Galatians 2:15-21 (NRSV)
15
We ourselves
are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a
person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus
Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be
justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no
one will be justified by the works of the law. 17 But if, in our
effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners,
is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 But if I build up
again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a
transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I
might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and it is no
longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. 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. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes
through the law, then Christ died for nothing.
Year C
June 12-18
June 12, 2016
Cross~Wind UMC
Title: Disciples on Rights and Righteousness
Paul uses the language of the
law and the courtroom here. This stimulated a few initial thoughts I want to
share with you.
Introduction
The Law is a more important part of
our lives than many of us recognize.
For example, since 1966, Americans
have had the legal right to remain silent. Of course, as the joke goes, what
some people seem to lack is the capacity to be silent.
An officer pulls a man over. His
wife is in the car with him.
"What's the
problem, officer?"
"You were going
at least 75 in a 55 miles-per-hour zone."
"No sir, I don't
think I was going over 55."
"Oh Harry,"
says the man's wife, "you were going 80."
The man gives his
wife a dirty look.
The officer
continues: "Sir, I'm also going to give you a ticket for your broken tail
light."
"I have a broken
tail light? I didn't know that!"
His wife says,
"Oh Harry, you've known about that tail light for weeks!"
(Another dirty look.)
The officer says,
"I'm also going to give you a citation for not wearing your seat
belt."
"But officer, I
just took it off when you were walking up to the car!"
The wife again:
"Oh Harry, you never wear your seat belt."
By now Harry has had
enough: "Shut your mouth, woman!"
The cop, to the wife:
"Ma'am, does your husband always talk to you this way?"
"No, officer.
Only when he is drunk."
I have been learning a little about
our Miranda rights, given that its anniversary is upon us. Look up its basis in
the fourth and fifth Amendments. If found that interesting. You might as well. The
Supreme Court established these rights on June 13, 1966, when the Court ruled
that police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning them. It
did so with a 5-4 vote. I wondered who this Miranda person was. It was rather
sobering to see his picture. Arizona would re-try and convict Ernesto Miranda
of kidnapping and rape. The state would release him. He made money
photographing officers reading suspects their Miranda rights. Unfortunately, a
few years later, he was in a bar fight and the other person killed him.
Application
In any case, we Americans rightly
have concern for our rights recognized in a courtroom.
When Paul used an image from the
courtroom, “justified” would mean one is right with the law. He once believed
the Law would accomplish rightness with God. However, he now had a revelation
from God in Christ. It seemed to him that he needed to re-think what rightness
with God would mean.
He is using an image from the courtroom
to subvert a legalistic notion of our becoming right with God. He linked such
rightness with God with faith.
"A person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in
Jesus Christ," (2:16).
Imagine the strangeness of this
statement. You are not right with the judge if you obey the law! It felt just
as strange in the first century as a Jew. For the Jew, if you were not living
in accord with Torah, you were a “sinner.” A Jew who did not abide by Torah was
a “sinner.” Torah separated the Jew from “sin” and “sinners.” That was the
problem Paul had with understanding Torah and sin in the way his Judaism had
done. Paul would insist that all are sinners, and that therefore, all need
faith in order to be right with God. You need to be in right personal
relationship with the divine judge in order for the divine judge to treat you
as justified or right with God.
First, we need to remember Sola fide
The slogan is that of Martin Luther
in the 1500s, Latin for “faith alone.” Luther was a monk who strived to earn
his salvation by good works. His starving of himself and even physically
beating himself did not bring him closer to God. In divine timing, he came
across a passage that would change his life forever: "The one who is righteous will live by faith" (Romans
1:17). This verse was a breakthrough for Luther.
Faith alone.
In a sense, God reads us our
rights: "You have the right to be judged by what you say and do. Anything
you say or do we may use against you when you face your final judgment. But if
you need a Savior, one will be provided for you."
Now, that is good news. That is
gospel.
Second, we need to remember Faith in, and faith of.
Here is the part that would not
work in a courtroom. We are in the wrong because we have resisted what God
wants. Yet, all we can do is to point to the faith of Jesus. Christ loved God
and loved others fully, put God first in his life, and was obedient to the
point of death on the cross. Christ was faithful to God in a way you and I
could never be. Yes, the key to our being right with God is the faith of Jesus
Christ. Yet, how do we receive this gift? All we can do is point to our
personal faith-relationship or trust in Jesus. You see, we human beings
consistently face our rebellion against God. We must face a harsh reality about
us. We resist what God wants. Therefore, we need both the faith of Jesus Christ
and faith in Jesus Christ in order to be in right relation to God.
"we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified
by the faith of Christ" (v. 16, NRSV alternate translation).
Paul is convinced that all of this
comes to us as a gift.
"I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but
it is Christ who lives in me. 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"
(2:19-20).
The beauty of the gospel Paul
preaches is that Paul's old life is dead, and his faith in the Son of God
defines his new life. The risen Christ now lives in and through him. What an
amazing possibility for Paul, and therefore, for you and I, to have the risen
and living Christ live today through us. Pause for a moment and reflect upon
the possibility in your life.
In this
life-long journey of life with Christ, the point is to let Christ live through
us. How can this happen?
Walk in
the word.
Jesus
said,
“Now ye are clean through the word which I
have spoken unto you” (John 15:3 KJV).
The
psalmist wrote:
“How can young people
keep their way pure? By guarding it according to your word” (119:9). And
again, “Your word is a lamp to my feet
and a light to my path” (119:105).
The faith of Christ and our faith
in Christ are both gifts of God. They start and end in God.
Conclusion
Paul is going to make it clear that
when we think of rightness with God in this way, far from leaving you
imprisoned in sin, you will find freedom to live a new life in Christ. In other
words, God loves you just the way you are, but refuses
to leave you that way, as Max Lucado put it in his Just Like Jesus Devotional. He uses this illustration. When his
daughter was a toddler, he used to take her to a park not far from their
apartment. One day as she was playing in a sandbox, an ice-cream salesperson
approached them. Max purchased her a treat, and when he turned to give it to
her, he saw her mouth was full of sand. Where he intended to put a delicacy,
she had put dirt. Did he love her with dirt in her mouth? Absolutely. Was she
any less his daughter with dirt in her mouth? Of course not. Was he going to
allow her to keep the dirt in her mouth? No way. He loved her right where she
was, but he refused to leave her there. He carried her over to the water
fountain and washed out her mouth. Why? Because he loved her.
“God does
the same for us.” God holds us over the fountain. “Spit out the dirt, honey,”
our Father urges. “I’ve got something better for you.” Therefore, God cleanses
us of filth: immorality, dishonesty, prejudice, pride, slothfulness, divisive
spirit, inappropriate anger, bitterness, envy, and greed. We do not enjoy the
cleansing; sometimes we even opt for the dirt over the ice cream. “I can eat
dirt if I want to!” we pout and proclaim.
Which is
true — we can. However, if we do, the loss is ours. Remember the amazing
possibility for you and I,
it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in
me. 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.
Going deeper
Galatians 2:15-21 is the conclusion
of the autobiographical section that became a narrative defense of the gospel
he preaches. The way to summarize his gospel is that both Jew and Gentile
receive justification in the presence of God through faith. He has stood firm
for the truth of the gospel, which this brief biography has shown. One way to
read this section is as a continuation of the argument of Paul with Peter. Betz suggests that verse 14b-21, which he views a speech by Paul to Peter,
is a summary of the letter. However,
in the context of this letter, it reflects his concern with his opponents in
Galatia. As part of this defense of the gospel, he relates the theological fall
out created by the actions of Peter and the others in Antioch. Despite their privileged position as Jews,
Paul now declares that the Law does not offer justification. Nothing human beings can do, not even obeying
the Law, can create this rightness. Paul
is stating that it is impossible for him to turn back and accept again that it
is possible for human beings to be justified by means of the Law. The surprise
here is that Paul is using a legal term to subvert the importance of the Law
and re-focus his readers on the centrality of Christ. True, he must make a
forceful statement that his apostleship is equal to that of Peter, whereas his
opponents at least suggest the apostleship of Peter is inferior. Nowhere here
does Paul dismiss the Law as useless. He
only denies that it serves the purpose of making one righteous before God.
True, God gave the people of God, Israel, a Law that, if followed, would bring
righteousness. Given the revelation of God in Christ, however, Jew and Gentile
alike the saving work of God in the death and resurrection of offers the
sought-for rightness with God.
Maybe it would be helpful to
summarize the argument thus far. A lengthy biographical monologue began in
1:11. In it, Paul recounts how God called him from his former life as a
persecutor of the church to his new role as an apostle and evangelist within
the church. Paul is especially interested in emphasizing the fact that his
status as an apostle is derived directly from God and not from the Jerusalem
apostles (see 1:1, 12-13). He relates that he did not go up to those apostles
in Jerusalem upon receiving his call, but rather went to Arabia (1:17). He had
a largely get acquainted meeting with Peter and James for 15 days. Fourteen years
later, he went to Jerusalem for an official reason. When he arrived with Titus,
some opponents wanted him circumcised. Paul rejects this, and so do the rest of
the apostles. In fact, they extend to him the right hand of Christian
fellowship. However, after this decision, it seems Peter was in Antioch. He and
Paul, as Jews, had table fellowship with Gentiles. While Jewish Law forbade
(and forbids) observant Jews to eat Gentile meat, no prohibition prevented
shared meals, provided basic it observed Jewish Law of clean and unclean foods.
Paul accuses Cephas of hypocrisy in his vacillation between strict separatism
and a more accommodating stance toward Gentile table fellowship, depending on
who (and especially whether "the circumcision faction," v. 12) was watching.
Paul opposed Peter because in this case, Peter sought to please some people who
came from James rather than God. Such separation at table fellowship was in
accord with Jewish Law, but that Law was no longer in effect because of the
gospel. In Paul’s absence from Galatia, a group of teachers had arrived and
begun teaching that circumcision and other forms of Torah observance (in Paul’s
shorthand, “the Law”) were necessary for the Christian life. They appealed to
the authority of the original apostles in Jerusalem, most of whom who were with
Peter and James. The whole of the letter to the Galatians is focused on this
issue; Paul is intensely concerned that his flock return to the gospel that he
had originally proclaimed to them, one that emphasized freedom from such
strictures as circumcision (for references to freedom, see 2:4; 4:21-30; 5:1,
13). Thus, his argument is to defend his status as an apostle, nor for his
personal elevation, but to stress the truth of the gospel he preached. In this
text, he offers a concise statement of the gospel he preached.
15 We ourselves [Paul and Peter
may be the reference. Paul may still narrate his encounter with
Peter. If so, the opening
lines are part of a quotation Paul inserted into his letter to the Galatians,
extending from 2:14-16. The quotation would then be part of Paul's response to
Cephas (as Paul refers to Peter throughout this letter, e.g., 1:18, 2:9, 11)
challenging the necessity or even suitability of observance of the Jewish Law
as prerequisite to full participation in the emerging Christian community
(2:11-13). If so, after having accused
Peter of hypocrisy “before them all” (2:14), Paul reminds Peter that they share
a common bond in their Jewish heritage, clearly an attempt to temper his harsh
words.] are Jews by
birth [In characteristic
fashion (see also Romans 9:3; II Corinthians 11:22), Paul emphasizes his own
Jewish identity in order to make the point that he came to acceptance of Jesus
as the promised Christ/Messiah from within the Jewish tradition. Betz suggests
that “Jews by birth” was a self-definition of Jewish Christians. This was how
Paul began to distinguish early Christianity from Judaism.] and not Gentile sinners;, [a harsh and asymmetrical phrase found only
here in the entire Bible. The obvious rhetorical balance for "Jews"
would simply be "Gentiles" as Paul writes in the preceding verse. Jews
by birth and Gentiles sinners shows the most basic insider/outsider
distinction. It is unclear what point Paul is seeking to drive home by lumping
all non-Jews into this category, especially since his audience in Galatia would
have included a sizable number of people who would have been considered
Gentiles by the Judaizing faction Paul is opposing. This term was how Paul
began to distinguish between Jewish sinners and non-Jewish sinners. Paul’s
conciliatory gesture to Peter is not a precursor to compromise, as the next
verse will show. Indeed, Paul's journey
to the cities of Galatia (e.g., Derbe, Lystra, Iconium) during his second
missionary journey of ca 51 (Acts 16:6) introduced, probably for the first
time, converts to Christianity directly from the Gentile population who had no
background in the religion of biblical Israel. It is possible that, to
reverse its impact, Paul is ironically adopting language that the Judaizing
party in the controversy may have used.
[We find in verse 16 one of the most succinct and dense statements
about faith in Jesus Christ anywhere in the letters of Paul.] 16 yet we know that a person is
justified [to be
"justified" (or "reckoned as righteous") is a prominent
theme in Galatians - more prominent, in fact, than in any other book in the New
Testament except Romans (see, e.g., in addition to this verse, 2:17; 3:8, 11,
24; 5:4).] not by the works of the
law [Paul draws
on courtroom imagery to describe the status of the believer before God. Yet, he
does so in a curious way. Here and in other places in his letters, Paul seems
to envision God as a judge, while the believer is a defendant who stands
accused of a crime (i.e., exhibiting sinful behavior, or in some cases simply
possessing a sinful nature). The question, then, is the way in which the
defendant can gain an acquittal (i.e., be “justified”). Paul here asserts that
Torah observance (“works of the Law”) is not sufficient for such a verdict. The
curious language here is that while he uses courtroom language, that would
focus upon whether one has observed the Law or not, he is going to argue that
the Law has nothing to do with righteousness before God.] but through faith in Jesus Christ [or the faith of Jesus Christ]. [The gospel, which Paul has received
through revelation, means that the Law no longer has the power to make one
righteous before God. The Law, a gift that separated Jew from Gentile, is not
consistent with the gospel that unites Jew and Gentile through faith. As Barth puts it, God has awakened Paul to
faith, to faith in this living One, to the faith of Christ Jesus and therefore
to the knowledge of the justification of humanity, and therefore to a knowledge
of the impossibility of a justification according to the works of the Law. In
every instance in Galatians, Paul is contrasting the futile attempts of those
who seek to be justified by works of the Law (or, more exactly in Paul's
theology, those who seek to justify themselves through works of the Law), as
opposed to being justified by God's graciousness through "faith in Jesus
Christ."
Rather, justification is through the
faith of Jesus Christ. Faith is the means of justification. Barth says the
faith in which human beings experience justification is only through this work
of Christ, and not in doing the works of Law. Why not? Not because faith as
such is better than these works. In all Galatians, there is not a single word
of praise for faith or even disparaging of works. Of the three factors, that of
justification, faith, and Christ, the controlling factor is Christ. Christ is
the one who has done this redeeming us from the curse of the Law by becoming a
curse in verse 3:13. By doing this, Christ has brought liberty. The point is not the weakness of the flesh
that cannot do these works, but the perfection with which Christ has done them. On this point, Barth says
the Greek construction pisteoV iesou christou, allows the translations "faith in
Jesus Christ" (an objective genitive ascribing saving efficacy to the
believer's trust in the work of Christ) and "faith of Jesus Christ"
(a subjective genitive denoting the saving faith displayed in Christ's obedient
death on the cross). The context here would suggest the latter. Therefore, if
we wish to avoid making Paul redundant, we should translate both phrases as
follows: “but rather [a person is
justified] through the faith of Christ Jesus, and we have believed in Christ
Jesus.” The common New Testament expression "to believe in,"
followed by a proper name or a pronoun, is an abbreviated form of "to
believe that," followed by a statement of the identity or saving work of
God or Christ.
To return to the courtroom imagery, the
faithfulness of Jesus (presumably in his death on the cross) is the basis of
the judge’s (God’s) verdict of “not guilty” that is handed down to the
defendant (believer). Such a notion would not work in the human court. In a
human court, either you have observed the law or you have not observed it.] And we have come to believe in
Christ Jesus, [Yet, the faith Jesus exhibited does not negate the significance of the
“faith” of the believer in Jesus. The second half of the verse is a basic
restatement of what Paul has just said; justification is possible only through
the faith of Christ and not through the Law.] so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not
by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of
the law. [Echoes
Psalm 143:2, although Paul sets the phrase in an entirely different context
here.]
17 But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been
found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! [One way to define “sin” in the Old
Testament is that of transgression, just as you would “transgress” a human law.
Thus, we find here the argument
of those who advocated that Gentiles must become Jews before they can become
Christians. Betz says that the phrase “found to be sinners” means that the
opponents of Paul were calling Gentile Christians “sinners” because they have
not come under the grace of Torah. Paul’s argument was that God never called
Gentiles to come under the specific grace of Torah. They had to come under the
general grace of God. Therefore, the teaching of Paul does not lead to moral
anarchy.]
18 But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, [In fact, to rebuild the
edifice of Torah would itself be sinful. For the apostle Paul, faith in Christ
was a sinner's personal reaching out in love to embrace the good news of God's
reconciliation of the world through Jesus' saving life and work. In so doing, a
person is justified or reckoned as righteous by the God from whom all people,
including Paul, are estranged naturally by sin. Paul would then transgress
into his former state of captivity to the Law from which the faith of and in
Christ has delivered him. In
this context, Paul's faith in Christ is his renunciation of the world,
including its established moral precepts.] then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor.
19 For through the law I
died [when by faith
he united himself to Christ and therefore to his death] to the law, [Paul’s statement, though puzzling, seems to
assume that the very seeds of the gospel are contained in the Law itself; this
fact leads Paul to the this paradoxical claim (Romans 6:10). The phrase could have two
meanings. In either case, it seems like Paul
links this phrase to the death of Christ, by interpreting it as referring to
the fact that the believer participates in the death of Christ, is
preferable.] so that I might live to God. [First, it could mean that Christians are dead
with Christ and thus to Mosaic Law, and so already share the life of the risen
Christ. Second, it could mean that Christians are dead to the Law in order to
obey a higher law of faith and the Spirit.
This means that the Jewish people
in particular need to die to the Law in order to receive the freedom that God
offers in Christ. A change of lordship has occurred, and one cannot be under
Law and under Christ. To dramatize the difference, 4 Maccabees 16:24-25
contains an incident in which a mother persuaded and encouraged her sons to die
rather than violate the commandment of God. The promise was that those who die
for the sake of God live to God.] I have been crucified with Christ; [So complete is the break
between his former life under the Law and his current life under faith that he
is able to claim he has crucified that former life. Paul expresses his
renunciation of the world in a graphic way in an expression he uses here and in Romans 6:6 to describe the
utterly profound nature of his conversion in baptism. The image of Christian
conversion as a dying (and rising) with Christ is used in a hymnic fragment in II
Timothy 2:11, indicating that the metaphor was in widespread use among early
Christians to convey the radical disjunction between the old life (as
Law-constrained Jew or superstitious Gentile) and the new life in Christ. Near
the end of Paul's impassioned epistle to the Galatians, the apostle returns to
this image to summarize the shattering experiences separating his former and
current selves: "[T]he world has been crucified to me, and I to the
world" (6:14). For
Barth, Paul has died to the Law, which amounts to making the error of a justification
of humanity by the fulfillment of another law than this, in order that he may
now live for God. In the crucifixion of Jesus, he himself experiences
crucifixion and therefore destroyed and done away, the man who willed to
justify himself in this impossible way. It has become impossible for him to try
to go further along this impossible way. Now, we might ask, in what sense can
we die to the law through the law?
First, its character was immediately present. Second, it
reveals sin. The Law provides no remedy. Paul finds a valid use for the Law in v. 19,
but hardly one his opponents would expect.
If it was shocking for Paul's listeners to hear him declare that he had
died to the Law, it was even more startling to hear him claim he had also died
with Christ. Under the Law, a right
relationship with God was dependent upon how obediently Paul followed the works
of the Law. Paul specifies two
unmerited, unexpected acts of God's Son that makes commitment to Christ, not to
the Law, so easy. Because Christ loves
me and gave himself for me, Paul will not nullify the grace of God.] 20 and it is no longer I who live,
but it is Christ who lives in me. 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. [Paul now focuses on the one
whose “faithfulness” is so effective for the believer that his life animates
the life of the believer. The focus
shifts from the courtroom, where we find no remedy to the human problem of sin,
to the sacrificial love of God shown to us in Christ and which we receive by
faith. Since Paul continues to live as an apostle, crucifixion did just mean
death. It meant opening up the possibility of resurrection to a new life. By faith, Christ becomes the
subject of all the living acts of a Christian.
Though Christians are still living in the flesh, they already have the
Spirit. In the previous verse, death was release from past obligations. In the present verse, it is annihilation of
old sins. Crucifying and rising are tied
together. The "now" is his new
life in Christ. Paul applies God's love for the world personally here. For Barth, the life of Jesus Christ has
become his. His life in the flesh has become an opportunity for faith in
Christ, the Son of God, who loved me and has given himself for me. The bridge
behind him has been broken. The boats on which he might have set out on the way
back have been burned. He has no basis for any other life. Any such life that
seeks justification by the Law would only mean that he rejects the grace of
God, that he thinks Christ might have died in vain, that he transgresses the
true law under which he stands. He cannot do this. He is prevented by the
revelation he has received. It only remains to live in faith in Christ. Barth also says that the
fact that life in the faith of the Son of God has its basis in the fact that He
has first believed for me, and believed in a way that all that remains for me
to do is to let my eyes rest on Him and to follow Him. Following Him is my
faith. He has already done the great work of faith. Barth also says that this
statement is typical, in that they are the necessary self-declaration of all
Christians. To be a Christian is by
definition to be in Christ. The place of the community is indicated by this
expression. The fact that they are in Christ is the basis of all the
instruction Paul gives his churches. They live in the world, but Christ gave
Himself for them. Barth also notes that what
Paul stresses in such language is that being a Christian relentlessly brings us
back to this specific place, characterized by the cross. The cross involves hardship, anguish, grief, pain, and finally death.
Those who are set in this movement willingly undertake to bear this because it
is essential to this movement that it should finally in this way. We are
outside the movement if we will not take up and bear our cross. The special
fellowship that Christians have with Christ involves the cross. Christians
arise as witnesses to what is hidden for every human being. Barth also says that just
as Judas delivered up Jesus, so also here, God has delivered Jesus, and also,
Christ has delivered Himself. Barth also says that
Jesus Christ will not be an obscure point of contact to the believer.
Anthropology and ontology, for Barth, take their norm in Christ. For him,
pietism represents a subjectivist philosophy that his theology can correct. He
grants that Christianity is an I-faith, taking place within the context of the
demythologizing of the I represented in this passage. Pannenberg stresses that one event has two different subjects in the
love of the Father, from which nothing will separate us in Romans 8:39, and in
the love of Christ here. Their fellowship finds expression in the unity of
the event. What he finds striking is that Christ is not subsumed within God,
but is named along with God, who works through Christ as the subject of this
act of love. The whole sending of the
Son by the Father aims at the vicarious expiatory death on the cross. We can
only infer in this passage that giving himself “for me” is also “for sin” in
this passage. If a correct inference, it suggests a form of expiation as an
understanding of the cross. Yet, for Pannenberg, the notion of the Son
involved in this loving giving up to death
introduces another complexity. Significantly,
when we reflect upon the action of Father and Son in the cross, Paul sees the
love of God in Romans 5:8 and the love of Christ in this verse, who also gave
himself up for us. In essence, in the cross we have one event, in which the
Father and the Son cooperate so fully that the work is that of God and that of
Christ. This orientation of the obedience and suffering of the Son toward the
salvation of many is also the will and work of the Father here.
21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the
law, then Christ died for nothing. [Paul ends his speech to Peter with a
straightforward summary of what is at stake.]
Now while Paul originally
addressed his words to Peter, it is clear that in the letter that he now
directs his words at the teachers who have been attempting to sway the
Galatians. Just as Peter had compromised
the gospel by shunning the Gentiles in Antioch in deference to Jewish table
regulations, so, too, were the teachers threatening to undermine the gospel in
their insistence on circumcision and other Law observances. The letter to
the Galatians is thus a vigorous and sustained polemic against what Paul
perceived to be serious obstacles to the gospel that he had received from the
Lord and handed on to the Galatians.
Tolmie summarizes the rhetorical strategy of this passage
in the following way. Paul recounts his version of the incident at Antioch in
order to show how he stood firmly for the "truth of the gospel." The
concept "truth of the gospel" is the focal point. He uses (his
version of) the events in Antioch as proof that at that time he already fought
for the truth of the gospel against attempts to falsify the gospel – the same
truth that is under attack in Galatia at this stage, thus implying that he is
still fighting for the truth of the gospel. He breaks down the rhetorical
strategy into four aspects. First, Paul does not mention that he suffered a
defeat in Antioch. Second, he portrays his own behavior in Antioch as a defense
of the truth of the gospel, and so, again, he uses biography as proof. Third,
he creates the impression that his gospel is in accord with Christian tradition
and Scripture, using both as supporting his objective. Fourth, he places the
events in Antioch into an obvious application for the crisis in Galatia. He
achieves this by gradually shifting the focus from what happened in Antioch to
the situation in Galatia. In this process, he also highlights several key
notions that form part of the "truth of the gospel" – notions that
were important in Antioch, but more importantly, are crucial for the problems
in Galatia.
He enhances this dominant
rhetorical strategy by means of several supportive techniques, namely the
vilification of his opponents; repetition (including chiasm); two rhetorical
questions; refutation of criticism, and the effective use of metaphorical
language.
Paul concludes this portion of his argument by casting in absolute
terms the contrast between justification through faith and justification
through works: If the Law justifies, then God's grace has been nullified and
"Christ died for nothing" (v. 21). The center of Paul's theology of
salvation by grace is the sacrificial death of Jesus as an expression of God's
gracious will. It is in acknowledging that act and allowing its resultant
sanctifying grace to transform his life that Paul is able to say, as the
ultimate affirmation of the new life in Christ, and without hyperbole,
"[I]t is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me" (v.
20).
Justification
through faith in Christ and not through works of the Law is, of course, a
fundamental and recurrent theme through all of Paul's writings (see, for
example, his discussions of and variations on this theme in Romans 3:9-20,
6:1-14, 8:9-17, 11:1-16; II Corinthians 5:14-21; Ephesians 2:1-10; Philippians
3:2-11.) It is not an exaggeration to say that justification through faith
is the center of Pauline theology, and increasingly became so as Paul sought to
spread the message of the gospel to an ever wider and more influential
audience. His problem with the righteousness of the Law, as Barth puts it, is
that it conflicts with the righteousness of God and therefore becomes
unrighteous. This is most evident in his letter to the church at Rome, canonically
the first but chronologically the last of Paul's genuine letters (written ca.
56-57), and the letter where the theme of justification through faith finds its
fullest and most mature expression (see the references above). The letters to
the Romans and to the Galatians share a number of characteristics, such as
justification through faith, a prominent role for Abraham, and heavy reliance
on Scripture. Yet, the contexts in which they develop those ideas were quite
divergent, and Paul forged this text in the midst of internal Christian
controversy and not an unfettered introduction of the Christian message to
strangers.
Justification has an important place in
theology. One obvious example is Luther. He stresses that with Paul “we” absolutely deny the possibility of
self-merit. God has never given to anyone grace and eternal life as a reward
for merit. For him, then, the true way of salvation has its summary in two
points. First, people need to realize that they are sinners, unable to do any
good thing. People who seek to earn grace by their own efforts sins. The first
step, then, is to repent. The second is that God has sent the Son for remission
of sins, righteousness, and eternal life. God is the one who hands out such
gifts. He explains the scholastic view of the way of salvation in the following
way. When a person happens to perform a good deed, God accepts it and as a
reward for the good deed, God pours charity into that person. Thus, God
“infuses” charity into them. It remains in the heart. As he understands it,
they claim that we are able to love God “by our own natural strength.” As he
sees it, this means that we “deserve” grace. Yet, since no one can satisfy God
with a literal performance of the Law, we still need a “formal righteousness.”
For him, in order to have faith one must paint a true portrait of Christ. As he
views it, the scholastics caricature Christ into a judge and tormentor. For him, Christ is no lawgiver. He is the
Lifegiver. He is the Forgiver of sins. You must believe that Christ might
have atoned for the sins of the world with one single drop of His blood.
Instead, He shed His blood abundantly in order that He might give abundant
satisfaction for our sins. For Luther, we are so sinful that we needed “imputed
righteousness” from Christ to cover our sinfulness.
