Is the prepositional phrase έ έ γω ό ο used adverbially or adjectivally in Galatians 2:16? by Todd A. Engstrom Burlington, Iowa A PAPER PRESENTED At the Sixtieth Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Region of the Evangelical Theological Society on the theme “The Church And Its Call to Sexual Holiness” Moody Bible Institute Chicago, Illinois April 10-11, 2015 A jigsaw puzzle is defined as “a puzzle consisting of a picture printed on cardboard or wood and cut into numerous interlocking shapes that have to be fitted together.”1 Richard Hays describes the central “theological” section of Galatians as “a vexing exegetical puzzle.”2 Within the letter of Galatians, there is general agreement that verses 2:15-16 are of crucial importance because it is Paul’s “thesis” of the letter.3 Caneday points out that “Paul’s terms and categories in Galatians 2:15-16 are dense, full, and redundant,”4 which constitutes a thesis statement Paul intends to unpack.5 However, the density, fullness, and repetition of this thesis statement make it a challenge to fit together the pieces of this exegetical puzzle.6 Paul’s thesis reads, Ἡ ῖ Ἰ ῖ ἐὰ ὴ ὰπ ω ῶ ω 1 ὶ ὐ ἐ ἐ ω Ἰ ἐ π πᾶ ῶ ἁ ω · ἰ [ ὲ] ὅ ῦΧ ῦ, ὶἡ ῖ ἰ Χ ω Χ ῦ ὶ ὐ ἐ ἔ ω ὐ ῦ ὸ Ἰ ῦ ἐπ ἄ ,ὅ ἐ ἔ ω ωπ ἐ ἔ ω ,ἵ ὐ .7 The purpose of this essay is to rethink Paul’s thesis Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2 Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11, 2nd ed., (Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 2002), p. 163. Ti oth Geo ge efe s to it as Paul s e t al thesis that he a ted to i p ess upo the Galatia s. Galatians NAC (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994), p. 187. 3 A. B. Caneday, The Faithful ess of Jesus Ch ist as a the e i Paul s Theolog i Galatia s, i The Faith of Jesus Christ, eds. Bird and Sprinkle (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2010), p. 191. 4 5 Ibid., p. 192 6 William Walker cites Thomas C. Geer, Jr. who points out that both the translation and the interpretation of Gal : a e f aught ith diffi ulties. “ee T a slatio a d I te p etatio of ἐὰ ὴ i Galatia s : JBL 116 (1997), p. 515. 7 Eberhard Nestle et al., The Greek New Testament, 27th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993), Ga 2:15– 16. 2 statement by examining two pieces that are often overlooked by interpreters. The first piece is the meaning of ἐὰ the prepositional phrase ἐ ἔ ω ὴ. The second piece is the placement of . After fitting these two pieces into the exegetical puzzle, we will apply the adjectival use of ἐ ἔ ω to the ἐὰ ὴ debate and end with a plausible interpretation of Galatians 2:15-16. ἐὰ ὴ D. R. Goodwin noticed the English revisers have substituted “save” for the “but” of the Authorized Version and have relegated “but only” to the margin.8 His essay examines the propriety of this change, and in the process he makes some interesting observations that lead to a climactic conclusion. According to Goodwin, if we translate ἰ or ἐὰ ὴ as except, it requires an ellipsis to be supplied in order for the statement to make sense to an English reader. Without the ellipsis, the English reader would notice a painful contradiction. However, if we use but, it gives the exact sense of the original without requiring any ellipsis to be supplied. His work is governed by this exegetical principle: Let it be remembered, therefore, that it is not modern Greek scholarship that is to settle the question whether it should be rendered but or save or except; but that question is to be determined by the logic of the case and the exigencies of English usage.9 Goodwin’s problem is with the “English revisers” who have substituted save for the but of the Authorized Version, yet he fails to identify these “English 8 D. ‘. Good i , ἐὰ ὴ, Gal. ii. 9 Ibid, (emphasis original). JBL 6 (1886), 122-127. 3 revisers.” Whoever these “English revisers” are, he is arguing against their substitution of save for but because it requires us to insert the ellipsis in English for it to make sense, thus: “A man is not justified by the works of the law; nor is he justified at all, save through the faith of Jesus Christ.”10 By substituting save for but, the English revisers actually make Paul say: “A man is not justified by the works of the law, save through faith in Jesus Christ, — and then he is justified by the works of the law, — for by the works of the law shall be justified’!11 This is where Goodwin’s article gets interesting. He offers a possible counter argument with reference to the contrast of the two prepositions ἐ and ὰ, used respectively with ἔ ω and π ω , so that the meaning may be that “a man is not justified from, or out of, or on the ground of works of law, except through the medium of faith.”12 If this were true, it would have its special application to those who have the law (i.e., Jews) and those who do not have the law (i.e., Gentiles). To those without the law, they may be justified from, or out of, or on the ground of faith, ἐ π ω ; but those who have the law are justified from, or out of, or on the ground of works, ἐ ἔ ω , but that only through the medium of faith, ὰπ 10 The ellipsis ei g 11 Ibid., pp. 125-126. This is what Dunn argues below. 12 Ibid., p. 126 (emphasis original). 13 Ibid. (emphasis original). ω .13 However, this possible counter o is he justified at all. 4 argument does not work because of what Paul says in Romans 3:30 where he declares that God shall justify the circumcision ἐ π uncircumcision ὰπ ὰπ ω , and the ω . Clearly Goodwin thinks Paul’s use of ἐ π ω and ω in Romans 3:30 refers to the instrument of human faith. Whose faith is Paul referring to in Romans 3:30? Is the Jews and Gentiles justification achieved on the ground of their faith or on the ground of Jesus’ faithfulness? Goodwin reveals some wrinkles he needs to iron out when he says: As to the English prepositions in connection with justification, if they were confined to strict propriety of usage, we should say ‘justified by God or by his grace’ (it is God that justifies); ‘justified [not] from, out of, or on the ground of works’; ‘justified through or by the instrumentality of faith’; ‘justified in Christ, or for the merits of Christ, in his name, or for his name's sake.’14 Paul’s use of ἐ π of π ω and ὰπ ω in Romans 3:30 is directly tied to his use in Romans 3:21-26, which is the ground of justification. Since this paragraph is the heart of the letter,15 it is essential we correctly interpret π because this is the ground of justification. Whose π is the ground of God’s justification in Romans 3:21-26? This is important to determine because this directly influences how π is interpreted in Galatians 2:15-16.16 Goodwin is correct that it is God that justifies, but there can only be one ground of God’s 14 Ibid., p. 126. 15 Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), p. 178. 16 The conflict between Paul and Peter is about this π . 5 justification. Is the ground of God’s justification the instrumentality of human faith or Jesus’ faithfulness?17 To teach the instrument of human faith is the ground of God’s justification is a major problem when applied to Romans 3:21-26. An actual translation of Romans 3:21-26 is: 21But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed, though being testified to by the Law and the Prophets, 22even the righteousness of God revealed through the faith of Jesus Christ unto all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23all have sinned and persist in falling short of the glory of God, 24being freely declared righteous by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God publicly set forth as propitiation through the faith which is in his blood for the purpose of demonstrating his righteousness because of God’s forbearance in passing over sins that were previously committed, 26for the demonstration of his righteousness in the present time, that he might be both righteous and the one who declares righteous the one who is of the faith of Jesus. The problem of human faith as the ground of God’s justification is highlighted by the following six exegetical decisions: First, Ν ὶ ὲ (“but now”) is a temporal dimension of Paul’s argument, which indicates a salvation-historical shift between the old covenant and new covenant.18 Paul’s use of “Law” refers to the “Mosaic Covenant” that belonged to an era of redemptive history that has now Good i s appeal to ‘o a s : ope s the doo to ethi k ho ‘o a s : should e t a slated. What ould happe to Good i s a ti le if e t a slated . as: For we consider a man apart from works of the law to be declared righteous by faithfulness. ? His counter argument would have greater weight then he realized for it would indicate that God shall justify the circumcision ἐ π ω (from faithfulness), and the uncircumcision ὰ π ω (through faithfulness). 17 Schreiner, Romans, p. 180. Moo ag ees sa i g, . . . ut o a ks the shift i Paul s fo us f o the old e a of si s do i io to the e e a of sal atio . This o t ast et ee t o e as i sal atio histo is o e of Paul s ost basic theological conceptions, providing the framework fo a of his ke ideas. Romans, p. 221. 18 6 passed away.19 This shift in redemptive history is not caused by human faith. Second, Paul uses ̂ (“righteousness of God”) for the third time in 3:21.20 Paul uses it the same time in all three instances. It refers to God’s character. Third, God’s righteous character is “testified to by the Law and the Prophets,” which is a reference to the Old Covenant as a whole. Fourth, Paul’s fourth use of ̂ (“righteousness of God”) refers to God’s character. Fifth, God’s righteous character is revealed ὰπ ω Ἰ ῦΧ ῦ. When our English translations say, “through faith in Jesus Christ” it means God’s righteous character is revealed on the ground of human faith, which is impossible. The act of God proving his righteous character by sending Jesus to die on the cross and rise from the dead three days later is not grounded on human faith. Sixth, God publicly set forth Jesus as propitiation through the faith which is in his blood “for the purpose of demonstrating his righteousness because of God’s forbearance in passing over sins that were previously committed.” With “righteousness” referring to God’s character, which is characterized in verse 26, God proves his righteous character in two ways: (1) he is righteous in condemning sin by pouring out his wrath on Jesus. (2) He is righteous in declaring righteous the one who is ἐ π ω Ἰ ῦ (“from faith of Jesus”). God’s declaration is not dependent upon human faith for it to be declared. 19 Ibid. 20 Romans 1:17, 3:5, 3:21 7 Goodwin’s conclusion is climatic because he sets the stage for the current π Χ ῦ debate. He is emphatic that if ἐὰ ὴ may ever be rendered by but instead of save, then Galatians 2:16 is the very case when it should be done. He continues: The logical sense of the passage itself, the argument of the immediate context, the strain of the entire epistle, the whole tone and character of St. Paul's teaching elsewhere, combine to require it. In view of the whole history of English translations and of the revisers' own precedents, their rendering here may certainly be called strange.21 There is no doubt in Goodwin’s mind that further consideration will satisfy all parties that the American revisers are right in proposing to substitute but for save in the revised text. Goodwin is confident he is not wrong because if that is the case: . . . we shall simply return to the authorized version of the whole passage; for, as to ‘the faith of Jesus Christ,’ it is as intelligible as ‘faith in Jesus Christ,’ and probably was never misunderstood. Moreover, it is a more literal rendering than the other, and it is supported by the authority of the revisers themselves, who, at Rev. xiv. 12, have rendered ὴ π Ἰ ῦ ‘the faith of Jesus.’22 With Goodwin’s essay ending there, the current π Χ ῦ debate picks up where he left off. He is correct that Paul’s readers would not have misunderstood π Χ ῦ, but have Goodwin and the majority of our English versions correctly captured the meaning, based upon its context, by interpreting it as “faith in Jesus Christ?” If Goodwin interpreted ἐὰ incorrectly, then that means he could have interpreted π 21 Iblid., p. 127 (emphasis original). 22 Ibild. 8 Χ ὴ ῦ incorrectly, which would force him to rethink the conclusions of his paper.23 And after further consideration, Dunn is not satisfied that the American revisers are correct in proposing to substitute but for save in the revised text. A problem with Goodwin’s essay is his exegetical principle of not relying upon modern Greek scholarship to settle the question of how ἐὰ ὴ should be translated. Since our English translations are dependent upon the Greek, it is Greek usage based upon its context that determines the translation of ἐὰ not English usage. Thus, James D. G. Dunn argues that ἐὰ ὴ– ὴ should be translated as except.24 Dunn sets up his argument by calling our attention to the works of Stendahl25 and Sanders.26 If Stendahl cracked the mold of twentieth-century reconstructions of Paul’s theological context by showing how much it had been determined by Luther’s quest for a gracious God, Sanders has broken the mold by showing how different the Reformer’s reconstructions are from what we know of first-century Judaism from other sources.27 Sanders has given us an unparalleled opportunity to look at Paul afresh, “to shift our perspective back from the sixteenth century to the first century, to do what all true exegetes The p o le ould ot stop ith Good i , fo it ould e eal that e ha e ee i a u atel letters of Romans and Galatians ever since the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation. 23 eadi g Paul s 24 James D. G. Dunn, "The New Perspective on Paul," Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990). 25 Krister Stendahl, The Apostle Paul a d the I t ospe ti e Co s ie e of the West , HTR, 56 (1963), pp. 199-215. 26 E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977). 27 Du , The Ne Pe spe ti e o Paul, p. 186. 9 want to do – that is, to see Paul properly within his own context, to hear Paul in terms of his own time, to let Paul be himself.”28 Another problem with Goodwin’s essay is that he starts his exegesis from the Reformation presupposition that Paul was attacking the idea of earning God’s acquittal, the idea of meritorious works, or the idea of worksrighteousness. When we base our exegetical work on this premise, we start off on the wrong foot.29 Dunn indicates that the Jews observe the law because it is a basic expression of covenant loyalty. It would be impossible for a Jew to conceive of participating in God’s covenant apart from observing these works of the law.30 When Paul denies the possibility of “being justified by works of the law” he is attacking the basic Jewish self-understanding that God’s covenant requires obedience from the works it demands.31 He provides two corollaries to clarify what Paul means by “works of law”: First, “Works of law”, or “works of the law” are nowhere understood by Paul or his Jewish interlocutors as works which earn God’s favor, as merit- 28 Ibid. 29 Though Martin Luther was an expert in sixteenth-century Catholicism, he was not an expert in first-century Judais . The Judais of Paul s da as ot a old, al ulati g legalisti s ste of o ks- ighteous ess he ei salvation is earned by the merit of good works. The problem is that Paul has been understood as the great e po e t of the ‘efo atio s e t al do t i e of justification by faith. As K iste “te dahl a ed us i his se i al essa , it is de epti el eas to ead Paul i light of Luthe s ago ized sea h fo relief from a troubled o s ie e. “i e Paul s tea hi g o justifi atio faith appea s to a u atel efle t Luthe s su je ti e t ou les, it as a atu al a alog to see Paul s oppo e ts i te s of the u efo ed Catholi is hi h opposed Luthe . The problem is that to understand first-century Judaism as synonymous with the sixteenth-century Catholic system of merit is historically inaccurate. (ibid., p. 185). 30 Ibid., p. 193. 31 Ibid., p. 194. 10 amassing observances. They are rather seen as badges: they are simply what the people do to demonstrate their covenant status. They are a proper response to God’s covenant grace, the minimal commitment for members of God’s people, what Sanders calls “covenant nomism.” What Paul denies is that God’s justification depends upon “covenant nomism,” that God’s grace extends only to those who wear the badge of the covenant. This is a historical conclusion of some importance because it begins to clarify with more precision to identify the continuities and discontinuities between Paul, his fellow Jewish Christians, and his own Pharisaic past, so far as justification and grace, covenant and law are concerned.32 Second, and more important for Reformation exegesis, i.e. the corollary that “works of law” do not mean “good works” in general, “good works” in the sense condemned by Luther and his heirs – works performed for selfachievement, legal works, or “works-righteousness.”33 What Paul means by “works of law” is “ – those regulations prescribed by the law which any good Jew would simply take for granted to describe what a good Jew did.” To be a Jew was to be a member of the covenant, and as a member of the covenant he obeyed the works required by the law.34 32 Ibid. (emphasis original). Du uotes Bult a s defi itio : of his eatu el e iste e. I id. 33 34 a s self-powered striving to undergird his own existence in forgetfulness Ibid. 11 According to Dunn, there is a contrast between righteousness understood in terms of works of the law and righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ – not just faith as such, but faith in Jesus Christ, Jesus Messiah.35 The debate between the two Jews Paul and Peter, is an internal Christian debate over who are genuine believers in Jesus. Paul appeals to what was obviously the common foundation of belief shared by the two men. What distinguished Peter and Paul from most of their fellow Jews was their belief in Jesus as the promised Messiah, not their belief in “justification by faith,” which has so often been assumed. Given Sanders’ findings, it appears that the typical first-century Jew would not have denied “justification by faith” because the biblical emphasis on God’s electing grace, his covenantal mercy, and “the righteousness of God,” drawn directly from the Old Testament. This begs the question: What is the point at issue here? If not ‘justification by faith’ as God’s initiative in declaring in favour of men, if not ‘works of law’ as meritearning good works, then what? What precisely is involved in Paul’s contrast between being justified by works of law and being justified by faith in Jesus Messiah?36 Dunn thinks Galatians 2:16a reveals the common ground between Paul and Peter which is that “a man is not justified by works of law except through faith in Jesus Christ.” He emphasizes how Paul expresses the last phrase – “except through faith in Jesus Christ” and argues: 35 Ibid., p. 195 (emphasis original). 36 Ibid. (emphasis original) 12 According to the most obvious grammatical sense, in this clause faith in Jesus is described as a qualification to justification by works of law, not (yet) as an antithetical alternative. Seen from the perspective of Jewish Christianity at that time, the most obvious meaning is that the only restriction on justification by works of law is faith in Jesus as Messiah. The only restriction, that is, to covenantal nomism is faith in Christ. But, in this clause, covenantal nomism itself is not challenged or called in question – restricted, qualified, more precisely defined in relation to Jesus as Messiah, but not denied. Given that in Jewish selfunderstanding covenantal nomism is not antithetical to faith, then at this point the only change which the new movement calls for is that the traditional Jewish faith be more precisely defined as faith in Jesus Messiah. This is evidently the accepted view of Jewish Christians to which Paul appeals.37 Dunn’s point is that the common ground from which Paul’s argument advances does not need to be understood as an antithesis between covenant nomism and faith in Christ. Peter’s conduct and the conduct of the rest of the Jewish believers at Antioch make it clear, from a Jewish Christian standpoint, that belief in Jesus as Messiah did not require him to abandon his Jewish culture and traditions derived from the works required by the law (i.e., “covenant nomism”) which are still a necessary response of the Jew to God’s gracious covenant. Why should a Jewish belief in a Jewish Messiah make any difference to these long-established works that the law requires?38 Paul, however, followed a different logic – the logic of justification by faith. From Paul’s standpoint, that which is of grace through faith cannot depend in any sense or degree upon a particular ritual response. “If God’s verdict in favour of an individual comes to effect through his faith, then it is 37 Ibid., pp. 195-196 (emphasis original). 38 Ibid., p. 196. 13 dependent on nothing more than that.”39 Why does Paul repeat the contrast between justification by works of law and justification through faith in Jesus Christ? He repeats it to “alter it significantly: what were initially juxtaposed as complementary, are now posed as straight alternatives – ‘. . . knowing that a man is not justified from works of law except through faith in Jesus Christ, we have believed in Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified from faith in Christ, and not from works of law . . . .’”40 Moreover, in describing justification by faith, Paul “varies the formula slightly: we are justified not only through faith in Christ but also from faith in Christ.”41 The implication being, from Paul’s point of view, that faith in Christ is the only necessary and sufficient response that God looks for in justifying anyone. Dunn understands Galatians 2:16 as Paul beginning with a qualification of covenant nomism (i.e., works required by the law) and ending with an outright antithesis. “If we have been accepted by God on the basis of faith, then it is on the basis of faith that we are acceptable, and not on the basis of works.”42 Dunn concludes that perhaps for the first time in this verse faith in Jesus Messiah begins to emerge an “alternative” definition of the elect of God. A 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. (emphasis original). 41 Ibid. (emphasis original). 42 Ibid. 14 person could be justified43 by works required by the law (i.e., “covenant nomism”) as long as these works are accompanied by faith in Jesus Messiah. With Dunn translating ἐὰ ὴ as except, he embraces what Goodwin thinks is inconceivable. (See chart below) Goodwin – this is inconceivable Dunn – this is conceivable A person could be justified44 by works required by the law (i.e., “covenant nomism”) as long as these works are accompanied by faith in Jesus Messiah. By substituting save for but, the English revisers actually make Paul say: “A man is not justified by the works of the law, save through faith in Jesus Christ, — and then he is justified by the works of the law, — for by the works of the law shall be justified’! Both men agree that when ἐὰ ὴ is translated as except it simply reflects the fact that is precisely what Paul means to say. Dunn, however, does not embrace the idea that works of the law by themselves justify a person. Instead, Dunn insists that the works of the law must accompany faith in Jesus Christ in order for justification in the forensic sense to occur. A problem with Dunn’s essay is his description of the debate between Paul and Peter. He provides only two possible options for what marks Peter and Paul off from many of their fellow Jews: 1) Their faith in Jesus as Messiah, or 2) Their belief in justification by faith. Yet what is the difference between these two options? And is there not a significant amount of overlap between them? 43 In the sense of forensic justification. 44 In the sense of forensic justification. 15 Both options have human faith in common. Is it correct to interpret π Ἰ ῦΧ ω ῦ as “faith in Jesus Christ”? Perhaps there is a third option to consider namely, to translate π ω Ἰ ῦΧ ῦ as “the faith of Jesus Christ.” This third option clearly does not appeal to Goodwin or Dunn, but should they not consider it? After all, Goodwin does admit that in context, “faith of Jesus Christ” is as equally intelligible as “faith in Jesus Christ” and is a more literal translation to boot. A second problem with Dunn is he opens himself up to embracing a contradiction. He would interpret Galatians 2:16 to say that the law justifies as long as there is faith in Jesus and while at the same time mentioning that faith alone justifies and works of the law play no role in justification. This inconsistency is precisely what Goodwin thinks is implausible. A third problem with Dunn is his statement that a person is accepted by God on the basis of faith. It is on the basis of a person’s faith that he is acceptable, not on the basis of works. It is highly problematic, however, to insist that a person’s faith is the ground of his acceptance by God. Since Dunn interprets π ω Ἰ ῦΧ ῦ as “faith in Jesus Christ,” he probably does not see a problem. Yet why is saying that a person’s faith is the basis of his acceptance by God acceptable whereas saying that a person’s works are the basis of his acceptance by God unacceptable? What is the fundamental difference? Are not both options human centered? It seems to me that Goodwin and Dunn should seriously consider the possibility of translating π Χ ω Ἰ ῦ as “the faith of Jesus Christ” because they expose themselves to 16 ῦ embracing the idea that the revealing of God’s righteousness in Romans 3:2126 is grounded on human faith. Both Goodwin and Dunn agree that when ἐὰ ὴ is translated as except it means that the law justifies as long as there is faith in Jesus and while at the same time faith alone justifies and works of the law play no role in justification. By embracing what Goodwin rejects, Dunn has aroused the debate over the proper translation of ἐὰ ὴ. But despite this ongoing debate, a satisfactory solution continues to elude New Testament scholars. William Walker declares the usual translation of the Greek phrase ἐὰ ὴ to be if not, unless, or except. In Galatians 2:16, however, it is almost always translated as but only or simply but. Walker cites Ernest de Witt Burton who articulated the rationale for this grammatical decision.45 According to Burton, is properly exceptive, not adversative, though it may introduce an exception to the whole preceding statement or to the principal part of it.46 Walker, then, agrees with Dunn that it is technically correct to insist that ἐὰ ὴ in Galatians 2:16 does carry the usual reference of the exception introduced by ἐὰ ὴ. The exception refers to “a person is not justified,” not to “a person is not justified by works of law.”47 Therefore, Walker argues that Paul is not 45 Willia O. Walke , J ., "T a slatio a d I te p etatio of εά 46 ή in Galatians 2:16," JBL 116 (1997), p. 515. Burton opts for the latter because the former would yield the thought that a man can be justified by works of law if this be accompanied by faith, a thought never expressed by Paul. But since the word "except" in English is always understood to introduce an exception to the whole of what precedes, it is necessary to resort to the paraphrastic translation "but only. 47 Ibid., p. 516. 17 saying that “a person is not justified by works of law except through faith in Jesus Christ”; rather, he is saying (in this part of the verse) that “a person is not justified except through faith in Jesus Christ.”48 How does Walker explain the syntax of Galatians 2:16 to make this clear? He suggests there is an example of an “ellipsis” in verse 16. He would render Galatians 2:16 as follows with the added words in brackets: ... knowing that a person is not justified by works of law ([a person is not justified] except through faith in Jesus Christ), we also have come to faith in Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of law, because by works of law no one is justified.49 He provides two suggestions: 1) The ellipsis “a person is not justified” is intended to serve “double duty” by introducing both “by works of law” (i.e., a person is not justified by works of law”) and “except through faith in Jesus Christ” (i.e., a person is not justified except through faith in Jesus Christ) and 2) Paul intends “a person is not justified except through faith in Jesus Christ” to be a parenthetical aside which is included to clarify and amplify the statement, “a person is not justified by works of law.” Therefore, Walker agrees with Goodwin that if ἐὰ ὴ is translated as except, an ellipsis is needed in order for Paul’s statement to make sense.50 The benefits of Walker’s essay are twofold: 1) The ellipsis preserves the usual translation of the Greek phrase ἐὰ 48 Ibid., pp. 516-517. 49 Ibid., p. 517. For the sake of clarity, Good i s ellipsis is justified. 50 ὴ as except. 2) It preserves the o is he justified at all 18 hile Walke s ellipsis is a pe so is ot consistency of Paul’s thought because π ω Ἰ ῦΧ ῦ is interpreted as “faith in Jesus Christ.” However, there are also two problems with his essay. First, if ἐὰ ὴ can only relate to the entire statement – “a person is not justified by works of law except through faith in Jesus Christ” – then is not Paul understood in precisely the way Dunn has interpreted him? Walker, however, views the relationship between faith in Christ and observing the law as antithetical whereas Dunn views this relationship as complimentary.51 Second, Walker declares that his reading of Galatians 2:16 “provides a clear and consistent picture of Paul’s views regarding the basis for justification (i.e., justification is based not on works of law but rather on faith in Christ.”)52 Thus Walker reaches the same conclusion as Dunn regarding the basis for justification. The basis for justification in the forensic sense, he maintains is a person’s faith. This illustrates the importance of interpreting π ω Ἰ ῦΧ ῦ correctly. When it is interpreted as “faith in Jesus Christ,” then it supports the idea that a person’s faith is the ground for justification, which we argued above to be highly problematic. A. Andrew Das summarizes the possible translations for ἐὰ ὴ with the following chart: 53 It should e e tio ed that Walke easo s f o Paul s oppo e ts. 51 52 Ibid., p. 519 (emphasis mine). 53 A. A d e Das, "A othe Look at έα Paul s sta dpoi t, he eas Du ή i Galatia s : 19 ," JBL ), p. 530. easo s f o the positio of Translation of ἐὰ ὴ Adversative (“but,” “but only”) Relationship between justification by faith and justification by the law Antithetical (the two modes of justification are mutually exclusive) Majority Position Exceptive (“except,” “If not,” “unless”) Exceptive Antithetical Walker (Burton) Complementary (justification by the works of the law with faith) Dunn He notices two problems resulting from this debate: translation and understanding. He continues: Έὰ ὴ may be translated as introducing an exception, or it may be translated adversatively. If one accepts the adversative translation, then an antithetical understanding of the relationship between faith in Christ and the observance of the law in justification necessarily results. If one accepts the exceptive translation, one may still understand the relationship between faith in Christ and law observance in an antithetical manner (with Walker) or in a complementary manner (with Dunn). Hidden beneath these layers of scholarly debate is a rare glimpse into the mind-set and presuppositions of early Jewish Christianity with regard to justification and the Mosaic law.54 Since Walker and Dunn advocate for the exceptive translation, Das sees the need for a plausible understanding of the exceptive ἐὰ ὴ. According to Das, it is crucial to any solution that we properly identify the “we Jews” in verse 15. With the discussion in verse 16 about “faith in Christ,” this indicates that the “we Jews” must be limited to Jewish Christians. Galatians identifies two 54 Ibid. 20 different Jewish Christian perspectives: 1) Paul’s law-free gospel to the Gentiles and 2) Galatian teachers’ law-observant message.55 These two options do not exhaust the diversity and breadth of early Jewish Christianity as represented in the letter of Galatians. He uses the Jerusalem apostles as an example of how they do not neatly fit into either of the options above and then provides a summary of three perspectives in early Jewish Christianity as represented in Galatians: 1) Gentile Christians are not obligated by the law but should observe certain portions of it (or its entirety) if they are to enjoy table fellowship with Jewish Christians (Jame’s Party). 2) All Gentile Christians are obligated to observe the Mosaic law (Paul’s Galatians opponents). 3) Gentiles need not observe the law at all (Paul).56 When we harmonize the variegated Jewish Christianity of verses 1-14 with the “Jews” of verses 15-16, we are able to identify the “we Jews” in verses 15-16. Paul addresses Peter: "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" Identifying where Paul’s speech begins and ends is beyond our scope,57 but it is obvious Paul is retelling the events at Jerusalem (2:1-10) and Antioch (2:11-14) with an 55 Ibid., p. 534. 56 Ibid., p. 535. Todd Scacewater a gues Paul s uotatio to Pete does ot e te d e o d : . Galatia s : -21 and the I te p eti e Co te t of Wo ks of the La JETS , p. . Co t a “ a e ate , I pla e Paul s uotatio from 2:14-21. 57 21 eye toward the Galatian opponents. Verse 15's "we Jews by birth" harkens back and includes the various "Jews" identified in 2:1-14.58 In Galatians 2:16 Paul’s use of knowing and first person plural pronouns indicates that what Paul is about to say is an undisputed shared affirmation in early Jewish Christianity. This affirmation must be satisfactory to all the adherents of Jewish Christianity represented in Galatians, regardless of their differences. Thus, Das considers the affirmation of v. 16— ω π ω Ί Χ ωπ —from the perspective of the two most extreme and opposing Jewish Christian positions on the law (Paul's vs. his opponents').59 The Galatian Jewish Christian teachers would have interpreted the affirmation along the lines of Dunn’s approach. This affirmation would be the basis for law-observant mission to the Gentiles. Paul, on the other hand, would have interpreted the shared affirmation along the lines of Walker’s approach. His perspective is that a person is justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, so the Gentiles do not need to obey the law in order to be justified.60 The problem with the traditional antithetical understanding of Galatians 2:16a, including the modified form adopted by Burton and Walker, is that it supposes a complete agreement between Paul and his Jewish Christian debate partners as to the very point that he will then argue. While James and Peter 58 Das, "A othe Look at έα 59 Ibid., p. 537. 60 Ibid. ή i Galatians 2:16," p. 536. 22 agreed with Paul that the Gentiles do not need to observe the law in order to be justified, Paul’s opponents in Galatia disagreed with this contention. Dunn’s view ignores the fact that Jewish Christians such as Paul and Barnabas contended that the Gentiles were not required to undergo circumcision and observe the Law61 in order to be justified. Walker’s view ignores the Jewish Christianity represented by Paul’s Galatian opponents. The problem with both Walker and Dunn is that neither one considers the possibility that the entirety of Jewish Christianity represented in Galatians could accede to this common affirmation simply because it was ambiguous regarding whether observance of the law is a factor in justification.62 Therefore, Das concludes that Galatians 2:16a is an ambiguous statement because it does not clearly articulate a position on the role of observance of the law in justification. On this understanding, Paul interpreted the statement one way and his opponents another way. With each one claiming support from Jerusalem, the ambiguity forces Paul to restate the affirmation in clearly antithetical terms later in the verse: ἵ ὐ ἐ ἔ ω . Paul’s closing clause ἐ ἔ ω ω ῶ ὐ ἐ π ω ω Χ ῦ πᾶ reveals that he wants to interpret the affirmation in a way that excludes the Mosaic law.63 61 The Law being the Torah that governed Israel in the Old Covenant. 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid., pp. 537-538. 23 ὶ Why does Paul use a shared affirmation if it does not clearly support his own position? “One possibility is that Paul’s opponents were using the affirmation in their teaching. Like the Jewish scriptures, the statement of affirmation would represent a foundational understanding for nascent Christianity.”64 With the Jewish scriptures of Deuteronomy 27:2665 and Leviticus 18:566 supporting the teaching of Paul’s opponents while weighing heavily against his own position, Paul must reinterpret these texts to support the nonobservance of the law, the very opposite of what the texts themselves urge. He counters the Deuteronomy text's admonition with the somber warning of a curse upon those who fail to do what the law requires. Paul challenges Leviticus 18:5 by juxtaposing it with a passage that indicates that a person is justified on the basis of faith.67 Therefore, Das concludes that “Galatians 2:16a is a grammatically ambiguous affirmation in early Jewish Christianity that could be interpreted in two different ways.”68 Paul’s opponents interpret the law like Dunn while Paul interprets the law in accordance with Walker’s reconstruction. Das’s attempt to finding a solution by identifying the “we Jews” is helpful. His summary of the three perspectives in early Jewish Christianity is 64 Ibid., p. 538. 65 Cited in Gal. 3:10 66 Cited in Gal. 3:12 67 Hab. 2:4 cited in Gal. 3:11; Ibid., p. 538. 68 Ibid., p. 539. 24 thought provoking, but it does not solve the problem because it is not historically accurate. Das is correct in observing: 1) that Paul is retelling the events at Jerusalem (2:1-10) and Antioch (2:11-14) with an eye toward the Galatian opponents; 2) that the mention of "we Jews by birth" in verse 15 harkens back to include the various "Jews" identified in 2:1-14; 3) that Paul’s use of knowing and first person plural pronouns indicates that what Paul is about to say is an undisputed shared affirmation in early Jewish Christianity. The problem with Das’s attempted solution is that Paul is not ambiguous as to whether observance of the law was a factor in justification. Rather, he is quite clear that the works which the law requires do not result in justification. Galatians 2:16 is not ambiguous, for it clearly articulates Paul’s position on the role the works of the law play in justification. Peter is wrong because of what Paul clearly said in verse 16. In other words, since Paul clearly understood the implications of the gospel, he could rebuke Peter with confidence. Another problem with Das’s proposed solution is the same problem faced by Dunn and Walker’s views regarding the basis of justification. How can a person’s faith be the basis of his justification? Does Paul even teach that one’s faith is the basis of one’s justification? He can be so construed only if π Ἰ ῦΧ ῦ is translated as “faith in Jesus Christ.” Debbie Hunn states the ἐὰ ὴ debate hinges on whether to interpret it as adversative or exceptive. If it is adversative, then it sets Χ ω and π in antithesis. On this view, the idea is that one is not justified through works of the law but only through faith in Jesus Christ. On the other hand, if 25 ἐὰ ὴ is exceptive only of the main point, then Paul says that one is not justified at all except by faith. The two views differ more in emphasis than in essence, and both are consistent with 2:16b.69 Hunn’s problem is with Dunn, who reads ἐὰ preceding statement, ὐ ῦ ἄ ωπ ἐ ἔ ω ὴ as exceptive of the entire , so that justification is not by works of the law unless faith in Christ attends the works. Although she believes that other scholars have rightly criticized Dunn’s analysis, she has not found in their criticisms the grammatical evidence necessary to support other positions. She acknowledges that ἐὰ ὴ as exceptive of an entire statement is the rule both inside and outside the NT. If Paul does not use it as exceptive of the whole preceding statement (including ω ) in 2:16, she wonders, does the grammar of his time permit him the options some scholars suggest?70 To answer this question Hunn’s essay seeks to supply what has been missing in the argument for the traditional position: grammatical proof that ἐὰ ὴ does not have to take exception to an entire statement. She cites examples from ancient Greek literature to show how ἐὰ ὴ can be used as a partial exception, or as an adversative, and applies her findings to Galatians 2:16. She concludes that ἐὰ ὴ in Galatians 2:16 cannot be exceptive of the entire main clause. To see whether it is adversative or whether it allows a partial exception, she considers the phrase ἐ ἔ ω 69 De ie Hu 70 Ibid., p. 283. , Έά ή i Galatia s : in verse 16a to see ; A Look at G eek Lite atu e Novum Testamentum 49 (2007), p. 282. 26 whether it serves as a contrast to ὰπ ω Ἰ ῦΧ ῦ or whether it is an extraneous phrase simply to be skipped over (as in Plutarch). According to Hunn, stating the problem almost solves the problem. Paul clearly contrasts ἔ and π Χ ῦ in 2:16b. In 2:19, 21 he continues writing about the law and in 3:2, 5 he contrasts ἔ with π ω .Έ is not an extraneous phrase in Gal. 2-3 but an integral part of the context. Therefore, ἐὰ ὴ in Gal. 2:16 is adversative.71 The benefit of Hunn’s essay is that she correctly points out the need for Dunn’s critics to provide grammatical evidence to support other positions. She is also helpful in pointing out Paul’s clear contrast of ἔ Χ and π ῦ in 2:16b. Yet is Paul’s clear contrast between “works of law” and “faith in Christ?” She assumes it is. Perhaps because she is looking for grammatical evidence to support other positions, there is a grammatical argument she has overlooked. ἐ ἔ ω The decisive piece to solving the ἐὰ prepositional phrase ἐ ἔ ω ἔ ω ὴ debate is the placement of the . Does Paul use the prepositional phrase ἐ adverbially or adjectivally in Galatians 2:16? This question is glossed over by Goodwin, Dunn, Walker, Das and Hunn because they assume Paul uses it adverbially. Since every English version from the Authorized Version to the present day translates the prepositional phrase ἐ ἔ ω 71 Ibid., p. 289. 27 adverbially, it is understandable why its use in Galatians 2:16 has not been questioned.72 Adding to the difficulty is the fact that numerous commentaries on Galatians do not say a word about the syntax.73 They all proceed as if there is nothing about which to comment here. Is this an exegetical non-issue that does not warrant comments from scholars? Or is this a major exegetical issue in plain sight that begs for attention from scholars? Mark Seifrid is one scholar who thinks the prepositional phrase ἐ ἔ ω is used adjectivally and that this interpretation provides a “neat solution” 72 Note the numbering of the word order in various interlinear Greek New Testaments, e.g. Thomas Newberry and George R. Berry, The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament (Bellingham: Logos Bible Software, 2004), Gal. 2:16 and J. D. Douglas, ed., The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1990), Gal. 2:16. When two Greek interlinears have the prepositional phrase ἐ ἔ ω modifying the negated verb ὐ ῦ , it is naturally understood that this is how the Greek reads. 73 Charles Simeon, Horae Homileticae: Galatians-Ephesians, vol. 17 (London: Holdsworth and Ball, 1833); J. B. Lightfoot, ed., St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatia s. A Re ised Te t ith I trodu tio , Notes, a d Dissertatio s., 4th ed., Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1874); Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, ol. Ne Yo k: Cha les “ i e s “o s, ; H. D. M. Spence-Jones, ed., Galatians, The Pulpit Commentary (London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1909); William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of Galatians, vol. 8, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953– 2001); Daniel C. Arichea and Eugene Albert Nida, A Ha d ook o Paul’s Letter to the Galatia s, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1976); F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: a Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982); James Luther Mays, ed., Harper’s Bi le Co e tar (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988); Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco: Word; 1990); James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, Bla k s Ne Testa e t Commentary (London: Continuum, 1993); Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994); Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1996); Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 2 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997); Robert James Utley, Paul’s First Letters: Galatians and I & II Thessalonians, vol. Volume 11, Study Guide Commentary Series (Marshall, TX: Bible Lessons International, 1997); Max Anders, Galatians-Colossians, vol. 8, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999); Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010); Douglas J. Moo, Galatians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013). 28 to the perplexing problem presented by the ἐὰ ὴ clause.74 When used adjectivally, verse 16a reads: “knowing that a man from works of law is not declared righteous.” Therefore, we will apply this solution to the essays presented above to see its impact on the ἐὰ The Application of ἐ ἔ ω ὴ debate. Used Adjectivally Hunn’s problem with Dunn’s reading of ἐὰ preceding statement, ὐ ῦ ἄ ωπ ἐ ἔ ω ὴ as exceptive of the entire , means that justification is not by works of the law unless faith in Christ attends the works. Despite this problem, she acknowledges that ἐὰ ὴ as exceptive of an entire statement is the rule both inside and outside the NT. Although she believes that other scholars have rightly criticized Dunn’s analysis, she has not found in their criticisms the grammatical evidence necessary to support other positions. With ἐ ἔ ω used adjectivally, she now has grammatical evidence to support other positions. However, the adjectival use of ἐ ἔ ω that ἐὰ jeopardizes her conclusion ὴ in Galatians 2:16 cannot be exceptive of the entire main clause. In her eyes, the only two options to solving the ἐὰ ὴ debate are to understand the phrase as adversative or to view it as partial exception. Hunn is correct when she states that Paul clearly contrasts ἔ and π Χ ῦ in 2:16b, but Paul is not contrasting human works of law and Ma k A. “eif id, Paul, Luthe , a d Justifi atio i Gal : WTJ 65 (2003), p. 217. Another scholar who thinks it is used adje ti all is A del B. Ca eda . ‘ead his essa The Faithful ess of Jesus Ch ist as a The e i Paul s Theolog i Galatia s. 74 29 human faith in Christ. This contrast helps her to correctly see that ἔ is not an extraneous phrase in Galatians 2-3 but rather is an integral part of the context. Yet her interpretation of “Paul’s clear contrast” leads her to the incorrect conclusion that ἐὰ that ἐ ἔ ω ὴ in Galatians 2:16 is adversative. If it is seen is used adjectivally, then ἐὰ ὴ in Galatians 2:16 can be understood as exceptive of the entire main clause. Das sees the need for a plausible understanding of the exceptive ἐὰ ὴ. His solution regarding the proper identification of “we Jews” in verse 15 is correct. Paul’s use of knowing and first person plural pronouns indicates a shared affirmation in early Jewish Christianity, thus this affirmation must have been satisfactory to all the adherents of Jewish Christianity represented in Galatians, regardless of their theological differences. Das’s summary of the three alleged perspectives in early Jewish Christianity, though inaccurate with respect to the historical context in which Paul is writing, leads him to correctly ωπ read the affirmation of v. 16— π ω Ί Χ ω —from the perspective of the two most extreme and opposing Jewish Christian positions on the law, those of Paul on the one hand and the Galatian opponents on the other. He believes that the entire spectrum of Jewish Christianity represented in Galatians would have affirmed this statement simply because it was ambiguous regarding whether observance of the law plays a role in justification. Therefore, Das concludes that the most plausible understanding of Galatians 2:16a is an ambiguous statement 30 because it does not clearly articulate a position on the role of observance of the law in justification. If ἐ ἔ ω the exceptive ἐὰ of ἐ ἔ ω is used adjectivally, then the plausible understanding of ὴ that Das needs is provided. In addition, the adjectival use obliterates Das’s conclusion that verse 16a is an ambiguous statement. It also clearly articulates Paul’s position on the role that works of law play in justification. Walker thinks Paul is saying in 16a that “a person is not justified except through faith in Jesus Christ.” He explains the syntax by suggesting that there is an example of an “ellipsis” in verse 16. He would render Galatians 2:16 as follows: ... knowing that a person is not justified by works of law ([a person is not justified] except through faith in Jesus Christ), we also have come to faith in Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of law, because by works of law no one is justified. When ἐ ἔ ω is used adjectivally, the need for an ellipsis is eliminated. It also forces Walker to reconsider his understanding of Galatians 2:16 wherein Paul provides “a clear and consistent picture” regarding the ground for justification, which is not human faith. The adjectival use of ἐ ἔ ω ἐὰ ἔ ω confirms that Dunn is correct to read ὴ as exceptive of the entire preceding statement, ὐ ῦ ἄ ωπ ἐ . He also correctly sees Paul appealing to what was obviously the common foundation of belief that Peter and Paul shared. In Dunn’s view, the shared belief is that, “a man is not justified by works of law except through 31 faith in Jesus Christ.” And yet, he provides only two options as to what separated believing Jews from their unbelieving countrymen: faith in Jesus as Messiah, or belief in justification by faith. He does not provide a third option because: According to the most obvious grammatical sense, in this clause faith in Jesus is described as a qualification to justification by works of law, not (yet) as an antithetical alternative. Seen from the perspective of Jewish Christianity at that time, the most obvious meaning is that the only restriction on justification by works of law is faith in Jesus as Messiah.75 What Dunn describes as “the most obvious grammatical sense” and “the most obvious meaning” must be reconsidered. We are not limited to the two options he provides because the adjectival use of ἐ ἔ ω presents a third option. The shared belief of “a man from works of law is not declared righteous, except through the faith of Jesus Christ” requires Dunn to concede that “faith in Jesus Christ” is an interpretation of π ω Ἰ ῦΧ ῦ, just as “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” is an interpretation of the same phrase. A third option that separates believing Jews from their unbelieving countrymen is the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Does the π refer to human faith or to Jesus’ faithfulness? If this refers to Jesus’ faithfulness, then the belief in “justification by faith” needs to be adjusted to “justification by Jesus’ faithfulness.” Thus, according to Paul, is the ground of justification human faith or Jesus’ faithfulness? 75 James D. G. Dunn, "The New Perspective on Paul," p, 195 (emphasis original). 32 Goodwin’s exegetical principle of not relying upon Greek scholarship must be reassessed. The adjectival use of ἐ ἔ ω scholarship to settle the question of the ἐὰ invites Greek ὴ debate rather than the “exigencies of English usage.” Additionally, the need for an ellipsis to avoid the absurdity of the exceptive interpretation evaporates. Goodwin is confident that further consideration will convince all parties that the American revisers are right in proposing to substitute but for save in the revised text. After further consideration, however, the adjectival use of ἐ ἔ ω reveals that this substitution is incorrect. This fact is a serious blow to Goodwin because if he is wrong, then it requires us to simply return to the Authorized Version of whole passage and interpret π Χ ῦ as “the faith of Christ.” Much to his chagrin, this is exactly what needs to be done! A Plausible Interpretation of Galatians 2:15-16 With the adjectival use of ἐ ἔ ω , Paul’s thesis actually reads: 15We are Jews by nature and not Gentile sinners; 16knowing that a man from works of law is not declared righteous, except through the faith of Jesus Christ, and we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be declared righteous from the faith of Christ and not from works of the law, because out of the works of the law every flesh will not be declared righteous. From this actual translation, six observations are in order. First, “Jews by nature” and “a man from works of law” describe a Jew whose whole life is defined by obeying the Law (the Old Covenant). These are idioms that denote 33 origin, not “works-righteousness.”76 What Paul means by “works of law” is “works required by the law.”77 The undisputed shared affirmation between Paul and Peter is that a Jew is someone who possesses Torah and obeys the works it requires. This distinguishes Jews from “Gentile sinners” who stand outside the covenant of Torah. Paul confronts Peter because he is resorting to relying on “the works required by the law” instead of trusting solely in Messiah Jesus. Ca eda , The Faithful ess of Jesus Ch ist as a The e i Paul s Theolog i Galatia s, p. . Thus, F. F. B u e is incorrect to interpret ἔ ω as legal o ks. The Epistle to the Galatians: a Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), p. 136. 76 Du is o e t defi i g o ks of la this a . He is ot alo e i holdi g this defi itio . C a field defines ὸ ἔ ῦ i ‘o . : as the o k hi h the la e ui es. He su essfull o e ts Du s defi itio that parts of the law separate Jews and Gentiles, particularly circumcision, Sabbath, and food laws. Paul denied righteousness by works of law because such works separated Jews from Gentiles. C. E. B. C a field, The Wo ks of the La i the Epistle to the ‘o a s, JSNT 43 (1991), p. 94. 77 “ h ei e sa s, . . . the te works of law desig ates all the deeds o a tio s o a ded the la . Paul, Apostle of God’s Glor i Christ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001), p. 113 (emphasis original). “eif id sa s, Paul s su se ue t a gu e t i ‘o a s : - e eals that the te o ks ep ese ts deeds of obedience, so the conclusion lies at hand that o ks of the La e e deeds of o edie e to the La s de a ds hi h e e thought to se u e o o fi di i e fa o . Ma k A. “eif id, U ighteous Faith: Apostoli Proclamation in Romans 1:18- : i Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul, eds. D. A. Ca so , Ma k A. “eif id, a d Pete T. O B ie G a d ‘apids: Bake , , p. . Moo asks, does Paul thi k of the Mosai La as de a di g faith? His a s e , M easo fo thi ki g that he a not is rooted in his own la guage: i Galatia s : , fo i sta e, he ites Le iti us : to de o st ate that the la is ot of faith. I take this to ea that the la , its e atu e, is so ethi g to e do e : it alls fo works and not faith. This basic distinction appea s to hold t ue th oughout Paul s tea hi g. It ight appea , ho e e , that Romans 9:31- is a e eptio , e eali g that the di hoto is ot as st i t as so e ha e supposed. Douglas J. Moo, Is ael a d the La i ‘o a s -11: Interaction with the New Pe spe ti e i Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul, eds. D. A. Ca so , Ma k A. “eif id, a d Pete T. O B ie G a d Rapids: Baker, 2004), p. 215. (emphasis mine). “il a sa s, Mo eo e , e a safel i te p et the ge iti al o st u tio alo g the li es of a ts of o edie e p es i ed o e ui ed the la . Moisés “il a, Faith Ve sus Wo ks of La i Galatia s in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul, eds. D. A. Carson, Mark A. Seifrid, and Pete T. O B ie G a d Rapids: Baker, 2004), p. 221. Co t a “ a e ate , These o ks of the la e e ot si pl hat the la e ui ed of Israel as God’s people, as Du puts it. These o ks of la e e ei g pit hed as a supple e t to the gospel, thereby distorting the apostoli essage that Paul a d Pete p ea hed. Galatia s : - a d the I te p eti e Co te t of Wo ks of the La , p. . 34 Paul contends that “a man from works required by the Law is not justified except through π ω Ἰ ῦΧ ῦ.” The context of Paul’s confrontation is covenant. The Torah was designed by God to point to the coming Messiah, so obeying the Law was synonymous with obeying Jesus. The Torah by design separated Jews from Gentiles to create Jewish ethnocentrism. Being “Jewish” was a crucial yet temporary aspect of the Old Covenant because of the messianic typology embedded into the Torah. Any Jew or Canaanite who believed the Law’s promises and feared its curses could find eternal life by obeying the Law. With the resurrection of Messiah Jesus, the Law’s promises concerning Messiah were fulfilled. Crucial to the maturity of the New Covenant was the establishment of the New Man consisting of Jews and Gentiles78 united in their worship of Jesus Messiah. In the age of the New Covenant, Jewish ethnocentrism embodied by Peter’s refusal to eat with Gentiles is explicitly overruled and superseded. Peter was forgetting that the Mosaic Law was never intended to be permanent, and explicitly points to the age of Messiah when it would be fulfilled. In the Old Covenant, faithfulness to God and Messiah was demonstrated by obeying the works demanded by the Mosaic Law. In the New Covenant, Jesus Messiah fulfilled the Law by bearing the curse on the cross and providing deliverance with his resurrection. The insistence of the Jews to keep the ethnocentricity by demanding obedience to the Mosaic Law became a blind and damnable heresy because the Law is viewed as an end to itself. Jesus is 78 Ephesians 2:15 35 presented in the Mosaic Law in the forms of earthly shadows and types that are discovered by believers who obeyed the Law. When Jesus Messiah rose from the dead, it superseded the Torah’s jurisdiction. Second, Paul’s clear contrast of ἔ and π Χ ῦ is unmistakable. What is Paul’s noticeable contrast?79 If we interpret π Χ ῦ as “faith in Christ,” then this phrase refers to human faith. And if we interpret ἔ as “legal works” or “works-righteousness,” then Paul’s intention is to highlight the contrast between “doing” and “believing” or between “worksrighteousness” and “faith.” On the other hand, if we interpret π “the faithfulness of Christ” and ἔ Χ ῦ as as “works required by the Law,” then the contrast is between two covenants – the covenant of Torah versus the covenant of Messiah. This contrast requires that a person is bound by one covenant or the other. In light of Peter’s inconsistent behavior, Paul was reminding him that he is no longer bound to the covenant of Torah. The covenant of Messiah has ended the Torah’s jurisdiction, so he is to stop giving allegiance to something that is legally dead. Messiah Jesus shares no jurisdiction with Torah. Third, translating π Χ ῦ as “faith in Christ” means that it refers to the believer’s faith. Is this an example of correct theology from the wrong text? It is evident that Paul teaches a person must believe in Jesus because he says Silva correctly identifies the problem saying, “The real issue, however, is not hethe Paul o t asts ίσ ις a d ἔ γα ό ο – that he does so is simply incontrovertible – but rather whether we have properly understood the t ue atu e of the o t ast. Moisés “il a, Faith Ve sus Wo ks of La i Galatia s in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul, eds. D. A. Ca so , Ma k A. “eif id, a d Pete T. O B ie G a d ‘apids: Baker, 2004), p. 217. 79 36 “we have believed in Christ Jesus.”80 This text, among many others, supports the teaching that sinners are responsible for believing in Jesus. The advantage of keeping π Χ ῦ ambiguous (“the faith of Christ”) is that it forces the reader to make an interpretive decision regarding whose faith is being spoken of. This is a crucial interpretive decision because the answer provided determines the ground for justification. What is the ground of the believer’s justification? There can only be one basis for justification, but there are two possible interpretations of π Χ ῦ: faith in Christ or Christ’s faithfulness. Michael Bird and N. T. Wright illustrate the problem of determining the ground upon which sinners are justified. Bird advocates for both the believer’s faith and Jesus’ faithfulness as the dual basis for justification saying, The basis upon which believers are justified is faith, as Paul makes quite explicit in Philippians 3:9.81 . . . The basis of justification lies exclusively in Jesus the Messiah, who is our substitute and representative, . . .82 In Romans 4, Paul contends that it is faith that comprises the basis of covenantal-vindication, for both Abraham and all believers.”83 Wright does the same thing. He identifies the basis of one’s justification before God as human faith84 and Jesus’ faithfulness.85 Which one is it? With 80 Gal. : , . . . and we have believed in Christ Jesus . . . . Mi hael F. Bi d, What Is The e et ee Mi JETS 54 (2011), p. 308 (emphasis mine). 81 eapolis and St. Andrews? A Third Way in the Piper-W ight De ate 82 Michael Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God (Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2007), p. 70 (emphasis mine). 83 Ibid., p. 75 (emphasis mine). 84 N. T. Wright, Justifi atio : God’s Pla a d Paul’s Visio (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009), p. 190. 85 Ibid., pp. 203-204. 37 “faithfulness” as metonymy for Jesus’ sacrificial death and resurrection, then this is the basis for justification. Therefore, as believers in the gospel86 we put our faith in Jesus’s faithfulness.87 Fourth, the adjectival use of ἐ ἔ ω π Χ is not dependent upon the ῦ debate. It does, however, help us identify with greater clarity the obvious contrast between of ἔ and π Χ ῦ. How should we interpret Paul’s thesis statement? 15We are Jews by nature and not Gentile sinners; 16knowing that a man from works of law is not declared righteous, except through faith in Jesus Christ, and we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be declared righteous from faith in Christ and not from works of the law, because out of the works of the law every flesh will not be declared righteous. Or 15We are Jews by nature and not Gentile sinners; 16knowing that a man from works of law is not declared righteous, except through Jesus Christ’s faithfulness, and we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be declared righteous from Christ’s faithfulness and not from works of the law, because out of the works of the law every flesh will not be declared righteous. Neither option damages Paul’s gospel, but the contrast between them forces us to determine whose π is the ground of justification. Since context determines the meaning of a text, it is best to interpret π 86 Χ ῦ as “the The gospel being Jesus died and three days later rose from the dead (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; 1 Cor. 15:3-4). Jesus faithful ess is the ground of our justification. Our faith in Jesus is the means by which we take hold of our justification. 87 38 faith of Christ” and let the reader decide what implications this has for Paul’s theology of justification.88 Fifth, Matlock expresses his astonishment that seven ambiguous phrases in Paul (Gal 2:16 [twice], 20; 3:22; Rom. 3:22, 26; Phil. 3:9) should be expected to bear so much weight. Equally remarkable is the momentum the subjective genitive reading has achieved.89 However, since Galatians 2:15-16 is Paul’s thesis of the letter, the π Χ ῦ debate clearly goes beyond these seven ambiguous phrases. Indeed, the debate impacts all of Paul’s subsequent uses of π by forcing the reader to pay closer attention to the context in which the term is used. In Galatians, π is used in 1:23; 2:16 (2x), 20; 3:2, 5, 7, 8, 9 (2x), 11, 12, 14, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26; 5:5, 6; 6:10. Since I am advocating for the “subjective genitive” for π interpreting π Χ ῦ, then I need to be consistent by as “faithfulness” (i.e., metonymy for Jesus’ sacrificial death and resurrection) in Galatians (2:16 (2x), 20; 3:2, 5, 7, 8, 9 (2x), 11, 12, 14, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26.) I would interpret Galatians 5:5-6 in the following way: 5For through the Spirit, from faithfulness, we wait eagerly for the hope of righteousness. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but faith working through love. By relying on the context, I see π as “faithfulness” in verse 5 as metonymy for his sacrificial death and resurrection and “faith” in verse 6 as the instrument of human faith. Are we to put our faith in Jesus? Yes, for Paul tells Fo a detailed a al sis a out the optio s ot ha i g Paul s gospel, see Ca eda Ch ist as a The e i Paul s Theolog i Galatia s, p. . 88 89 Matlo k, E e the De o s Belie e : Paul and π Χ 39 The Faithful ess of Jesus ῦ, CBQ 64 (2002), p. 300. us to in Galatians 5:6. Yet our goal is to have the right theology from the right text. We must avoid the mistake of having the right theology but deriving it from the wrong text. Sixth, the adjectival use of ἐ ἔ ω solves the ἐὰ exceptive of the entire preceding statement, ὐ ῦ regardless of how π Χ ἄ ὴ debate. It is ωπ ἐ ἔ ω , ῦ is translated. Conclusion We have assembled the exegetical puzzle of Galatians 2:15-16 by examining two pieces that are often overlooked by interpreters. The first piece was the meaning of ἐὰ ὴ. The second piece was the placement of the prepositional phrase ἐ ἔ ω . Having fitted these two pieces into the exegetical puzzle, we have solved the ἐὰ ὴ debate. The Greek particle ἐὰ exceptive of the entire preceding statement, ὐ because the prepositional phrase ἐ ἔ ω the noun ἄ ῦ ἄ ωπ ὴ is ἐ ἔ ω , is used adjectivally to modify ωπ . This requires our English versions to be revised so that Paul’s thesis reads as follows: 15We are Jews by nature and not Gentile sinners; 16knowing that a man from works of law is not declared righteous, except through the faith of Jesus Christ, and we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be declared righteous from the faith of Christ and not from works of the law, because out of the works of the law every flesh will not be declared righteous. 40 For those who think we have a sufficient number of commentaries on Galatians, or suppose there is nothing to say that has not been said before,90 the implications of the adjectival use of ἐ ἔ ω provides a compelling reason to publish another commentary and provides a rationale for more critical work to be undertaken. When ἐ ἔ ω is used adverbially, does this reflect an exegetical bias rather than the syntax of the sentence? Mi hael Bu e egi s his e ie of Moo s e e t o e ta o Galatia s sa i g, I as e e tl dis ussi g with a friend what I perceive to be the positive state of commentary publishing currently in the domain of biblical studies. As ight e a ti ipated, she did ot sha e se ti e t. I esse e, he sta e as o e of pessi is : Is the e a thi g e to sa that has t ee said efo e? M espo se as o e of opti is : The e is al a s so ethi g e to dis uss he the Bi le is the topi . Mi hael H. Bu e . ‘e ie of Galatians Baker Exegetical Commentary on the NT, Douglas J. Moo. JETS 57 (2014): p. 832. 90 41