Crucified Christ in Antioch: Maccabean
Martyrdom and Galatians 1 and 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2001), 223.
[36]
By this, I have in mind the implication of Paul in the death of Stephen in Acts
8:1. See also, Paul’s own confession of
his zealous activity in Philippians 3:6.
[37]
Martyn, Galatians, 257.
[38]
Wright, Justification, 118.
[39]
Hays, “Galatians,” 244 (emphasis mine).
[40]
Hays, “Galatians,” 244.
[41] Michael J. Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis,
Justification, and Theosis in Paul's Narrative Soteriology (Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2009),
64.
[42]
Martyn, Galatians, 260.
[43]
Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said,
122.
[44]
Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus
Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002), 122.
[45] Paula Fredriksen, "Judaism,
the circumcision of gentiles, and apocalyptic hope: another look at Galatians 1
and 2," Journal Of Theological
Studies 42, no. 2 (October 1, 1991): 541.
[46]
Ibid., 543.
[47]
Ibid., 547.
[48]
Fredriksen, “Judaism,” 547-48 (emphasis in original).
[49]
Ibid., 561.
[50]
Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said,
119 (emphasis in original).
[51]
See: Emmanuel Lévinas, Otherwise Than
Being, or, Beyond Essence (Pittsburgh, Pa: Duquesne University Press,
1998); Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New
York: Vintage Books, 1979); René Girard, Violence
and the Sacred (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977).
[52]
See: Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1958).
[53]
Stanley Hauerwas and William H. Willimon, Resident
Aliens (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989), 38.
