Freedom and Law in Galatians!!

8/13/2019 Freedom and Law in Galatians!!

1/13

FREEDOM AND LAW IN GALATIANS

CHARLES H. TALBERT

Galatians is a Pauline letter written by an unnamed amanuensis (cf. 6:11)to a group ofchurchesin a specific region (1:2), either ethnic (Acts16:6;18:23)orprovincia Galatia (Acts 13-14;16:l-5). The letter has been dated as early as thelate40*s and as late as the end of the 50's. The letter is written in a deliberativerhetorical style In other words, it is exhortation aimed at getting the auditors tochoose the good and eschew the harmful.1Galatians deals with a standard topic ofdeliberative 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 writtenin deliberative rhetoric.3Note the following correspondences:

Demosthenes,Epistle1 Paul,To the GalatiansInvocation of the godsA to B, greeting A to B, greeting (1:1-5)

Invocation of God (1:8-9)Demosthenes's personal Autobiographical section (1:10-2:14)circumstances and why heshould have a hearingA series of arguments for Summary of issues (2:15-21)his position and a soies of arguments for his

position (3:1-4:31)

A series of exhortations A soies of exhortations to theto the Athenians 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 turningto a different gospel because someone, in order to escape persecution, advocatesthat Gentile Christians live like Jews (6:12); and (2) the advocates of the differengospel, in support of their stance, claim Paul seeks to please people (1:10) andstill 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 Chriscrucified. When they had heard the message of Jesus' faithfulness to God, they


2/13

18 Ex Audita

other words, Christ's faithfulness is not sufficient for salvation. Three, what wasPaul's response to the proposal? Christ, he argued, is sufficient for salvation. Thisis shown by the gift of the Spirit apart from Law (3:l-5), 5by a correct reading ofthe 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" in1:10; 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, and31;"to set free" in5:1.) 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 doesmean in Galatians.

WHAT FREEDOM DOES NOT MEAN IN GALATIANS

In Galatians the apostle makes it clear that Christian freedom does notmean either of two things: (1) it does not mean slavery to the Law, and (2) it doesnot mean living according to the flesh.

Not Law

Galatians 4:21-31 uses an allegory of Abraham's two sons to speak abouttwo covenants or types of relations to God. One covenant, that linked to the slavewoman Hagar, is identified with Mount Sinai (i.e., the Law) and with the Jews ofPaul'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 itup:"For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, anddo 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 ofLaw"has traditionally been taken to mean ethical prescriptions of the Mosaic Law. In this generation, the claim has been made that theexpression refers instead to Jewish identity markers like circumcision (1 Mace1:48; 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). 7In Galatians "works of Law" certainly refers to the Jewish identity markers mentionedabove (circumcision2:3; 5:2-4; 6:12-13; dietary rules2:12; observance ofsabbath 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 ofLaw"includesallthe de

mands of the Mosaic covenant, including moral demands alongside identitymarkers, as at Qumran (4QFlorl:7; 1QS 5:8,21; 6:18).*When Paul speaks of freedom from the Law, with "Law" does he mean le


3/13

FreedomandLaw 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 anddispleases 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 withGod is a result of God's gracious initiative, and acceptable human performance isa 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 covenantalnomism.10If so, there would then have been no such legalistic position for Paul tocombat. 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 alaw-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; "stayingin"was by works of Law. Appeal ismade to texts likem.Sanhdrin10:1:

All Israelites have a share in the world to come... And these are they thathave 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 isnot 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 hethatpronounces 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 ofGod.Violation of diese rules was tantamount to apostasy.

The categories "gettingin"and "stayingin"are misleading because "staying in" in Paul's time was for the purpose of "getting in," that is, getting into theNew Age beyond the resurrection. The text appealed to above, m. Sanhdrin 10:

1,shows this to be the case. This "stayingin"as a means of "gettingin"the NewAge was by works of Law and would have been regarded by Paul as a structureakin to legalism. This was his personal position before he became a Christian, sohe should know (Phil 3:1-11). So, even if ancient Judaism should be characterizedonly 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 strictobservance of the Law would do so. Three examples come to mind. First, theManual 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//L k 3 7 9) l i J h h B i h ld h i l d f Ab h b


4/13

20 Ex Audita

opponents and deniers of the covenant, will be destroyed. In all three of theseJewish sources, a conscious decision for rigorous obedience to God's demands,

even for those bom Jews, is necessary in order to "getin"the true people of God.Ancient Judaism, therefore, was not monolithic.

There were some Jews who were legalistic, probably the minority, andsome 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 structureone looked to "get in" (the Age to Come) by means of works of the Law. Therewere also some Jews who regarded circumcision as optional and some who regarded it as necessary for proselytes (i.e., to "getin"God's people). Josephus(An-

tiquities,20.2.1-3 17-41) tells of the conversion to Judaism of Izates of Adia-bene through the witness of a Jewish merchant named Ananias. This Ananias toldIzates that circumcision was unnecessary to be a Jewish convert. Later(Antiqui-ties20.2.4 42-48) another Jew named Eleazar came from Galilee and told Izatesthat, according to the Law, circumcision was necessary. Izates thereupon complied and was circumcised. In the case of Eleazar, in order for a proselyte to "getin"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 law-observant 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 laterlaw-observant mission that we hear about in the Ascents of James (Pseudo-Clementine,Recognitions1.42) and thePreachings of Peter (Pseudo-Clementine,

Homilies, Epistle of Peter to James, 2 p apparently had its counterpart in Paul'stime. Philippians 3:2-11 implies such and Galatians confirms it. Galatians depictsthe preachers of another gospel as Christian (1:6-9), as Jewish (6:12; 5:3,12), andas outsiders who have only recently come into the Galatian churches (1:6). Theirposition is that the Galatians can only be justified by the Law/legalism (5:4) orcan only be perfected by works of Law/nomism (3:3). Given what has been saidabout both Judaism and early Christianity, Paul could have been responding to ei

ther legalism or nomism or both in Galatians because both positions existed in hissetting.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 dealssometimes with the one (contra legalism1:13-16; 2:16; 3:1-2, 3a; 3:6-9,11,15-18),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 saythat in Galatians Paul was responding to a real situation which he understoodwell. His position was that neither entry into the people of God within history norentry 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.


5/13

FreedomandLaw in Galatians

mean living according to the flesh. The parenetic section of Galatians comes5:1-6:10. The section falls into two thought units, both organized in the same wa

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 testifagain" (v. 3)

Exhortation to serve one anotherin

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 thflesh" (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

6:1acorporateresponsibility6: lbindividual responsibility6:2corporateresponsibility6:3-5individualresponsibility

6:6corporateresponsibility6:7-8individualresponsibility

6:9-10corporateresponsibility

The first exhortation deals with maintaining Christian freedom ovagainst the Law. The second exhortation deals with avoiding slavery to the fle

Christian freedom does not mean living according to the flesh any more thanmeans slavery to the Law.

Paul uses "flesh" in two very different ways, both of whicharereflectedGalatians. Sometimes he uses "flesh" to refer to humans as physical and finiWhen Paul uses "flesh" in this way, it has no ethically bad connotations. For eample, in Galatians 2:20 he says: "the life I now live in the flesh [i.e., as a phycal, finite human being] I live by faith...."

At other times, he uses "flesh" with an ethically negative connotation. Fexample, "Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh"(5:13"Walk by the Spirit and do not gratify the desires oftheflesh" (5:16); "Those w

belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desire(5:24).Living according to the flesh (cf. Rom 8:5, 12) is an orientation to life

hi h b k h d d ( hi h i i l h fl h


6/13

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 ofanormal physical appetite: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, drunkenness, carousing. If one absolutizesoneself and one's power drives, the result is antisocial attitudes and behavior: enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy. Ifoneabsolutizes 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 theflesh as a negative is made clear by his comment in 5:21b: "I warn you, as Iwarned 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 theSpirit, 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 orderto understand its meaning for the apostle, one needs to examine the language heuses before turning to an examination ofthebackground ofhisthought

Sample Language About the Christian Life

There are several expressions used in Galatians for the Christian life thatmerit attention. Thefirstis found in5:1:"ForfreedomChrist has set us free; standfast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." The language hereechoes that of the sacral manumission of slaves in antiquity.16Manumission wasoften described under the fiction of a slave's purchase by some deity. The slavesaved 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, soldhim 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 theworld, 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 PythianApollo a male slave named at a price of_minae, for freedom...."; or"Apollo the Pythian bought from for freedom a female slave, , with aprice of minae." Paul appropriates this language in 1 Corinthians 6:19b-20a("You are not yourown;you were bought with aprice"),7:23 ("You were boughtwith a price; do not become slaves ofmen"),Romans 6:20, 22 ("When you wereslaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness;... now you have been setfree from sin and have become slaves ofGod"),and Galatians 5:1 ("For freedomChrist has set us free...do not submit again to a yoke of slavery").


7/13


former slaves of sin and Law now belong to Christ.What does it mean to belong to Christ? Three further expressions, take

together, provide clarity. The first is found in Galatians 2:20: "I have been crucfia with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the liI now live in the flesh I live by the faithfulness of the Son of God who loved mand gave himself for me. "Here entrance into the Christian community is dscribed as a death with Christ. As Christ died to sin (Rom 6:10"the death hdied, he died to sin"), so do Christians ("I have been crucified with Christ"i.to sin; cf. Rom 6:6, 11). The Christian life that follows is described in terms two complementary pictures. First, Christ lives "in" the believer (cf. Gal 4:19;Cor 13:5; Rom 8:10; Col 1:27; Eph 3:17), and second, Christ lives "through" tbeliever. That the last part of the verse was translated "the faithfulness of the Soof God" instead of "faith in the Son of God" requires comment.

The expression in Greek is a genitive (literally "faith o f ) like that founelsewhere in Paul's letters: e.g., Gal 2:16, 3:22, 3:26 (in F*9; Rom 3:22, 26; anPhil 3:9. Grammatically, the genitive construction could be translated either "faiof which Christ is the object" (meaning "faith in Christ'O, or "faith of whicChrist is the subject" (meaning "Christ's faith/faithfulness"). In the LXX, PauBible, where faith is followed by a genitive of person, it is subjective. In Pauletters generally, where faith is followed by a genitive of person, it is subjecti(e.g., "faith ofAbraham,"not "faith in Abraham"). Indeed the expression ekpst

os Christou (Gal 2:16) has an exact parallel in Romans 4:16 with ek psteAbraam.The early versions, Syriac, Latin, Coptic, translatedpistis Christouassubjective genitive, as did the Vulgate. Only with Luther did translations shift an objective genitive.

To translate the phrase in 2:20 as "the faithfulness of the Son of Godmakes good theological sense in Paul's thought. Christ's faithfulness is his obedence unto death (Rom 5:18; Phil 2:8). This faithfulness of Christ is the fulfillmeof the promise to Abraham (Gal 3:16). Christ's faithfulness is the basis for o

justification (Rom 3:22; 5:19; Gal 2:16; Phil 3:9). The probability that the expresion "faith ofChrist"should be translated "faithfulness ofChrist"is very high.1

certainly makes sense of Galatians 2:20. The one who lives "in" believers allives "through" them with the same faithfulness to God that he manifested in tdays of his flesh. That is why Paul can speak elsewhere of righteousness (humafaithfulness 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 tospeak, 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 thecharacter of power, in so far as God himself enters the arena and remains

in the arena with it18

The second expression that characterizes belonging to God/Christ in Gal


8/13

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. "Butthe 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 manifestsitself 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.Romans8:9-10makes this clear.

But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit ofGod dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ doesnot belong to him. But ifChristis in you...your spirits are alive....

This identification is possible because from the apostle's perspective theSpirit is "the Spirit of his Son"(Gal 4:6). Both modes of expression refer to theindwelling 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 theSpirit 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 closeparallels 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 expressionrefer?19Options include (I) the ethical teachings of Christ, (2) the love commandment("loveyour 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 ofthefirst five suggestions.

It would seem that some combination of these suggestions is the mostprobable explanation for Paul's use of "law of Christ" or "law of the Spirit...in

ChristJesus."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) whathe does (Gal 2:20), and what he says (1 Cor 14:24-25; 1 Thess 4:15-17). In such astructure the Law would be "filtered through" what Jesus did and said, what hedoes and says. When that is done, Paul seems to hold that the sacrificial system isfulfilled once for all in Jesus' death (e.g., Rom 3:25; 2 Cor 5:21); ethnic identitymarkers (circumcision, purity rules, Jewish calendar) are deemed soteriologicallyirrelevant (Gal 2:3,11-15,16); and the just requirement oftheLaw (i.e., for covenant faithfulness) is taken up into the "law of Christ" (Rom 8:4). It is necessary tosee that Paul's "law of Christ" combines both external tradition and inner experi

ence.20If one understands the three expressions just covered ("the life I now live

i f i f i f f S f G " " S i i "


9/13

FreedomandLaw in Galatians 2

already existing, God makes His will (the law of Christ) known as a guide t

pleasing the God with whom we have a relationship. Third, we obey out of thfaithfulness of Christ who indwells the believer and lives through the Christianwith the same faithfulness to God that he manifested during the days of his fleshThis is the same as "led by the Holy Spirit who dwells in believers" and "with righteousness from God based on the faithfulness of Christ." This structure is adifferent from covenantal nomism as it is from legalism. It is distinctly Christian.21It does, however, have roots in Paul's Bible, namely, in the new covenanof Jeremiah 31:31-34.

THEBACKGROUNDOF PAUL'STHOUGHT

In Paul's Bible "covenant" refers to a structured relationship that dependupon an oathorpromise for its existence. "Covenant" is used in a legal way ofrlationships between humans. It is used in a theological way of relationships between humans and God. When employed theologically, "covenant" can describtwo very different types of relationships.22On the one hand, there are covenants iwhich God bindsHimself.When talking about such promissory covenants, "covenant" and "oath" are often synonyms (Testament of Moses 1:9; 3:9; 11:1712:13),as are "covenant" and "promise" (1 Kings 8:25). Such covenants are noconditional. On the other hand, there are covenants in which Israel is boundWhen 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 Ezr4:23;7:24). Such covenants are conditional on the people's obedience.

The new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 is like both the promissory anthe obligatory types of covenant in the Bible used by Paul. It is like the obligatorcovenant of Moses in that it refers to law and to the people's acceptance of God asuzerain and of the stipulations as binding ("They shall all knowme""knowbeing 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 de

pends for its existence and its effectiveness on God's promise or oath. In the newcovenant 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 tthe covenant. Unlike the rest ofIsrael'scanonical 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 witfinality. 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 notioof a new covenant signals a God who learns from His mistakes and makes newbeginnings.23A new covenant, God has learned, must be one of divine enablemen

because ofhumanfaithlessness.To which of the covenants mentioned in his Bible do we refer when wask about Paul's attitude towards the covenant?24 Of some of the covenants Pau


10/13

26 Ex Audita

from David according to the flesh") and in the quotation from Isaiah 11:10 in Ro

mans 15:12 ("The root of Jesse shall come, he who rises to rule the Gentiles; inhim shall the Gentiles hope"). Ifso,then Paid would see the promise to David fulfilled in the reign of Jesus after the resurrection (1 Cor 15:20-28). However, threeof the covenants of Paul's Bible receive significant attention in his letters: (1) thecovenant with Abraham (Gen 12; 15; 17), (2) the covenant through Moses (Exod24),and (3) the new covenant ofJeremiah31.

Of the three covenants that play significant roles in Paul's letters, the firstand third are highly valued, but the importance of the second is minimized by theapostle. The construct that seems to make the most sense out ofthevarious thingsPaul says about the covenants may be summarized as follows. (1) The covenant

with Abraham furnishes Paul a scriptural way to argue that justification throughfaith 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. Inspite ofitsjust requirements, it was impotent because ofhumansin. Hence it onlyfunctioned to expose sin. With the coming of Christ, the Law has come to an endas a part of ongoing salvation history. (3) The Mosaic covenant has been replacedby the prophesied new covenant of Jeremiah 31 in which God Himself enablesHis people's faithfulness to the relationship (i.e., theirrighteousnessis from God).

To summarize: When Paul wants to make the point that Christian soterio-logical 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 MosaicLaw. When he. wants to emphasize the soteriological reality that human faithfulness to God in the covenant depends upon God, he works with the new covenantof Jeremiah 31.

In Galatians this construct works. Paul has appealed to the covenant (orpromise) 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 argumentsabout 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 upinto the law of Christ.25

If one were to attempt to state the thesis of Galatians in contemporaryterms, it might run like this. The Christian life is characterized neither by heteron-omy (the Law) nor autonomy (the flesh) but by theonomy26(walking by the indwelling Spirit) or Christonomy (living by the faithfulness oftheindwelling Son ofGod). Where there is theonomy/Christonomy, there is Christian freedom (cf. 2Cor 3:17).

NOTES


11/13


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. Nedar

3:11:4


12/13

28 Ex Auditu

23.W. L. Holladay, "New Covenant," inTheInterpreter's Dictionary of the Bible: Sup-

plementary 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. TheMosaic covenant was central while the Abrahamic covenant was understood eschatologically. Thedifferent evaluation of the covenants meant that Pharisees and Messianists read their commonscriptures very differently.

26.The categories, heteronomy, autonomy, theonomy, are taken from Paul Tillich. (Cf.William Hordern, ALayman's Guide to Protestant Theology[NY: Macmillan,1955],168-169, foran overview of Tillich's use of the terms). 'Theonomy" has nothing to do with current right winggoals ofatheocratic state.


13/13

^ s

Copyright and Use:

Asan ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation 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.

Freedom and Law in Galatians!!

Documents