05-The first paragraph from Galatians

The first paragraph from Galatians

St Paul, in his opening words, affirms his Apostolate, in unmistakeable terms, and also the Divine authenticity of his message. This leads on to an exposition as to how he came by it. It is no ‘human’ message: it came (he expressly says) by definite revelation. He repeats the familiar tale of his pre-conversion days; how he was a persecutor; an out and out ‘legalist’; an upholder of ‘tradition’ altogether beyond the common. Others (the suggestion is) may be ‘zealots’ for the Law, but not to the extent that he has been.

Then follows, after the wonderful verse and a half (vv. 15, 16) in which the mystery of his ‘call’ is described, the well-known summary of his relations with the chief Apostles. He did not go up to Jerusalem (he tells us) to those who were Apostles “before him”; on the contrary, he was in “Arabia” (a geographical term indubitably employed in a very broad sense) and returned from there to Damascus. It was μετὰ τριὰ ἔτη that he went up to visit Cephas and spent a fortnight with him. James the brother of the Lord was the only other leader of the Mother Church he saw on that occasion.

These statements the Apostle makes in the most solemn form conceivable. Thee came the Cilician sojourn (of Acts 9:30 presumably). The pronouncement the Apostle makes (with regard to his relations, up till then, with “the Churches of Judaea”) is beset with puzzling questions, but does not concern us now. Next the readers are told of the second visit to Jerusalem (διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν) with Barnabas and Titus. By this time St Paul is very plainly at work, preaching to Gentiles (ὃ κηρύσσω ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, 2:2). This would seem, at first sight, to suggest an identification of this visit with that in Acts 15. But probably those are right who rather see in it the ‘Relief Visit’ of Acts 11:30. If that be so, the Apostle had very early made up his own mind on the question of circumcision for Gentile converts: for, surely, it is certain that Titus was not circumcised.

However all attempts to harmonise ‘Galatians’ with the ‘Acts’ involve us in some difficulty. If the visit “after 14 years” is to be taken as the Relief Visit, then what are we to say about the ‘elders’ of Acts 11:30? That verse seems to imply that ‘the Twelve’ were already gone from Jerusalem. On the other hand Galatians 2:6-11 very decidedly suggests that the very “pillars of the Church,” “James and Cephas and John,” were actually there, and struck a bargain with him, freely acknowledging his mission (and Barnabas’) to the Gentiles, but begging him to remember the poor at Jerusalem-the which, indeed, as he says, he had already been forward to do.

All the various problems involved in Galatians 1 and 2 form a fascinating theme for full discussion. Yet, when all is said and done, there seems little likelihood of any consensus of scholars upon disputed points. The ball is tossed to and fro; now one theory is in favour, and now another. For doctrinal purposes the upshot matters little. All we are concerned to know is, that the Apostle roundly declares that his mission was independent and not controlled from Jerusalem; that the heads of the Mother Church freely recognised it was so-in short, that the loud-voiced contention of Judaising emissaries, as to the inferiority of his status (compared with οἱ δοκοῦντες), had no existence in fact, nor yet in the minds of those who were foremost in the Church. It is at this point, quite incidentally, that we come upon the first of the passages of which I propose to speak.

Galatians 2:11-14. “But when Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to the face, because he was without defence. Before there came ‘certain from James,’ he had been joining in food with Gentiles; but after they came he was disposed to withdraw and separate himself, from fear of the Circumcision Party. And his insincere conduct was joined by the other Jewish Christians. Insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away in the stream of their insincerity.”

“But when I saw they were not walking by the standard of Gospel truth, I said to Cephas, in the presence of them all: If you, a Jew to start with, live as the Gentiles do, and not as Jews do; on what principle are you for forcing the Gentiles to live as Jews?” At this point let me halt for a word or two of comment. Of this visit of Cephas to Antioch, which must have taken place anyhow after the close of what we are told in Acts 12:25 -that is, after the return of Saul and Barnabas from the mission of relief, we know nothing from other sources. But we can easily understand that St Peter must have taken to heart the lesson so singularly taught him in connexion with Cornelius. Up till then he had recognised it as an “unlawful thing for a Jew” to have Intimate relations with, or even to enter the house of, an ‘alien’ (κολλᾶσθαι ἢ προσέρχεσθαι ἀλλοφύλῳ, Acts 10:28). At any time after that (and we note that he is invited to “stay on with them certain days” at Caesarea, which presumably he did: see Acts 10:48) the Apostle may have made it a practice to join at table with Gentile believers. It was made a reproach against him, on his return to Jerusalem, by οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς (designated in Acts as here), that he had actually done so once, on the occasion of that visit. And we should gather that his defence was successful for a time, and silenced his Judaic critics. This had befallen some considerable time before Saul was fetched from Tarsus to join the work at Antioch; and he had been a full year at that before the ‘Relief’ mission. It is to be hoped, and believed, that the custom of St Peter-for ‘Cephas’ in the text can be no other: the existence of the variant Πέτρος is decisive evidence for early church belief-set forth in the συνήσθιεν (Galatians 2:12), was a habit of some standing. Nor, indeed, is it even certain that he actually gave it up when the Judaisers came. The Greek, of course, is not decisive for that interpretation. All it sets before us is a tendency, a backwardness, an unwillingness to do as he had done (at any rate in Antioch) under Judaising pressure. St Paul stigmatises this weakness as sheer ὑπόκρισις, and it is difficult indeed to blame him for calling it so. The defection of Barnabas, the one man broad-minded enough and courageous enough to hold out the hand of fellowship to the ex-Pharisee and persecutor (as we are told in Acts 9:27) may well have tried his comrade very severely. There could be no stronger proof of the influence exercised by the emissaries “from James.” The language of 2:14 is interesting. Ὀρθοποδοῦσιν (a most expressive term) may have been a word of Antioch, or even of Tarsus: it has about it, one can’t help thinking, a kind of ‘sporting’ ring. Πῶς, I imagine, represents the τί μαθών of classical Greek. In idiomatic English it would be ‘Why on earth?’ or the like.

It seems to be fairly certain that St Paul, on this eventful occasion, would only have flashed forth one sharp, indignant question. No one supposes he went on with all that is contained in vv. 15-21. But, if he did not say all of it, seeing how it all hangs together, it is very hard to tell where the break should be supposed. It is better, I have no doubt, to punctuate as is done in ‘W. H.’ Very possibly St Paul felt then exactly what he now sets down in ‘black and white.’ Bet it would have savoured of the absurd to have so delivered himself at Antioch. There is only one consideration that might give us pause: that is the opening ἡμεῖς. But St Paul, and all Jewish Christians who felt with him, were called upon to defend themselves, as often as this attack was made by the ‘circumcision people.’ It is for himself and them St Paul is speaking here. There is nothing surprising in the suddenness of the turn. It is highly characteristic of the writer.

Otherwise we might regard the passage as a sort of soliloquy, in which the Apostle mentally apostrophises his great brother.

Galatians 2:15. “We are Jews born, and not ‘sinners’ from among the Gentiles; yet being sure that a man is not ‘set right’ (with God) from doing things Law bids, (but) only through faith in Christ Jesus; we too became believers in Christ Jesus, that we might be set right with God on the ground of faith in Christ, and not of legal doings. For no living creature shall be set right with God as a consequence of achieving law.” This somewhat rude translation will speak, I think, for itself. ‘Sinners’ is, of course, used as contemptuous Jews would use it, of folks not born ‘in the Covenant,’ or even insufficiently educated. Εἰδότες expresses a truth intuitively discerned, about which one does not reason, for the thing is self-evident. It is not easy to represent the distinction between the ἐξ and the διὰ of v. 16-if indeed (for practical purposes) there be any distinction at all. The latter part of the verse, in which ἐξ is used thrice running, would plainly suggest there is none. The εἰς with Χριστόν in v. 16 (ἐπιστεύσαμεν εἰς Χριστόν) means no more than “in.” There is no ‘pregnant’ conception of ‘incorporation,’ or the like. The aorist is certainly ‘ingressive.’ The citation of the Psalm is an instance of that free handling of O.T. Scripture which startles the modern reader when studying the New Testament. And it comes in ‘Romans’ too in precisely the same form, with the addition (from the LXX) of ἐνώπιον σου. For the Psalmist the pronouncement is of universal application. Whether we read πᾶς ζῶν or πᾶσα σάρξ makes no sort of difference. Still the first time the modern reader comes across the Pauline insertion he cannot but feel troubled. He is vexed to have to say to himself: ‘if the statement is universally true, it must be true in the case imagined by St Paul; the most careful “legalist” must fail of δικαιοσύνη.’ We should feel happier if we might expand a little and say: “neither by ‘legal works,’ nor any other way, shall any living man be righted in God’s eyes.”

Apart from the famous citation the two verses present no difficulty. Now we come to harder matter.

Galatians 2:17-18. “But if in our eagerness to be set right in Christ, we, even we, found ourselves in the category of ‘sinners,’ is Christ an agent of sin? Out, impious thought! If I build up again what once I demolished, it is I that am transgressor.” The argument in v. 17 is of the nature of a ‘reductio ad absurdum.’ To become ‘believers in Christ’ the Apostles and their fellows had to sink, in the eyes of their countrymen, to the level of Gentile ‘outcasts.’ They too became ‘sinners.’ But it was Christ that set them there. Ergo, the sinfulness of that ‘sinner’ state was none. It was just a necessary consequence of seeking life in Him. With regard to ἐν Χριστῷ, the question must arise, is this the familiar Pauline phrase to express the ‘vital union,’ which obtains between Christ and believers; or, should we rather regard the ἐν as being of an ‘instrumental’ character? Ἐν Χριστῷ might be virtually equivalent to διὰ Χριστοῦ. If we have here the full ‘pregnant’ phrase, it would be better to adopt the rendering “by union with Christ” The one rendering is grammatically simpler; but the other is probably right. Verse 15 shows that the boot is on the other leg. It is addressed to all such Jewish believers as showed a disposition to ‘weaken’ in the face of Judaic bigotry; in fact manifested a tendency to ‘run both with hare and hounds.’ St Paul elsewhere declares that whatever is not ‘of conviction’ is ‘sin.’ To accept the Christian position, to take Christ for ‘all in all,’ and then to hark back to the Law, as if that had ‘saving’ virtue-that was plainly tantamount to self-conviction. The παραβάτην ἐμαυτὸν συνιστάνω recalls the κατεγνωσμένος of v. 11. The Apostle, after his manner, employs the first person here, but in the very next verse he is at the pains of explaining that this is by no means his case-the case of him, Paul.

Verse 19 is very hard of rendering: one can only guess, at the best. c. 2:19-21. “Law led me to die to Law, that I might live to God. Christ’s crucifixion is mine. There lives no longer I; it is Christ lives in me. And so far as I now live the life of common man, I live in faith-faith in the Son of God, that loved me and gave Himself up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God. If by Law acceptance comes with God, then was Christ’s death for naught!”

Here is indeed a passage sufficiently perplexing. The thought seems plain in regard to its general drift. But there is a very baffling conciseness of expression, as well as an element of the ‘mystical’ in the teaching, that does not contribute to make it easier of exposition. The opening phrase of v. 19 is an excellent instance of highly perplexing conciseness. The thought appears to be: I was once a follower of Law, and followed with might and main: but it led to nothing, nothing. The more I tried, the more hopeless seemed the task. Law finally demonstrated its hopeless inefficacy. So ‘Law’ became for St Paul the death of ‘Law.’ Only he does not put it so. Instead of saying ‘Law died for me,’ he says ‘I died for Law.’ But (I take it) the reason for his thus converting the proposition is the clause that follows next, ἵνα Θεῷ ζήσω. Law, indeed, died for him: he had no more interest in it or use for it. He found a real ‘life’ elsewhere-in the spiritual sphere. His ‘death to Law’ led him on to ‘life for God.’ The datives are very difficult, and the latter more so than the former. The former is a species familiar enough in classical Greek. I used to call it myself the ‘dative of personal limitation.’ The name implies that the predication contained in the verb is limited to a certain (and a personal) application. ‘Law’ is here personified. The Νόμῳ, then, means ‘as far as Law was concerned I ceased to be’ (which is only a way of saying; Law became nothing for me). The Θεῷ is a different matter. The dative, apparently the same, is (on further consideration) obviously other. St Paul entered a new life, not merely relatively to God, but altogether. Νόμῳ ἀπέθανον and Θεῷ ζήσω are not in perfect balance. But that is a common phenomenon in Pauline sentences. The reader may recall a closely similar variation of datives in one sentence, that occurs in Romans 6:10, “In that He died, He died to sin once for all: in that He liveth, He liveth for God.” The relations there expressed by the datives are similarly different. St Paul, in fact, uses ζῆν τινί, not infrequently, in the sense ‘to live in the interest of.’ This is not, so far as I know, a classical usage. The phrase Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι is full of interest. Owing to the non-existence in English of an adequate equivalent for the perfect tense in Greek (for our perfect is widely different) it can only be rendered by some cumbrous periphrasis. One can either say, I am ‘crucified with Christ,’ or else (as above) ‘Christ’s crucifixion is mine too.’ The perfect represents the fact as permanent and ever fruitful. The same idea is found in (Romans 6:6) stated in the other possible tense, the aorist. That represents the thing as an event in historic time, a thing that once befell. Here the ‘death,’ implied in crucifixion, is set forth as perennially lasting. There must be a death before the new life can begin. So, spiritually also, ‘death’ is the ‘gate to life.’ It follows that, as a consequence, Paul (in a way) is no longer alive. The old ‘Paul’ is gone for ever. There is a new ‘Paul’ now: only this new ‘Paul’ is not really ‘Paul’ at all; it is Christ alive in Paul. Accordingly he continues ζῷ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, which I rendered above, ‘There lives no longer I.’ Greek idiom requires that the verb should be in the first person. It is like the “θαρσεῖτε, ἐγώ εἰμι” of the Gospel story. This however (the ζῇ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός) represents only the mystical truth. There is a natural life coincident with it: there is a palpable ‘Paul,’ who behaves as other men in outward things, who eats and sleeps, and so forth. Yet even his life is different from the life of other men, not merely in a mystical sense, but in intelligible ways. It is lived in a different atmosphere. That atmosphere is ‘faith’-“faith in the Son of God, that loved me and gave Himself for me.” This personal appropriation of the love of Christ by St Paul may be said to have its rationale in the fact that Christ is Divine. At first one is tempted to say Christ could only die for the world. And indeed that might have been so were He other than He is.

Believers in every age have sided with the Apostle in his strong ‘personal’ conviction: and (seemingly) they have been right. What self-surrender is this of which the Apostle speaks τοῦ … παραδόντος ἑαυτόν? Surely it must cover the death. How far it would be justifiable to see in the ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ the idea of ‘vicarious suffering,’ it is not easy to say. Speaking in strict grammar, one could not insist on its presence. But life (ordinary human life) is very full of it: in fact, love would be at a loss, if this channel were closed to it. The χάριν of v. 21 would appear to be ‘concrete.’ It is the ‘loving favour’ shown in an especial way, in the giving of the Son. To translate δικαιοσύνη by ‘righteousness’ (in v. 21) appears to me absurd. The word is meant to express the condition of the technically δίκαιος-of the man ‘who is right with God.’ It is by no means easy to ‘English.’ One can ‘right’ a man, or ‘set him right’; but ‘rightness’ would mean nothing. The Latin says ‘justitia.’ It would have been somewhat happier, had it said ‘justificatio.’

One often hears people make mention of ‘legal fiction’ in connexion with the idea of ‘justification.’ This appears to me to proceed entirely from a failure to recognise the purely technical sense of δίκαιος and of δικαιοσύνη. It plainly lies with the Deity to dictate the terms and conditions on which He will admit a man within His Covenant. At least it appears to me so.