Garlington’s Galatians Commentaries

I previously posted about Don Garlington’s commentary on Galatians being available as a free PDF from the Paul Page. But I wasn’t sure exactly which Galatians commentary it was. So I emailed Dr. Garlington and got the official answer.

As for Galatians, I appreciate that the situation is confusing. The thing has gone through an “evolutionary process.” First there was the manuscript for EBC, which was submitted three years ago and still awaits publication (supposedly in the Fall). That is a very basic commentary aimed at a more general audience.

Continue reading ‘Garlington’s Galatians Commentaries’

When Was Abraham Justified? | Part 1

When was Abraham justified? This might seem like a rather elementary question with an obvious answer: Abraham was justified when he believed the Lord and the Lord reckoned it to him as righteousness, which is recorded in Genesis 15:6. Certainly Paul’s use of this text in defense of justification by faith apart from works in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 confirms that Genesis 15:6 was the precise point of Abraham’s justification, doesn’t it? This is probably what most people assume. This is what I thought—prior to giving it some careful consideration.

I’m now convinced that Abraham was already justified prior to the events recorded at the beginning of Genesis 15. In this post I’d like to give some arguments in favor of this position, and in the next post I will answer objections and respond to potential problems.

Continue reading ‘When Was Abraham Justified? | Part 1′

Don Garlington’s Commentary on Galatians—Free!

I just found out that Don Garlington’s commentary on Galatians is available as a free PDF from the Paul Page. It appears to be his contribution to the forthcoming volume 11 of the revised EBC rather than his 2002 Galatians commentary or his revised 2004 commentary, since it has citations from sources in 2006. I’m not positive on this, but it seems fairly likely. Regardless of which one it is, it’s worth downloading for future reference. For those who aren’t aware: Garlington supports the essence of the new perspective.

Update: The Paul Page is rather sporadic. It took me numerous attempts before being able to access the page and the PDF. It appears they are upgrading their server software or having problems. In the meantime, you can download the PDF from my site.

HT: Matthew D. Montonini

See my updated post: Garlington’s Galatians Commentaries

Calvin on Interchurch Separation

They exclaim that it is impossible to tolerate the vice which everywhere stalks abroad like a pestilence. What if the apostle’s sentiment applies here also? Among the Corinthians it was not a few that erred, but almost the whole body had become tainted; there was not one species of sin merely, but a multitude, and those not trivial errors, but some of them execrable crimes. There was not only corruption in manners, but also in doctrine. What course was taken by the holy apostle, in other words, by the organ of the heavenly Spirit, by whose testimony the Church stands and falls? Does he seek separation from them? Does he discard them from the kingdom of Christ? Does he strike them with the thunder of a final anathema? He not only does none of these things, but he acknowledges and heralds them as a Church of Christ, and a society of saints. If the Church remains among the Corinthians, where envyings, divisions, and contentions rage; where quarrels, lawsuits, and avarice prevail; where a crime, which even the Gentiles would execrate, is openly approved; where the name of Paul, whom they ought to have honoured as a father, is petulantly assailed; where some hold the resurrection of the dead in derision, though with it the whole gospel must fall; where the gifts of God are made subservient to ambition, not to charity; where many things are done neither decently nor in order: If there the Church still remains, simply because the ministration of word and sacrament is not rejected, who will presume to deny the title of church to those to whom a tenth part of these crimes cannot be imputed? How, I ask, would those who act so morosely against present churches have acted to the Galatians, who had done all but abandon the gospel (Gal. 1:6), and yet among them the same apostle found churches? (Institutes, IV, i, 14)

Wright on Imputation

I found this selection from Wright (see the whole lecture) to be helpful in clarifying his view on imputation:

The covenant plan of God has what may loosely be called a ‘participationist’ aspect, and this, too, is part of the glorification of God, as I have already shown from Romans 15. Abraham’s true family, the single ‘seed’ which God promised him, is summed up in the Messiah, whose role precisely as Messiah is not least to draw together the identity of the whole of God’s people so that what is true of him is true of them and vice versa. Here we arrive at one of the great truths of the gospel, which is that the accomplishment of Jesus Christ is reckoned to all those who are ‘in him’. This is the truth which has been expressed within the Reformed tradition in terms of ‘imputed righteousness’, often stated in terms of Jesus Christ having fulfilled the moral law and thus having accumulated a ‘righteous’ status which can be shared with all his people. As with some other theological problems, I regard this as saying a substantially right thing in a substantially wrong way, and the trouble when you do that is that things on both sides of the equation, and the passages which are invoked to support them, become distorted. The central passage is in fact Romans 6, and I think it is because much post-reformation theology has tended to fight shy of taking seriously Paul’s realistic theology of baptism that it has sought to achieve what Paul describes in that chapter and elsewhere by another route. The Messiah died to sin; we are in the Messiah through baptism and faith; therefore we have died to sin. The Messiah rose again and is now ‘alive to God’; we are in the Messiah through baptism and faith; therefore we have risen again and are now ‘alive to God’. This is what Paul means in Galatians 3 when he says that as many as have been baptised in to the Messiah have put on the Messiah, and that if we thus belong to the Messiah we are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise. There is indeed a status which is reckoned to all God’s people, all those in Christ; and this status is that of dikaiosune, ‘righteousness’, ‘covenant membership’; and this covenant membership, in order to be covenant membership, must be a covenant membership in which the members have died and been raised, because until that has happened they would still be in their sins. ‘I through the law died to the law, that I might live to God; I have been crucified with the Messiah; nevertheless I live; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me’. If this is what you are trying to get at by the phrase ‘imputed righteousness’, then I not only have no quarrel with the substance of it but rather insist on it as a central and vital part of Paul’s theology. What I do object to is calling this truth by a name which, within the world of thought where it is common coin, is bound to be heard to say that Jesus has himself earned something called ‘righteousness’, and that he then reckons this to be true of his people (as in the phrase ‘the merits of Christ’), whereas on my reading of Paul the ‘righteousness’ of Jesus is that which results from God’s vindication of him as Messiah in the resurrection; and, particularly, that this is what Paul means when he speaks of ‘God’s righteousness’, as though that phrase denoted the righteous status which God’s people have in virtue of justification, whereas in fact the phrase, always and everywhere else from the Psalms and Isaiah onwards, refers to God’s own righteousness as the creator and covenant God; and, underneath all of this, I object to the misreading of several key Pauline texts that results, and the marginalisation in consequence of themes which have major importance for Paul but which this theology manages to ignore. The mistake, as I see it, arises from the combination of the Reformers’ proper sense of something being accomplished in Christ Jesus which is then reckoned to us, allied with their overemphasis on the category of iustitia as the catch-all, their consequent underemphasis on Paul’s frequently repeated theology of our participation in the Messiah’s death and resurrection, and their failure to locate Paul’s soteriology itself on the larger map of God’s plan for the whole creation. A proper re-emphasis on ‘God’s righteousness’ as God’s own righteousness should set all this straight. (Bold text mine.)

I think Wright is off the mark in several important areas, not least of which being his weak understanding of the Reformers. (I wonder how much of Luther he has actually read. And I wonder how familiar he is with the Finnish interpretation of Luther, which argues rather persuasively—as least on the main points—that union with Christ [i.e., participation!] is at the heart of Luther’s soteriology and vitally connected to his understanding of justification.) The more I read Wright, the more convinced I become that his “freshness” is dependent to a significant degree upon his caricaturing his opponents’ position (i.e., the traditional view). While I have a massive amount of respect for him as a scholar, this point certainly has the opposite effect! That aside, this selection is important in that it demonstrates that Wright’s disagreement is less in substance than it is in form and expression—at least as he sees it.

Gal 6:16—Some Additional Thoughts

If you read my previous post about the function of καί and its implications for the various interpretations of τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ, you may have been left with some lingering questions—as was I. In addition, I was missing one vital piece of information that makes view #1 slightly more plausible. Since I don’t think I expressed the issues quite cogently enough the first time, I’m going to take another shot at it.

The two questions that I was left asking myself were:

1. If the interpretation which understands καί to mean and is so clearly wrong, why do the majority of English translations translate it that way?

2. Is the English word and capable of being used to join two items when the former encompasses the latter? E.g., is and being used properly in this statement: I love food and pizza? Or does and—to be used properly—have to join two distinct items?

Allow me to (1) recap, (2) revisit the view that understands καί to mean and, and then (3) answer the two questions posed above.

Recap

There are three possible ways to handle καί. The first translates it as and, the second as even (or that is), the third as especially. Views #1 and #3 share the same conclusion—that τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ refers to ethic Jews. They arrive at that conclusion in different ways. The second interpretation maintains that Paul applies the label τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ to the whole church composed of Jews and Gentiles. (As we’ll see below, views #2 and #3 agree that the first group Paul addresses is not limited to Gentiles.)

View #1 Revisited

The first view argues that καί should be understood in its most natural sense of and. The point that I was missing in Benware’s argument is that he maintains that ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν and αὐτοὺς refer to Gentiles only. Thus, he can maintain the meaning of and for καί. This limitation of ὅσοι and αὐτοὺς is necessary to make sense out of and, or, as O. Palmer Robertson so aptly demonstrates, we have Paul pronouncing a blessing on those Jews who refuse to obey his rule (whom he wishes would castrate themselves!). But is this limitation warranted? Does not Paul intend for believing Jews to obey this rule, or is this merely for Gentiles? Surely to ask such a question is to answer it. Paul is not concerned only that the Gentiles not submit to circumcision, but that the Jews correct their faulting thinking and stop insisting that Gentiles Judaize. So I still think that this view has little to commend it, but it is slightly more viable than the way I first presented it.

(A different form of this view sees τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ as a reference to Jews who would be saved in the near future or in the eschaton, so that Paul’s pronouncement of blessing becomes a prayer for God to have mercy on Israel. This view doesn’t seem to fit the flow of thought well, but it does escape the problems above.)

Two Questions

What about the fact that most of the translations go with and? Is and a possible translation if one follows interpretation #3, or does and necessitate interpretation #1. To put it another way: is and capable of joining two items when the latter is a subset of the former?

1. My guess is that many English translations go with and, not to identify with view #1, but in an attempt not to get too involved in the task of interpretation. And, they feel, is the best way to avoid taking a side on this debated passage. I make this speculation based on the NET Bible note on this passage, which says,

The word “and” (καί) can be interpreted in two ways: (1) It could be rendered as “also” which would indicate that two distinct groups are in view, namely “all who will behave in accordance with this rule” and “the Israel of God.” Or (2) it could be rendered “even,” which would indicate that “all who behave in accordance with this rule” are “the Israel of God.” In other words, in this latter view, “even” = “that is.”

It is interesting to note that the translators see only two possible views here—my view #1 and view #2. But the point I want to make from this quote is that the they regard the translation of and as capable of either interpretation. So I doubt that all of the translations that go with and are necessarily taking a position. Rather, many are probably trying to stay out of the realm of interpretation—and being the safest way to do that.

2. I’m inclined to say that the English word and is not being properly used when it is joining two items that are not distinct, i.e., when the latter is a subset of the former. E.g., to say, “I love pizza and Pizza Hut pizza,” is a misuse of and. It would be more accurate to say, “I love pizza, and (or but) especially Pizza Hut pizza.” The Greek word καί is capable of both. I don’t think the English word and is. I’m willing to be proved wrong here. I haven’t had a chance to look at OED. My concise OED hardly deals in enough depth to make a judgment.

It seems like translators are in a difficult situation here. And doesn’t really have the breadth that they need to remain neutral, yet it’s the best option available. This may be a situation where it is necessary to pick a position and translate accordingly—noting the other options in a footnote.

Gal 6:16, the Israel of God, and the Use of καί

This passage has been the subject of no small controversy in recent centuries. I don’t intend to solve it all with a brief blog post. But I would like to make a few comments on the use of καί and its implications for the possible interpretations. A friend asked me a question about it, so I figured I’d take the opportunity to put some theology on a blog that is supposed to be about theology!

There are three functions of καί that are possible candidates for this text. They follow in order of grammatical likelihood (i.e., not giving considering to contextual or theological factors).

The most basic meaning of καί is and—a coordinating conjunction that joins two or more distinct items. While this is the most likely meaning from a grammatical perspective, contextually, this is absolutely impossible. Paul pronounces peace and mercy on those who walk in accordance with his rule (κανών)—that Gentiles are equal to and on the same plain as Jews and that the former need not submit to circumcision, et al. in order to be right with God and be part of God’s covenant people. Verse 15 is a summary statement for the argument of the book. Ιt is absolutely inconceivable that Paul would be pronouncing a blessing on two distinct groups of people: those who obey his instructions and the Jews (who don’t obey them—the necessary implication if καί means and). Oddly enough, Paul Benware defends the meaning of and here in a very befuddled argument (see Understanding End Times Prophecy, 87-89). O. Palmer Robertson obliterates this view in his The Israel of God, 40ff.

The next most likely possibility for καί is the meaning even. In this sense, καί functions to introduce an appositive and is semantically equivalent to “that is.” Paul would be pronouncing a blessing on all those who obey his instruction, that is, the (true) Israel of God. This position has the most arguments in its favor. (1) It’s the more probable of the two viable functions of καί. (2) Paul’s argument and specific references in Galatians fit perfectly with this conclusion. (3) Paul’s theology elsewhere supports this. And (4) the broader theology of the NT makes this the most natural and probably meaning.

There is a third possibility here, which, unfortunately, O. Palmer Robertson doesn’t acknowledge or interact with. The function of καί could be especially. This is rare, but there are some examples where this seems to be the only possible function of καί. I came across one several months ago during my daily reading in the Greek New Testament (which has been put on hold until I finish my dissertation). In Mat 8:33, we read this: “The herdsmen fled, and going into the city they told everything, especially [καὶ] what had happened to the demon-possessed men.” The second component is clearly a subset of the first. Interestingly, this is the only place in the NT where the ESV translates καί as especially. (I found that out by using the data from Logos’s new ESV Greek-English Reverse Interlinear New Testament.) BDAG lists two NT passages and two LXX passages that support this meaning (see 1aγ). So I believe that it’s possible from a grammatical standpoint that Paul is addressing two groups: the first being all those who follow his rule and the second being a subset of the first group, namely, the ethnic Jews within that group who follow his rule. However, when the argument of the letter and the broader theology of Paul and the NT are brought into consideration, this view becomes improbable at best.

Note: There are a couple factors that I was unaware of and thus overlooked with reference to view #1. See my follow-up post for my improved (hopefully!) analysis.