Commentary on Galatians (47)
GALATIANS 3:26-4:7
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.
The idea of sonship to Abraham was introduced back in 3:7. The Judaizers probably argued that one must become the children of Abraham to inherit the promise that God made to him. One could be born a Jew, and thus a descendent of Abraham and circumcised. Or a non-Jew could convert and submit under the law, along with all the Jewish customs and regulations, including the rite of circumcision. However, Paul has shown that Abraham himself was justified by faith in God's promise, and those who believe are the children of Abraham. Circumcision is irrelevant.
But now Paul says that Christians are not only the children of Abraham, but also the "sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus," and these are those who have been "baptized into Christ." Of course, Paul has not been stressing justification by faith alone only to contradict himself here by making water baptism a requirement to justification. We know, for example, that one of the criminals who were crucified with Christ professed faith in him. Nailed to the cross, not only did he have no opportunity to perform any good work, but he did not even receive water baptism. Yet Christ said to him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43).
That said, we understand that under ordinary circumstances, those who profess faith in Christ are also to be baptized in his name, and indeed there is usually no reason to proceed without it. So the two are sometimes mentioned as if they are interchangeable, although they are strictly not the same. One could have faith in Christ without the baptism and still be justified, but one could be baptized without faith in Christ, and still not be justified, but remain in condemnation. In any case, verses 26-27 affirm the doctrine of adoption, that those who believe in Christ are the sons of God. This is already implied in verse 24.
Believers are "all one in Christ Jesus" (v. 28) and are the sons of God (v. 26). In our context, this supercedes all natural distinctions between individuals, so that in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female." The rampant misuse of this verse is partly due to a disregard for its context, which is spiritual, and concerns justification before God.
To paraphrase, Paul is saying, "When it comes to justification, and when it comes to being the children of Abraham and the sons of God, it does not matter whether you are Jew or non-Jew, slave or free, male or female. Before you come to Christ, one is not more disadvantaged than the other, for all are condemned according to the divine standard. When you come to Christ, one is not more welcomed than the other, for all must come through the faith that God gives. After you have come to Christ, one is not more privileged than the other, for all are sons of God in him."
However, Paul is by no means saying, "Christ has abolished all racial differences, all class disparities, and all gender distinctions." Although the verse has been used as if it says this, or almost as if it says this, it is far…far from what the verse teaches. It cannot be used, for example, to refute alleged differences in the intelligence, disposition, and physiology between races, classes, and genders. Whether these differences exist is a separate question – this verse does not affirm or refute them, since it does not address them at all.
Therefore, the verse cannot be used to refute racism, classism, and sexism outside of the context of this passage, unless where the relevance could be established by necessary inference from the verse. It cannot even be used as an appeal to non-Christians against racism, classism, and sexism, since the lack of distinction referred to here is based on the fact that believers are "all one in Christ Jesus." But unbelievers are not in Christ Jesus, so that believers are not one with them. However, from this verse a legitimate appeal may be made for unbelievers to convert, to become believers, so that they may become one with all believers in Christ, where spiritually speaking, there is this basis to end racism, classism, and sexism.
Even among believers, many distinctions between these groups remain. For example, just because we are "all one in Christ Jesus" does not mean that it is appropriate for a man to walk into a women's restroom in church, claiming that there is neither "male nor female" in Christ. Once we wrest the verse out of its context, one may no longer arbitrarily limit its usage. In fact, we may respond to someone who uses this verse out of its context that according to his usage, the problem that he is trying to address no longer exists.
That is, if in Christ there is neither male nor female in the sense that he understands it, that no gender distinction should remain, then the very idea of sexual discrimination also vanishes. If there is no sexual distinction, there can be no sexual discrimination, and this means that no one who uses the verse in this manner can say that there is such a thing as a victim of sexism. The person is discriminated against as an individual apart from his or her gender. Thus once the verse is used to address what it is not supposed to address, the problem that it is not supposed to address also disappears.
The same applies to the application of this verse to racism and classism. A person's skin color does not change just because he becomes a Christian. And a person does not automatically possess more or less wealth or status just because he now believes in Christ. All such distinctions between individuals remain. A man is still a man, and a woman is still a woman. The Scripture even gives the two different instructions regarding their roles, and thus insisting on a sharp distinction between the genders, even when it addresses believers.
As a side point, we must never become one-sided when considering discrimination against various groups. Oftentimes the so-called "victims" are just as prejudiced, if not more so. The Jews had suffered immense persecution and oppression, but they were certainly racists themselves, bitter and self-righteous. Sometimes the difference between the oppressor and the oppressed is not that the former is more prejudiced, but that the latter is more boisterous, complaining and extorting undeserved advantages from other members of society. In any case, Scripture commands slaves to obey their masters (Ephesians 6:5-8), and women to submit to their husbands (Ephesians 6:22-24). Even in Christ, natural distinctions remain and are strictly observed.
Verse 29 says that those who "belong" to Christ are "heirs according to the promise," showing that Paul is willing to consider "Abraham's seed" in the plural, as we mentioned in connection with 3:16. Christ is indeed the "true" heir – in him God's promise to Abraham finds ultimate and complete fulfillment. Believers, however, are also properly called the heirs of the promise, but only in Christ.
As we proceed to 4:1, we must keep in mind that Paul is making his case from the perspective of salvation history. This is important for a proper understanding of the rest of the passage. He says that although an heir would inherit the entire estate, he appears no better than a slave before he comes of age. His activities are dictated by guardians and trustees, and he could make no decision regarding the estate that he would one day inherit. And it was the case under certain ancient laws and customs that the father was the one who determined the official time when the child would be considered an adult.
Likewise, when the people of God were children, they were "in slavery under the basic principles of this world." But at the appointed time, "God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons." This is obviously not referring to what happens in the life of each individual, but to some definite periods and events in history – thus the reminder that Paul is speaking from the perspective of salvation history, and not how God deals with individuals.
Verse 6 hearkens back to 3:2 and the other references to the Spirit as the fulfillment of the blessing of Abraham. We are the sons of God, so the Spirit enables us to know and address him as "Abba, Father." In connection with this, we seem to have too much patience with the common misconception that "Abba" is the equivalent of "Daddy" in English – it is not. A son, of course, is also an heir, and one who takes possession of the inheritance (v. 7).
Commentary on Galatians (46)
GALATIANS 3:19-25
What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.
Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
There is no entirely comfortable way of dividing 3:19-4:7 into manageable sections for study. This is because although a progression of thought is noticeable, one point blends into the next as each transition occurs, so that each section that is taken out from the larger passage still heavily depends on the context. Thus we have chosen to divide the text into 3:19-25 and 3:26-4:7 partly for the sake of convenience. The reader should often refer to 3:19-4:7 as a whole as he considers the details of our text.
The previous passages have established three major points. First, Abraham was himself justified by faith and not works, the law, or circumcision (3:6-9). Second, the law itself teaches the impossibility of justification by the works of law, but rather points to faith as the only way (3:10-14). Third, the law, which came after God's promise to Abraham, does not set aside or add to the promise, which amounts to a declaration of God's intention to save multitudes of people from all over the world and in all periods of history through faith in Christ (3:15-18).
Now that these three points are established, two questions arise concerning the law. First, if the law cannot justify, and if it does not affect the promise, then what is its purpose? Second, if God's blessing comes through faith, and if faith and works exclude each other as the means of justification, then does this mean that the law is in fact opposed to the promises of God, working against them? Whether these are anticipated or actual questions, Paul now proceeds to answer them.
To the first question, Paul answers that the law was added "because of transgressions" (v. 19). It is possible to understand this in a subjective sense, so that the law becomes a divine standard against which we as individuals may measure our motives and actions. And as we perceive that we fall far short of the divine standard (Romans 3:23), we will become convicted of our sins and a wicked nature that we cannot overcome. This in itself is sound biblical theology. As Paul writes elsewhere, "through the law we become conscious of sin" (Romans 3:20).
However, since Paul is making his case on the basis of the history of salvation, the objective sense is primary here. Thus the REB translates, "It was added to make wrongdoing a legal offence." The NLT says, "It was given to show people how guilty they are," and that would be true even in the objective sense. That is, the law was given not only to produce subjective conviction within individuals concerning their sinfulness, but to objectively demonstrate people's failure to observe the law and live up to God's standard (Romans 5:20).
The law, he adds, "was put into effect through angels by a mediator" (v. 19b). As Deuteronomy 33:2 and Psalm 68:17 indicate, God delivered the law in the presence of a large company of angels, and by the hand of the mediator Moses (see Acts 7:53 and Hebrews 2:2). Verse 20 might be a little confusing. It seems to make a contrast between law and promise in terms of how they were delivered. Thus the REB translates, "but an intermediary is not needed for one party acting alone, and God is one." God gave the promise directly to Abraham, without the agency of angels or a mediator. This suggests the superiority of promise over law.
To the second question, as to whether the law is opposed to God's promises, Paul answers, "Absolutely not!" The reason he offers also answers the first question, that is, the one regarding the law's purpose. The law does not impart life, he says, but "the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe." In other words, the law does not oppose God's promises, because it was never given to compete against them.
In fact, the law kept the whole world – that is, all people – "locked up" so that it could deliver the chosen ones directly to Christ through faith (v. 23-24). The law, although good and spiritual in itself, was so harsh and stringent toward the sinner as to make it clear that only through the way of faith, provided by God himself through Christ and delivered in the form of a promise, could one receive justification. Therefore, the law could not be opposed to promise, for its function is to serve the promise, and in turn the way of faith.
Where the NIV has the words "put in charge to lead us to" (v. 24), is the term that is translated "guardian" in the ESV. It refers to a slave that has been assigned to escort a child to and from school, and who also watches over his conduct. Although the slave has the authority to apply corporal punishment, he does not teach the child. He is not a teacher, but a disciplinarian. To translate it as "schoolmaster" (KJV) is misleading. Once the child is grown, he is no longer under the authority or "supervision" of the slave guardian (v. 25).
Therefore, the law was given for a purpose, and it is not opposed to the promises of God, since it was given for the purpose of bringing the chosen ones to the promises through faith in Christ.
Commentary on Galatians (45)
GALATIANS 3:15-18
Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
The reasons suggested as to why Paul mentions certain points, or why he chooses to argue for these points the way he does, are often partly based on speculation. For example, when he puts the emphasis on Abraham, it could be that he is answering some of the opposing arguments, those that appeal to Abraham to establish justification by works, law, or circumcision. However, there is no way to be sure of this, and it could be that Paul is merely raising the point to present his own case against the Judaizers. In any case, whether he is answering actual or hypothetical arguments, or whether he is making his own case, we know that he is indeed facing opposition, that is, Judaizers who would sway the Galatians from the true gospel.
So far Paul has shown that Abraham himself was justified by faith apart from circumcision and the law, since he was justified before circumcision and the law. And he has also demonstrated from the law itself that it is impossible to be justified by observing the law, that the law itself points to faith as the way to be justified, and that the basis and object of this faith is the substitutionary atonement performed by Christ.
But now one may object, although Abraham was justified by faith before the law, it could be that we are now to be justified by the law precisely because it came later, and thus superceding the principle of justification by faith exemplified in Abraham. It is relatively unimportant as to whether this is an actual objection that Paul is answering, or whether it is merely a possible objection. He proceeds to answer it in our passage, arguing that the formal introduction of the law did not annul or add to the principle of justification by faith.
Verse 15 refers to "a human covenant" as an illustration. It is uncertain which legal system is assumed here – Roman, Greek, or Jewish. The question does not ultimately affect our understanding of the passage, since Paul's intention is clear enough, and under any one of these legal systems, there comes a point in which a covenant is no longer subject to annulment or addition after some official action or event (such the death of a testator).
Paul is referring to a covenant "that has been duly established." After that "no one can set aside or add to" it. And "so it is in this case" of Abraham, the law, and justification by faith. Whatever he has in mind closely corresponds to a "last will and testament," through which an inheritance is left to the beneficiary. As the rest of the passage suggests, the covenant made with Abraham is very much like this. It is not so much an agreement as it is a declaration of what God promises to perform. One writer observes, "It is a grant rather than a bargain."
This is clearly seen in the way God ratified his covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15. Following the customs of the day, animals were cut apart and the halves arranged opposite each other. The parties were to pass through the pieces, and so the covenant would be ratified in blood. However, in making his covenant with Abraham, God passed between the pieces alone. Again, this suggests that this covenant is not so much an agreement as it is a declaration of what God promises to perform. The fulfillment of the promises does not depend on both parties playing their parts, since Abraham had no part – the covenant does not depend on him, but only on God's ability and faithfulness to perform what he has promised.
The word translated "seed" in verse 16 could in fact be taken in either a singular or collective sense, or both. Consider the English word "family," which appears to be singular, but could refer to a collective that consists of multiple individuals. In fact, Paul himself assumes a collective sense for the word in several other places (Romans 4:16-18, 9:6-8), so it is probably a mistake to think that he is here making an argument that turns on the singular sense of the word.
Rather, he is expounding on the promise made to Abraham, pointing to Christ as the true heir of the inheritance. Several verses later (v. 26-29), he will conclude that believers are thus heirs of the promise through Christ, that is, by being "in him" or joined to him. Therefore, the word "seed" can be taken in both its singular and collective meanings, but verse 16 focuses on the singular sense to emphasize the fact that the "true" heir of the promise is Christ.
But what Paul is really saying (v. 17: "what I mean is this"), is that since no one can set aside or add to even a human covenant that has been duly established (v. 15), then "The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise" (v. 17). The inheritance was given to Abraham by promise – by God's sovereign declaration of what he would perform – and ratified in blood. And as we have seen, the promised blessing is applied through faith to those whom God has chosen to believe. The law, which came after, does not affect this, whether we are referring to the promised inheritance or the means by which it is applied (v. 18). Therefore, the principle of justification by faith is preserved despite the formal institution of the law.
Since it is not until verse 17 that Paul applies the illustration he began in verse 15, we could consider verse 16 a parenthesis between the two verses. But the verse contributes to the overall argument. If the inheritance was promised to Abraham and his "seed," and the "seed" is Christ, then the inheritance was promised to Christ. Then, since the inheritance was promised to Christ and "duly established," nothing could interject in the meantime to prevent the fulfillment of the promise. But then, once Christ has received the promised inheritance, all those who are joined to him by faith becomes heirs to it as well. Thus we see that all those who receive justification before God and the gift of the Spirit do so through faith in Christ apart from circumcision or the works of law.
Commentary on Galatians (44)
GALATIANS 3:10-14
All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
Paul has established that Abraham himself was justified by faith apart from works, apart from circumcision, and that through him was formally instituted the principle of justification by faith, although faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ had always been the only way to salvation since the time of Adam. He now proceeds to directly attack the idea that anyone could be justified who relies on observing the law. He does so by making a series of assertions along with scriptural texts that correspond to them.
Verse 10 asserts, "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse." The biblical basis for this comes from Deuteronomy 27:26, which Paul cites here as, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Anyone who fails to observe the whole law – anyone who breaks even one of its requirements – is a lawbreaker, and therefore comes under the divine curse.
Since, according to Paul's reasoning, no one is able to obey the law in all its details throughout his whole life (Romans 3:23), no one who relies on observing the law for justification can succeed. Or, as he states here, "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse." As Ryken explains, "The problem with the law, then, is not the law; the problem with the law is our sin. Since we cannot keep the law, the law cannot bless us. All it can do is curse us, placing us under the condemnation of divine wrath."
Verse 11 asserts, "Clearly no one is justified before God by the law." The previous verse already makes clear that all who rely on the law will not be justified, but will come under a curse instead. Verse 11 is not redundant, since although the assertion is stated negatively, the scriptural citation is a positive affirmation of justification by faith, that living by faith is the way of the righteous (Habakkuk 2:4).
In other words, no one is justified before God by the law, not only because all who rely on the law are under a curse, but also because Scripture itself teaches that the righteous will live by faith. Note the alternate translation, "He who through faith is righteous shall live" (RSV; also REB and GNT), and Paul indeed applies the verse as if this is what it says. In any case, the law does not only condemn all those who rely on it for justification, but it points to faith as the way.
Then, verse 12 asserts, "The law is not based on faith." Rather, according to Leviticus 18:5, "The man who does these things will live by them." A person who attempts to become justified by law must rely on his own works – this way is not based on faith, and it cannot be supplemented by faith. The man is "stuck" with law, and the two ways of justification exclude each other. It is impossible to rely on both faith and law, that is, on both Christ and oneself.
Note that faith and law in themselves do not exclude each other – God instituted both of them. Rather, we are saying that the two ways of justification exclude each other. If one relies on observing the law for justification, then there is no place for faith; if one relies on faith for justification, then there is no place for reliance on observing the law. Now since those who rely on the works of law must "live by them," and since they can never achieve perfect obedience to the law, all those who seek justification in this matter are doomed to eternal condemnation. Since the way of faith is the way of reliance on Christ for salvation, those who rely on observing the law instead are cut off from faith, and cut off from Christ (Galatians 5:4).
Paul has laid out several points from the law itself. First, the law brings a curse. Second, the law itself teaches faith. And third, faith and law exclude each other. The upshot of this argument is that the law itself teaches that it is impossible to be justified by the works of law, but the only way to justification before God is faith.
Now Paul abruptly turns to the object of this faith (v. 13), for as we have noted, justification by faith does not denote justification by faith as such, but it means to have faith in the proper object. This object of faith, he writes, is the person and work of Christ, who "redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us." Paul tells us not only who does it (Christ) and what he does (redeemed us from the curse), but also how he does it – that is, "by becoming a curse for us."
This is the language of substitution. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law – the punishment for our wickedness and disobedience – by taking it upon himself, and by suffering its deathblow. Paul connects this understanding of the work of Christ with the manner of his death, citing Deuteronomy 21:23 as confirmation that he bore the curse as he hung on the cross. This leaves no question, then, as to the nature of the work of Christ, and the purpose of the crucifixion. His work was that of a substitutionary atonement – he died for sinners to save them from divine condemnation. This idea is also taught in the law, for example, in the instructions regarding the scapegoat in Leviticus 16.
The context is justification, but Paul writes that by faith we receive "the promise of the Spirit" (v. 14), and so either equates or overlaps one with the other. Elsewhere, the apostle insists, "And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ" (Romans 8:9). Paul, of course, has been answering the rhetorical question that he posed in 3:2 (also 3:5): "Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?"
Again, a statement like the one in 3:14 cannot be used to refute Pentecostal and Charismatic theology, such as the "second blessing" doctrine. Whether the doctrine is true or false, we must not endorse unsound arguments against it. Theologians who attempt to use this verse as a basis for refutation typically fail to establish even its relevance.
The verse teaches that we receive by faith, but many Charismatics also teach that we receive this second blessing by faith. The verse teaches that the Spirit is available to all who would believe, but this is what many Charismatics affirm about the second blessing, that it is available to all who would believe. If it is argued that the context practically equates reception of the Spirit to justification before God, many Charismatics could also agree. They themselves insist that one receives the Holy Spirit at conversion in a sense and in a measure – they do not deny Romans 8:9 – only that there is a blessing or experience of the Holy Spirit distinct from conversion through which one receives empowerment for ministry and witness.
Whether or not the "second blessing" doctrine is correct, verse 14 says nothing to contradict this, and the doctrine says nothing that would contradict verse 14. Given this doctrine, the verse is either taken as referring to the reception of the Spirit in connection with justification or conversion without also referring to the "second blessing" of the Holy Spirit, or it could be taken as an inclusive reference stating that both the blessings of conversion and empowerment are promised to all the children of Abraham, who receive both by faith. Therefore, if this is a false doctrine, it must be refuted on a basis other than Galatians 3:14, since as a refutation, the verse is irrelevant.
Commentary on Galatians (43)
We return to Romans 4 for additional explanation. Again, 4:3 appeals to Genesis 15:6, showing that Abraham was justified by faith, and that this happened before he was circumcised. Paul applies this principle of justification by faith to the Gentiles: "The words 'it was credited to him' were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness – for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" (4:23-24).
Because Abraham was justified by faith before circumcision, "he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them" (Romans 4:11b). For the benefit of the circumcised Jews, he adds, "And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised" (v. 12).
He is the father of the circumcised, but not if they are only circumcised, and not because they are circumcised. He is their father only if they "also walk in the footsteps of faith" of he who was justified before he was circumcised, and thus apart from circumcision. In other words, Abraham is the father of both the circumcised and the uncircumcised, that is, all those who follow his trust in God are justified apart from circumcision. Even those who are not his natural descendants are considered his children "in the sight of God" (Romans 4:17), and those who disbelieve are disowned and cast out. Natural descent is completely useless and irrelevant when it comes to possessing a right standing before God (Matthew 3:9).
The biblical record concerning Abraham shows that justification by faith is not a New Testament invention, but that in fact, faith has always been the only way to receive righteousness from God. Here Paul writes that the Scripture preached the gospel to Abraham, saying, "All nations will be blessed through you" (v. 8). This appears to be a conflation of Genesis 12:3, 18:18, and 22:18. In this context, the blessing relates to how God justified Abraham through faith, and that since the principle is extended through Abraham to all nations, that "God would justify the Gentiles by faith" as well. "So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith" (v. 9).
Therefore, God has always intended to save the Gentiles since the beginning, and faith has always been the only way. Paul even calls God's promise to Abraham "the gospel" in verse 8. Elsewhere I have shown that the Old Testament believers possessed substantial information regarding the person and work of Christ. For example, 1 Peter 1:10-12 tells us that the Spirit had predicted "the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow." This would, of course, include the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and exaltation of Christ, as well as the effects of such for the salvation of the chosen ones. As the prophets inquired about "the time and circumstances" of these events, the Spirit revealed to them that their prophecies refer to Peter's own generation. Again, this is a substantial amount of information regarding the person and work of Christ (also see Luke 24:27, 44).
Abraham was justified by faith. But this faith was not a general trust in God, or in particular promises that are unrelated to the object of our own faith. No, Abraham was justified by faith in the gospel, even in Christ. Many Christian writers not only fail to emphasize this crucial point, but sometimes even contradict it. Abraham was saved by the gospel, and the same gospel that we believe, with two differences – he had less information than we do, and he believed before the coming of Christ, while we believe after his coming.
As Ryken writes, "What God said to Abraham was nothing less than a proclamation of the gospel….Indeed, it goes all the way back to Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:15), who were the first to hear it." In order to preserve the biblical idea that there has always been only one way of salvation through one gospel, it is necessary to insist on this – that God himself preached Christ to Adam and Eve, not by name, but it was the same message. They were to trust God's promise and place their hope on this Savior who was to come.
One commentator wrote that Abraham was the "first" who was justified by faith, and thus opened the way for the application of this principle for the rest of humanity. This is blatantly false, unless it is suggested by this that no human individual received salvation before Abraham – since there has only been one way and one gospel all along. But we know that people were saved before Abraham, also by faith (Hebrews 11:4-7), and that the gospel was proclaimed as soon as sin entered the world (Genesis 3:15), in fact, even before God declared his curse on Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:16-19).
As for Abraham, Ryken continues, "The gospel is the good news about God forgiving sins and granting eternal life. These are the very things Abraham believed. He did not know Jesus Christ by name, but he trusted him nonetheless." This last sentence is exactly right, and a pleasant exception to the ambiguous or erroneous views espoused by some commentators and theologians on this matter. And finally, considering Abraham's behavior on Mount Moriah, where God commanded him to sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 22; Hebrews 11:17-19), Ryken adds, "He had faith, in other words, in both the atonement and the resurrection."
The Scripture is personified in verse 8 and is interchangeable with God himself (also Romans 9:17): "The Scripture foresaw…and announced the gospel." This carries great significance for both the doctrine of biblical inspiration and inerrancy, and the doctrine of justification by faith. Of course, the Scripture, as in the Bible or the book, is not identified with God in the ontological sense. But when the intellectual contents of the Scripture is considered, then there is no difference between what it says and what God says, since the Scripture is what God says (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21).
From this perspective, not only could the Scripture be personified as if it is interchangeable with God, but it should be thus personified. Unless ontology is in view, in which case a distinction must be made, we are to freely and habitually refer to Scripture as if we are referring to God, and to speak of the two as if they are interchangeable. Any dread or hesitation in doing this betrays an insincere or incomplete commitment to the divine inspiration of Scripture, and dishonors the God who speaks powerfully through it without error or contamination.
The implication for the doctrine of justification by faith is straightforward. Because this doctrine is what the Scripture teaches, and because what Scripture says is what God says, it follows that God is the one who insists on the doctrine of justification by faith. It is taught and supported by God's own authority and wisdom, and cannot be faulted. Anyone who affirms or teaches something different becomes an enemy, not only of Paul, but of God. Naturally, such a person would be eternally condemned (Galatians 1:6-9). The same verdict is pronounced against anyone who opposes the doctrine today.
Commentary on Galatians (42)
GALATIANS 3:6-9
Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
Paul's answer to what he asks the Galatians in 3:2 (also 3:5) is obvious, because it is a rhetorical question, which is tantamount to an implicit assertion. Thus Paul asserts that the Galatians received the Spirit by believing what they heard, and not by observing the law. Now he offers an extended biblical and theological argument to show that "the promise of the Spirit" (3:14) is received by faith.
Boice suggests that the argument proceeds in an alternating fashion from 3:6 to as far as 4:7. The current passage (3:6-9) shows that Abraham was justified by faith, and that all who would be justified before God would follow the same pattern. The next passage (3:10-14) is a negative counterpart to this, showing that it is impossible for a person to be justified by observing the law. The other sections are 3:15-18, 3:19-22, 3:23-29, and 4:1-7, but we will not follow these divisions in our exposition.
There is much that we can derive from this passage, but the main point is simple and obvious, especially given our discussions on the previous passages. So that there is no need to repeat what I have said elsewhere, I assume that the reader already understands the idea of imputed righteousness, and the reference to Abraham illustrates it is in this sense that a person is justified before God through faith in Christ. Some of the points that Paul mentions here are presented in expanded form, or with more detailed explanations, in his letter to the Romans.
The Jews equated the descendants of Abraham with the children of God (John 8:31-47). It is likely the Judaizers had asserted that it was necessary for the Gentiles to become children of Abraham in order to be saved, and that in order to become the children of Abraham, it was necessary for them to receive circumcision, the physical seal of the covenant that God made with Abraham (Genesis 17:9-14). So it is possible that Paul now refers to the case of Abraham not only to construct a positive exposition of justification by faith, but also to counter the Judaizer's misuse of covenant history.
He first clarifies how Abraham was justified by appealing to Genesis 15:6, which says, "Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness." He does not use this to press his point at length in this letter, although he might have already expounded on it when he previously taught the Galatians, so that this serves as a reminder of something more extensive. In any case, it is sufficient to make his point – Scripture says that Abraham was righteous because of faith and not works.
When he appeals to the verse again in his letter to the Romans, he does expand on this point and reveals some of the reasoning behind his use of it. In light of our discussion, the main ideas in the following verses are obvious:
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about – but not before God. What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation.
However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him."
Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. (Romans 4:1-11a)
Here the appeal to Genesis 15:6 appears in verse 3, in answer to the question of "What does the Scripture say?" about the matter of what Abraham "discovered in this matter" of justification by law versus faith. He was not justified by his works (v. 2), but by faith (v. 3). Notice that this already parallels his use of Genesis 15:6 in the letter to the Galatians, for the bare text of the latter does not go further than this, although he does go further here in Romans.
The nature of this "faith" is clarified when the principle is expressed thus: "the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness" (v. 5). And the reason why God could justify the wicked in accord with his own justice is stated in verse 25: "[Christ] was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification."
Verses 6-8 cite David's testimony concerning "the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works." Verse 9 asks, "Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised?" – a question that is also considered in the letter to the Galatians. To answer this question, he reminds the readers of his earlier appeal to Genesis 15:6, and says, "We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness." And then he relates this verse from Genesis to the question of circumcision: "Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before?" (v. 10). The answer is, "It was not after, but before!"
This could explain Paul's reasoning behind his use of Genesis in Galatians 3:6. The rite of circumcision is instituted in Genesis 17:9-14, but by that time Abraham was already justified before God. And this justification, Scripture says, occurred through his faith in God's promise, that is, "Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6).
Therefore, Paul writes in verse 11, circumcision was for Abraham "a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised." He was righteous "by faith" and "while he was still uncircumcised." The circumcision was a sign and seal of it.
This deflates the Judaizers' argument, since Abraham himself was not justified according to the manner that they now impose upon the Galatians. The true children of Abraham are not his natural descendants, but those who follow the faith of Abraham, and in this manner of receiving justification, that is, by faith. As Jesus says, "If you were Abraham's children, then you would do the things Abraham did" (John 8:39). In accordance with this reasoning, Paul writes in verse 7, "Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham."
Commentary on Galatians (41)
This passage is often treated as an argument from experience, that is, as if Paul appeals to the Galatians' experience in order to prove a theological position. We will consider arguments from experience in general, and then what it means to this passage in particular.
Elsewhere I have explained the problems associated with ordinary arguments from experience, and the related problems of induction and sensation. Among other things, an experience does not compel necessary inferences – that is, one can always infer an infinite number of conclusions from an experience, so that a simple argument from experience never proves anything. Rather, an experience must be interpreted by a certain standard, and once the standard is known, the truth that the experience is supposed to yield is already known, and thus rendering the experience useless as a basis for proof. In addition, induction and sensation can never yield any knowledge, so that all ordinary arguments from experience are in fact invalid.
However, as I have also explained, statements from or concerning experiences in Scripture are true by divine inspiration, so that they are not subject to the criticisms against ordinary arguments from experience. Also, since they are true by divine inspiration, in reality they are not really arguments from experience, but arguments from revelation about experiences. The epistemological foundation in these cases is revelation, not sensation, induction, or experience. Therefore, even if Paul appeals to the Galatians' experience in this passage, it does not follow that we can appeal to our own experience in the same way to assert or refute a theological position today. This is because Paul's understanding of the Galatians' experience is founded on divine inspiration, and not from their experience itself. Thus it remains that it is not experience that produces theology, but revelation that interprets experience.
That said, what does the passage actually say? Does any portion of it in fact appeal to experience? In what way does it do so? First, notice that nothing in verses 1, 3, and 4 truly appeals to experience in a way that is relevant to our present concern. In verse 1, Paul calls the Galatians stupid, and reminds them of his preaching. In verse 3, Paul again calls them stupid – that is, it is stupid to begin in the Spirit but continue in the flesh. This does not appeal to experience to advance a theological position. Verse 4 suggests that for the Galatians to forsake the way of faith would mean that they have experienced all that they did "for nothing." Again, no theological position is advanced on the basis of experience. A spiritual truth is implied, but not inferred. That is, to turn away from the gospel would render their previous experience "for nothing," but this is not inferred from their experience, but rather applied to it.
Only verses 2 and 5 resemble an appeal to experience, but even then we must pay attention to what Paul says and what he does not say. In verse 2 he refers to the Galatians' receiving of the Spirit, and in verse 5 the same thing but from God's perspective, the giving of the Spirit. Apart from the rest of these verses, whether this is an appeal to experience, and what is just as important, what kind of an appeal to experience this is, depend on the meaning of to "receive the Spirit."
This is an appeal to experience only if it refers to something that the Galatians could recognize as a distinct event in their consciousness or perception. Otherwise, even if there was a distinct experience, there could be no appeal to it in the process of argument. So if Paul is referring to the Galatians' initial conversion that is not associated with some special event, feeling, or any other indication that sets itself apart in their consciousness, it cannot be said that he is appealing to experience to make an argument.
Now, verse 5 does add the working of miracles, and this is the closest and clearest reference to an experience in this passage. Some commentators think that Paul has in mind the inner working of God's power within the Galatians. But I tend to agree with others that this is more likely a reference to God's outward display of power among them, even if the former is not excluded. So, if there is any appeal to experience at all, the clearest point as to where this is done is here, and as we have seen, perhaps only here.
This possible argument from experience should be qualified by at least two considerations:
First, to repeat what we said earlier, an apostolic assertion concerning experience is different from an extra-biblical argument from experience. The latter cannot overcome the logical problems associated with induction and sensation, and is therefore fallacious. But an apostle writes out of divine inspiration, so that the epistemological foundation of what seems to be an appeal to experience is in fact revelation, and not the experience itself.
Second, verses 2 and 5 are expressed as rhetorical questions, which as we have also mentioned before, are in fact implicit assertions. In other words, we could paraphrase Paul as saying, "You did not receive the Spirit by observing the law, but by believing what you heard," and "God does not give you the Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, but because you believe what you heard." Once the questions are rephrased according to their meaning in this manner, any indication of an appeal to experience disappears. Paul is not deriving a doctrine from their experience, but applying a doctrine to their experience, reminding them of the association between the true Christian gospel and true Christian experience, and that the false gospel has made no contribution to it. If this is the meaning of the two verses, then why does Paul use rhetorical questions? He uses them for the same reason that we use them, that is, for effect.
Therefore, it is illegitimate to use this passage to endorse arguments from experience in general, or the idea that theology is founded on experience, or even the idea that there are two sources for theological construction – revelation and experience. Except in a general or indirect sense, the passage is also irrelevant in a discussion of the importance of Christian "experience" (in its various meanings as used in discussions on spirituality). Paul is arguing for the way of faith in contrast to the way of law, and not the importance of experiencing one thing or another.
This is not to minimize experience as such, but to limit the passage to its proper applications. In fact, we must insist that "experience" is absolutely necessary in a Christian's life – but only in the sense that God must apply his blessings to a person in order for him to benefit from them. In this sense, one must have a personal "experience" of God and his promises. A person must actually receive regeneration, faith, and so on to be a Christian, and to be able to commune with God and live in holiness. But "experience" in this sense has nothing to do with subjective intuitions, feelings, or encounters, whether or not these things might at times accompany the kind of experience that is necessary, as in the actual application of redemption and its blessings.
A related issue is how we are to refute false experiences. Those who wish to avoid directly dealing with specific claims about spiritual experiences could simply adopt a strong cessationism. However, this doctrine is not supported by anything remotely resembling a biblical case. In his Sola Scriptura and the Revelatory Gifts, Don Codling points out the obvious when he shows that cessationism simply does not follow from Sola Scriptura or the finality of biblical revelation. The connection has been assumed by force and prejudice, not by logic.
This means that when someone claims to have heard from God, or claims to have seen a vision of Christ or an angel, it is biblically and logically fallacious to dismiss the claim by saying that the event could not have happened, that this type of experience is impossible today, for the simple reason that these things are indeed still possible, whether or not they actually occur. Because there is no biblical or logical refutation to the claim itself, one cannot respond, "You have not heard from God, and you have not seen anything. You imagined all of it."
Instead, we must examine the content of the alleged experience. For example, consider how we addressed Rick Joyner's vision in connection with Galatians 2:20. We understand that it was a false vision not because visions no longer occur, but because the vision assumes or presents a false interpretation of Scripture. Did Joyner see a vision? Perhaps he did, but whatever he saw could not be considered a revelation from God, and is therefore unreliable. Rather, Joyner should have received official church discipline for his false claim.
Moreover, it is fallacious and misleading to use modern charismatic excess as the sole or even main reference point to refute the very idea of continuing charismatic powers and practices. Those we label Pentecostals and Charismatics have no exclusive rights to the manifestations of the Spirit. So whether or not they continue, or how they should be implemented and regulated in the church, have no direct relevance to the Pentecostals and Charismatics. It is dishonest to imply that if we affirm the continuation of the spiritual gifts, then we will become like them. No, if they are wrong, then they are wrong. What does that have to do with us? What does that have to do with other people who affirm the continuation of the gifts? Rather, we will still need to derive a theology of the charismatic powers from Scripture.
Commentary on Galatians (40)
"Are you so foolish?" (v. 3). Paul calls them stupid again. What are the Galatians doing that is so stupid? He asks, "After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?" Verse 2 reminds them that they have received the Spirit by faith and not by effort. It is stupid for them to think otherwise or to forget this. And their stupidity continues when they think that what they received by faith, they can now maintain or carry through to perfection by their own effort. As one commentator notes, Paul "highlight[s] how completely inconsistent it was to receive a gift and then try to earn it."
The word translated "human effort" here is "flesh." Thus Paul is presenting two contrasts in these verses: faith versus work, and spirit versus flesh. Faith corresponds to the spirit, that which is of God and spiritual. Work corresponds to the flesh, that which is of man and carnal, and unable to attain righteousness or to sustain righteousness to perfection. Faith, then, is needed not only at conversion, but it is to be a way of life, so that it is also by faith that we shall continue in sanctification and attain perfection by the Spirit. It is foolish to think otherwise.
The word translated "suffered" in verse 4 can mean simply "experienced." It is possible that the Galatians have endured persecution for their conversion, so that Paul would be asking them if they have suffered for the sake of Christ, only to turn away from the gospel. However, "experienced" seems more consistent with the context. If this is the case, Paul would be asking them if they have experienced the presence and the power of the Spirit both at their conversion and at the present for nothing. Since rhetorical questions are implicit assertions, to say "Have you suffered so much for nothing?" might appear to be an assertion that they have indeed suffered for nothing, especially in the context of the other questions in the series. Thus Paul adds, "if it really was for nothing?" to indicate he is not yet asserting that the Galatians have completely turned away from the gospel.
Verse 5 could be treated with verse 2, as some commentators do, because it repeats the contrast between work and faith. But I prefer to follow Paul's order, since this verse clenches the argument that he advances in verses 3 and 4, and that is in turn founded on verses 1 and 2. Just as justification is attained by faith and not law, sanctification is sustained and perfected by faith and not law.
Like verse 2, it also refers to the blessing of the Spirit, although this time Paul puts it in terms of God giving the Spirit instead of the Galatians receiving the Spirit. He also adds the working of miracles and speaks in the present tense, thus calling attention to God's current activities and blessings among the Galatians. Does God do these things "because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?" Again, a rhetorical question is an implicit assertion, actively advancing one's position while eliciting thought and agreement from the audience. In other words, by this Paul asserts that God gives the Spirit and works miracles among them not because they observe the law, but because they believe his word.
Commentary on Galatians (39)
Paul challenges the Galatians with a series of rhetorical questions. Jervis again appears completely out of touch with the text. She writes, "He asks them how they received the Spirit. Paul presents his question respectfully: he wishes, he says, to learn from the Galatians. Having just called them 'foolish,' this is a remarkable rhetorical move. Paul indicates that he is on their side and is committed to them despite their actions at the moment." Remarkable indeed. There is no indication that he "presents his question respectfully." The questions are obviously challenges against the Galatians, and not polite inquiries.
As if verse 1 is not enough to indicate his attitude, in verse 3 he will say again, "Are you so foolish?" Paul is not showing respect, but he is displaying disdain and impatience. He asks "to learn" from the Galatians, not in the sense that they could teach him, but in the same sense as we sometimes sarcastically say, "Well, maybe you can enlighten me about this?" As a rhetorical question, the meaning here is that we think the other person is wrong. We do not think that he can enlighten us, and we demand him to prove otherwise. Jervis seems determined to force a positive interpretation from the text, but Paul's harsh attitude against his readers and the false teachers is so reinforced with clarity and repetition that such an attempt cannot succeed.
The questions are harsh and direct. As a rhetorical strategy, they rebuke the Galatians for their foolishness, and require them to rationally think through their present disposition against the background of what they have learned before. Whereas Paul has shown that the Judaizers' doctrine cannot be true in light of the apostle's knowledge and history, now he shows that the heresy in question is inconsistent with the Galatians' own knowledge and history. The effect is to accentuate the irrational and erroneous nature of the doctrine, and the foolishness for accepting it.
Rhetorical questions are used for effect, to elicit thought, to express sarcasm, and to get the readers to acknowledge the obvious. Because the expected answers are usually obvious, rhetorical questions are also implicit assertions of the asker's position on the subject. Therefore, as we consider Paul's questions to the Galatians, we will also learn more about his reasoning on the matter of justification.
He asks, "Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?" The answer is obvious. We know that the letter is a defense of justification by faith, and so the latter is suggested by the question. Also, the Gentile Galatians were not observing the law before Paul came to them, and when Paul came, he did not preach to them that they could be justified by observing the law. The question, then, is also an implicit assertion: "You received the Spirit not by observing the law, but by believing the gospel."
Ryken would like to think that Paul's statement rules out any kind of "second blessing" theology when it comes to the reception of the Spirit. He writes:
Some Christians teach that is a gift Christians receive sometime after they come to Christ. This "second blessing" suggests that Christians come in two varieties: with and without the Spirit. What Paul says here obviously rules this idea out. The gift of the Spirit is received by the same faith that lays hold of Christ. The works, gifts, and fruit of the Holy Spirit belong to the very beginning of the Christian life. Thus the whole Christian life is lived in the Spirit.
But Paul's statement in fact does nothing to rule of the "second blessing" doctrine, whether or not this doctrine is correct. Pentecostals and Charismatics do not teach that a Christian is completely without the Spirit before he receives this second blessing, but they acknowledge that without the Spirit, one cannot be a Christian in the first place. Whether it is described as a baptism, filling, or outpouring, in the second blessing, the Spirit is given in a distinct measure or manner as an endowment of power.
As far as I am aware, no representative Pentecostal or Charismatic theologian claims that a Christian is completely without the Spirit before he receives this second blessing. Anyone who teaches this is an anomaly. From a Pentecostal or Charismatic perspective, Paul could be referring to either the initial conversion of the Galatians, or a second blessing that came after. Nothing in the text necessarily rules this out. Again, this does not mean that the doctrine is correct, but it means that this verse does not carry the relevance required for Ryken's application.
Commentary on Galatians (38)
The Galatians' attraction to the false gospel is so irrational that Paul describes them as "bewitched," as if they have come under a spell. The question posed here ("Who has bewitched you?") is rhetorical. It is not as if Paul does not know or if he is interested in discovering the one responsible for leading his readers astray. And it does not necessarily mean that someone has wielded demonic powers on the Galatians in the process of advancing the false gospel. Rather, "bewitched" corresponds to "foolish," and accentuates the irrational nature of the Galatians' error, especially when considered against the nature of the gospel of Christ, and the force and clarity with which Paul had delivered it to them when they were converted.
He writes, "Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified." Of course, the Galatians were not present at the crucifixion, but Paul announced the event and its significance to them through his preaching. He preached with such force and clarity that the event was placarded before their very eyes, and it was as if they had become personal witnesses to the crucifixion. Or as Calvin writes, "By this he suggests that the actual sight of Christ's death could not have affected them more than his preaching." It is in this sense that all believers are witnesses to the Lord Jesus – not as eyewitnesses, but as those who have received the testimony of the Holy Spirit about the life and work of Christ through the testimony of Scripture.
Paul preached to the Galatians "Jesus Christ crucified." And of course he explained to them the significance of the event, that by it Christ had satisfied divine justice, having endured upon himself the wrath of God deserved by the sins of men. As Paul states in 2:21, unless Christ "died for nothing," which is inconceivable, this work of redemption excludes the idea that "righteousness could be gained through the law," and by implication, any other system of belief or ethic.
Since this one truth so clearly excludes the corresponding error, since this true gospel so obviously precludes the false, to Paul it is astoundingly stupid for the Galatians to be led astray by the Judaizers. Somehow they have lost their focus on the truth of Jesus Christ crucified, and are therefore succumbing to error. It is this truth that would now break the spell of heresy upon the Galatians, and the same truth would break the spell of heresy among our congregations today, especially when it comes to the doctrine of justification. If Christ was crucified for our sins, and if his death was not for nothing, then this makes impossible the recent errors that have been advanced on the matter of justification.
Now although the expression might place emphasis on the crucifixion, by "Christ crucified," Paul does not refer only to the crucifixion and the death of Christ to the exclusion of all else, but it seems to be a shorthand that represents the entire gospel. To illustrate, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 2:2, "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." But this does not mean that he refused to speak to them about the resurrection!
In fact, later in the same letter when he reminds his readers of "the gospel I preached to you" (15:1), he says he preached "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born" (15:3-8). In other words, he related to them the full account of Christ's redemptive work from both the historical and theological perspectives – not just that "Christ died," but that he "died for our sins according to the Scriptures," and also that "he was raised on the third day."
Commentary on Galatians (37)
Some criticisms are especially unintelligent. I recently received a rebuff from a Christian for applying the word "moron" to a non-Christian, as the Bible does. In it he says "a good rule to remember" is that "it takes one to know one." But this principle is problematic for several reasons.
First, by "it takes one to know one," this Christian intends to suggest that if I call someone a moron, then I must be one myself to be able to recognize him as one. Thus he claims that by this principle he recognizes me as a moron, but then by the same principle, "it takes one to know one" (and he knows me as one), he must be a moron himself. So all I hear from his objection is that he is calling himself a moron, and I am mystified as to how this is supposed to discourage me from applying the word to a non-Christian as the Bible does.
Second, after insisting that he is himself a moron, by this principle he is also calling the faithful and significant Christians of previous centuries all the derogatory names that they have applied toward those who disbelieved and disobeyed sound doctrine. This is because name-calling modeled after the biblical examples had always been the custom of the Church Fathers and the Reformers. From Augustine to Calvin, and even Matthew Henry and Charles Spurgeon, harsh but accurate invectives had always been applied to the opponents of the gospel. But by the principle, "it takes one to know one," this Christian condemns this whole host of God's servants with all the labels that they have applied toward unbelief and rebellion, as if these servants of God were in fact the enemies of Christ.
Third, even if we yield to the Christian's second implication, that all these significant figures in church history were just as much the children of hell as those that they denounced, surely no Christian should say the same about the inspired characters of Scripture. Yet the prophets and the apostles almost unceasingly called some in their audience sinners, fools, idolaters, adulterers, liars, whores, dogs, and many other things. By the principle "it takes one to know one," this Christian asserts that the prophets and the apostles were also all of these things. By this point, if we take this Christian seriously – if he takes this principle seriously – we must conclude that it is impossible for him to affirm the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.
As if that is not enough, the fourth implication is still more severe. Our Lord Jesus himself called many people harsh and derogatory names, using a wide range of invectives to denounce them. He speaks of sinners, adulterers, idolaters, liars, and demons. He rebuked his disciples for their lack of faith and understanding. He called the Pharisees vipers, murderers, hypocrites, and even the children of hell. By the principle "it takes one to know one," our Christian is by implication calling the Lord himself all these things – that he is a demon, a murderer, a hypocrite, even a child of hell.
In connection with the above, we could make a fifth point out of the fact that the principle also implies that, when God the Father calls someone a sinner, this makes God himself a sinner, since "it takes one to know one." Moreover, a sixth point can be developed out of a reverse application of the principle. That is, when I call the Father "God," this means that I am God myself, for "it takes one to know one." Now if the principle is qualified to eliminate all these undesirable, and probably unintended, implications, then it is pretty much useless and a waste of my time. This Christian might as well just call me a moron without any justification and without making any connection to the fact that I applied the term to a non-Christian. But of course, "it takes one to know one."
If I base my use of invectives on biblical precepts and examples, as I repeatedly assert and demonstrate, then this Christian must either refute any alleged scriptural support and connection between my practice and what we find in Scripture, or he is applying his principle to me fully aware of the connection that I claim with Scripture. Thus he is without excuse. By implication, his rebuke against me is the equivalent of a renunciation of Scripture and of Christ.
Thus if we take his point seriously – if he takes his point seriously – by his rebuke against me he must be considered for immediate excommunication from the church. By no means do I now assert that this person is indeed an unbeliever. The point is that my practice has an irrefutable biblical and historical foundation, and to attack it merely shows up the objector as one who stands squarely against Scripture. Moreover, his use of the cliché and irrational principle "it takes one to know one" reflects a common practice among Christians of using non-Christian standards to regulate all aspects of their theology and practice, even to the point of condemning those who follow Scripture rather than the world.
Rather than a champion of biblical love and kindness, if his use of the principle by which he rebukes me is taken to its devastating logical conclusion, then we must insist that he is not a Christian at all, but an unbeliever and a blasphemer. Unless he has never read much of the Bible or many of the prominent Christian works throughout history, our most charitable conclusion is that he employs a double standard against me, and proves himself to be a self-righteous hypocrite. And what we find today among Christians is a cliché system of theology and ethics that is not very different from what the non-Christians believe. This is, inevitably, the pathetic condition of those who wield an unbiblical standard to judge a biblical doctrine, practice, or ministry.
In the same rebuke, he also admonishes me with the statement, "It is easy to sling it but its not nice to receive it." But is he prepared to say this to the likes of Augustine, Athanasius, Luther, Calvin, and so on? Does he dare to say the same to Jeremiah, to Paul, and even to the Lord Jesus? No, like a hypocrite, he says it only to me because I am one who has not achieved hero status in his mind, and therefore I am not exempt from his non-Christian standard.
Now, if I am following a biblical practice, applying the same words that Scripture uses to the same kind of people that it applies these words, why do I have to "receive" the same? Why is there even a question as to whether it is easy to "sling it" or "receive it"? What does that have to do with anything? How is it relevant? In this context, the admonition makes no sense. It is just another cliché from one who has been indoctrinated by the world instead of by biblical teachings and examples, and who now takes upon himself to rebuke me when I rebel against the anti-biblical standard, seemingly in the hope that I will get back in line with the accepted non-Christian practice and attitude. There is no chance that I will comply.
Long ago I had to make a decision. I could cater to the non-Christian standard to make my speech and writing sound academic and professional to people. Or, I could forsake worldly respectability and follow the examples of the prophets, the apostles, and the Lord Jesus. The former would make me a pitiful drone, a polite hypocrite who offends fewer people but by implication blasphemes even the Lord himself. The latter would make me a faithful minister of Christ, scorned by professing believers and hated by the unbelievers – that is, if I can even tell them apart – but the reward is divine light and thunder in my proclamation of the word of God, and the Father's approval that comes from obedience through the Lord Jesus Christ. The options were clear. The consequences were obvious. The decision was easy. "If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ."
Commentary on Galatians (36)
GALATIANS 3:1-5
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing – if it really was for nothing? Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?
The word translated "foolish" here is not moros (as in "moron"), but anoetos. Christian writers are in the habit of denying that Scripture would call some people "foolish" in the sense of "stupid," or mentally deficient and defective. It is customary to understand the word in a moral sense, whatever that means. And in denying that both words mean stupid, commentators usually make themselves appear quite foolish.
On Galatians 3:1, John MacArthur writes, "This refers not to lack of intelligence, but to lack of obedience." But when Paul applies the same word to the Galatians in 3:3, MacArthur says that the apostle is "incredulous at how easily the Galatians had been duped." Which is it? Is Paul somehow referring to "lack of obedience" by the word, or "easily…duped"? Prejudice forces MacArthur to choose the former (3:1), exegesis compels him to select the latter (3:3).
Another commentator writes, "The Greek word does not mean that they were mentally deficient; rather anoetos suggests that the behavior of people who are intelligent yet are not using that intelligence to perceive the truth." First, even if the word literally means that one is not using his intelligence, it does not necessarily suggest that this person is intelligent. Then, the commentator proceeds to say that the Galatians are "illogical…inconsistent, contradictory, nonsensical." What is the difference between such people and stupid people? And he adds, "He was questioning, not their intelligence, but their lack of discernment." But again, what is the difference?
Ryken is more honest with the passage. He writes, "Paul was upset…here he practically splutters with indignation. And rightly so…. As far as Paul was able to tell, the Galatians were guilty of sheer spiritual stupidity. J. B. Phillips paraphrases him to say: 'O you dear idiots of Galatia…surely you can't be so idiotic!'" The only correct way to deal with the text is to acknowledge that this is in part a harsh and angry letter, and that when the apostle calls his readers stupid, he means stupid.
The idea that there is a moral stupidity (whatever that means) that is sharply distinguishable from an intellectual stupidity is inexplicable. Although man's mental deficiency has a spiritual origin or basis – thus the term "the noetic effects of sin" – it cannot be reduced to a purely moral defect to the exclusion of an actual retardation of the intellect. A good tree bears good fruit because it is a good tree, and a bad tree bears bad fruit because it is a bad tree. So just as people affirm and perform wicked things because they are wicked, they affirm and perform stupid things because they are stupid. This is imperative to safeguarding the biblical doctrine of sin, and thus also the biblical doctrine of salvation, or the complete gospel message. Christ is both our spiritual/moral and intellectual savior.
Among several other expressions that he uses, Paul calls the unbelievers "morons" (Gr. moros), and those who follow heresies "idiots" (Gr. anoetos, or mindless, foolish), as he does here. Instead of following the Bible's example in using such invectives under similar contexts, many Christians have adopted a foreign standard of social interaction. They have been deceived into thinking that biblical teaching somehow commends detached academic language and a formal professionalism in our expressions, so that perhaps without knowing what they are doing, they even join the world in condemning the apostle's approach, or at least condemn him indirectly by persecuting those who follow his example.
There is also a double standard in how they react to someone who models the inspired characters in Scripture. Church figures who had achieved hero status are often exempt from their criticisms, although they have done the same thing. If Calvin says it, it is orthodoxy; if I say the same thing, it is heresy. If Luther employs invectives, it is vigilance; if I employ invectives, it is arrogance. Of course, these people are respecter of persons, and they are hypocrites. Some would go as far as to fault Calvin, Luther, and the like for their practice, although they would still find some excuse for them, such as the customs of their day. However, they would still have to deal with all the harsh expressions in Scripture against unbelief and heresy.
Morally speaking, to uncritically follow current non-Christian practice is to betray Scripture's teachings and examples. It is sinful to suggest that the use of invectives is wrong when defending biblical doctrine and practice, because such a suggestion would condemn Scripture itself. Practically speaking, to adopt a non-Christian standard is to unnecessarily limit our rhetorical options in performing polemics, and to exclude strategies that often render our expositions and arguments more explicit, precise, forceful, and effective. In any case, although it is not always appropriate to employ invectives in polemics, we have no obligation to follow the non-Christian standard, and we must not yield when unthinking and hypocritical Christians criticize the practice.